Abusive dad fined for letting dog foul Horwich playing field

The Bolton News: Scholes Bank playing field in Horwich. Picture from Google Maps. Scholes Bank playing field in Horwich. Picture from Google Maps.

A FATHER who allowed his dog to foul on a playing field used by children’s football teams has been fined.

Dan Urmston, aged 45, was seen failing to pick up the mess by a Bolton Council enforcement officer while walking his terriers in Scholes Bank Playing Field, Horwich, on September 25 last year at about noon.

Bolton Magistrates’ Court heard that Urmston, of Whitton Mews, Horwich, swore at the council employee and threatened to “run him over”.

Andrew Morris, prosecuting, said he failed to give his details and drove off.

The employee tracked him down after photographing his car registration.

Mr Morris said: “A local councillor complained as the secretary of a children’s football club had repeatedly cleared the field of dog waste. Some children playing football on the field did get smeared with faeces.

“I am not suggesting it was the defendant, it was a culmination of problems.”

The court heard Urmston watched both his dogs foul and then walked towards to the exit. The council worker called after him to stop.

Mr Morris said: “The defendant said he was going home to get a bag.

“Urmston became abusive and told him to move or he would run him over.”

After he was traced, he admitted the crimes but failed to pay the fixed penalty notice.

Urmston, addressing the magistrates, said: “My dog fouled in the bushes, it’s not right. I went back to my car to get more bags. I had already filled three bags.

“I always pick it up and I always take bags with me.” He admitted failing to remove dog faeces and failing to give his details to a council officer.

Mrs Ros Clark, chairman of the bench, said: “You owe the court £320. You could have bought an awful lot of poo bags for that.

“Take plenty with you. If you have two dogs you need to take at least four.”

Urmston was fined £100 for failing to remove the waste and was ordered to pay £200 costs and a £20 victim surcharge.

No separate penalty was made for failing to give his details.

Cllr John Byrne, cabinet member for community and neighbourhood services said: “We take the issue of dog fouling very seriously.

“If an officer sees someone allowing their dog to foul and not collecting the waste, we will issue a fixed penalty notice of £75.

“We are pleased with the results of this case and hope it reminds other dog owners to be responsible and clear up after their animals.”

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:24pm Tue 4 Feb 14

MrBenggo says...

Serves him right.
Serves him right. MrBenggo

12:49pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Lee3695 says...

As a dog owner this makes my blood boil! If you want a pet dog, then accept the responsibility for cleaning up after it! So sick and tired of seeing other people letting their dogs crap all over the playing fields along Green lane in Horwich. A lot of them are pensioners as well. Age does not exempt you from responsibility! Don't want to pick it up, then don't get a dog. Having ranted about this though, it would help if the council invested in some more litter bins to put waste bags in, and emptied them from time to time. I can recall at least one bin filled to overflowing and with additional dog waste bags piled around the base and on top of the bin.
As a dog owner this makes my blood boil! If you want a pet dog, then accept the responsibility for cleaning up after it! So sick and tired of seeing other people letting their dogs crap all over the playing fields along Green lane in Horwich. A lot of them are pensioners as well. Age does not exempt you from responsibility! Don't want to pick it up, then don't get a dog. Having ranted about this though, it would help if the council invested in some more litter bins to put waste bags in, and emptied them from time to time. I can recall at least one bin filled to overflowing and with additional dog waste bags piled around the base and on top of the bin. Lee3695

12:51pm Tue 4 Feb 14

BoltonLancs says...

Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...
Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not... BoltonLancs

1:08pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Crazy 38 says...

This ariogant person is a neighbour and is always shouting his mouth of at ppl, he been been in court about his behaviour before
This ariogant person is a neighbour and is always shouting his mouth of at ppl, he been been in court about his behaviour before Crazy 38

1:22pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Bolton Lad 85 says...

Sound like the type that is likely to deficate outside like his dogs. Sounds like a real prima madona "i will run you over". DAN grow up you cretin!
Sound like the type that is likely to deficate outside like his dogs. Sounds like a real prima madona "i will run you over". DAN grow up you cretin! Bolton Lad 85

1:38pm Tue 4 Feb 14

marco999 says...

