Dangerous Chihuahua On The Loose

Attention people of Townsville … get inside and lock all your doors … there is a dangerous chihuahua on the loose!

A 78 year old resident complained to Townsville Council about a 12 year old, arthritic chihuahua which “ran at her and growled” on the stairs of her QLD Housing Commission block of flats, causing her “great distress”.

Yes, of course … great distress. Must have been absolutely terrifying for you, love. Of course, you wouldn’t have exaggerated the events, by any chance?

Maybe the government should allow you to live rent free as a result … because you have obviously contributed so much more to society than you have received.

When the events made the front page of the local paper, the complainant, Winifred Lofthouse subsequently tried to pretend that she is a “dog lover” and that the complaint “was not vindictive”. Of course not. You were just looking after the “health and safety” of the residents of your block, performing a public service … in the same way as you’ve served the public all these years while living in a Housing Commission flat and drawing the pension.

Are people supposed to resile from exposing obvious bullshit just because it comes from an old woman? Is a widow on the old age pension allowed to get away with clear exaggerations and possibly outright fabrications, escaping censure by pleading frailty?

No.

Fuck off, you lying old bag. How have you managed to live almost your entire life and still not own your own home? Why do you believe you have some right to live in public housing, draw the pension and then make up bullshit complaints about tiny little dogs barking at you? Do the taxpayers of this country a service and curl up and die, you decrepit, old parasite.

Now to the worst culprit in this episode: the local council. They always are.

On reviewing Winifred Lofthouse’s complaint, Townsville Council officers decided the dog "menaced a person causing fear" and "carried out a menacing attack". Yeah, right. Of course it did. Because you assessed the “evidence” in a balanced manner, didn’t you?

Was Penny (the dog)’s owner given right of reply? By what criteria was the decision made? Are people who are only able to get a job as an “animal control officer” for a local council even capable of assessing conflicting evidence and marrying it with the requirements of the law?

No, they fucking well aren’t. They are, however, capable of using up large amounts of oxygen better allocated to the rest of us. Useless idiots, wasting other people's time and money.

A sensible council (or any other organization) would simply have recorded Winifred Lofthouse’s complaint, sent an employee to Diane Christensen (the dog owner)’s residence, asked for her side of the story, then told her to keep the dog on a leash or build a fence around her yard or face a fine. Pretty simple.

There are people who will say that Winifred Lofthouse has a right to the amenity of her home without having to put up with a yappy dog running up and barking at her. She does to the extent that the dog shouldn't be allowed to run onto the steps outside her front door. But that should have easily been solved via a cordial chat with its owner.

I've seen plenty of people react with amusement to barky little dogs running up to them and growling. They generally bend down and try to play with the dog, which usually doesn't work of course, but it does establish a rapport with its owner and then they can say what they think and be listened to. This is how normal, well balanced people handle such a situation.

There are far too many people who want to complain to their local council about dogs and have them banned from running around in any park they might occasionally walk through, under the ridiculously dishonest pretence that their safety is at risk. These people are fuckwits and should be marginalised. Their neurotic stupidity should not be allowed to ruin residents' ability to have fun with their dogs and let them run around in designated areas. There is plenty of room for everyone, including to have parts of public land where dogs cannot run off leash.

Unfortunately, councils listen to these emotionally crippled fun haters disproportionately to their numbers. This is in part because most of the people who want to work in places like the local council are lazy arse coverers, incapable of independent thought, who do not aim high in life and would not survive outside the public sector. They naturally gravitate toward rule based systems. When someone complains, their reaction is to create a rule, largely to avoid any possibility of blame coming back onto them. To combat them, they must be singled out and their personal details passed around to the people whose amenity they are unreasonably ruining. That is what such people most fear: being unable to hide behind a wall of bureaucracy and having to deal personally with the consequences of their actions.

The apparent influence of the wowsers is also due to some local councilors abusing their position to pursue personal agenda, for example their own, pathological dislike of dogs. When someone makes a complaint, these councilors cynically use it as "evidence" in support of their own agenda, despite not having been elected to pursue such a policy.

People who can’t handle dogs and bung on an act when they bark have mental problems. Normal people like being with animals. Normal children love them. If you have a problem with dogs or cats beyond just not really liking them, you are fucked in the head, in which case, you should be excluded from public office, since you cannot be trusted not to abuse it in pursuit of your personal agenda.

Afterword: If you would like to contact Winifred Lofthouse to listen to her side of the story, or simply to tell her what you think, her telephone number is (07) 4779 9499 and her taxpayer subsidized block of flats is at 3 Bent St, Mundingburra.