51

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: In another way, the person also cannot - will not punish will continue to do. But compensating this penalty I would not name. It is necessary to understand that the ground areas share on private and municipal/federal. The lawn entering into the ground area of my house, services UK/TSZH from means of housing service. Or it is supposed, what the penalty will be enumerated on / UK/TSZH?

52

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: A> At first create conditions for  pets! Why I should pay for another's dogs? At once I will tell - for conditions for another's children - it agree.  for monkeys and rare animals it agree. Here for dogs - it do not agree. Dogs hold for the pleasure and earnings. To pay for another's pleasure - delirium.

53

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: A> Because I have the right. There is no at you such right. Pay money - and walk then.

54

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: A> I perfectly know about that as administrative affairs are produced. Also that the innocence presumption is not applied to them. But here the innocence will prove simply therefore as proofs and testimony is all the same necessary. We do not have presumption of trust of police. The word of the policeman and a word of the citizen are equal. Than the citizen even is more equal, for if the citizen is not right, from it only the penalty and if the policeman is not right it is reprimand and up to dismissal therefore they do not like to risk. And so the police only also would do that that wrote out penalties simply so, and all ran and they proved that not camels. All is simple - if you cannot show a bag with the dog excrements - you mean did not remove for a dog. That  to avoid the penalty (at a dog a lock) - carry permanently on walk  with old excrements. It will suit the majority, as dog lovers - minority.

55

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, pagid, you wrote: P> So for this purpose watching, retaliatory and supervising device needs to be had, on one court yard costing more expensive managing on orders  which  needs to be had all. But only the yard keeper does not select  a shit.

56

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, karbofos42, you wrote: K> People will consider that for all already  and it is possible not to be exhausted at all. And unless not already so?

57

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> Idea in the following. Whether you admissible consider scale introduction in Russia compensating penalties, i.e. such, which purpose payment of elimination of harm for a society. I consider not only admissible, but also absolutely necessary. N> it is admissible, dog breeders do not remove for dogs, but to walk among excrements obviously as though not so pleasantly. It is necessary  someone who will urgently remove them that 90 % of the population did not suffer, and payment of these cleaners to produce from penalties from those whom caught behind brothel cultivation. I.e. we monthly collect statistics and: (payment of cleaners + payment of cost of catching) / number caught == to the size of the penalty. Still in addition I suggest to enter "a rule of three violations", as into the USA: did not remove for the creature three times - the dog is excepted and destroyed.

58

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: A> At first create conditions for  pets! For example at us on 100 thousand city only one platform for ! Here will be in each microdistrict on a platform then will not be  where not ! And you that, consider that the dog shit to the dog masters needs to be removed only on the dog platform? And if a dog  and  in three meters from the house?

59

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: A> registered in laws I all fulfill Duties. There is no at us a local law that that is necessary that there to remove, and penalties any are not present. At us it is impossible to walk only in territory of nurseries , the penalty of 500 roubles. If there are no local laws, it does not mean that there are no corresponding federal laws or that they [federal laws] do not operate. Under the federal law, for the postponed shit in not supposed place the penalty on the physical person from 1000 to 2500 rbl.

60

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, anonymouse2, you wrote: A> But here to fine the person for that it is is specific it did not make, I consider  and monstrous. From it carries any mutual responsibility, camp  and still the horse-radish knows than worse. It clears in people all the worst - total mutual hatred, suspiciousness, pseudo-informing. I something lost thought. Like as it was offered to fine the person that it was not tidied up for the dog. I.e., that is is specific it and made. Or you suggest to fine a dog in such cases?

61

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> And a penalty total sum such that after certain mandatory normalization of the total of assembled penalties sufficed on damage compensating. In general, technically it is difficult, to anchor penalties for small offenses to a real damage, which also to count not clearly as. And that still appears that the damage is not too great, and some provided citizens decide that it penalties are easier to pay, than a shit to select. I think, penalties should be that, that not  was to break. I still would enter an exponential scale - at the subsequent identical violation (or violation of one class) in flow of certain time the penalty doubles. An exponent - good function even if at someone money , it quickly finds that level when the person cannot go a bull further.

62

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

M> All is simple - if you cannot show a bag with the dog excrements - you mean did not remove for a dog. That  to avoid the penalty (at a dog a lock) - carry permanently on walk  with old excrements. It will suit the majority, as dog lovers - minority. The iron logic! It is necessary to prove that you did nothing! That for delirium! Carry with itself always a packet with garbage to prove that it not you it by  threw!

63

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

SK> If there are no local laws, it does not mean that there are no corresponding federal laws or that they [federal laws] do not operate. SK> under the federal law, for the postponed shit in not supposed place the penalty on the physical person from 1000 to 2500 rbl. Remind number of the federal law with the registered penalties and the list of not supposed places? As of 2017 it is googled nothing.

