Fair or foul?

However, as I walked ahead and turned to see that my dog was following, I saw a man (no uniform) standing in the rough grass near my dog. I was concerned. In 13 years of exercising dogs in that field, I had never seen a man without a dog. He called to me. I was very reluctant to go to him, but didn't want him to see I was afraid. I am in my seventies and have arthritis, but I did return.

He said: "Look what your dog has done!" I apologised, took a bag from my pocket and picked it up. He said "That won't help, you've got a £50 fine."

I sent my cheque with an accompanying letter to the chief executive and the man's department saying that I was keeping within the law by sending my cheque, but that it was under protest because that field had been used for exercising dogs for over 20 years with no problems.

I received no reply but the cheque was cashed.

A few weeks later, as I turned round to check that my dog was following me, I tripped on one of the many stones which stick up from the path, fell and broke my wrist. This meant that I was unable to drive for six weeks and, living in a village, this was a great handicap.

I wrote to the chief executive to tell him of the sequel to the fine, and was disgusted when he replied: "I do feel it is stretching a point to say that the cause of your accident was the need to observe whether or not your dog was about to foul the field." As if one would walk backwards on a rough path without good reason.

It was also pointed out to me that covert means had been found necessary to catch offenders.

If dog catchers are going to lurk in unmarked cars waiting to stalk people exercising their dogs away from other people, it's no wonder our pavements are still a disgrace!

JEAN WILLIAMS

Noel's Court,

Catterick Village.

Sir, - I refer to the letter from Mrs Clark (D&S, July 2) regarding her experience with a dog warden, I had a very similar experience while walking my dog one morning in Catterick Village. A man dressed in black, looking like an SAS commando, rushed over from his private car and without identifying himself or his intentions, said: "Your dog has just fouled."

I was amazed as I always remove my dog's faeces. When I asked to be shown where this alleged offence had taken place, he said: "I don't need do that." I even had an independent witness who incidentally was most upset at the man's attitude to her. I also had photographic evidence that showed that his view was obstructed by a parked car.

I pleaded my case with a Mr Little, head of environmental protection, but he refused to meet me and threatened me with a £1,000 fine and costs. I questioned the authority of the warden not identifying himself and also use of his private car when a van was provided, but I only received further threats of large fines and costs. I contacted my local councillors and even Mr Tabiner, all to no avail.

I have also been told of other similar incidents where female dog owners have been intimidated by the approach of the dog warden in isolated areas.

I still maintain that my dog did not foul and I feel, like Mrs Clark, that an injustice has been done. Surely it is now obvious that the procedures and actions of Mr Little's department should be looked at and some apologies given to the public who have been treated like criminals. Is there no democracy in local government?

MIKE WOOD

The White House,

High Green,

Catterick Village.

No sympathy

Sir, - I write in response to Norma Clark's letter (D&S, July 2) regarding her conviction for allowing her dog to foul. Mrs Clark explained, very dramatically, how she spent her afternoon. However in the sequence of events described, she fails to mention when, exactly, her dog fouled, and when, exactly, she neglected to clear up.

Are we therefore to deduce that the warden reacted to Mrs Clark failing to clean up after her dog? Irrespective of how she felt about his approach, it would appear that he was doing his job by attempting to accost her for her oversight.

I fail to have any sympathy with Mrs Clark. I do not own a dog and find the amount of dog mess littering public places disgusting and offensive. It also, surely, constitutes some form of health and safety risk in picnic areas where children eat and play. If people cannot be responsible and clear up after their animals then they shouldn't have them at all, no matter how lengthy the excuse.

I hope that Mrs Clark's conviction has highlighted the need for dog owners to be responsible and ensure our public places are clean and pleasant for all to enjoy.

AMBER DAGNALL

The Green,

Cleasby.

Meek surrender

Sir, - Why do the words "frying pan" and "fire" come rapidly to mind when referring to the eight new countries which have meekly surrendered their sovereignty to the European Union.

In his letter (D&S, July 2), Mr Keenan of "Britain in Europe" rightly points out that these states had long been under the yoke of communism - a system that requires total subservience to an unaccountable, unelected and centralised supreme authority.

Now they are required to be subservient to the EU which has precisely the same undemocratic structure as the old Soviet Union.

The obscene haste of the British Government in hurtling the UK headlong into the EU constitution spells exactly the same fate for our nation - this pernicious document must be ruthlessly resisted.

DAVE PASCOE

Press secretary, Hartlepool branch,

UK Independence Party

Dunbar Road,

Hartlepool.