Tough one this. I have two dogs and pick up their poo and dispose of it like a responsible owner should but there are times, especially when out in the woods, when it's just not possible to see them if they poo so where do I stand if that happens? And what about Horse riders who almost always leave their animals droppings in the middle of the road or field - why don't they get fined for not picking the stuff up? And how about Cats? They are the blight of every keen gardener everywhere when they come and dig up your flower beds to poo but you don't see cat owners ever being prosecuted. Pigeon fanciers - who do I report when your bird defecates all over my newly polished car? Poo is poo regardless of which animal is producing it so if you keep any kind of animal that ventures out anywhere in public then you should be made to clean up after it - why just pick on poor dog owners?
Tough one this. I have two dogs and pick up their poo and dispose of it like a responsible owner should but there are times, especially when out in the woods, when it's just not possible to see them if they poo so where do I stand if that happens? And what about Horse riders who almost always leave their animals droppings in the middle of the road or field - why don't they get fined for not picking the stuff up? And how about Cats? They are the blight of every keen gardener everywhere when they come and dig up your flower beds to poo but you don't see cat owners ever being prosecuted. Pigeon fanciers - who do I report when your bird defecates all over my newly polished car? Poo is poo regardless of which animal is producing it so if you keep any kind of animal that ventures out anywhere in public then you should be made to clean up after it - why just pick on poor dog owners? marco999

3:03pm Tue 4 Feb 14

pendletrotter says...

Nothing worse

Here we go again, use self employed dog wardens. Fine £50 ist offence, double second, treble third - 5 times 5th then shoot owner, or ban them from keeping pets

Pay warden 50% commission and employ around 50, sort the problem in next to no time
Nothing worse Here we go again, use self employed dog wardens. Fine £50 ist offence, double second, treble third - 5 times 5th then shoot owner, or ban them from keeping pets Pay warden 50% commission and employ around 50, sort the problem in next to no time pendletrotter

3:22pm Tue 4 Feb 14

bigbob123 says...

Similar thing happened to me a while ago, but I had genuinely used all my bags, (think the dog ate something it shouldn't have ) saying that though I was kindly allowed to go back home which was only around the corner and get a bag.
Think the council guys are allowed to show a bit of discretion depending on weather your actually going to pick it up or have no intention.
Never let my dog off the lead so I know exactly when he is going to poo and I tend to stay clear from playing fields because you automatically become a suspect when there is a pile on the pitch and kids are having to run round it, plus It happened to me when I played rugby as a youngster.
I am all for the two strike rule, If you don't learn after being spotted and fined then the dog is took off you and re-homed to responsible owners
Similar thing happened to me a while ago, but I had genuinely used all my bags, (think the dog ate something it shouldn't have ) saying that though I was kindly allowed to go back home which was only around the corner and get a bag. Think the council guys are allowed to show a bit of discretion depending on weather your actually going to pick it up or have no intention. Never let my dog off the lead so I know exactly when he is going to poo and I tend to stay clear from playing fields because you automatically become a suspect when there is a pile on the pitch and kids are having to run round it, plus It happened to me when I played rugby as a youngster. I am all for the two strike rule, If you don't learn after being spotted and fined then the dog is took off you and re-homed to responsible owners bigbob123

5:54pm Tue 4 Feb 14

JustBecause says...

Just publish his address and let people **** in his garden and on his path etc.

Should be made to eat it.
Just publish his address and let people **** in his garden and on his path etc. Should be made to eat it. JustBecause

7:31pm Tue 4 Feb 14

chris25 says...

well done to the council worker .
well done to the council worker . chris25

8:17pm Tue 4 Feb 14

atlas123 says...

BoltonLancs wrote:
Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...
You are wrong

Section 7 of the Clean Neigbhourhoods and Environment Act 2005 gives an authorised officer of a local authority the power to require the name and address of a person committing a relevant offence



(1)If an authorised officer of a local authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 6, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or

(b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
[quote][p][bold]BoltonLancs[/bold] wrote: Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...[/p][/quote]You are wrong Section 7 of the Clean Neigbhourhoods and Environment Act 2005 gives an authorised officer of a local authority the power to require the name and address of a person committing a relevant offence (1)If an authorised officer of a local authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 6, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address. (2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or (b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection. (3)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. atlas123

8:21pm Tue 4 Feb 14

atlas123 says...

RE the above....

Please BN could you do a factual article about what council envirmental officers do, can do and what they can require this is a regular issue...

