SeanMacGabhann

No they are not Michael as well you know Obviously you were being sarcastic but the bl... oh wait.

Gaynor - I like the invitation to try new recipes I'm no vegetarian but I can vouch for the quality of your cooking - fantastic meal I had at the Drum

I think Brendan's post should be used as a poster at ED station Not sure if it should be as a warning or a welcome tho!

A thought occurred to me this afternoon which has made me recant some of what I said on this thread earlier.. There is a very good example of a dog, known to many on here, freely wandering around a very public and very child-friendly establishment. And everyone loves him. It would indeed be a shame if he were to be more restricted - both for him and the people who enjoy his company I do maintain however that dogs can be, CAN be, intimidating to others. I don't think owners should have to justify their reasons for owning a dog but maybe they will look at nervous people with a little more understanding

Well as Karter has highlighted - they will have competition soon so lets see what happens

James I think there is a hardcore, militant group which feels that they own the tables outside. It's not a weather thing. Honestly, pass by on a sleety Nov morning and they will still be out there. I almost admire their dedication It's not right your mum got bumped tho - I mean you were only across the rd getting a card - it's not like it was a table for 1 for an hour

Well the SUN was definitely out when we went there for lunch yesterday - unusually quiet for a Sunday too what with Carters Steam Fair and the Forest Hill Day's taking place. Bliss it was I tell you Sorry to hear you aren't feeling well GG - Hope everyone has a good evening tho

And shouldn't this lounge subject be in the main forum? Being fairly ED specific

A succession of good posts there from the anti-leash half of the debate, all well argued. I hope that re-reading my posts it's clear I'm not anti-dog (as I've said I have owned several etc) but I can definitely understand others fears. I haven't generalised dog-owners (I have used the word "many" in an argument - not "all", or "most") as bad. And I'm not even pro keeping the dogs leashed ( I have a slight leaning that way in urban landscapes but not enough to impose it as law on others) There is no question that a leashed dog does not mean a well-behaved dog and with the wrong owner the dog suffers even more. And as spirit points out, anti-social behaviour extends to a whole bunch of activities ( I might even sign a keep-joggers-leashed-bill) (joke) - but a leashed dog (goes the argument) does reassure those people who have a fear of dogs. A leashed pitbull owned by a feckless owner might attack another dog but is less likely to do so to a passing human I'm not sure why the dog-owning friends of Peckham Rye would take this debate personally however - it seems fairly heart-felt. Maybe several people on here do hate dogs - perhaps they could explain why. But there is a difference between fear of the power of dogs versus hating them?

Good work Georgia Sometimes I think I get a bit too proud of this place and then a frind comes to visit, something similar happens and they spend all of Sunday raving about the place. Happened more than once And not one single place has a toilet attendant which is a big improvement on most other places in London I might add (to introduce a bugbear of mine)

So we can take our friends to flaunt

Just having a tease G

True Georgia True I would blame it on figgins being vegetarian but the I remembered you are too ;-) Come on figgins, why resurrect this hoary old topic? Having a bad day?

James - the point I made boils down to "dogs are not like other doemsticated animals. There is a reason they are not allowed to roam free" And I think you can agree on that point. But all of the wider argument stems from there. I fail to see how a human "owning" a dog and in many (very responsible, not related to bad owners) cases keeping same dog indoors all day while at work equates to the same concern about the animals "freedom". Again no other animal appears to attract the same levels of emotion What I'm saying is I can understand why people might want to see dogs restricted. I am not about to sign a petition FOR the introduction of a leash anymore than I am against the introduction. But the discussion has happened so I'm trying to present my thoughts on it - reading through the several posts I have made you can see that I have been a dog owner and why I don't keep dogs now. So I am not anti dog or their owners. But I would like to see a bit more from those against the restrictions than "my dog is lovely and I'm responsible with it" - both may be true but the argument is bigger and it goes back to the premise - "Dogs are just not like any other domesticated animal" But even old people afraid of hoodies know that hoodies are human beings with inherent responsibilities and must be judged by their actions - not their potential actions. Dogs are dogs and are required to have an owner because left wild they will behave in the manner that so many people worry about. Even on a leash, when taken for a walk the sudden, violent outbursts when meeting another dog does affect other people. And you might say those people need to get over themselves and a part of me agrees with that but dogs do seem to tap in to some primal fear for a lot of people

