New Tory council leader, Tony Cox, announced the proposal as part of a ten-point plan for the town.
The scheme, which other councils have also looked at, works by taking a swab from a dog to add its DNA to a register, which can then be matched with a sample of dog dirt.
Mr Cox announced the move to explore the initiative last night as part of a plan to invest in the borough.Oh dear.
Still, Baldri- I mean, Tony, just because it hasn't worked anywhere else, eh?
Though most of the poop in Southend High Street is likely to be human.
I dealt with a case where a disgusting human being took a dump on the top deck of a bus....yes yes I know.....but there are some horrible people in London. The CCTV didn't put him off. I spoke to the SOCO lady (forensics) and she told me that it was very difficult to get DNA from poo. That's for humans so it's even less unlikely for dogs. The cost is also very high to get DNA analysed.
ReplyDeleteI've resisted any puns in this post-fill your boots fellow bloggers!!!
Jaded.
My suggestion is that dog owners need to pay (a) a significant dog licence fee sufficient to include all the costs of a local authority in cleaning up and disinfecting their crap, and (b) have insurance sufficient to cover all the costs when the pooch goes on the rampage. Oh Dear! Dog owners will come for me frothing at the mouth like rabid canines. But we car owners do both.
ReplyDeleteNear where I live there is a Common. Dog walkers there pick up the shit in little plastic bags and hang them from trees. Honestly, it might be better for the sit to be left on the ground to decompose.
And yes. Human public shitters too. I knew of one case in a lecture theatre of a University. A staff member got into trouble for opining that it was a fair comment on the place!
You are a mine of unreliable and outdated information, Jaded. Once prohibitive analytical costs have been reduced to <£100 per sample and can be recovered from an owner/handler proven guilty of the subject offence. At an elementary level, bowel cells coat digested food as 'markers' and these are the generous source of DNA unique to each mammal and its faeces.
ReplyDeleteCouncillor Cox has formulated an excellent strategy for dealing with irresponsible dog owners. Extracting sufficient DNA from the sample for identification was never a big problem and techniques are subject to constant refinement.
Avoid double negatives, WC Jaded. They are a big no no.
ReplyDeleteSo, it's no shit, Sherlock. Been there. Totally agree. Stupid idea, but then, where politicians are concerned.......
ReplyDeletePenseivat
Thanks for the advice Melvin, you are a mine of pompousness and smug superiority. I was repeating what I was told.
ReplyDeleteLet's see how many dog owners volunteer their dog's DNA…..I'm sure they are going to be queueing round the block to do it. Criminals don't pay the fines issued against them so let's see if dog owners pay for the "under £100" test.
Jaded
"The CCTV didn't put him off. "
ReplyDeleteWas probably a turn-on!
"Oh Dear! Dog owners will come for me frothing at the mouth like rabid canines. But we car owners do both."
I'm actually coming around to that idea. I know it'll be hard on pensioners and 'the poor', but there seems little other option.
It would have to be enforced rigorously, though. We can all imagine the excuses at magistrates courts...
"Once prohibitive analytical costs have been reduced to <£100 per sample and can be recovered from an owner/handler proven guilty of the subject offence."
If caught.
"So, it's no shit, Sherlock. Been there. Totally agree. Stupid idea, but then, where politicians are concerned......"
It could be said they have shit for brains!
"Criminals don't pay the fines issued against them..."
Exactly!
"If caught."
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of the proposed change was to ensure that future culprits are caught...duh.