Perhaps you could do it in the form of an open Q & A... You could even do the same with the police section that you do...
RE the above.... Please BN could you do a factual article about what council envirmental officers do, can do and what they can require this is a regular issue... Perhaps you could do it in the form of an open Q & A... You could even do the same with the police section that you do... atlas123

9:41pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Mick England says...

Crazy 38 wrote:
This ariogant person is a neighbour and is always shouting his mouth of at ppl, he been been in court about his behaviour before
Give me his address then I can throw my two golden retrievers merde on his doorstep. ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Crazy 38[/bold] wrote: This ariogant person is a neighbour and is always shouting his mouth of at ppl, he been been in court about his behaviour before[/p][/quote]Give me his address then I can throw my two golden retrievers merde on his doorstep. ;-) Mick England

9:59pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Andyroost says...

BoltonLancs wrote:
Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...
I would say hes on council property and most likely is obliged, you are by a traffic warden on a public road to give your details, The fine is far to low.
[quote][p][bold]BoltonLancs[/bold] wrote: Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...[/p][/quote]I would say hes on council property and most likely is obliged, you are by a traffic warden on a public road to give your details, The fine is far to low. Andyroost

10:01pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Andyroost says...

Bolton Lad 85 wrote:
Sound like the type that is likely to deficate outside like his dogs. Sounds like a real prima madona "i will run you over". DAN grow up you cretin!
No use putting this on here, he probably cant read,
[quote][p][bold]Bolton Lad 85[/bold] wrote: Sound like the type that is likely to deficate outside like his dogs. Sounds like a real prima madona "i will run you over". DAN grow up you cretin![/p][/quote]No use putting this on here, he probably cant read, Andyroost

11:30pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Opionated321 says...

I have handed out poo bags before now and asked that it is picked up. It is lazy and irresponsible these people shouldnt be allowed pets!
I have handed out poo bags before now and asked that it is picked up. It is lazy and irresponsible these people shouldnt be allowed pets! Opionated321

1:09am Wed 5 Feb 14

BoltonLancs says...

atlas123 wrote:
BoltonLancs wrote:
Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...
You are wrong

Section 7 of the Clean Neigbhourhoods and Environment Act 2005 gives an authorised officer of a local authority the power to require the name and address of a person committing a relevant offence



(1)If an authorised officer of a local authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 6, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or

(b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Legal claptrap in order to extract even more money from the common man. Legalese isn't Common Law. Acts are statutory law and have to be agreed to by the governed.
Don't get me wrong, this guy is an idiot by all accounts and will one day slip and fall in dog shiite, hopefully his own dog's, but I do get aggrieved with small minded jobsworths at Bolton Council who are GIVEN THE POWER (how and by whom??) to intrude to such an extent into people's lives for one reason - to extract money - you know the ones, traffic wardens, litter patrols, PSCOs and police officers. Some of these people will at some time abuse their POWER, even though they are no better or worse than you and I.
Their number 1 priority is to extract fines.
I would never give anyone my name (persona) or place of residency because without a name, they can't fine you...
[quote][p][bold]atlas123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BoltonLancs[/bold] wrote: Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...[/p][/quote]You are wrong Section 7 of the Clean Neigbhourhoods and Environment Act 2005 gives an authorised officer of a local authority the power to require the name and address of a person committing a relevant offence (1)If an authorised officer of a local authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 6, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address. (2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or (b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection. (3)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.[/p][/quote]Legal claptrap in order to extract even more money from the common man. Legalese isn't Common Law. Acts are statutory law and have to be agreed to by the governed. Don't get me wrong, this guy is an idiot by all accounts and will one day slip and fall in dog shiite, hopefully his own dog's, but I do get aggrieved with small minded jobsworths at Bolton Council who are GIVEN THE POWER (how and by whom??) to intrude to such an extent into people's lives for one reason - to extract money - you know the ones, traffic wardens, litter patrols, PSCOs and police officers. Some of these people will at some time abuse their POWER, even though they are no better or worse than you and I. Their number 1 priority is to extract fines. I would never give anyone my name (persona) or place of residency because without a name, they can't fine you... BoltonLancs

9:04am Wed 5 Feb 14

Iluminati says...

