THE LAST STRAW/Frank McNally: Still on the subject of confusing signs, I was jogging in my local park the other day when I noticed one that reads: "Owners responsible for removal of dog litter". I use this park frequently, and it does get a lot of dogs. But I can honestly say I've never seen one having pups in it; although surely, if it happened, no owner would be heartless enough to leave the litter behind.
Of course, it could be that the sign is a euphemistic reference to a function dogs perform in the park, and which seems to be the main reason why their owners bring them there. Indeed, if we have to speak in euphemisums, most of these dogs are litter-louts, depositing enormous "fast food wrappers" everywhere. And I have yet to see an owner remove any of it.
Sometimes I witness a dog in the very act of committing an offence under Section 22 (1) of the Litter Pollution Act, 1997. A person will usually be standing nearby pretending not to be the owner, despite evidence that often includes a lead connecting him to the offender. Far from removing the litter, the owner will remove himself and the dog before you can say "pooper- scooper". Under the flawed system currently operating, the deposit is instead removed, in instalments, by the shoes of passersby.
I know this is only a minority of pet-owners and, in fairness, I should say that many of the dogs in our area prefer to crap on public footpaths, where they can. Also, it must be said that as a witness to a Section 22 offence, it is open to me to make a citizen's arrest, or at least file a complaint - it's just that the prospect of having to produce the evidence in court is a big deterrent.
The spectre was raised in a letter to this paper recently, when Mairin Quill complained about the dismissal of cases against motorists who threw cigarette butts out car windows. The judge's objection was that the litter wardens failed to produce the offending butts (an unfortunate echo of the problem under discussion) in court. Ms Quill wondered if similar proof would now be demanded in other cases, including dog fouling. "Will a judge in future require DNA testing to verify the ownership of specimens?" she asked.
This is a disturbing thought, when you consider that even identifying the dog could be problematic. You may remember the case reported in March of a failed attempt by a garda to organise a canine identity parade after an incident in which a Jack Russell terrier was accused of an attack, but an innocent third party - another Jack Russell - also fell under suspicion.
In a Section 22 case, the party pooping (as it were) could similarly evade identification. Prosecution could be further confused by certain dogs being exempt, including dogs on official Garda or Customs duty (these can apparently litter with impunity, presumably on the grounds that it may be part of their cover). The whole area is a legal minefield, clearly, every bit as tricky as the one I pick my way through when jogging.
On foot of last week's column, Alan Kelly from UCC e-mailed the results of a detailed analysis aimed at explaining the comma in the Fine Gael election slogan: "Vision, with purpose". Quoting respected grammatical authorities, he advances seven possible justifications, before concluding that none of them applies. "The vision may have a purpose," he writes, "but the comma certainly does not."
I can't dispute such scholarship. But on closer inspection, I believe the Fine Gael comma is in fact a redundant apostrophe which has been retrained in line with the party commitment on social policy and given temporary work in the campaign. If so, this is praiseworthy. Redundant apostrophe's are a public nuisance and anything that get's them off our street's is welcome.
On the subject of another column, Jeanette Huber, also from Cork but American by birth, writes that, despite living in Ireland for 10 years, she noticed "Fir" and "Mna" on a set of toilet doors for the first time recently, while visiting a restaurant. There were no other clues, so she opted for "Fir," reasoning that, and I quote: "surely 'Mna' must mean 'men'?".
There is an undeniable logic to this, especially if you do a lot of cryptic crosswords. But I suppose the use of Fir and Mna is this context - they were probably the only Irish words in the restaurant - is yet more evidence of our fondness for euphemism. Yes, it may cause confusion. But like the sign in my local park, it's part of the price of polite society.