A case of double standards?

Your anonymous correspondent last week of Not good behaviour... cites how he/she saw a young boy urinating against a tree in Phear Park aided by the parent/responsible adult.

Your anonymous correspondent last week of "Not good behaviour..." cites how he/she saw a young boy urinating against a tree in Phear Park aided by the parent/responsible adult.

While I may, or may not, agree with some or all of the concerns in the said letter (as the mother of three boys, sometimes it's a case of "needs must" despite misgivings), I wonder what he/she was doing in Phear park with their dog?

Was it on a lead? Did it have to wait until it got home before doing its ablutions? Or is the more likely scenario one by which the dog was not on a lead, as more usual?

If this is the case, then one can assume that said dog was free to urinate wherever it wanted and did not differentiate between a tree or the gate leading in to the children's park. Did the author wash down the afflicted tree or clean the blades of grass affected by doggie doodahs? I think the answer to all of those questions is likely to be a resounding "no".

My beef is not with dogs or their owners. I just question the potential double standards raised in this letter.

Deborah Austin

Redwood Close, Exmout