FOUL PLAY: Burnley woman accuses park rangers of 'picking on innocent dog owners'

Nikki Needham and Co-Co

Nikki Needham and Co-Co

First published in News
Last updated

A BURNLEY woman has accused park rangers of 'picking on innocent dog owners' after she was cleared by a magistrates' court of dog fouling.

Nikki Needham, 47, successfully challenged the £75 fixed penalty notice at Burnley Magistrates' Court after denying the offence.

After the case was dismissed, she said: "I feel like Erin Brockovich. I just hope that it shows other people that you can fight and win."

MORE TOP STORIES:

Nikki said she was walking her Labrador/Doberman cross Co-Co on Fulledge recreation ground when she noticed him crouch down.

The mum-of-two, of Hinton Street, said: “I always carry gloves and a bag with me while I’m walking Co-Co so I’m always prepared.

“I went to pick up his poo but could see he hadn’t done anything. He’d just assumed the position.

“When I looked up, the park ranger was walking toward me. I thought he was being nice and coming over to help me so I just called out ‘it’s ok he hasn’t done anything’.”

She said the park ranger didn't believe her and pointed to dog mess 10 feet away.

She added: "He said to me, ‘I can see it. I’ve been very patient with you but it’s obvious you just can’t see it’.

“I asked him to show me so that I could pick it up but he pointed to some faeces that was nowhere near.

“I couldn’t believe that he was saying that my dog had done it because it was so obvious that it wasn’t where Co-Co had been. It was about 10 feet away.

“I told him that it wasn’t mine but I picked it up anyway, just to show willing.

“But the next thing I know, he’s pulling his pad out of his pocket and slapping me with a fine.

“I was really angry. I hadn’t done anything wrong and I’d even picked up someone else’s mess and I got a fine.”

Nikki, who works as a mental health nurse at Airedale Hospital, said she refused to pay the fine and was summoned to appear at Burnley Magistrates' Court.

She said: “I knew that I hadn’t done anything wrong and it would have been so easy for me to just give up and pay the fine but I just thought, no. They can’t get away with this. The park rangers in Burnley are picking on responsible dog owners and it’s just not fair.”

Magistrates dismissed the case as there was 'enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal.'

Nikki believes that responsible dog walkers are being unfairly targeted as part of Burnley Council’s 'zero tolerance' approach to dog fouling.

She said: “I know lots of dog walkers that this has happened to and they would never dream of leaving their dog’s mess behind.

“It’s an easy way of making money because often people will just opt to pay the fine rather than the hassle of going to court to fight it. I nearly did the same thing. You never think you’re going to win.

“I’m really glad that I didn’t now because I think that us dog walkers are going to have to stand up to it."

Between August 1, 2013 and August 1 2014, Burnley Council issued 146 fixed penalty notices for dog fouling. Nikki was issued with her ticket on January 22.

The council said that certain staff are trained to issue fixed penalty notices to owners who fail to clean up after their dogs.

These staff, who are not issued with cameras, may issue a FPN if they spot an offence taking place as they carry out their other duties.

The council also said that the staff who issue FPNs do not have targets to meet or receive any commission and only issue notices as and when they feel it is appropriate to do so.

A Burnley Council spokesman said: “The magistrates determined that whilst the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident there was enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal.

"Mrs Needham had the opportunity, as everyone does, to challenge the fixed penalty notice prior to this matter being taken to court, but declined to do so.

"We know that residents want us to take strong action against dog fouling and we’ll continue to issue fixed penalty notices and prosecute those that don’t pay. ”

Comments (67)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:12am Wed 13 Aug 14

BuckoTheMoose says...

The wardens aren't going to tackle tattoo covered chavs with killer dogs called Rambo. The only way they get to meet their quotas is through soft targets who won't fight back
The wardens aren't going to tackle tattoo covered chavs with killer dogs called Rambo. The only way they get to meet their quotas is through soft targets who won't fight back BuckoTheMoose
  • Score: -4

7:19am Wed 13 Aug 14

nikkineedham says...

"Mrs Needham had the opportunity, as everyone does, to challenge the fixed penalty notice prior to this matter being taken to court, but declined to do so."

Well I tried to challenge it by phoning the number they gave me, but a lady on the other end of the phone told me to put it in writing when the summons came which is what I did.
"Mrs Needham had the opportunity, as everyone does, to challenge the fixed penalty notice prior to this matter being taken to court, but declined to do so." Well I tried to challenge it by phoning the number they gave me, but a lady on the other end of the phone told me to put it in writing when the summons came which is what I did. nikkineedham
  • Score: 48

8:11am Wed 13 Aug 14

burner says...

Why isn't this foolish Warden named ? He was the one in the wrong.
Why isn't this foolish Warden named ? He was the one in the wrong. burner
  • Score: -11

8:29am Wed 13 Aug 14

claret777 says...

This warden sounds full of s###.
This warden sounds full of s###. claret777
  • Score: -22

8:32am Wed 13 Aug 14

rudis_dad says...

Absolutely bloody ridiculous. The warden in question should be fired - he's clearly tried to make an example of an innocent person, yet where is he when there are people who make no effort to clear up, or do clear up and then hand the bag on the nearest bush? Jobsworths the lot of 'em.
Absolutely bloody ridiculous. The warden in question should be fired - he's clearly tried to make an example of an innocent person, yet where is he when there are people who make no effort to clear up, or do clear up and then hand the bag on the nearest bush? Jobsworths the lot of 'em. rudis_dad
  • Score: -13

8:41am Wed 13 Aug 14

mrdd186 says...

why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.
why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera. mrdd186
  • Score: 24

9:16am Wed 13 Aug 14

Interocitor says...

To all responsible dog owners - well done.

To all those who let their dogs foul our parks and don't bag it and dispose of it in a bin - I hope you get fined because I'm sick to death of our parks being used as dog toilets by irresponsible dog owners.
To all responsible dog owners - well done. To all those who let their dogs foul our parks and don't bag it and dispose of it in a bin - I hope you get fined because I'm sick to death of our parks being used as dog toilets by irresponsible dog owners. Interocitor
  • Score: 48

9:46am Wed 13 Aug 14

midas says...

mrdd186 wrote:
why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.
Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis.
[quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.[/p][/quote]Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis. midas
  • Score: 11

9:52am Wed 13 Aug 14

Jack Shrake says...

Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?
Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited? Jack Shrake
  • Score: 17

10:16am Wed 13 Aug 14

midas says...

BuckoTheMoose wrote:
The wardens aren't going to tackle tattoo covered chavs with killer dogs called Rambo. The only way they get to meet their quotas is through soft targets who won't fight back
The council also said that the staff who issue FPNs do not have targets to meet or receive any commission .

Come on its in the article!!
[quote][p][bold]BuckoTheMoose[/bold] wrote: The wardens aren't going to tackle tattoo covered chavs with killer dogs called Rambo. The only way they get to meet their quotas is through soft targets who won't fight back[/p][/quote]The council also said that the staff who issue FPNs do not have targets to meet or receive any commission . Come on its in the article!! midas
  • Score: 11

11:14am Wed 13 Aug 14

hasslem hasslem says...

midas wrote:
BuckoTheMoose wrote:
The wardens aren't going to tackle tattoo covered chavs with killer dogs called Rambo. The only way they get to meet their quotas is through soft targets who won't fight back
The council also said that the staff who issue FPNs do not have targets to meet or receive any commission .

