.gif)
barkingmad
Dog owners are amongst the most selfish people in the planet. I live in a detached house which shares a drive with another detached house. That family owns a problem dog, a five year old rescue border collie that barks loudly. It barks when we go to the garden. It barks when anyone comes to their house. It barks when we come out of the house or into our house. They keep the dog at home with little to no exercise. They go out most of the day and leave the dog locked in. Even their visitors cannot stand the dog, and when they visit friends or go out in the car they hardly ever take the dog because its barking will embarrass them.
When I complained they went to the police to accuse me of intimidation. When the council asked them to train the dog they did nothing. When I offered them a lot of money to train the dog they refused. They went to the police and claimed that I was filming their children not the dog.
Now I am in the process of suing them for common law nuisance and loss of earnings as I work at home.
I think that such people who own such dogs are people of little education (security guards, cooks and such people) have no intellectual pursuits. Therefore, they cannot consider that neighbours need peace and quiet to work and to also enjoy intellectual pursuits. They also have serious psychological problems, insecurities, and use the dog to harrass neighbours and to feel that they are above the law.
Such people are too stupid to understand that there is nothing in the world that the neighbour can do to insulate himself from the barking noise. For example, at 150 dB to 800 dB even the best Scandinavian triple glazing or double glazing with additional secondary glazing cannot offer more than 20 dB protection. At high frequencies of course it can offer 40 dB protection but not at such low frequencies. As dogs bark at 100 dB then the window glass can never stop it.
I do not understand why the law in the UK does not have a dB level beyond which a nuisance is statutory. The law appears to be written by judges who live in 4 acre estates and who do not experience the problem. The law state that it is "whatever a reasonable man" considers to be a nuisance. The point is that the world is divided into Professors who have a brain and therefore get annoyed by a dog, and ignorant and uneducated security guards as my neighbour. Who is a "reasonable man" him or I? I believe that society should ensure that the more educated person prevails as the reasonable man. We need very tough laws to stop the ignorant from abusing their neighbours.
The ultrasonic device cannot work well. It is very high pitch and therefore will get stopped by the thinnest of windows. The solution appears to be for the owner to train the dog not to bark or to put it down or to rehouse it to a farm where it would be much happier and would have a useful and rewarding function helping with sheep (or being tied and crying at will where nobody can hear it).
When I complained they went to the police to accuse me of intimidation. When the council asked them to train the dog they did nothing. When I offered them a lot of money to train the dog they refused. They went to the police and claimed that I was filming their children not the dog.
Now I am in the process of suing them for common law nuisance and loss of earnings as I work at home.
I think that such people who own such dogs are people of little education (security guards, cooks and such people) have no intellectual pursuits. Therefore, they cannot consider that neighbours need peace and quiet to work and to also enjoy intellectual pursuits. They also have serious psychological problems, insecurities, and use the dog to harrass neighbours and to feel that they are above the law.
Such people are too stupid to understand that there is nothing in the world that the neighbour can do to insulate himself from the barking noise. For example, at 150 dB to 800 dB even the best Scandinavian triple glazing or double glazing with additional secondary glazing cannot offer more than 20 dB protection. At high frequencies of course it can offer 40 dB protection but not at such low frequencies. As dogs bark at 100 dB then the window glass can never stop it.
I do not understand why the law in the UK does not have a dB level beyond which a nuisance is statutory. The law appears to be written by judges who live in 4 acre estates and who do not experience the problem. The law state that it is "whatever a reasonable man" considers to be a nuisance. The point is that the world is divided into Professors who have a brain and therefore get annoyed by a dog, and ignorant and uneducated security guards as my neighbour. Who is a "reasonable man" him or I? I believe that society should ensure that the more educated person prevails as the reasonable man. We need very tough laws to stop the ignorant from abusing their neighbours.
The ultrasonic device cannot work well. It is very high pitch and therefore will get stopped by the thinnest of windows. The solution appears to be for the owner to train the dog not to bark or to put it down or to rehouse it to a farm where it would be much happier and would have a useful and rewarding function helping with sheep (or being tied and crying at will where nobody can hear it).
