Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-02-2012, 04:17 PM   #1
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Dog shit.

Whilst walking my dog yesterday I noticed a sign on a lamp post warning me about me allowing my dog to foul the pavement. Of course I have seen these signs many times in the past, and I do always carry poo bags with me and clear up my dog's mess. But, for some reason, yesterday the threat of a £1000 fine started me thinking. What would the fotl take be on dog owners allowing their dog to shit on a pavement or in a park?
After all, if I allow my dog to poo on the pavement, I have not (nor has the dog for that matter) caused any harm whatsoever. Nor has there been any loss to anyone. If the poo is left alone eventually it will disappear. Yes, it will take some time but it will go. People have eyes in their heads and should look where they are going. It is the responsible thing to do; to look where you are going. I have no liability towards those that are so irresponsible they do not bother to watch where they step. They should take personal responsibility for where they place their own feet. So, I have caused no harm or loss.
Now, it could be argued that a responsible dog owner should clean up their dog's mess because there is the possibility that somebody might tread in it. But, surely that is going against the fotl grain because we would be talking about potential harm, not actual harm. And, to pass a law that prevents potential harm rather than actual harm, according to fotl, cannot be law. And of course we would need to establish that stepping in dog shit does indeed cause harm.
So, what do the followers of fotl believe?
Do they believe dog owners should clear up their dog's mess but if they refuse to do so they should be left alone as they have caused no harm or loss?
Where is the injured party?

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 10-02-2012 at 04:28 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 04:22 PM   #2
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

you know what one of my pet peeves is? people hawkin' lugies in public. if you want to clear the passages and spit in the woods fine...i dont want to see it on the street though....
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 04:48 PM   #3
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
you know what one of my pet peeves is? people hawkin' lugies in public. if you want to clear the passages and spit in the woods fine...i dont want to see it on the street though....
And, I would agree with you.
But if someone does choose to gob on the pavement, what harm or loss has been caused?
Where is the injured party?
People must learn to take responsibility for where they put their size nines. If there is something rather unpleasant on the floor it would be their responsibility to avoid placing their foot in it. They have eyes, they should learn to use them.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 04:56 PM   #4
armoured_amazon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 21,303
Likes: 312 (143 Posts)
Default

I grew up in an era before fouling fines, never caught any diseases from dog poo. Mind, the additives and GM crap in dog food these days probably leads to most of them having diarrhoea or big smelly dumps.
armoured_amazon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 08:31 PM   #5
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Whether or not harm has been done is determined entirely depending on whether the FotLer in the situation is the owner of the dog or of the land that's being pooped on.
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 08:51 PM   #6
jaynette
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

This scenario has crossed my mind often. I have complained to the council in the past when I have had the dirty job of trying to clean up one of my grandchildren after slipping and getting covered in dog shit at the local park. To my mind, the owner of the dog has caused my grandchild harm and loss. I have had to throw away the clothes they were wearing and one of them hurt themselves when they slipped in the disgusting shit.

Do I sue the freeman/his dog or the council?
jaynette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 09:24 PM   #7
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaynette View Post
This scenario has crossed my mind often. I have complained to the council in the past when I have had the dirty job of trying to clean up one of my grandchildren after slipping and getting covered in dog shit at the local park. To my mind, the owner of the dog has caused my grandchild harm and loss. I have had to throw away the clothes they were wearing and one of them hurt themselves when they slipped in the disgusting shit.
Ah but, surely at the time when the dog owner allowed his dog to dump on the pavement no harm or loss occurred? It was only when your grandchild ignored their own responsibilities and chose to put their foot somewhere they had not previously checked to be a suitable place to put their foot, resulted in them getting covered in shit. Would it not be the same situation for mud? Is it not the individual's fault for not looking out for mud if he were to step into mud and ruin his clothes?
So, when Juno shits on the pavement exactly what harm or loss has occurred at that precise point? Where is the injured party when his shit touches the ground?
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 10:01 PM   #8
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Personally I do see harm in your scenario. Public property, even it is just the that little tiny spot where the dog shit is, plus the larger area affected by the smell, is rendered unusable to the public. That is harm even if it is temporary, and natural. It is also very irresponsible and disrespectful to others who wish to use that property.

It is not something I do as a Freeman, nor was it something I did prior to being one. Nor did I not do it because I was fearful of a fine. It was something I did not do because it is an asshole thing to do.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 10:14 PM   #9
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Personally I do see harm in your scenario. Public property, even it is just the that little tiny spot where the dog shit is, plus the larger area affected by the smell, is rendered unusable to the public. That is harm even if it is temporary, and natural. It is also very irresponsible and disrespectful to others who wish to use that property.
But you could use that same argument against someone who is minding their own business but is standing on public property. The fact they are occupying space renders that space unusable to the rest of the public. If they have not washed for a few days the surrounding area may be affected by their smell. But I doubt you would describe their action as irresponsible or disrespectful.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 11:05 PM   #10
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Personally I do see harm in your scenario. Public property, even it is just the that little tiny spot where the dog shit is, plus the larger area affected by the smell, is rendered unusable to the public. That is harm even if it is temporary, and natural.
It isn't unusable. Some people may not like to use the space because of the dog shit, some may not care, some might even like it. Who are you to decide that just because you don't like the smell or consider it dirty, that someone else should be punished for making use of public space in their preferred way?

