Jump to content

No more dog warden


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Apparently the department has suggested that the Police could cover the out of hours times and provide the service ! This just goes to illustrate how clueless these clowns are. I am a dog owner and ha

Prospective-owner suitability tests and attack or damage-liability insurance policies according to breed would make his job easier and would stop some of the wrong people owning dogs in the first plac

Let's just ban dogs.     (I'm sure,I've said this before in another thread).

Posted Images

> If you're going to let your dogs shit all over the place and then expect others to clean up after you, then others ought to be allowed to carry a gun to shoot your dog if it does its business outside their gate.

 

 

Last week woolley was suggesting shooting burglars; this week it's TJ and dogs.

 

My guess for next week is mother-in-law's...has a hint of common sense about it smile.png

 

TBT.

Next week TJ will probably revert back to one of his other favourite personalities and proclaim respect for all living things.

 

Whatever it is, it will likely be totally inconsistent with his views of previous weeks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This thread shows the misconceptions that exist about roles and that we have to have central government or local authority provided services.

The basic theme is though that this is not a service that anyone other than dog owners should be paying for. I couldn't give a crap whether we have a dog warden or not and I'm certainly not paying for one. If dog licenses don't cover the cost then put the dog license fee up.

 

Society does not need roles like this being performed by the state. There are hundreds of things we should be paying for before this even pops up on the public finances radar - health services, education, police, fire services, water, sewage, electricity etc. The fact is we've allowed the state to grow to do all this crap because of the VAT bubble and now IOMG needs to get back to providing core services only. With everything else if people aren't prepared to pay extra for things like dog license then its tough - the dog police have to shut up shop.

 

We pay a tiny, tiny amount of personal income tax. Because of the small tax pool this should secure core essential services only - everything else is a nice to have not a must have.

The amount we pay could be a lot tinier if it wasn't for Govt bloat,waste and inefficiency. O r alternatively we could have more services for the same cost.

 

The glaring problem here,as in many other thread topics,is the unwillingness of the Civil Service to operate cost effectively, rather than raise more revenue to cover profligacy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, the dog warden is a drop in the ocean, but even an ocean is made up of drops - lots of them.

Meanwhile, the elephant in the sinking boat --- the huge civil service, with its hordes of pointless overpaid layers of management --- continues to cause it to sink. As usual, the civil servants have conveniently put another sacrificial lamb in front of us and we've all fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Anything to distract us from themselves.

Nobody's fallen for it 'hook, line and sinker'. We're debating it now, and some think it is an unnecessary post whilst noting that our expectation is for services far in excess of the tax we pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Last week woolley was suggesting shooting burglars; this week it's TJ and dogs.

 

 

TBT.

 

It would be very wrong to shoot dogs, no matter what they had done, TJ however is fair game now that Woolley has suggested it...................

Beat me to it. Point of order Mr Speaker. At no time did I suggest shooting TJ or dogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Last week woolley was suggesting shooting burglars; this week it's TJ and dogs.

 

 

TBT.

 

It would be very wrong to shoot dogs, no matter what they had done, TJ however is fair game now that Woolley has suggested it...................

 

You better hope TJ isn't Richard Murphy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It wasn't homophobic, Mr Politically Correct Thought Police constable.

 

Put it back and let your words be judged by all then. Its been said many times before, think before you press that post button.

I reckon he holds the MF record for most deleted hasty posts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...