Come on its in the article!!
greetings old donkey ears - good to see you commenting on an article on dog poo - is this something you have special expertise in?
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BuckoTheMoose[/bold] wrote: The wardens aren't going to tackle tattoo covered chavs with killer dogs called Rambo. The only way they get to meet their quotas is through soft targets who won't fight back[/p][/quote]The council also said that the staff who issue FPNs do not have targets to meet or receive any commission . Come on its in the article!![/p][/quote]greetings old donkey ears - good to see you commenting on an article on dog poo - is this something you have special expertise in? hasslem hasslem
  • Score: -7

11:35am Wed 13 Aug 14

L1882 says...

I'm all in favour of dealing with irresponsible dog owners but the wardens are a joke - as said at the start they won't approach the 'canned up' Staffie owners but like to try and blame it on people like the lady in the article, decent owners who do clean up after their dogs.

I've had a similar incident with a warden, I knew my dog had not fouled but nonetheless spent 10 minutes trying to locate the mystery mess! Luckily he didn't attempt to issue me with a FPN!

In other news I never see the wardens dealing with the multitude of litter louts who drop all forms a detritus all over the parks - litter I often pick up and put in the bin, something else I never see the wardens doing.
I'm all in favour of dealing with irresponsible dog owners but the wardens are a joke - as said at the start they won't approach the 'canned up' Staffie owners but like to try and blame it on people like the lady in the article, decent owners who do clean up after their dogs. I've had a similar incident with a warden, I knew my dog had not fouled but nonetheless spent 10 minutes trying to locate the mystery mess! Luckily he didn't attempt to issue me with a FPN! In other news I never see the wardens dealing with the multitude of litter louts who drop all forms a detritus all over the parks - litter I often pick up and put in the bin, something else I never see the wardens doing. L1882
  • Score: 13

11:48am Wed 13 Aug 14

mrdd186 says...

midas wrote:
mrdd186 wrote:
why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.
Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis.
when you take some one to court you are supposed to provide evidence, the evidence was there, but the warden/council chose not to use it, it does not matter if fine is 50p or £75.
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.[/p][/quote]Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis.[/p][/quote]when you take some one to court you are supposed to provide evidence, the evidence was there, but the warden/council chose not to use it, it does not matter if fine is 50p or £75. mrdd186
  • Score: 4

11:53am Wed 13 Aug 14

nikkineedham says...

midas wrote:
mrdd186 wrote:
why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.
Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis.
it's also disproportionate to pay all the money they did to take me all the way to a trial!
They even paid for a council solicitor - something I didn't have, it was just li'l ol' me and my clipboard of questions lol
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.[/p][/quote]Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis.[/p][/quote]it's also disproportionate to pay all the money they did to take me all the way to a trial! They even paid for a council solicitor - something I didn't have, it was just li'l ol' me and my clipboard of questions lol nikkineedham
  • Score: 19

12:35pm Wed 13 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.
I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step. bradscorner
  • Score: -27

12:51pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BuckoTheMoose says...

mrdd186 wrote:
why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.
Because 1984 was not a training manual
[quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.[/p][/quote]Because 1984 was not a training manual BuckoTheMoose
  • Score: 7

12:52pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BelTower says...

bradscorner wrote:
I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.
Your a bit of a 2HAT aren't you.
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.[/p][/quote]Your a bit of a 2HAT aren't you. BelTower
  • Score: 17

1:03pm Wed 13 Aug 14

midas says...

nikkineedham wrote:
midas wrote:
mrdd186 wrote:
why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.
Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis.
it's also disproportionate to pay all the money they did to take me all the way to a trial!
They even paid for a council solicitor - something I didn't have, it was just li'l ol' me and my clipboard of questions lol
Why? The article suggests that they didn't have a choice. Have you ever been to Court before?
[quote][p][bold]nikkineedham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.[/p][/quote]Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis.[/p][/quote]it's also disproportionate to pay all the money they did to take me all the way to a trial! They even paid for a council solicitor - something I didn't have, it was just li'l ol' me and my clipboard of questions lol[/p][/quote]Why? The article suggests that they didn't have a choice. Have you ever been to Court before? midas
  • Score: -1

1:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

rudis_dad says...

bradscorner wrote:
I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.
Idiot. Litter doesn't contain bacteria that can cause blindness, kidney failure and nerve damage in humans. Dog s**t does. Stop being so prissy and pick it up.
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.[/p][/quote]Idiot. Litter doesn't contain bacteria that can cause blindness, kidney failure and nerve damage in humans. Dog s**t does. Stop being so prissy and pick it up. rudis_dad
  • Score: 18

1:15pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Ian the Beancounter says...

bradscorner wrote:
I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.
So, in your world, two wrongs make a right, do they? Kids playing in the park don't necessarily watch their step, and getting dog poo on their skin can cause all sorts of health problems. Landing on a discarded sweet wrapper is unlikely to do the same!!

I've had dogs for over 30 years, and picking up is the easiest and most responsible thing to do.
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.[/p][/quote]So, in your world, two wrongs make a right, do they? Kids playing in the park don't necessarily watch their step, and getting dog poo on their skin can cause all sorts of health problems. Landing on a discarded sweet wrapper is unlikely to do the same!! I've had dogs for over 30 years, and picking up is the easiest and most responsible thing to do. Ian the Beancounter
  • Score: 11

1:25pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pat0163 says...

If you read the article the magistrates said it was because of reasonable doubt she got off. We all know that trying to get anyone prosecuted or fined these days is always hard due to judges not wanting to upset the public ! So maybe the female in question is lying ? The article says people the ranger gave factual evidence ! Is it any wonder the parks and streets are dirty the law makes it so hard for them to do there jobs. I say well done to the warden whether the poo was hers or not she wont risk it again !
If you read the article the magistrates said it was because of reasonable doubt she got off. We all know that trying to get anyone prosecuted or fined these days is always hard due to judges not wanting to upset the public ! So maybe the female in question is lying ? The article says people the ranger gave factual evidence ! Is it any wonder the parks and streets are dirty the law makes it so hard for them to do there jobs. I say well done to the warden whether the poo was hers or not she wont risk it again ! pat0163
  • Score: -3

1:40pm Wed 13 Aug 14

darwenTower says...

bradscorner wrote:
I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.
Troll.
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.[/p][/quote]Troll. darwenTower
  • Score: 7

2:23pm Wed 13 Aug 14

shimmy says...

pat0163 wrote:
If you read the article the magistrates said it was because of reasonable doubt she got off. We all know that trying to get anyone prosecuted or fined these days is always hard due to judges not wanting to upset the public ! So maybe the female in question is lying ? The article says people the ranger gave factual evidence ! Is it any wonder the parks and streets are dirty the law makes it so hard for them to do there jobs. I say well done to the warden whether the poo was hers or not she wont risk it again !
Surely you don't think Nikki Needham was in the wrong? She carries gloves and a bags to deal with the any mess her dog makes and in this instance cleared the mess of another owner. The fault lies with the Warden.
[quote][p][bold]pat0163[/bold] wrote: If you read the article the magistrates said it was because of reasonable doubt she got off. We all know that trying to get anyone prosecuted or fined these days is always hard due to judges not wanting to upset the public ! So maybe the female in question is lying ? The article says people the ranger gave factual evidence ! Is it any wonder the parks and streets are dirty the law makes it so hard for them to do there jobs. I say well done to the warden whether the poo was hers or not she wont risk it again ![/p][/quote]Surely you don't think Nikki Needham was in the wrong? She carries gloves and a bags to deal with the any mess her dog makes and in this instance cleared the mess of another owner. The fault lies with the Warden. shimmy
  • Score: 9

2:49pm Wed 13 Aug 14

chammy says...

