Telephone call received from Council – largely to complain over watering the lawn!

M S Kendrick, Community Housing Officer
DMBC

Dear Sophie,

I did appreciate the chat on Monday - I'm very keen for the Council to improve its frequency of communication!

I still consider the matter of 150's parking as the most urgent - abuse of greenspace sends all the wrong messages to this community and the incidents can be replicated all the way up the High Street to the junction with Talbot Street! And it's not just a few crushed daisies about which we are talking - can become a muddy morass!

Most of our chat concerned, however, the local dog-issues and I've just sent diary sheets, electronically, to the appropriate Housing address; these problems have been around all my life - from attacks on the person as a child, through the annoying barking of the dog next door (whenever I might dare to venture into our own garden) to the current situation that might be described as a living nightmare; no local park is free of dogs that might represent a refuge and some respite!

I have mentioned the tendency of owners to toilet their dogs in amenity areas (where washing is hung), for owners to toilet their dogs around the neighbourhood (which must be described as indecent behaviour, contrary to common law), for owners' pets to bark at any time of day or night (producing an instant headache), for faeces to be left (which might 'reward' earnest litterpickers) and for urine to damage the communal lawns.

Regarding the latter point (involving 157's dog, in particular) I must repeat that no reaction has been received regarding my official complaints of damage to the front lawn, and no advice has been received - very disappointing. It seems that I must continue with my practice of hosing and treating the grass; as explained, venturing downstairs with a watering-can is out of the question as this might result in another assault by Philip 'Frothy' Bradley!

Focussing on this character for a moment (the central figure in ASB 19914), I would still claim that he is one of the nation's low-life; he abuses, threatens and assaults; he indulges in vandalism (no other person is suspected of damaging my metallic letterbox and my car (as the nature of the attack is similar in both cases)) and does his best to disrupt my way-of-life (by for instance, interrupting my gas and electricity supplies (allegedly)). He has even applied glue to the first floor windows (allegedly) to prevent any person (including himself!) from opening same - with just what form of mind are we dealing here? And then, of course, there is The Dog; as observed you, yourself, enjoy a private garden in which your pet may be toileted; indeed the Neighbourhood Sergeant (John Norgrove) (who has refused to arrest Frothy) also has a private garden for his pet to indulge its toilet - but M Bradley has no such facility! The consequence is an abuse of the communal spaces - this must be ended, surely? I must repeat here my keenness on mediation (currently absent and not on offer), my offer of £100 per annum (for ten years) for Frothy to end this disgusting habit (and adopt a house-cat, say) and my offer of expenses to be paid for the proposed swab-test of 'is revolting pet (to compare with deposited faeces).

David Austin

[Addendum: M Bradley is also responsible for considerable fly-tipping, unrelated to the above, but 'indicative'!]