76

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. Pzz>> well , generally, do not prevent. Without them the garbage  is no place. N> 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. That nobody  at an entrance, at each entrance at the expense of tenants should be equipped a free public toilet. Obviously

77

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Kerk, you wrote: N>> 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. K> that nobody  at an entrance, at each entrance at the expense of tenants should be equipped a free public toilet. Obviously And in that place where to someone was impatient, for a corner not to come.

78

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> But only the yard keeper does not select  a shit. It of that on it there are no watching, retaliatory and supervising devices.

79

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: SK> the Dog shit does not decay and accordingly is not returned in a ground turn as fertilizers = ecologically dangerous substances. From what they would not decay?

80

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, SabaiSabai, you wrote: SS> Well not cameras everywhere to put because of dog lovers. Your what sentence will be on training of dog lovers? Cameras, just, the normal decision. At first, them already start to put even on   (Peter) - on inputs in entrances. Since  normally hang out groups and it is close, the review should be norms. (I hope.) Secondly, cameras and are very useful to other cases.

81

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, the Laid-back person, you wrote: SK>> the Dog shit does not decay and accordingly is not returned in a ground turn as fertilizers = ecologically dangerous substances. From what they would not decay? Observe the dog shit on a lawn couple of months. Digestion at dogs so is arranged that the dog shit dries up and is scattered in a powder not participating in biological circulation.

82

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Dead Down, you wrote: > I always against any penalties. > 1) low efficiency > 2) for economy it solves nothing,  from air, is simple an overflowing from one pocket in another That I look as dates and Poles brought up, and there penalties in euro and not 20, but 300 and above.

83

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, pugv, you wrote: Pzz>> In an ideal - to hang up boxes with free public packets on these purposes as it do in some European cities. P> here it is valid for copeck hang. Really a problem really only in  a bag? I do not know. But if is public free there is no problem "forgot houses a bag".

84

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, SabaiSabai, you wrote: SS> 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. And for whose account pedestrian crossings do, if such abrupt pepper how we with you, everywhere go by the machine, and pedestrian crossings are not necessary to us? For the general, naturally. In a city conveniences to different people should be provided.

85

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> I do not know. But if is public free there is no problem "forgot houses a bag". Free there is only a star sky. All remaining costs money.

86

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> And for whose account pedestrian crossings do, if such abrupt pepper how we with you, everywhere go by the machine, and pedestrian crossings are not necessary to us? And you never-never set foot on land? Pzz> for the general, naturally. In a city conveniences to different people should be provided. So let's beer distribute free of charge - same conveniently.

87

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Kerk, you wrote: K> That nobody  at an entrance, at each entrance at the expense of tenants should be equipped a free public toilet. It is difficult to obviously You to suppose a piece of paper in a pocket, it is necessary to throw on a floor?

88

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: SK> the Dog shit does not decay Something is feeblly trusted.

89

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, galeta, you wrote: G> So let's beer distribute free of charge - same conveniently. The Russian legislation forbids to distribute alcoholic drinks free of charge. And the sentence of nonalcoholic beer is offensive.

90

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, galeta, you wrote: K>> That nobody  at an entrance, at each entrance at the expense of tenants should be equipped a free public toilet. Obviously G> it is difficult to You to suppose a piece of paper in a pocket, it is necessary to throw on a floor? At you the sarcasm detector broke.

91

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Kerk, you wrote: K> That nobody  at an entrance, at each entrance at the expense of tenants should be equipped a free public toilet. Obviously By the way, it would be quite good. Not mandatory so it is frequent, the toilet on a court yard would suffice.