64

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: A> At first create conditions for  pets! For example at us on 100 thousand city only one platform for ! Yes-yes, at first invent a breed of dog which  butterflies, and then we will already not spoil. And what, so it is difficult to take with itself a bag and , to add in it  the canine friend, and to throw out in an urn? At many is both children and dogs. Really it is not opposite, what your children play there where your dogs spoiled?

65

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> Amuses as the standard claim that  that the people did not litter in the street - it is necessary  to put at every turn, and differently type excuse. Well , generally, do not prevent. Without them the garbage  is no place.

66

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: SK>> Under the federal law, for the postponed shit in not supposed place the penalty on the physical person from 1000 to 2500 rbl. A> Remind number of the federal law with the registered penalties and the list of not supposed places? As of 2017 it is googled nothing. Suddenly, it is KoAP and  and the list of places is specified in SanPiN ah.

67

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, wraithik, you wrote: W> It is necessary to do to penalties  and platforms. One penalties - a measure draconian. Platforms do not concern business, because the doggie can and not inform to a platform, and there is nothing lay down dog lovers in conditions when they with the animal for platform limits cannot quit. It is necessary, that dog lovers walked, where wanted (within limits), but  the pupils behind them selected. In an ideal - to hang up boxes with free public packets on these purposes as it do in some European cities.

68

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> Idea in the following. Whether you admissible consider scale introduction in Russia compensating penalties, i.e. such, which purpose payment of elimination of harm for a society. N> it is admissible, dog breeders do not remove for dogs, but to walk among excrements obviously as though not so pleasantly. It is necessary  someone who will urgently remove them that 90 % of the population did not suffer, and payment of these cleaners to produce from penalties from those whom caught behind brothel cultivation. I.e. we monthly collect statistics and: (payment of cleaners + payment of cost of catching) / number caught == to the size of the penalty. I suggest to mine court yard at once. As soon as the mine caught a smell  to jump out and destroy all live in radius 10. From what such confidence that only penalties  to solve a problem. It leads to that that you will read a weekly journal "new penalties" and  with yourselves the reference manual "all penalties".

69

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

SK> Suddenly, it is KoAP and  and the list of places is specified in SanPiN ah. Well so number in studio! The federal law on responsible reversal with animals still is in a development stage so the adviser plus speaks.

70

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> Idea in the following. Whether you admissible consider scale introduction in Russia compensating penalties, i.e. such, which purpose payment of elimination of harm for a society. I actually consider that in Russia it is necessary to revive a public flogging for hooliganism and vandalism.  dogs of streets to equate to vandalism.

71

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: SK>> Suddenly, it is KoAP and  and the list of places is specified in SanPiN ah. A> Well so number in studio! If a heap  harm small that KoAP:  the Russian Federation Chapter 6. The administrative offenses encroaching on health, sanitary-and-epidemiologic well-being of the population and public morals If a heap  harm big that : the criminal code of Russian Federation. Chapter 25. Article 236. The criminal code of Russian Federation. Chapter 26. Ecological crimes. The dog shit does not decay and accordingly is not returned in a ground turn as fertilizers = ecologically dangerous substances. Article 247 of the criminal code of Russian Federation." Violation of rules of reversal of ecologically dangerous substances and waste "very much approaches if to postpone a heap will be certain" these acts created threat of causing of essential harm to health of the person or environment, "more. A> the Federal law on responsible reversal with animals still is in a development stage so the adviser plus speaks.  the ROTTEN adviser. The criminal code of Russian Federation. Article 245. Cruel treatment of animals By the way, concepts of the correct reversal with animals too is described in specifications. , for normalizing noise, a smell, the content of substances in water and soil (and consequently also percent of the dog shit) itself search.

72

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> In an ideal - to hang up boxes with free public packets on these purposes as it do in some European cities. Here it is valid for copeck hang. Really a problem really only in  a bag?

73

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> It is necessary, that dog lovers walked, where wanted (within limits), but  the pupils behind them selected. In an ideal - to hang up boxes with free public packets on these purposes as it do in some European cities. For whose account we will hang up boxes and bags? And why the dog lover cannot wrap a shit in the newspaper, now free newspapers on all boxes are stuffed.

74

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: A> the Iron logic! It is necessary to prove that you did nothing! That for delirium! Carry with itself always a packet with garbage to prove that it not you it by  threw! Well not cameras everywhere to put because of dog lovers. Your what sentence will be on training of dog lovers?

75

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: N>> Amuses as the standard claim that  that the people did not litter in the street - it is necessary  to put at every turn, and differently type excuse. Pzz> well , generally, do not prevent. Without them the garbage  is no place. Absolutely suddenly, if garbage there is no place to throw out, it simply does not need to be thrown out you Carry with yourself, yet you will not find where it is possible to throw legally.