People like that, have, unfortunately, a low level of social integration,and a low level of education combined with a low level of parental upbringing. Adding up all these factors, the result is somebody like that useless soul. It amazes me all the time that people like that have to be so arrogant to hide their deficiencies.
People like that, have, unfortunately, a low level of social integration,and a low level of education combined with a low level of parental upbringing. Adding up all these factors, the result is somebody like that useless soul. It amazes me all the time that people like that have to be so arrogant to hide their deficiencies. Iluminati

9:46am Wed 5 Feb 14

A ninja storm says...

marco999 wrote:
Tough one this. I have two dogs and pick up their poo and dispose of it like a responsible owner should but there are times, especially when out in the woods, when it's just not possible to see them if they poo so where do I stand if that happens? And what about Horse riders who almost always leave their animals droppings in the middle of the road or field - why don't they get fined for not picking the stuff up? And how about Cats? They are the blight of every keen gardener everywhere when they come and dig up your flower beds to poo but you don't see cat owners ever being prosecuted. Pigeon fanciers - who do I report when your bird defecates all over my newly polished car? Poo is poo regardless of which animal is producing it so if you keep any kind of animal that ventures out anywhere in public then you should be made to clean up after it - why just pick on poor dog owners?
What a load of CR4P!!
[quote][p][bold]marco999[/bold] wrote: Tough one this. I have two dogs and pick up their poo and dispose of it like a responsible owner should but there are times, especially when out in the woods, when it's just not possible to see them if they poo so where do I stand if that happens? And what about Horse riders who almost always leave their animals droppings in the middle of the road or field - why don't they get fined for not picking the stuff up? And how about Cats? They are the blight of every keen gardener everywhere when they come and dig up your flower beds to poo but you don't see cat owners ever being prosecuted. Pigeon fanciers - who do I report when your bird defecates all over my newly polished car? Poo is poo regardless of which animal is producing it so if you keep any kind of animal that ventures out anywhere in public then you should be made to clean up after it - why just pick on poor dog owners?[/p][/quote]What a load of CR4P!! A ninja storm

2:03pm Wed 5 Feb 14

boltonnut says...

What annoys me are the people who pick up the crap put it in plastic bags then adorn the bushes and trees by tossing the bags into them.Faeces is unsightly and messy but does eventually decompose but plastic bags last forever.I had to smile the other day though,while out walking with some of my younger grandchildren I was showing them different trees,thats a beech tree,thats a oak tree,thats a.....I know what that one is grandpa...... that's a sh!t tree she said pointing to the adornments.I've never heard her use bad language before but in all innocence she said,"that what every body calls them'.
What annoys me are the people who pick up the crap put it in plastic bags then adorn the bushes and trees by tossing the bags into them.Faeces is unsightly and messy but does eventually decompose but plastic bags last forever.I had to smile the other day though,while out walking with some of my younger grandchildren I was showing them different trees,thats a beech tree,thats a oak tree,thats a.....I know what that one is grandpa...... that's a sh!t tree she said pointing to the adornments.I've never heard her use bad language before but in all innocence she said,"that what every body calls them'. boltonnut

4:22pm Wed 5 Feb 14

filthy6 says...

The nub of this story is that Dan Urmston allowed his dogs to crap on a football field, he had to know that its used to play football on. So basically he was an inconsiderate bugger & got what he deserved
The nub of this story is that Dan Urmston allowed his dogs to crap on a football field, he had to know that its used to play football on. So basically he was an inconsiderate bugger & got what he deserved filthy6

7:39pm Wed 5 Feb 14

atlas123 says...

BoltonLancs wrote:
atlas123 wrote:
BoltonLancs wrote:
Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...
You are wrong

Section 7 of the Clean Neigbhourhoods and Environment Act 2005 gives an authorised officer of a local authority the power to require the name and address of a person committing a relevant offence



(1)If an authorised officer of a local authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 6, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or

(b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Legal claptrap in order to extract even more money from the common man. Legalese isn't Common Law. Acts are statutory law and have to be agreed to by the governed.
Don't get me wrong, this guy is an idiot by all accounts and will one day slip and fall in dog shiite, hopefully his own dog's, but I do get aggrieved with small minded jobsworths at Bolton Council who are GIVEN THE POWER (how and by whom??) to intrude to such an extent into people's lives for one reason - to extract money - you know the ones, traffic wardens, litter patrols, PSCOs and police officers. Some of these people will at some time abuse their POWER, even though they are no better or worse than you and I.
Their number 1 priority is to extract fines.
I would never give anyone my name (persona) or place of residency because without a name, they can't fine you...
Utter rubbish...

Are you claiming to be one of these so called freemen?