The few that dont pick mess up should be filmed then fined and the dog to be rehomed,,and the councils need to do their bit by putting enough bins out and about ,half of he rubbish bins are overflowing with rubbish on to the streets,its disgusting,
The few that dont pick mess up should be filmed then fined and the dog to be rehomed,,and the councils need to do their bit by putting enough bins out and about ,half of he rubbish bins are overflowing with rubbish on to the streets,its disgusting, chammy
  • Score: 6

2:54pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pete08 says...

Always has gloves and bags when she walks her dog? Doesn't look like that from the phot.
Always has gloves and bags when she walks her dog? Doesn't look like that from the phot. pete08
  • Score: 2

3:19pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pat0163 says...

I live local and iv seen this lady on fulledge and townley walking her dog. It doesn't look to me like she keeps an eye on her dog ! Its always in the distance away from her. Iv certainly not seen gloves on her hands come on every dog has there day obviously hers was in court on this occasion
I live local and iv seen this lady on fulledge and townley walking her dog. It doesn't look to me like she keeps an eye on her dog ! Its always in the distance away from her. Iv certainly not seen gloves on her hands come on every dog has there day obviously hers was in court on this occasion pat0163
  • Score: 3

3:42pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Ian the Beancounter says...

pete08 wrote:
Always has gloves and bags when she walks her dog? Doesn't look like that from the phot.
But she DID pick up someone else's mess. Do you think she did that with her bare hands?! I stick a couple of small "Poo bags" in my pocket when I'm out with my dog. You can't see them because they're so small and discreet, but it doesn't mean that I don't have them.

Also, this photo would have been posed for the article - it wasn't taken on the day in question.
[quote][p][bold]pete08[/bold] wrote: Always has gloves and bags when she walks her dog? Doesn't look like that from the phot.[/p][/quote]But she DID pick up someone else's mess. Do you think she did that with her bare hands?! I stick a couple of small "Poo bags" in my pocket when I'm out with my dog. You can't see them because they're so small and discreet, but it doesn't mean that I don't have them. Also, this photo would have been posed for the article - it wasn't taken on the day in question. Ian the Beancounter
  • Score: 5

3:46pm Wed 13 Aug 14

boynesider says...

first of all why do dog owners walk their dogs on "recreation grounds" where kids play? did the warden not see her gloves & bags? which would give her credence as a "responsible "dog owner.
also totally agree about the litter problem,it amazes me that people can carry food and drink to a park,eat&drink,but fail to dispose of the packaging in a bin or take it home with them.chavs supreme
first of all why do dog owners walk their dogs on "recreation grounds" where kids play? did the warden not see her gloves & bags? which would give her credence as a "responsible "dog owner. also totally agree about the litter problem,it amazes me that people can carry food and drink to a park,eat&drink,but fail to dispose of the packaging in a bin or take it home with them.chavs supreme boynesider
  • Score: 7

4:02pm Wed 13 Aug 14

mount vision says...

Dog mess is dirty,disgusting and dangerous and the problem is increasing. My partner and I pedal hundreds of miles off road each week and the dog mess is evident and on many occasions we see responsible dog owners collecting the poo, that's good but we also see so many that don't and won't. I have challenged people over the years and been told to pick it up myself or given an amount of verbal abuse. Some say they have no bags I tell them I have then they say they just can't bring themselves to do it. The canal tracks in East Lancs are covered in the stuff.
Dog mess is dirty,disgusting and dangerous and the problem is increasing. My partner and I pedal hundreds of miles off road each week and the dog mess is evident and on many occasions we see responsible dog owners collecting the poo, that's good but we also see so many that don't and won't. I have challenged people over the years and been told to pick it up myself or given an amount of verbal abuse. Some say they have no bags I tell them I have then they say they just can't bring themselves to do it. The canal tracks in East Lancs are covered in the stuff. mount vision
  • Score: 6

4:40pm Wed 13 Aug 14

gazzandste says...

mrdd186 wrote:
why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.
Probably wouldn't need to take a sample. If Co Co had made the mess it would have still been warm.
[quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.[/p][/quote]Probably wouldn't need to take a sample. If Co Co had made the mess it would have still been warm. gazzandste
  • Score: 2

4:46pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pat0163 says...

You'd think she would have said that firstly in the article the pheaces she picked up was cold or old ? also if the dog was in the position but she was sure it had done nothing why check ? Hummm all a bit suspicious to me nicci that dog is all over the place off the lead
You'd think she would have said that firstly in the article the pheaces she picked up was cold or old ? also if the dog was in the position but she was sure it had done nothing why check ? Hummm all a bit suspicious to me nicci that dog is all over the place off the lead pat0163
  • Score: 2

5:55pm Wed 13 Aug 14

berny55 says...

dogs should be band from all public parks, i took my grand daughter up townley playing with a bat and ball, she fell and landed in yes dog muck,i have allways said if i see it happening ,i would not kick the dog,iwould rub the dog owners face in it.
dogs should be band from all public parks, i took my grand daughter up townley playing with a bat and ball, she fell and landed in yes dog muck,i have allways said if i see it happening ,i would not kick the dog,iwould rub the dog owners face in it. berny55
  • Score: 8

6:05pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Owd Akela says...

Jack Shrake says...

Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?

I'd have slapped it in his hand and asked "is that warm or cold?"
Jack Shrake says... Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited? I'd have slapped it in his hand and asked "is that warm or cold?" Owd Akela
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Wed 13 Aug 14

DoggydogNo1 says...

Dogs should be banned from parks full stop! Most owners dont care!
Dogs should be banned from parks full stop! Most owners dont care! DoggydogNo1
  • Score: 10

6:54pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pat0163 says...

I heard this lady has already been fined on 2 previous occasions ! so she's not what she is portraying herself to be !
I heard this lady has already been fined on 2 previous occasions ! so she's not what she is portraying herself to be ! pat0163
  • Score: 10

7:21pm Wed 13 Aug 14

phil kernot says...

