BBC Television programmes  permalink

Litter Wars and Dog Fouling

Messages: 1 - 20 of 20
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by ~d3f497d2ad7bcbed7fd3cd6544f1504862776f4d (U15624761) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    The Litter Wars programme put out on 19th Feb at 10.35 was excellent but there was no indication on the magazine listing that dog fouling would also be covered. There were some excellent ideas put forward which may help towards ridding every town and country area all over England of this disgusting and dangerous scourge to the environment . Struggling councils are losing out on large amounts of income that could be drawn from issuing fines to offenders if they were to prioritise a plan of action. The danger of contracting toxocariasis which often leads to blindness would be lessened; both adults and children are vunerable to this disease by coming into contact with animal faeces. Dog fouling is on the increase and in my home town on The Isle of Sheppey, a campaign has been launched called Foul Play which asks the local population to help by reporting such incidents to the borough council. The local newspaper is giving the campaign its full support. PLEASE BBC PUT THIS PROGRAMME OUT AGAIN DURING THE DAY OR AT PEAK VIEWING TIME TO HELP GET THE MESSAGE OUT THERE. People are sick of putting up with those who think it is their right to use our walkways as dog toilets; it is very unjust that our four legged friends should take the blame for their thoughtless owners. We need TV adverts constantly reminding people of fines and we need the threat to be implemented!!!

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by seaglennon (U9259670) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    I have noticed on a number of occasions threads started by a poster with an unintelligible name such as this and recently www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    Invariably this is also the first posting by the user and so I do not usually respond.

    Is it just me being an idiot?

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Pancho Wilkins (U1158194) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    I have noticed on a number of occasions threads started by a poster with an unintelligible name such as this and recently www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    Invariably this is also the first posting by the user and so I do not usually respond.

    Is it just me being an idiot? 
    I don't think you are being an idiot if you suspect the motives of the OP. but on this occasion I happen to support the intention of this thread.

    The pathway by my home is almost unpassable for dog faeces. The problem is that even when you know who the culprit is, who on earth is going to sit by their window early morning and late evening each day to try and record the fouing in progress to pass to the council?

    LIke everyone else who commented on the programme, it is hard to understand how bloody minded the owners must be to knowingly add to the mess, day after day.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by grauniad (U6654468) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Dog fouling is obnoxious and harmful. But I did feel that some of the vigilantes were targeting the wrong areas. They can't be everywhere, so it would seem the local parks and play areas should be the main focus, not a grass verge alongside a busy road. Having said that, they have more balls than me.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Fishinghellfly (U9173430) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    I've tried dog fouling but they wouldn't keep still...

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by grauniad (U6654468) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Apparently it's not a foul if you get the balls first.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by briggsy2 (U1288489) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    I dont approve of dog fouling, but then I dont approve of vigilanteeism either - both groups are as bad as one another and perhaps, deserve each other.
    I also disapprove of councils introducing "on the spot fines" - i.e. using dog owners as a cash cow to plug holes in their budget caused by funding cuts handed down from Central Govt.

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Pancho Wilkins (U1158194) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    I dont approve of dog fouling, but then I dont approve of vigilanteeism either - both groups are as bad as one another and perhaps, deserve each other.
    I also disapprove of councils introducing "on the spot fines" - i.e. using dog owners as a cash cow to plug holes in their budget caused by funding cuts handed down from Central Govt.  
    So a person who attempts to stop a dog owner allowing his/her dog to foul pavements is as bad as the dog owner? I think that is a strange view .

    Councils cannot use fines on dog owners as a cash cow if dog owners show consideration for others and scoop up the foul deposits of their pooches.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by minibones (U14961554) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    It's only a cash cow if people don't clean up after their dog. Answer is - clean up! no sympathy for offenders. Likewise parking tickets.

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by GusMcGuire (U7223549) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Agreed. I clean up after my dog every time. It's not pleasant but it's better than treading in it and there's really no excuse for not being a responsible owner and cleaning up after your pet.

    If I see someone not cleaning up after their dog, my trick is to wander over with a helpful smile and a dog bag in hand and - letting them assume I just think they've run out of bags - say "oh, do you need a bag? Here, have one of mine."

    So far I haven't encountered anyone with the brass neck to refuse a polite offer of help. smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by littlebutfiesty (U15664388) on Thursday, 28th March 2013

    We have only just viewed this excellent programme as we saved it BBC i player. I would like to endorse your comments about the need to continuously work at the matter of the overwhelming amount of litter dumped on our roads, towns and countryside. I also appeal to the BBC and any other group that can get the matter into the minds of the people of this country, to repeat this programme and to air any others on this subject.
    I would personally like to thank the caring people who were featured on this programme. I am heartened that you are out there, tirelessly doing your part to improve the lives of thousands who are affected by this constant problem of fly tipping and tossing of litter from cars.
    Where would this country be without the volunteers and the passionate people who take action, instead of just bemoaning their lot. People like Owen who have turned their lives around and now are doing the right thing for themselves, their families and the wider public. I would like to shake their hands and thank each one of them.
    Please BBC, continue to bring programmes such as Litter Wars to our screens.