[looks for rolls eyes smiley] can't find one darn it All joking aside, this particular business has come in for particular criticism and I'm not sure why. There has been at least one other major thread about it (now lounged) so no need to ressurect any of the arguments here If you have specific "what is it with these lefties and their chip-on-shoulder about businesses etc" maybe it would be a good thread to start in the lounge

T'wasn't you Asset - it was .. someone else a couple of posts up from me Good luck with the bee-leashes by the way ;-) As debates go I think this one is being contested fairly well overall - but if we are really going to start taking advice from Swindon council I am worried (lived there for 3 years)

I've notice for all the talk of WFH and wifi access the people in question never post for the rest of the "working" day when they meet up.... ;-)

Nice spot there LadyG I have seen the film and it's very unusual to not have any commentary but some great moments For those going it's entirely possible you have already seen this but it's a good time to compare who is on and when http://glasto.clashfinder.co.uk/view.htm

Asset Oops - I'm using inflammatory language again perhaps. Sorry. But it could be argued that if we have comments like "if this law gets through I will be breaking it" then that is what is happening? Ok only one person has expressed it so blatantly but it seems to be not so far removed from the general vibe - or am I reading it wrong?

James That's a pretty tasteless and not very helpful comparison.If you mean humans (generally) cause harm to fellow humans then that is most definitely true but you don't have to limit it the socio-economic and groups you mention. Plenty of moneyed white boys cause a lot of mayhem across the land every weekend Are humans punished in the same way as the dog leash proposal? Well, preventative policies are always being introduced (be it ASBOS or changing licensing hours) Comparing dogs on a leash to humans on a leash is pretty facile however. I surely needn't explain why? I do have some sympathy with the dog owners against compulsory leashes, despite most of what I've written on here but only some. Firstly, enough people have expressed their own fear of dogs and have been fairly briskly dismissed by dog-owners. Why do you think there is such a discrepancy? Dogs are dogs. They are (fairly uniquely amongst domestically owned pets) not allowed to roam freely without an owner for a very good reason. Which you can surely agree with. Given that, is it such a leap to take into account why people have such a reaction? I would describe the leases as a restriction rather than a punishment. Not ideal but given a wider context (other people, other cities experiences etc) understandable. New Yorkers appear to be able to live with the restrictions there (its notable that by accepting restricted hours while still convinced they are more free than other world cities there is tacit acceptance of the issue) http://www.nypost.com/seven/05112007/news/regionalnews/big_apple_parks_going_to_the_dogs_regionalnews_heidi_singer.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3442659.stm

I've held back on the whole logo debate as these things can often take time to sink in - and an astonishing bandwagon formed to condemn it which made me think it might be ok after all Given the context (ie the logo design only - forget about the politics and debate about the wider Olympian ideals) I think it's alright. The fact that it has been so adaptable to so many who claim to despise it and can tailor it accordingly suggests that from a design perspective it's pretty neat The other thing in it's favour is any comparison with other Olympic logos - most of them are pretty hideous. The Sydney one in particular is still poor after all this time There was a 2 page pull out in the Guardian of all of the past logos which I can't find online but the official IOC page shows some horrors The "original" London logo which everyone claims to prefer looks very.... bland and dull . IMO

By your name luke I think we can guess which side you are on.. ;-) May the force be with you

I suspect that was just an accident re: the amp directing some speakers from a TV source.. probably. My guess

I think the quote from the RSPCA near the end of this article says plenty http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4674685.stm

Im not bothered about the confusion. My night . . . No my week has been made. . . thanks dm