Just a point you do not need to give your names to these civil enforcement plebs ,, they do not have any,power to demand you give them your name ,,, so how can you get a penalty notice they are not fines but civil penaltys ,,,, just say do I need to give my name and there truthfully answer would be no. ,,,, video it on your phone when they answer the question to back your case up if it gets to that ,,,, just say nothing ,,,,
Just a point you do not need to give your names to these civil enforcement plebs ,, they do not have any,power to demand you give them your name ,,, so how can you get a penalty notice they are not fines but civil penaltys ,,,, just say do I need to give my name and there truthfully answer would be no. ,,,, video it on your phone when they answer the question to back your case up if it gets to that ,,,, just say nothing ,,,, phil kernot
  • Score: -5

7:23pm Wed 13 Aug 14

phil kernot says...

midas wrote:
mrdd186 wrote:
why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.
Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis.
Well if justice is to be served so be it plus it would be protect people from lying wardens ,,, or plebs
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: why did the warden not take a sample of the dog mess for a dna test, also a dna swab of the dog if the owing refuses that would go against her in court. this way who ever is wrong incur the full cost of the test and court cost, also why does the warden not have a video camera.[/p][/quote]Probably because of the cost involved. When the fine is £50 its a bit disproportionate to pay hundreds of pounds for forensic analyis.[/p][/quote]Well if justice is to be served so be it plus it would be protect people from lying wardens ,,, or plebs phil kernot
  • Score: -4

7:27pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pat0163 says...

phil kernot wrote:
Just a point you do not need to give your names to these civil enforcement plebs ,, they do not have any,power to demand you give them your name ,,, so how can you get a penalty notice they are not fines but civil penaltys ,,,, just say do I need to give my name and there truthfully answer would be no. ,,,, video it on your phone when they answer the question to back your case up if it gets to that ,,,, just say nothing ,,,,
You sound like a charming scrote
[quote][p][bold]phil kernot[/bold] wrote: Just a point you do not need to give your names to these civil enforcement plebs ,, they do not have any,power to demand you give them your name ,,, so how can you get a penalty notice they are not fines but civil penaltys ,,,, just say do I need to give my name and there truthfully answer would be no. ,,,, video it on your phone when they answer the question to back your case up if it gets to that ,,,, just say nothing ,,,,[/p][/quote]You sound like a charming scrote pat0163
  • Score: 4

8:38pm Wed 13 Aug 14

midas says...

phil kernot wrote:
Just a point you do not need to give your names to these civil enforcement plebs ,, they do not have any,power to demand you give them your name ,,, so how can you get a penalty notice they are not fines but civil penaltys ,,,, just say do I need to give my name and there truthfully answer would be no. ,,,, video it on your phone when they answer the question to back your case up if it gets to that ,,,, just say nothing ,,,,
They have authority to ask for your name and address, in these circumstances, under the Enviromental Protection Act 1990. It's a criminal offence to refuse.
[quote][p][bold]phil kernot[/bold] wrote: Just a point you do not need to give your names to these civil enforcement plebs ,, they do not have any,power to demand you give them your name ,,, so how can you get a penalty notice they are not fines but civil penaltys ,,,, just say do I need to give my name and there truthfully answer would be no. ,,,, video it on your phone when they answer the question to back your case up if it gets to that ,,,, just say nothing ,,,,[/p][/quote]They have authority to ask for your name and address, in these circumstances, under the Enviromental Protection Act 1990. It's a criminal offence to refuse. midas
  • Score: 8

10:02pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Walker82 says...

Regardless of whether this woman's dog did foul or not, I think it is fair to say that the wardens around the area have made a difference to the reduction of dog foul in the parks etc. People with dogs should take full responsibility of their dogs mess. It is revolting and some dog owners are completely irresponsible. They let their dogs run all over and most of the time they don't have a clue where their dog has fouled. I respect those that do pick up the mess but I would imagine that many who have read this article are standing up for this woman but yet don't clean up after their own dog. Our local areas do need these wardens as parks are meant to be clean and safe for children and families to enjoy, however those who refuse to clean up their dogs mess should be fined and banned from the parks as they do not deserve to enjoy the open space that the wardens are working hard to keep safe and clean. Respect should be given to the wardens as they put up with abuse from all types of people ..... Even those with tattoos and Stafford dogs!!! There is no harder job than the type that entails working with the public. Well done and keep up the good work.
Regardless of whether this woman's dog did foul or not, I think it is fair to say that the wardens around the area have made a difference to the reduction of dog foul in the parks etc. People with dogs should take full responsibility of their dogs mess. It is revolting and some dog owners are completely irresponsible. They let their dogs run all over and most of the time they don't have a clue where their dog has fouled. I respect those that do pick up the mess but I would imagine that many who have read this article are standing up for this woman but yet don't clean up after their own dog. Our local areas do need these wardens as parks are meant to be clean and safe for children and families to enjoy, however those who refuse to clean up their dogs mess should be fined and banned from the parks as they do not deserve to enjoy the open space that the wardens are working hard to keep safe and clean. Respect should be given to the wardens as they put up with abuse from all types of people ..... Even those with tattoos and Stafford dogs!!! There is no harder job than the type that entails working with the public. Well done and keep up the good work. Walker82
  • Score: 8

10:10pm Wed 13 Aug 14

nikkineedham says...

pat0163 wrote:
I live local and iv seen this lady on fulledge and townley walking her dog. It doesn't look to me like she keeps an eye on her dog ! Its always in the distance away from her. Iv certainly not seen gloves on her hands come on every dog has there day obviously hers was in court on this occasion
Just to clarify a few points, as for some reason Pat0163 seems to be intent on having a dog (there's always one!):

1. I don't wear gloves you are correct, I do however always bring poo bags. I think the reporter must have said I wear gloves for artistic license.
2. Yes my dog does run around off the lead in the park, as I'm a firm believer in dogs enjoying some exercise so long as they are sociable and well trained. However, I am always aware of where he is and he never wanders off.
3. I got one previous fine for fouling in March last year. I picked it up when he pointed it out. I have seen him on many other occasions and he has not had to approach me. On that occasion I paid the £75 as my mind was genuinely elsewhere that day.
4. I have never previously attended a courtroom before.
5. Those people who know me know that I am a good, kind and honest person. I don't tell lies, especially not in a court of law!
6. The poo in question on the day was stone cold when I picked it up, suggesting it had been there a lot longer than 15 minutes.
[quote][p][bold]pat0163[/bold] wrote: I live local and iv seen this lady on fulledge and townley walking her dog. It doesn't look to me like she keeps an eye on her dog ! Its always in the distance away from her. Iv certainly not seen gloves on her hands come on every dog has there day obviously hers was in court on this occasion[/p][/quote]Just to clarify a few points, as for some reason Pat0163 seems to be intent on having a dog (there's always one!): 1. I don't wear gloves you are correct, I do however always bring poo bags. I think the reporter must have said I wear gloves for artistic license. 2. Yes my dog does run around off the lead in the park, as I'm a firm believer in dogs enjoying some exercise so long as they are sociable and well trained. However, I am always aware of where he is and he never wanders off. 3. I got one previous fine for fouling in March last year. I picked it up when he pointed it out. I have seen him on many other occasions and he has not had to approach me. On that occasion I paid the £75 as my mind was genuinely elsewhere that day. 4. I have never previously attended a courtroom before. 5. Those people who know me know that I am a good, kind and honest person. I don't tell lies, especially not in a court of law! 6. The poo in question on the day was stone cold when I picked it up, suggesting it had been there a lot longer than 15 minutes. nikkineedham
  • Score: -18

10:16pm Wed 13 Aug 14

nikkineedham says...