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by jodie (U14366548) on Thursday, 28th March 2013

    There should be more Public information films about such things.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Dell (U14273873) on Thursday, 28th March 2013

    It's only a cash cow if people don't clean up after their dog. Answer is - clean up! no sympathy for offenders. Likewise parking tickets.  There was an article on Jeremy Vine's show today about traffic wardens being 'warned off' a school pick up area by the violent behavior of parents.

    My link to minibones comment is that ..if there is a dog fouling warden or litter patrol (or traffic warden) that is paid for by tax (council or income)what are they doing to solve the problem? - how many tickets actually get handed out? how much cash does it really generate? or have they too been 'warned off' or skiving

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by FirstClassMaleUK (U15658867) on Thursday, 28th March 2013

    I'm glad that this thread has been resurrected. I remember the programme from February vividly - while not necessarily remembering everyone's names who took part. Is Owen the one who has a family and was previously on a path of drugs?

    Whether he is Owen or not, I felt moved by his story and his efforts. Considering there are lots of unemployed people who would not take a job to pick up litter, even if paid for it, for him to get out there and improve his community and the environment by doing this was such a good story.

    The chap who collected cans should, rather than put them into a can bank for shopping vouchers, present them in bulk to scrap metal dealers. He would make a lot more money out of it.

    Why do people suggest fixed penalties for littering as being a "cash cow"? The proof of the expenditure picking it all up is there. Maybe the speed camera ethos should be copied, where all money taken in from littering is ploughed back into efforts to catch perpetrators.

    With "Caught red handed" and "Saints and Scroungers" Perhaps the litter and dog fouling subjects could become their own series. BBC pays for hidden cameras. Local authorities get the above crimes and fly tipping highlighted and evidence to prosecute, the BBC gets really cheap footage. If Matt Allright or Dom Littlewood are not available, give the job to Owen from the programme. He was a very likeable outgoing character. Win win situation.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by briggsy2 (U1288489) on Thursday, 28th March 2013

    Is there any evidence that "on the spot fines" reduce littering and dog fouling? I would of thought that the rich would just pay up and carry on as before whilst the poor wouldn't be able to afford the fine anyway. Waste of time.
    And how are the perpetrators caught in the first place - using CCTV is expensive, and has the unhealthy byproduct of turning us ever more into a surveillance society, whilst employing an army of snoopers is again an expensive waste of taxpayers money - it would be better spent imo on employing some council workers to clean up our parks and open areas on a regular basis.

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) on Thursday, 28th March 2013

    How exactly would one foul a dog?

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Thursday, 28th March 2013

    I can't wacth these programmes about dog fouling..... because the cameraman (or woman) seems fixated by the piles of the stuff that litter the country.... the show shot after shot of the horrible muck as if we don't know what a pile of poo looks like. UGH.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by FirstClassMaleUK (U15658867) on Thursday, 28th March 2013

    Is there any evidence that "on the spot fines" reduce littering and dog fouling? I would of thought that the rich would just pay up and carry on as before whilst the poor wouldn't be able to afford the fine anyway. Waste of time.
    And how are the perpetrators caught in the first place - using CCTV is expensive, and has the unhealthy byproduct of turning us ever more into a surveillance society, whilst employing an army of snoopers is again an expensive waste of taxpayers money - it would be better spent imo on employing some council workers to clean up our parks and open areas on a regular basis. 
    I'm sorry, I cannot find any logical arguments in your post.

    On the spot fines: There is inconclusive evidence, as the programme highlighted that they are rarely if ever levied.

    Affordability: If you can't afford the fine, don't litter.

    CCTV is expensive: Not if, as I suggested it was self financing in the same way as speed camera partnerships work. The alternative was suggested of the BBC (or any other production company) financing the initial roll out and have cheap footage for a cheap programme.

    Surveillance society: If you have nothing to hide....

    Army of snoopers: CCTV operators monitor more than one camera at a time. My alternative of making a programme, would see TV researchers doing this. It can't be any more boring than locating specific pieces for "clip shows"

    Employ council workers to clean it up: That is as nonsensical as the rationale of litterers saying "gives someone a job" You don't hear criminals saying that when the police chase them.

    Is it possible that some people consider litter to be a victimless crime? The blindness brought on by animal faecal matter, spoiling of amenity, damage to wildlife, increases in council tax and central government taxation.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Ria_H (U14999558) on Thursday, 28th March 2013

    I own neither dog nor cat. It amazes me how much dog owners are being restricted while cats are allowed to roam free, use your garden as their litterbox, tearing out the bulbs and murdering the garden birds in the process. Dogs give me much less grief the way they are held. Why should cat owners be off the leash?

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Dell (U14273873) on Wednesday, 3rd April 2013

    Is there any evidence that "on the spot fines" reduce littering and dog fouling? I would of thought that the rich would just pay up and carry on as before whilst the poor wouldn't be able to afford the fine anyway. Waste of time.
    And how are the perpetrators caught in the first place - using CCTV is expensive, and has the unhealthy byproduct of turning us ever more into a surveillance society, whilst employing an army of snoopers is again an expensive waste of taxpayers money - it would be better spent imo on employing some council workers to clean up our parks and open areas on a regular basis. 
    We already have CCTV for many towns and cities and we already pay for the upkeep of such systems and the operatives that use it.

    My meaning to dog wardens would be that they should be 'self financing' by fines imposed on those who break the law. It's not just the fouling but the disease that it brings with it..

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.