This who idea about consenting comes from the fact that the police in this country rule by consent, one cannot simply withdraw ones consent.

Consent in this context does not mean simply you give your consent.

Fail to give your details and get penalised when caught, simples.

Its a nice idea but simply doesn't wash.

I am not going to waffle on more about it but ultimately you have two options rock along with the rules of the land or go to a place more aligned to your own ideals. There are plenty of lawless lands, none of which feature highly on tripdvisor.
[quote][p][bold]BoltonLancs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atlas123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BoltonLancs[/bold] wrote: Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...[/p][/quote]You are wrong Section 7 of the Clean Neigbhourhoods and Environment Act 2005 gives an authorised officer of a local authority the power to require the name and address of a person committing a relevant offence (1)If an authorised officer of a local authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 6, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address. (2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or (b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection. (3)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.[/p][/quote]Legal claptrap in order to extract even more money from the common man. Legalese isn't Common Law. Acts are statutory law and have to be agreed to by the governed. Don't get me wrong, this guy is an idiot by all accounts and will one day slip and fall in dog shiite, hopefully his own dog's, but I do get aggrieved with small minded jobsworths at Bolton Council who are GIVEN THE POWER (how and by whom??) to intrude to such an extent into people's lives for one reason - to extract money - you know the ones, traffic wardens, litter patrols, PSCOs and police officers. Some of these people will at some time abuse their POWER, even though they are no better or worse than you and I. Their number 1 priority is to extract fines. I would never give anyone my name (persona) or place of residency because without a name, they can't fine you...[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish... Are you claiming to be one of these so called freemen? This who idea about consenting comes from the fact that the police in this country rule by consent, one cannot simply withdraw ones consent. Consent in this context does not mean simply you give your consent. Fail to give your details and get penalised when caught, simples. Its a nice idea but simply doesn't wash. I am not going to waffle on more about it but ultimately you have two options rock along with the rules of the land or go to a place more aligned to your own ideals. There are plenty of lawless lands, none of which feature highly on tripdvisor. atlas123

7:43pm Wed 5 Feb 14

atlas123 says...

BoltonLancs wrote:
atlas123 wrote:
BoltonLancs wrote:
Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...
You are wrong

Section 7 of the Clean Neigbhourhoods and Environment Act 2005 gives an authorised officer of a local authority the power to require the name and address of a person committing a relevant offence



(1)If an authorised officer of a local authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 6, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or

(b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Legal claptrap in order to extract even more money from the common man. Legalese isn't Common Law. Acts are statutory law and have to be agreed to by the governed.
Don't get me wrong, this guy is an idiot by all accounts and will one day slip and fall in dog shiite, hopefully his own dog's, but I do get aggrieved with small minded jobsworths at Bolton Council who are GIVEN THE POWER (how and by whom??) to intrude to such an extent into people's lives for one reason - to extract money - you know the ones, traffic wardens, litter patrols, PSCOs and police officers. Some of these people will at some time abuse their POWER, even though they are no better or worse than you and I.
Their number 1 priority is to extract fines.
I would never give anyone my name (persona) or place of residency because without a name, they can't fine you...
Bad form i know to reply to ones own posts, let a lone twice in one thread.... However...

I do agree somewhat with the notion of the fine being somewhat unsatisfactory... Perhaps a week scooping up dog dollop or similar might be more appropriate however is suspect this, like comm service would be prohibitively expensive.

I wonder, who gets the money from the fines? Is it like speeding tickets the fine goes to the treasury? or do the councils get the money. I dare say the money raised by the fine does not cover the cost of the enforcement.
[quote][p][bold]BoltonLancs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atlas123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BoltonLancs[/bold] wrote: Does serve him right. Nothing worse than dog shiite in public places, but is he legally obliged to give his name to a Council worker? I think not...[/p][/quote]You are wrong Section 7 of the Clean Neigbhourhoods and Environment Act 2005 gives an authorised officer of a local authority the power to require the name and address of a person committing a relevant offence (1)If an authorised officer of a local authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 6, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address. (2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or (b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection. (3)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.[/p][/quote]Legal claptrap in order to extract even more money from the common man. Legalese isn't Common Law. Acts are statutory law and have to be agreed to by the governed. Don't get me wrong, this guy is an idiot by all accounts and will one day slip and fall in dog shiite, hopefully his own dog's, but I do get aggrieved with small minded jobsworths at Bolton Council who are GIVEN THE POWER (how and by whom??) to intrude to such an extent into people's lives for one reason - to extract money - you know the ones, traffic wardens, litter patrols, PSCOs and police officers. Some of these people will at some time abuse their POWER, even though they are no better or worse than you and I. Their number 1 priority is to extract fines. I would never give anyone my name (persona) or place of residency because without a name, they can't fine you...[/p][/quote]Bad form i know to reply to ones own posts, let a lone twice in one thread.... However... I do agree somewhat with the notion of the fine being somewhat unsatisfactory... Perhaps a week scooping up dog dollop or similar might be more appropriate however is suspect this, like comm service would be prohibitively expensive. I wonder, who gets the money from the fines? Is it like speeding tickets the fine goes to the treasury? or do the councils get the money. I dare say the money raised by the fine does not cover the cost of the enforcement. atlas123

