first mate

So that is that. Major changes effected with only the appearance of consultation, a seemingly corrupt process and our elected Councillors using that process as the reason why they cannot intervene on our behalf. We see the same approach in regard to introduction of 'free' parking (in reality the roll out of restricted parking) and 20mph. All foisted upon us, genuine objections ignored, inadequate consultation, Councillors use forum to give appearance of supporting local voters but always seem to fail at last hour, citing process.

My view is that Councillors representing us wanted this to go through but did not feel it politic to be upfront about it so used the getout of appearing sympathetic to local concerns while stating the process ties their hands. I remember the same tactic being used for the M&S debacle. What hope if those we voted in to fight our corner actually pursue a different agenda and one we are not necessarily aware of.

Errol, please do tell more.

Mockingbird, have you ever heard the term 'playing both ends against the middle'? It feels like we do not have a person who can represent and push very real local concerns.

James, you are the expert and have far more knowledge of the process than I. I have a hunch that you support the decision too. It is just that there seems to be a disjuncture between use of process to reach the 'valid' decision desired by councillors (for whatever reasons) and local feeling/objections. Who was it said that 'process is the politican's friend'.

james, will you and Rosie Shimmell be calling in the Townley Road decision?

Perhaps it needs an email to Mark Williams saying that many would like this called in, so can he tell us what to do? Is James Barber allowed to steer or is he now too busy with the national campaign? From what you say it does sound as though he could ask for it to be called in. If he doesn't I'd want to know why? Ditto for Rosie Shimmell. In short have they listened to local opposition. And are they representing us? I am now thinking that transparency of council process and consultation should be at the top of the next agenda for the next council elections.

James Barber will know.

Monkey, I'm afraid to say that this is driven by an anti-car agenda, just another way to force people onto bikes or buses. The irony is that, as ever, this will penalise poorer members of the community, as you say, those who do not have a front garden to convert into parking, or cannot afford to do so. Parking is also incrementally and quite deliberately being squeezed by schemes like one hour free parking where large swathes of unrestricted parking is converted to restricted, in the guise of doing us all a favour. 20 mph on A roads and bonkers schemes, like the "no right turn" on Townley, place further pressure on drivers and are meant to support cyclists. The final irony is the effect mass conversion to dropped kerbs might have on the environment...all that creation of hard standing is not great.

No you are not being cynical, the Labour Council have simply decided to go ahead against the wishes of the local electorate and they have used every trick in the book. Essentially, they know best. Building call-in around a holiday period shows the level of contempt Mark Williams has for those objecting.

I wonder how much notice the various surgeries get about inspection?

Tessmo that phrase should be remembered and used: "Southwark Labour, the Council that refuses to listen"

@Woodwarde, Well done to you. How can one possibly trust the process or those operating it, when these kinds of shenanigans come to light.

Isn't meddling with records in such a way corruption? Did you take a screenshot of the old report?

Yes, time to be optomostic but there is a little game that developers and planning seem to play where a couple of applications are refused, as few tweaks are made and we get to the point where planning say they dare not refuse since if the case is won at appeal they will have to foot the legal bills. This seems to be the way developers work the system time and time again.

PeckhamRose, Great post and this is why Southwark's badly planned and purely political initiative is so scandalous, it appears to be decreasing safety, not, as they suggest, making the roads more safe. If you are going to introduce 20mph you have to have the means to enforce it. The fact that the police rejected it as a stupid idea and one that would confuse motorists speaks vloumes about the competence of this Council.

DaveR, You are correct and this is where dog owners need to be a bit more aware. Of course, any case that goes before a court will be judged on its merits but the letter of the law emphasises the issue of perception- apprehension that you are about to be attacked is not the same as being attacked.

Salsaboy, Yup I have observed the same. This makes whatever money has been thrown at the initiative pretty scandalous.

A purely political decision in the run up to the election and before the option for available money runs out. Council elections are some years off, but councillors know how local effects can impact on national voting. This lot want to say, 'look how marvellous we have made everywhere safer'. If this were true then great, but poor planning and the speed with which this initiative has been pushed through without proper consultation, means that, as you rightly perceive, it has created a degree of chaos and arguably reduced safety. Why for instance did councillors simply override the police who objected to 20mph on main roads? I too have cars flashing lights, tailgating and overtaking at high speed to make a point, so much so that it takes a great effort of will to maintain 20mph and not to be intimated into driving faster.

As you may now know, this is part of Southwark's grand vision for borough-wide 20mph, only it is not to be enforced and the police objected to it. Currently it is voluntary, though in law it is binding....go figure. The reality is it has created confusion and more chaotic driving. It will require a shitload of money on cameras etc to enforce it.

It is interesting how Southwark can use support for schemes from those outside the affected areas when it suits them. Yet on the 'free parking' consultation only those within 50 m of the affected area could be counted. What a slippery lot they are down at Tooley St.

We are lucky to have a number of good puppy training classes locally. South Eastern Dog Training is the longest established and is Kennel Club accredited, they offer training at all levels. For anyone who wants behaviour work go to someone qualified. The professional body for uk canine behaviourists is a good place to start at www.tcbts.co.uk

I would try to see a qualified behaviourist or trainer. For dog specialists go to www.tcbts.co.uk

I think they are actually often not aware of changes in the law. As you say, there might be grounds to make a case. The DDA has been tightened up and there us also civil law.You could also get a CPN (Community Protection Notice) out on the owner. This was made law in 2014 and both the parks and police should know this and they should have advised you. Re a CPN your case is exactly what this was designed to tackle. The Council and the police need to get their act together.

I'd advise that your daughter does not walk your dog on her own, certainly for a while and don't walk her near where she was attacked. You want to reduce any associations with tbe experience of being attacked as much as possible, this will aid the dog recovering mentally. Stay very upbeat and jolly with her. Try not to feel sorry for her, she needs to feel she is safe and a calm, upbeat manner will help her most.