Surely then you must also believe smoking pot in a public place is harmful because lots of people don't like the smell and it also renders the area temporarily unusable to those people?
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 11:12 PM   #11
neila
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 883
Likes: 14 (8 Posts)
Default

I always pick up my dogs shit and put in in a bin, but if my dog decides to crap in the corner (which happens on most occasions) then I leave it. But On open ground I will always pick it up cos I have young kids who have trodden in it in the past.
neila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 12:07 AM   #12
freedom2020
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 965
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

rumpel you are losing it bigtime!!! talking about a dog doing a shit and what a freeman would do or think??? how about not thinking about such things and just going on with your life ehhh??switch off you tv stop reading newspapers and go for a long walk into the country with your dog,maybe that will chill you out cos you do need it just by even posting this madness.
freedom2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 10:48 AM   #13
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom2020 View Post
rumpel you are losing it bigtime!!! talking about a dog doing a shit and what a freeman would do or think??? how about not thinking about such things and just going on with your life ehhh??switch off you tv stop reading newspapers and go for a long walk into the country with your dog,maybe that will chill you out cos you do need it just by even posting this madness.
Dear oh dear oh dear. You really do wear blinkers don't you?
If you were to take some time to think about it you would realise that actually, this thread has nothing to do with dogs taking a dump.
It is to do with situations where the public, not an individual, is the injured party. There is also the issue of potential harm as opposed to actual harm. The dog shit scenario was used to illustrate that point. With hindsight maybe it was rather foolish of me to think that everybody on here would possess enough intelligence to understand that.

Menard himself has intimated that in the scenario I describe it would cause harm to the public. jlord provides us with an alternative scenario which could also lead to accusations of the public being harmed. These types of situation IMO raise some interesting questions for the fotl; how would they prosecute an individual when they believe it is the public that has been harmed?
Who would bring the prosecution?
Who is the accuser?
How would you prove the public has in fact been harmed?
In the fotl world does not the accused have the right to demand the injured party to be present in court? How would that be possible?

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 11-02-2012 at 11:17 AM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 01:27 PM   #14
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
Dear oh dear oh dear. You really do wear blinkers don't you?
If you were to take some time to think about it you would realise that actually, this thread has nothing to do with dogs taking a dump.
It is to do with situations where the public, not an individual, is the injured party. There is also the issue of potential harm as opposed to actual harm. The dog shit scenario was used to illustrate that point. With hindsight maybe it was rather foolish of me to think that everybody on here would possess enough intelligence to understand that.

Menard himself has intimated that in the scenario I describe it would cause harm to the public. jlord provides us with an alternative scenario which could also lead to accusations of the public being harmed. These types of situation IMO raise some interesting questions for the fotl; how would they prosecute an individual when they believe it is the public that has been harmed?
fairly
Who would bring the prosecution?
someone impartial, someone with no conflict of interest...but doesn't the law provide that?
Who is the accuser?
some man or woman? that sounds like the only possibility given that dogs, cats, rats, birds, elephants, etc can't read, write or speak to make an accusation...yes it would have to be some man or woman...or maybe a group of them...all named individually of course...
How would you prove the public has in fact been harmed?
well, isn't it a simple matter for the individual man or woman or all of those named individuals to make their complaint...with accompanying evidence?
In the fotl world does not the accused have the right to demand the injured party to be present in court? How would that be possible?
everyone should have the opportunity to face their accuser....yes....that sounds reasonable. i mean when you hear that a colleague at work has accused you of some water cooler jibber jabber and it was untrue..surely you would want to face your accuser...if nothing else, just to straighten out the controversy. and whats the problem? if someone is accusing you they must be able to present themselves....how could they not? it seems like it must be possible for the injured public members to step forward. what is stopping them? if you prick them, do they not bleed?? it all seems akin to throwing accusations around anonymously on the internet...are they not trying to do something about that? but we really must try to do something about the lugies and shit....
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 05:00 PM   #15
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I really wish some people would use the quote function when responding to posts. Replying to points in red embedded other people's posts is too time consuming.