Intent on having a dig , not dog sorry lol ^^^^^
Intent on having a dig , not dog sorry lol ^^^^^ nikkineedham
  • Score: 2

10:30pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pat0163 says...

You didn’t tell the paper you had already been fined ! I think the warden was in the right. Sorry there's always one and you seem to be defending things that you've failed to say in the article. So you've lied so does that make you believable ? I think not
You didn’t tell the paper you had already been fined ! I think the warden was in the right. Sorry there's always one and you seem to be defending things that you've failed to say in the article. So you've lied so does that make you believable ? I think not pat0163
  • Score: 17

10:30pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Walker82 says...

You seem to be having a lot of fun defending yourself however the warden in question is probably unable to give his point of view. As an animal lover myself, I know how important it is for dogs to run free but you should always clean up which is something u have not always done. Take some responsibility for your actions and take the fine, sorry fines on the chin and pay up. Let our children enjoy playing without the hazard of dog mess.
You seem to be having a lot of fun defending yourself however the warden in question is probably unable to give his point of view. As an animal lover myself, I know how important it is for dogs to run free but you should always clean up which is something u have not always done. Take some responsibility for your actions and take the fine, sorry fines on the chin and pay up. Let our children enjoy playing without the hazard of dog mess. Walker82
  • Score: 18

11:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

nikkineedham says...

*sigh* .... in case you missed the point .........
My dog did NOT have a poo. The dog warden took a good 5 minutes to find the stuff he found that was a way from where my dog had been. To keep the peace, I still picked it up, even though it didnt even belong to my dog, thinking that would be the end of it. Had I thought it was my dog's I would have just paid the fine. I have NOT lied at any point. The paper chose what to ask me and what to print.
At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did. And he also said I gave an honest account. Which I did.
I don't like people failing to clear up their dog mess either, I too have kids and it's unfair and unhealthy. Which is why I clear mine up.
*sigh* .... in case you missed the point ......... My dog did NOT have a poo. The dog warden took a good 5 minutes to find the stuff he found that was a way from where my dog had been. To keep the peace, I still picked it up, even though it didnt even belong to my dog, thinking that would be the end of it. Had I thought it was my dog's I would have just paid the fine. I have NOT lied at any point. The paper chose what to ask me and what to print. At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did. And he also said I gave an honest account. Which I did. I don't like people failing to clear up their dog mess either, I too have kids and it's unfair and unhealthy. Which is why I clear mine up. nikkineedham
  • Score: -4

6:32am Thu 14 Aug 14

pat0163 says...

Yeah course you pick up ! That's why you've been fined before maybe the news paper should have done an article then ? The wardens do a great job but you've tried to give them bad press here. Do you feel safer knowing that when your kids are out that there about ? Not only do they hand fines out they look after the public in the parks.
Yeah course you pick up ! That's why you've been fined before maybe the news paper should have done an article then ? The wardens do a great job but you've tried to give them bad press here. Do you feel safer knowing that when your kids are out that there about ? Not only do they hand fines out they look after the public in the parks. pat0163
  • Score: 7

7:52am Thu 14 Aug 14

nikkineedham says...

Jack Shrake wrote:
Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?
Good idea!
[quote][p][bold]Jack Shrake[/bold] wrote: Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?[/p][/quote]Good idea! nikkineedham
  • Score: 2

7:57am Thu 14 Aug 14

midas says...

At the end of the day the Court found her not guilty and that should be the end of it, and as we weren't in Court to hear the evidence of both parties, we shouldn't be second guessing that decision, especially when our view only comes from an LET report!,

Mrs Needham did well to represent herself in Court (not an easy job) but the Council also have a responsibility to enforce the legislation, which will mean that they have to take cases to Court. I'm not sure why this is a front page story, it's not the first not guilty decision that the Court has pronounced!!
At the end of the day the Court found her not guilty and that should be the end of it, and as we weren't in Court to hear the evidence of both parties, we shouldn't be second guessing that decision, especially when our view only comes from an LET report!, Mrs Needham did well to represent herself in Court (not an easy job) but the Council also have a responsibility to enforce the legislation, which will mean that they have to take cases to Court. I'm not sure why this is a front page story, it's not the first not guilty decision that the Court has pronounced!! midas
  • Score: 5

8:00am Thu 14 Aug 14

nikkineedham says...

Jack Shrake wrote:
Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?
good idea! Also they could work the occasional evening as I have noticed that there seems to be quite a few dog walkers in the evening who don't pick up.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Shrake[/bold] wrote: Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?[/p][/quote]good idea! Also they could work the occasional evening as I have noticed that there seems to be quite a few dog walkers in the evening who don't pick up. nikkineedham
  • Score: 2

8:00am Thu 14 Aug 14

nikkineedham says...

Jack Shrake wrote:
Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?
good idea! Also they could work the occasional evening as I have noticed that there seems to be quite a few dog walkers in the evening who don't pick up.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Shrake[/bold] wrote: Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?[/p][/quote]good idea! Also they could work the occasional evening as I have noticed that there seems to be quite a few dog walkers in the evening who don't pick up. nikkineedham
  • Score: 2

8:00am Thu 14 Aug 14

nikkineedham says...

Jack Shrake wrote:
Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?
good idea! Also they could work the occasional evening as I have noticed that there seems to be quite a few dog walkers in the evening who don't pick up.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Shrake[/bold] wrote: Maybe wardens should carry a simple temperature probe to detect which is freshly deposited?[/p][/quote]good idea! Also they could work the occasional evening as I have noticed that there seems to be quite a few dog walkers in the evening who don't pick up. nikkineedham
  • Score: 0

8:03am Thu 14 Aug 14

pat0163 says...

nikkineedham wrote:
pat0163 wrote:
I live local and iv seen this lady on fulledge and townley walking her dog. It doesn't look to me like she keeps an eye on her dog ! Its always in the distance away from her. Iv certainly not seen gloves on her hands come on every dog has there day obviously hers was in court on this occasion
Just to clarify a few points, as for some reason Pat0163 seems to be intent on having a dog (there's always one!):

