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".


You may also want to watch:


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

Deborah Austin

Most Read

Redwood Close, Exmout

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter
Comments powered by Disqus