January 2006

[Sweder]

Hmm, not sure if this will help or add fuel but . . .

First up, the two stories were un connected, and equally open to comment or not as people see fit. I write what I think about whilst running, and I choose to put it in the public domain aware that everyone has the right to express opinion - in fact I'm flattered that people a) read the stuff and b) write about it. Galconman's pain at a time of what should have been great joy for him in Bombay touched me and sparked a train of thought and emotion during my plod, hence the story about my Dad.

I didn't consider reactions or non-reactions when I wrote it down - it's just a true reflection and, coincidentally (more proof of the power of running) the first time I have ever written anything anywhere about my Father. I'm so glad that I did - I can go back and visit this whenever I want/ need to.

It's like so many of Nigel's wonderful posts; there's not always a lot to say. It may have been unfair to 'share' close personal feelings on a public forum; but it was what was in my head on that run, so in it went. Sorry if it made anyone uncomfortable, but for the record I'm not. Perhaps the immediate follow-up with a story about canine deffecation was a little misguided, but there you are again; it was just something I remembered on the next run, so again in it went. If I'm honest I also felt the 'mood' might be a little heavy after the 'Dad' post; the dog story was intended as a little light relief (no pun intended).

I agree with you on the Hooligan/ Embarrassment juxtaposition, Andy; it's a paradox that's hard to understand outside of our shores. MLCMan's observations reflect that, and he makes several very fair points. He also alludes to our (my) irrational relationship with pets, and in particular, dogs. In Australia there really aren't these conflicts in rural life thanks to the vast landscapes. Sheep farms and dog-walkers have little reason to share proximity; here in the UK, and especially in the cramped south-east, accessible land is at a premium, and sadly worlds collide all too often.

I know (and happily accept) I need to keep my dogs tethered when there's sheep about. The council have granted farmers the right to graze livestock on 'public' (common) land, and I'm all for that; it helps to maintain the landscape and is another excellent reason to keep greedy developers away. I have dogs that love/ need to run, so I take it upon myself to police them as best I can in this environment.

It's the bloody bleeding race horses and their 'we own the whole countryside so sod you plebs, clear orf' owners and riders that get my, er, goat. Why choose to ride these beasts flat out on open (public) downland when you have miles of gallops fenced off for your own private use on the adjacent slopes? Of course the ramblers vehemently object to these gallops, and frequently take to cutting the wire fences to prove their point. So the ramblers hate the horse-owners, the horse-owners hate the ramblers and the dog owners, the runners and cyclists seem to get on with most people and the sheep go 'Baa'. I think the sheep have it about right.

I accept MLCMan's observations in the spirit in which they were made. In fact, to be fair to my antipodean friend, he made a pretty warm and asstute observation on the other story, too. Sweder Brew - what a lovely thought
By the way, I know a few Kiwis and they are Adam Ant that it's the Aussies who have the close relationship to their sheep