1. I don't wear gloves you are correct, I do however always bring poo bags. I think the reporter must have said I wear gloves for artistic license.
2. Yes my dog does run around off the lead in the park, as I'm a firm believer in dogs enjoying some exercise so long as they are sociable and well trained. However, I am always aware of where he is and he never wanders off.
3. I got one previous fine for fouling in March last year. I picked it up when he pointed it out. I have seen him on many other occasions and he has not had to approach me. On that occasion I paid the £75 as my mind was genuinely elsewhere that day.
4. I have never previously attended a courtroom before.
5. Those people who know me know that I am a good, kind and honest person. I don't tell lies, especially not in a court of law!
6. The poo in question on the day was stone cold when I picked it up, suggesting it had been there a lot longer than 15 minutes.
Been left longer than 15 mins ? The pheaces would be cold after 15 mins on the ground in jan. If you had enough doubt the poo wasn't yours why pick up ? Is this because your such a good dog owner who's already been fined ? You give us responsible dog owners a bad name. Keep your dog on a lead until its been simple
[quote][p][bold]nikkineedham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pat0163[/bold] wrote: I live local and iv seen this lady on fulledge and townley walking her dog. It doesn't look to me like she keeps an eye on her dog ! Its always in the distance away from her. Iv certainly not seen gloves on her hands come on every dog has there day obviously hers was in court on this occasion[/p][/quote]Just to clarify a few points, as for some reason Pat0163 seems to be intent on having a dog (there's always one!): 1. I don't wear gloves you are correct, I do however always bring poo bags. I think the reporter must have said I wear gloves for artistic license. 2. Yes my dog does run around off the lead in the park, as I'm a firm believer in dogs enjoying some exercise so long as they are sociable and well trained. However, I am always aware of where he is and he never wanders off. 3. I got one previous fine for fouling in March last year. I picked it up when he pointed it out. I have seen him on many other occasions and he has not had to approach me. On that occasion I paid the £75 as my mind was genuinely elsewhere that day. 4. I have never previously attended a courtroom before. 5. Those people who know me know that I am a good, kind and honest person. I don't tell lies, especially not in a court of law! 6. The poo in question on the day was stone cold when I picked it up, suggesting it had been there a lot longer than 15 minutes.[/p][/quote]Been left longer than 15 mins ? The pheaces would be cold after 15 mins on the ground in jan. If you had enough doubt the poo wasn't yours why pick up ? Is this because your such a good dog owner who's already been fined ? You give us responsible dog owners a bad name. Keep your dog on a lead until its been simple pat0163
  • Score: 4

8:08am Thu 14 Aug 14

Walker82 says...

I didn't miss the point you missed the poo! Maybe it's time to rest this matter now as I am sure u have spoken about it many times in the last six months. I simply wanted to state that the wardens have a hard job and I'm sure they get enough abuse as it is without somebody attacking them in the newspaper. Learn from your mistakes, move forward and don't get into this mess again it's as simple as that. I say well done to the wardens, that job must be difficult at the best of times. For those that refuse to clean up after their dogs, I hope u get a ticket.
I didn't miss the point you missed the poo! Maybe it's time to rest this matter now as I am sure u have spoken about it many times in the last six months. I simply wanted to state that the wardens have a hard job and I'm sure they get enough abuse as it is without somebody attacking them in the newspaper. Learn from your mistakes, move forward and don't get into this mess again it's as simple as that. I say well done to the wardens, that job must be difficult at the best of times. For those that refuse to clean up after their dogs, I hope u get a ticket. Walker82
  • Score: 7

8:23am Thu 14 Aug 14

Pendlesider says...

a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident"..
.
lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot!
a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident".. . lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot! Pendlesider
  • Score: -2

9:09am Thu 14 Aug 14

Walker82 says...

It's such a shame that people can't have a debate without calling people names. It just shows your true intelligence. He probably has a wife and children and is working hard in his job to support them it's shameful that name calling is being used in a discussion towards somebody who is working hard, there are too many people in this area who don't work but yet who are quick to bully those who do work. Maybe it's best not to talk about those people as that's a different debate.
It's such a shame that people can't have a debate without calling people names. It just shows your true intelligence. He probably has a wife and children and is working hard in his job to support them it's shameful that name calling is being used in a discussion towards somebody who is working hard, there are too many people in this area who don't work but yet who are quick to bully those who do work. Maybe it's best not to talk about those people as that's a different debate. Walker82
  • Score: 8

9:31am Thu 14 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

rudis_dad wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.
Idiot. Litter doesn't contain bacteria that can cause blindness, kidney failure and nerve damage in humans. Dog s**t does. Stop being so prissy and pick it up.
The diseases you talk of are more common in cat poo, not dog poo. There are no cases to my knowledge of anyone contracting any kind of illness such as you describe from contact with it. And two wrongs don't make a right in my book, I believe this is a threat that does not exist, and has been manufactured by a frenzied media. For some reason the public loves someone to hate- look at the way the current government has managed to divide and conquer over the austerity cuts regarding benefits. Now they are 'scroungers' receiving 'handouts'. This is the same- dog mess is no threat and even as a child you learn not to step in it. I did, and I'm sure a lot of you did. Take a walk around somewhere like Delamere Country Park near Chester, they simply ask you to make sure your dog mess is off the path, no poop bags involved. How many times on your dog walk do you see discarded poop bags? What is that all about? It's all nonsense, and there are plenty of bigger things to worry about that has my dog had a poo.
[quote][p][bold]rudis_dad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.[/p][/quote]Idiot. Litter doesn't contain bacteria that can cause blindness, kidney failure and nerve damage in humans. Dog s**t does. Stop being so prissy and pick it up.[/p][/quote]The diseases you talk of are more common in cat poo, not dog poo. There are no cases to my knowledge of anyone contracting any kind of illness such as you describe from contact with it. And two wrongs don't make a right in my book, I believe this is a threat that does not exist, and has been manufactured by a frenzied media. For some reason the public loves someone to hate- look at the way the current government has managed to divide and conquer over the austerity cuts regarding benefits. Now they are 'scroungers' receiving 'handouts'. This is the same- dog mess is no threat and even as a child you learn not to step in it. I did, and I'm sure a lot of you did. Take a walk around somewhere like Delamere Country Park near Chester, they simply ask you to make sure your dog mess is off the path, no poop bags involved. How many times on your dog walk do you see discarded poop bags? What is that all about? It's all nonsense, and there are plenty of bigger things to worry about that has my dog had a poo. bradscorner
  • Score: -4

9:56am Thu 14 Aug 14

Walker82 says...

I agree that there are bigger issues to worry about than dog foul but it is a topic which for some reason is on the front page of the local paper this week and therefore it must be a problem in the area. Leaving dog foul is revolting, it smells, it's unsightly and quite frankly I would rather go for a walk without having to clean it from the bottom if my shoes when I get home let alone have my child fall in it while playing out. Please be responsible and pick it up, it simply means that going out for a walk and enjoying our parks is a nicer experience for everybody.
I agree that there are bigger issues to worry about than dog foul but it is a topic which for some reason is on the front page of the local paper this week and therefore it must be a problem in the area. Leaving dog foul is revolting, it smells, it's unsightly and quite frankly I would rather go for a walk without having to clean it from the bottom if my shoes when I get home let alone have my child fall in it while playing out. Please be responsible and pick it up, it simply means that going out for a walk and enjoying our parks is a nicer experience for everybody. Walker82
  • Score: 5

12:32pm Thu 14 Aug 14

It's a spade! says...

bradscorner wrote:
rudis_dad wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.
Idiot. Litter doesn't contain bacteria that can cause blindness, kidney failure and nerve damage in humans. Dog s**t does. Stop being so prissy and pick it up.
The diseases you talk of are more common in cat poo, not dog poo. There are no cases to my knowledge of anyone contracting any kind of illness such as you describe from contact with it. And two wrongs don't make a right in my book, I believe this is a threat that does not exist, and has been manufactured by a frenzied media. For some reason the public loves someone to hate- look at the way the current government has managed to divide and conquer over the austerity cuts regarding benefits. Now they are 'scroungers' receiving 'handouts'. This is the same- dog mess is no threat and even as a child you learn not to step in it. I did, and I'm sure a lot of you did. Take a walk around somewhere like Delamere Country Park near Chester, they simply ask you to make sure your dog mess is off the path, no poop bags involved. How many times on your dog walk do you see discarded poop bags? What is that all about? It's all nonsense, and there are plenty of bigger things to worry about that has my dog had a poo.
If you let us have your address, then next time I need a $hit i'll just pop round and do it in your garden. Will that be ok?