92

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

SK> If a heap  harm small that KoAP: SK> SK> KoAP of the Russian Federation Chapter 6. The administrative offenses encroaching on health, sanitary-and-epidemiologic well-being of the population and public morals SK> If a heap  harm big that : SK> SK> the criminal code of Russian Federation. Chapter 25. Article 236. SK> the criminal code of Russian Federation. Chapter 26. Ecological crimes. SK> 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. All so for ears is attracted that is already thick! How will prove essential harm to health? All these laws absolutely about another, and any relation to a shit have no. Here when appropriate to a shit a class of danger of substances, install maximum concentration limit, and measurement methods then we will speak, and now they it is not more dangerous  some water it agree the law. Your imaginations it only your imaginations. SK> SK> the criminal code of Russian Federation. Article 245. Cruel treatment of animals SK> By the way, concepts of the correct reversal with animals too is described in specifications. This article only about causing to an animal of a pain. Anything there about cleaning of a shit is not present. In general cease to stretch an owl on the globe.

93

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

R3> Cameras, just, the normal decision. R3> At first, them already start to put even on   (Peter) - on inputs in entrances. Since  normally hang out groups and it is close, the review should be norms. (I hope.) R3> Secondly, cameras and are very useful to other cases. Cameras here do not help, unlike cars, in public and dogs while there are no slip numbers. The video record can be only the indirect demonstration. As they say "on video the person similar to the general public prosecutor".

94

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

SS> Well not cameras everywhere to put because of dog lovers. Your what sentence will be on training of dog lovers? The efficient sentence was about education and increase of culture of a society. Social advertizing there and so on. Here for it I all hands for. Punishment should be finite, but at the same time should be and possibility. The dog platforms do not cost much, it is simple  territory with a grass. Both on a platform and out of it it is necessary to remove certainly behind itself, but on a platform for this condition to create easier if there will be available at least 1 urn and a scoop with a rake. Yes even urns it is not necessary, in a corner it is enough hole. Dog lovers generally collective beings, they too do not like to walk on a singleton. They need simply a place where they can  while their dogs engaged in by the affairs.

95

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: SS>> Well not cameras everywhere to put because of dog lovers. Your what sentence will be on training of dog lovers? A> the efficient sentence was about education and increase of culture of a society. Social advertizing there and so on. Here for it I all hands for. Punishment should be finite, but at the same time should be and possibility. The dog platforms do not cost much, it is simple  territory with a grass. The Earth in a city costs much.

96

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> the Russian legislation forbids to distribute alcoholic drinks free of charge. Yes well Buy and distribute. But only full age and  without creating favorable conditions for the use in a public place.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

97

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: SK>> 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> All so for ears is attracted that is already thick! How will prove essential harm to health? All these laws absolutely about another, and any relation to a shit have no. And I and knew that at you it does not turn out to find, read and understand SanPiNy... A> Here when appropriate to a shit a class of danger of substances, install maximum concentration limit, the Third class A> and measurement methods, GOST are. A> then we will speak, and now they it is not more dangerous  some water it agree the law. The law of what country? SK>> by the way, concepts of the correct reversal with animals too it is described in specifications. A> this article only about causing to an animal of a pain. Anything there about cleaning of a shit is not present. Wind off hardly above, it is the comment on quite specific YOUR remark in which about cleaning anything is not present. A> in general cease to stretch an owl on the globe. I can not stop. It is pleasant to the globe.

98

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: A> Cameras here do not help, unlike cars, in public and dogs while there are no slip numbers. The video record can be only the indirect demonstration. As they say "on video the person similar to the general public prosecutor". When the person is visible and enter into an entrance in which you live - how difficultly not to accept such proofs.

99

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

K> the Earth in a city costs much. Therefore it is necessary to build up it all with houses and shops? I basically do not like the approach to population multiplexing. From it one , parkings do not suffice, the place does not suffice, proprietors it is a lot of and all to spit on the collective property. To solve anything plainly it is impossible, go try collect signatures and money on what  about 200 condominiums. That and  the dog shit grows in general from here. It is More to people in one place-> than more dogs-> less place for -> above .

100

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

R3> When the person is visible and enter into an entrance in which you live - how difficultly not to accept such proofs. Do not accept. In the first an entrance it strongly special case, dogs  anywhere. And in one  there can live outwardly identical people with dogs of one breed. And as a result the person can resemble, passed by with a similar dog, and you sat at this time houses.