Ok, so the suggestion is a group get together and make a complaint, yes?
And their complaint is that the public as a whole has been injured yes?
Well, for starters it is obvious that sixty million people have not been injured by one dog turd. And I doubt every member of that group has been injured either. So where is the injured party? The dog shit still sits there and remains intact. I see no harm, in fact there is the possibility it could be viewed as a work of art by some.
Of course we then have the problem of getting all sixty million to testify. Unless of course the group represents "the public" and brings prosecutions and makes such decisions on the public's behalf? Surely not.
And this impartial prosecutor, who would that be? Please don't tell me some kind of public prosecutor.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 11-02-2012 at 05:04 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 05:08 PM   #16
peabrain
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: scotland
Posts: 4,682
Likes: 1,652 (856 Posts)
Default

It's up to the local council to provide bins for owners to dump their dog's dirt.
Personally I find dog mess disgusting and it can harbour parasitic toxoplasmosis which can be harmful to adults and can lead to blindness in children.
peabrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 05:56 PM   #17
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peabrain View Post
It's up to the local council to provide bins for owners to dump their dog's dirt.
Unfortunately it would appear the fotl object to paying councils for services provided by the council. They believe that CT is unlawful.
But, I would ask this thread does not go down the path of discussing the legality of CT.
Quote:
Personally I find dog mess disgusting and it can harbour parasitic toxoplasmosis which can be harmful to adults and can lead to blindness in children.
But, if we are to view this from a fotl position, it is only when actual harm has occurred can there be a prosecution. They disagree with the idea of prosecuting when the only accusation is that of potential harm.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 06:27 PM   #18
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
Unfortunately it would appear the fotl object to paying councils for services provided by the council. They believe that CT is unlawful.
But, I would ask this thread does not go down the path of discussing the legality of CT.

But, if we are to view this from a fotl position, it is only when actual harm has occurred can there be a prosecution. They disagree with the idea of prosecuting when the only accusation is that of potential harm.
But in your situation there is harm though it is miniscule to some, and avoidable. You can test it. Multiply that one dog dropping until the entire park or pavement is completely covered. Is that public park usable at that point? No? Then clearly the one individual mess removed some space from the public's use. THAT is harm.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 06:39 PM   #19
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
I really wish some people would use the quote function when responding to posts. Replying to points in red embedded other people's posts is too time consuming.
yeah, i know...but i haven't bothered to figure out all that stuff...its so time cosuming..

Ok, so the suggestion is a group get together and make a complaint, yes?
sure...why not?
And their complaint is that the public as a whole has been injured yes?
certainly not...most have no idea that a dog took an unauthorized dump at the corner of lexington and third...
Well, for starters it is obvious that sixty million people have not been injured by one dog turd.
true
And I doubt every member of that group has been injured either.
well...they would be an identified group...so they must have had a legitimate complaint...
So where is the injured party?
good question...
The dog shit still sits there and remains intact.
maybe council needs to do a study...how long do dog turds take to decompose and what are the hazards/benefits of this option?
I see no harm,
watch your step...
in fact there is the possibility it could be viewed as a work of art by some.
i am scarred...because i have seen that this is truely a possibility
Of course we then have the problem of getting all sixty million to testify.
not nessassary...just those who had a problem with the turd and how could sixty million who were never affected by the turd have anything to offer?
Unless of course the group represents "the public" and brings prosecutions and makes such decisions on the public's behalf? Surely not.
do you mean the group who felt injured by the turd would represent the other members of the public...who were never injured by the turd? no that cant be..or do you mean a group uninjured by the turd would bring actions on account of the group injured by the turd...why cant those injured by the turd bring action themselves?And this impartial prosecutor, who would that be? Please don't tell me some kind of public prosecutor.
prosecution by a lawyer paid by the injured parties. defense by a lawyer hired by the dogs owner. judge anyone not paid by either of the above. even better...lets peel it down to the judge with no conflict, two parties with complaints and no lawyers. that sounds good. oh yes, laws that are straight forward and concise. sounds good.
and yes...if people dont want to pick up their shit...then they deserve and need legislation sorry about the quote function...i promise to get around to it.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 10:10 PM   #20
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
But in your situation there is harm though it is miniscule to some, and avoidable.
There is harm is there?
Quote:
You can test it.
Ok let's do just that. But let's make it more interesting.
Let us substitute one dog shit for one unkempt hobo who stinks of pot and stale alcohol and occupies the space of one human being in a park. That would be a much bigger area than a dog shit and they would be preventing any member of the public from using that part of the park.
Quote:
Multiply that one dog dropping until the entire park or pavement is completely covered.
Ok, I've done that. The park is now full of dishevelled drunks. There is no more available space. It is not a pretty sight. They keep swigging from their cans and are passing joints round. Also they are beginning to scare the children who want to use the park but are prevented from doing so.
Quote:
Is that public park usable at that point? No?
Well, I can't get very close and nor can anyone else. Those pissheads stink. But they appear to be using the park.
Quote:
Then clearly the one individual mess removed some space from the public's use. THAT is harm.
Right, just like that other individual mess (the pissed up hobo) has removed some space from the public's use.
So what do you reckon, Rob? Should we bar that drunk hobo from entering the park? They do tend to congregate in large groups thus preventing other people from using the space. Would you class that as harm, Rob?
Once you let one in....well, you know the rest.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 11-02-2012 at 10:34 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:36 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.