1:04am Thu 6 Feb 14

BoltonLancs says...

atlas123 , I am not part of the 'so called' Freeman movement but I have looked at what they do and they offer choices which by the look of it are far too big and scary for someone like yourself to contemplate.
So in your pitiful, ultra-conformist world, your options are "rock along with the rules of the land or go to a place more aligned to your own ideals..."
Dear me, it's like you believe, trust and do everything an 'authority' tells you...
What if an Act had passed through Parliament prohibiting you from, say, growing food in your back garden. Would you conform? And why?
If, say, the Government wanted to make your MEDICAL RECORD or sale, for marketing and commercial purposes, would you not bat an eyelid and say, "It's ok, I trust our politicians and the Law, there's no need for concern.!!"
You are one of the herded sheep atlas123.
atlas123 , I am not part of the 'so called' Freeman movement but I have looked at what they do and they offer choices which by the look of it are far too big and scary for someone like yourself to contemplate. So in your pitiful, ultra-conformist world, your options are "rock along with the rules of the land or go to a place more aligned to your own ideals..." Dear me, it's like you believe, trust and do everything an 'authority' tells you... What if an Act had passed through Parliament prohibiting you from, say, growing food in your back garden. Would you conform? And why? If, say, the Government wanted to make your MEDICAL RECORD or sale, for marketing and commercial purposes, would you not bat an eyelid and say, "It's ok, I trust our politicians and the Law, there's no need for concern.!!" You are one of the herded sheep atlas123. BoltonLancs

1:07am Thu 6 Feb 14

BoltonLancs says...

#for sale
#for sale BoltonLancs

7:18pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Sickandtiredoffit says...

BoltonLancs wrote:
#for sale
Bit deep its dog s##t catch them fine them or put up with it being everywere !
[quote][p][bold]BoltonLancs[/bold] wrote: #for sale[/p][/quote]Bit deep its dog s##t catch them fine them or put up with it being everywere ! Sickandtiredoffit

12:19am Sat 8 Feb 14

Liam-bwfc says...

I hope people realise the point in dogs requiring to be cleaned up after, above the fact it is disgusting, is that the parasite in dog faeces blinds kids. The term is Toxicariasis. Look it up, check out the photos on google on what it does.

It isn't a stretch of imagination to say that being as irresponsible as allowing dogs on to football playing fields, especially not cleaning up after them, is putting children at risk and affecting or blinding their vision for life? If it gets on the ball and a child heads it then a day later a gp is wrongly diagnosing an eye infection and giving out antibiotics to treat it and then too late, blind.

I doubt the dog owner cares though.
I hope people realise the point in dogs requiring to be cleaned up after, above the fact it is disgusting, is that the parasite in dog faeces blinds kids. The term is Toxicariasis. Look it up, check out the photos on google on what it does. It isn't a stretch of imagination to say that being as irresponsible as allowing dogs on to football playing fields, especially not cleaning up after them, is putting children at risk and affecting or blinding their vision for life? If it gets on the ball and a child heads it then a day later a gp is wrongly diagnosing an eye infection and giving out antibiotics to treat it and then too late, blind. I doubt the dog owner cares though. Liam-bwfc

5:34pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Lancashire always says...

I cleaned up after my dog every time even before it was law but I never ever took my dog on a childs play area or a football pitch that's disgusting and should be made against the law.
I cleaned up after my dog every time even before it was law but I never ever took my dog on a childs play area or a football pitch that's disgusting and should be made against the law. Lancashire always

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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