You are an absolute end of a bell!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rudis_dad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: I'll pick up my dog poo when people stop dropping litter. At least dog poo is biodegradable. The parks and streets are a mess and it's not just the dog owners at fault, society has a lot to answer for, and we need to tackle all aspects not just target certain cliques. As for stepping in it, that's easy- just watch your step.[/p][/quote]Idiot. Litter doesn't contain bacteria that can cause blindness, kidney failure and nerve damage in humans. Dog s**t does. Stop being so prissy and pick it up.[/p][/quote]The diseases you talk of are more common in cat poo, not dog poo. There are no cases to my knowledge of anyone contracting any kind of illness such as you describe from contact with it. And two wrongs don't make a right in my book, I believe this is a threat that does not exist, and has been manufactured by a frenzied media. For some reason the public loves someone to hate- look at the way the current government has managed to divide and conquer over the austerity cuts regarding benefits. Now they are 'scroungers' receiving 'handouts'. This is the same- dog mess is no threat and even as a child you learn not to step in it. I did, and I'm sure a lot of you did. Take a walk around somewhere like Delamere Country Park near Chester, they simply ask you to make sure your dog mess is off the path, no poop bags involved. How many times on your dog walk do you see discarded poop bags? What is that all about? It's all nonsense, and there are plenty of bigger things to worry about that has my dog had a poo.[/p][/quote]If you let us have your address, then next time I need a $hit i'll just pop round and do it in your garden. Will that be ok? You are an absolute end of a bell!!!!! It's a spade!
  • Score: 4

12:38pm Thu 14 Aug 14

midas says...

Pendlesider wrote:
a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident"..
.
lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot!
"At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did".

Those are the words of the woman herself and presumably the Council spokesman was quoting the magistrate! Who is the idiot?
[quote][p][bold]Pendlesider[/bold] wrote: a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident".. . lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot![/p][/quote]"At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did". Those are the words of the woman herself and presumably the Council spokesman was quoting the magistrate! Who is the idiot? midas
  • Score: 0

1:22am Fri 15 Aug 14

realoldschool says...

People are getting blown to bits the world over, starving and dying of malnutrition, drinking unclean water and all you have to argue about is dog $hit?
Get a grip people, dna testing? thermometers? how about priorities?
This paper is seriously running out of stories in order to fill in, does this story really deserve a full article?
What about the chemicals that are about to be pumped into the local water supply from fracking? Or the fluoride thats being constantly added to numb your brains? - seems like its working!
Arguing over dog $hit...
People are getting blown to bits the world over, starving and dying of malnutrition, drinking unclean water and all you have to argue about is dog $hit? Get a grip people, dna testing? thermometers? how about priorities? This paper is seriously running out of stories in order to fill in, does this story really deserve a full article? What about the chemicals that are about to be pumped into the local water supply from fracking? Or the fluoride thats being constantly added to numb your brains? - seems like its working! Arguing over dog $hit... realoldschool
  • Score: -2

8:30am Fri 15 Aug 14

Walker82 says...

It has already been addressed that there are more important issues going on in the world, if you can't stand discussion about local issues don't start a debate on world crisis. That would get you in a real strop!
It has already been addressed that there are more important issues going on in the world, if you can't stand discussion about local issues don't start a debate on world crisis. That would get you in a real strop! Walker82
  • Score: 3

2:58pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Pendlesider says...

midas wrote:
Pendlesider wrote:
a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident"..
.
lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot!
"At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did".

Those are the words of the woman herself and presumably the Council spokesman was quoting the magistrate! Who is the idiot?
Magistrates dismissed the case as there was 'enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal.' therefore neither parties version of events can be used as factual in evidence. The quote as such from the nameless council spokesperson (who may not even have been present at the hearing) assumes the so-called magistrates accepted the account of the park ranger as true/factual, which is clearly not the case. the council spokesnumpty has simply twisted the words to suit the council. I rest my case ;-)
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pendlesider[/bold] wrote: a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident".. . lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot![/p][/quote]"At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did". Those are the words of the woman herself and presumably the Council spokesman was quoting the magistrate! Who is the idiot?[/p][/quote]Magistrates dismissed the case as there was 'enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal.' therefore neither parties version of events can be used as factual in evidence. The quote as such from the nameless council spokesperson (who may not even have been present at the hearing) assumes the so-called magistrates accepted the account of the park ranger as true/factual, which is clearly not the case. the council spokesnumpty has simply twisted the words to suit the council. I rest my case ;-) Pendlesider
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Fri 15 Aug 14

midas says...

Pendlesider wrote:
midas wrote:
Pendlesider wrote:
a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident"..
.
lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot!
"At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did".

Those are the words of the woman herself and presumably the Council spokesman was quoting the magistrate! Who is the idiot?
Magistrates dismissed the case as there was 'enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal.' therefore neither parties version of events can be used as factual in evidence. The quote as such from the nameless council spokesperson (who may not even have been present at the hearing) assumes the so-called magistrates accepted the account of the park ranger as true/factual, which is clearly not the case. the council spokesnumpty has simply twisted the words to suit the council. I rest my case ;-)
Read what Mrs Needham said - The Magistrate said that the Park Ranger gave a factual account so the nameless person quoted the Magistrate. Rest your case because you are clueless!
[quote][p][bold]Pendlesider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pendlesider[/bold] wrote: a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident".. . lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot![/p][/quote]"At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did". Those are the words of the woman herself and presumably the Council spokesman was quoting the magistrate! Who is the idiot?[/p][/quote]Magistrates dismissed the case as there was 'enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal.' therefore neither parties version of events can be used as factual in evidence. The quote as such from the nameless council spokesperson (who may not even have been present at the hearing) assumes the so-called magistrates accepted the account of the park ranger as true/factual, which is clearly not the case. the council spokesnumpty has simply twisted the words to suit the council. I rest my case ;-)[/p][/quote]Read what Mrs Needham said - The Magistrate said that the Park Ranger gave a factual account so the nameless person quoted the Magistrate. Rest your case because you are clueless! midas
  • Score: -1

5:23pm Fri 15 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

Walker82 wrote:
I agree that there are bigger issues to worry about than dog foul but it is a topic which for some reason is on the front page of the local paper this week and therefore it must be a problem in the area. Leaving dog foul is revolting, it smells, it's unsightly and quite frankly I would rather go for a walk without having to clean it from the bottom if my shoes when I get home let alone have my child fall in it while playing out. Please be responsible and pick it up, it simply means that going out for a walk and enjoying our parks is a nicer experience for everybody.
It would be a nicer experience to be able to walk through my local park and not see litter strewn everywhere like confetti. Nobody cares, but everyone on here is getting hot under the collar over dog poo! It is not dangerous, it may seem disgusting but it is easily dealt with, you either avoid it or wipe it on some grass! Whereas the litter problem is there day after day after day. I am not irresponsible, I follow the code of not letting my dog foul a path, and after a few days and some rainfall it's all but gone, but litter stays. Divert your energies into real issues, get these parks looking beautiful again, and maybe more people will become responsible over where they let their dog poo. And as for the person who wants to come and "$hit in my front garden" that is exactly the irresponsible kind of attitude that I would expect from someone in denial of the facts but just angling for a fight. For your information, I wouldn't mind a bit if you did it in my front garden, because 1) I don't step on my front garden, and 2) after a few days and a bit of rain it will be gone. You, however, will still be stupid and in denial of the facts.
[quote][p][bold]Walker82[/bold] wrote: I agree that there are bigger issues to worry about than dog foul but it is a topic which for some reason is on the front page of the local paper this week and therefore it must be a problem in the area. Leaving dog foul is revolting, it smells, it's unsightly and quite frankly I would rather go for a walk without having to clean it from the bottom if my shoes when I get home let alone have my child fall in it while playing out. Please be responsible and pick it up, it simply means that going out for a walk and enjoying our parks is a nicer experience for everybody.[/p][/quote]It would be a nicer experience to be able to walk through my local park and not see litter strewn everywhere like confetti. Nobody cares, but everyone on here is getting hot under the collar over dog poo! It is not dangerous, it may seem disgusting but it is easily dealt with, you either avoid it or wipe it on some grass! Whereas the litter problem is there day after day after day. I am not irresponsible, I follow the code of not letting my dog foul a path, and after a few days and some rainfall it's all but gone, but litter stays. Divert your energies into real issues, get these parks looking beautiful again, and maybe more people will become responsible over where they let their dog poo. And as for the person who wants to come and "$hit in my front garden" that is exactly the irresponsible kind of attitude that I would expect from someone in denial of the facts but just angling for a fight. For your information, I wouldn't mind a bit if you did it in my front garden, because 1) I don't step on my front garden, and 2) after a few days and a bit of rain it will be gone. You, however, will still be stupid and in denial of the facts. bradscorner
  • Score: -2

8:57pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Walker82 says...

My god, your house and garden must stink of sh** I wasn't going to stoop to your level and start using vulger language but as u insist!! Yes litter is yet another problem but for goodness sake if u think it is acceptable to walk around with sh** on your shoes and u like parks which are litter free but have dog poo all over you must have some kind of liking for the revolting stuff! And as for your the garden that u don't stop onto... Maybe that's because it is covered in dog sh**. God bless and good night
My god, your house and garden must stink of sh** I wasn't going to stoop to your level and start using vulger language but as u insist!! Yes litter is yet another problem but for goodness sake if u think it is acceptable to walk around with sh** on your shoes and u like parks which are litter free but have dog poo all over you must have some kind of liking for the revolting stuff! And as for your the garden that u don't stop onto... Maybe that's because it is covered in dog sh**. God bless and good night Walker82
  • Score: 6

9:51pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Pendlesider says...

midas wrote:
Pendlesider wrote:
midas wrote:
Pendlesider wrote:
a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident"..
.
lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot!
"At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did".

Those are the words of the woman herself and presumably the Council spokesman was quoting the magistrate! Who is the idiot?
Magistrates dismissed the case as there was 'enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal.' therefore neither parties version of events can be used as factual in evidence. The quote as such from the nameless council spokesperson (who may not even have been present at the hearing) assumes the so-called magistrates accepted the account of the park ranger as true/factual, which is clearly not the case. the council spokesnumpty has simply twisted the words to suit the council. I rest my case ;-)
Read what Mrs Needham said - The Magistrate said that the Park Ranger gave a factual account so the nameless person quoted the Magistrate. Rest your case because you are clueless!
Do enlighten us to where in this news article Mrs Needham states the magistrates said the park ranger gave a factual account? It was the council spokesman who said that. I would have thought the clue was in the text.
.
here it is again, no clues needed this time..oh clueless one
.
"A Burnley Council spokesman said: “The magistrates determined that whilst the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident there was enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal. "
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pendlesider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pendlesider[/bold] wrote: a council spokesman said "the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident".. . lol, how can it be factual if the court throws out the case on doubt you numpty non-job council spokesidiot![/p][/quote]"At the end of the trial, the Magistrate said the Warden had given a factual account of what happened, which I agree he did". Those are the words of the woman herself and presumably the Council spokesman was quoting the magistrate! Who is the idiot?[/p][/quote]Magistrates dismissed the case as there was 'enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal.' therefore neither parties version of events can be used as factual in evidence. The quote as such from the nameless council spokesperson (who may not even have been present at the hearing) assumes the so-called magistrates accepted the account of the park ranger as true/factual, which is clearly not the case. the council spokesnumpty has simply twisted the words to suit the council. I rest my case ;-)[/p][/quote]Read what Mrs Needham said - The Magistrate said that the Park Ranger gave a factual account so the nameless person quoted the Magistrate. Rest your case because you are clueless![/p][/quote]Do enlighten us to where in this news article Mrs Needham states the magistrates said the park ranger gave a factual account? It was the council spokesman who said that. I would have thought the clue was in the text. . here it is again, no clues needed this time..oh clueless one . "A Burnley Council spokesman said: “The magistrates determined that whilst the park ranger had given a factual account of the incident there was enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal. " Pendlesider
  • Score: 2

10:28am Sat 16 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

Walker82 wrote:
My god, your house and garden must stink of sh** I wasn't going to stoop to your level and start using vulger language but as u insist!! Yes litter is yet another problem but for goodness sake if u think it is acceptable to walk around with sh** on your shoes and u like parks which are litter free but have dog poo all over you must have some kind of liking for the revolting stuff! And as for your the garden that u don't stop onto... Maybe that's because it is covered in dog sh**. God bless and good night
For your information, it's not the level I stooped to, I quoted it from 'It's a spade!' who made the original '$hit in my front garden' quote. And for goodness sake, the parks would not be full of stinking dog poo because it BIODEGRADES!
[quote][p][bold]Walker82[/bold] wrote: My god, your house and garden must stink of sh** I wasn't going to stoop to your level and start using vulger language but as u insist!! Yes litter is yet another problem but for goodness sake if u think it is acceptable to walk around with sh** on your shoes and u like parks which are litter free but have dog poo all over you must have some kind of liking for the revolting stuff! And as for your the garden that u don't stop onto... Maybe that's because it is covered in dog sh**. God bless and good night[/p][/quote]For your information, it's not the level I stooped to, I quoted it from 'It's a spade!' who made the original '$hit in my front garden' quote. And for goodness sake, the parks would not be full of stinking dog poo because it BIODEGRADES! bradscorner
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree