first mate

I am shocked and appalled that the man involved did not do the decent thing and not only help your daughter but ensure he paid your vet bills. His actions are highly irresponsible and he must be found for the simple reason that having done this once his dogs may well do it again. We will all keep an eye out for the man and dogs matching your description. Should you wish, contrary to what the police say, you may have some recourse in the law but it may not be easy or straightforward. Unfortunately two or more dogs can sometimes 'pack' and turn on another dog. Even normally placid dogs may, in a duo or group,turn quite nasty There could be many reasons for this type of behaviour but what is clear is that the owner needs to have his dogs under close control (on a lead) around other dogs in future. I hope your girl is healing well. Generally labs are pretty resilient and provided you stay confident she will hopefully mark the experience down as an odd one off. If she starts to to seem anxious around other dogs I'd suggest you see someone.

Only just realised that the proposed burial plots would be up for sale to anyone anywhere. So again, a revenue garnering exercise and another example of major change with minimum consultation.

The whole thing appears to be a ness. Labour will soon, come election time, be trumpeting that they have made a safer borough for all by imposition of 20mph, but the reality is different; what actually happens is that a minority try to adhere to it while the majority ignore it. Those that ignore it are inclined to get angry and frustrated if they are stuck behind someone adhering to the limit. There seems to be an increase in overtaking in a reckless way. The police won't monitor or enforce 20mph, they opposed 20mph on main roads, so the council will have to spend loads of money on cameras at some point. We have to decide if this is money well spent.

In my view, Southwark Planning are not fit for purpose. I wholeheartedly agree, both planners and councillors appear to be the developers' creatures and terrified to take a proper stand against developments that have nothing to offer local communities and do everything to help line the pockets of developers and investment buyers.

Very best of luck to you. Your poor relative must feel very anxious. Could you just tell us which three MP's you contacted, which of these bothered to answer and what they advised? It will, of course, be clear which two did not bother. This is precisely the sort of 'unsexy' issue that will show politicians in their true colours and is useful to have on the record. I hope you have also reported what sounds like a truly disgusting attitude from a council employee.

Hi james, On the one hour parking thread you will note that a long reply from the Council was posted by Woodwarde in repsonse to questions about the efficacy of this scheme and the validity of the consultattion process. Based on the Council's rationale another poster noted the following: This is the key part that explains the 'logic' behind the proposition that "more parking restrictions increases parking opportunity". If true then it would require that the cars that are currently parked on unrestricted roads are generally there all day - wonder if there has been any analysis of this? >>However, with the introduction of a time limit, this would increase the minimum number of parking slots per day from 17 to 100 (10 spaces x 10 hrs of operation).>This is necessary to ensure turn-over of space throughout the day. If those bays operated for just two hours per day you would find that the bays were fully occupied during the uncontrolled hours, which would prevent customers for stopping and parking close by. << Can you say if this sort of analysis was done? Can you comment on the above? Can you also comment on whether the new 10 minute grace period for parking, will apply to these newly created free parking slots? Do we know if part of the new scheme is to fund extra monitoring by putting more parking wardens onto the streets? If so, how much money will be spent on this?

James Barber, charlie Smith, Rosie shimell, Can you tell us if in the course of planning/consultation this kind of analysis has been done?

I had another journey yesterday where many drivers overtook me at great speed and in a reckless manner. Unless the council spend a load of money on enforcement( which they will not want to do) the universal application of 20mph is in reality a farce and one that makes certain roads less safe. I agree with what others have written about this being election box ticking, if it is not to be stringently enforced it simply creates confusion and frustration on a grand scale. Even the buses, especially the buses, are ignoring it.

Good post slarti b

How long does the dog bark for every night?

Proof, if proof were needed, that a range of major changes are being rushed through with only the appearance of consultation.

Agree about the issue of parents also have to be more aware of how kiddies treat dogs. Running towards a cute puppy, shrieking at eye level, arms outstretched in predatory fashion, is in some pups likely to instil a lifelong fear oif children, so it does work both ways. I always ask children to stand sideways to my dog and to pet the chest or back and avoid the head, which is a socially sensitive area. Standing head on can look challenging. I also think that society is much less animal-wise than it was, and kids even less so- all that knowledge is disappearing. More and more people wnat pets but have much less idea how to deal with them. Additionally dog breeds that are wholly unsuitable for an urban environment, unless in expert owner hands, are being kept. Working breeds often do not have appropriate outlets for instinctive drives, and this leads to overly rambunctious beahviour in park settings.

Just to clarify. Case 1 involved dogs that bounded up to a child walking back from school- one dog was much larger than the child. One dog vigorously investigated the child's bag- presumably after food. Pushy, bad dog manners = more training necessary. Case 2 Lively dogs on two separate occasions walked up to young child holding her teddy (not waving it around), took the teddy from the child and ran off. The child was, we are told, terrified and upset. Whether this was the manner in which the dogs took the teddy or that the toddler was frightened for his/her teddy's fate, is not clear. Either way, dogs need more training. With the right approach either child should be okay about dogs in future. Children often respond very well when they see that they can get a dog to sit, or similar, under command (obviously under parental and dog owner supervision. It just seems to help restore the child's confidence. I stand by my earlier comment. It is no longer a case of how we would like things to be, the law is pretty clear. A dog does not have to actually bite or nip someone to be in breach of the DDA, accidental injury is enough where a dog is deemed to be out of control- a dog impervious to owner command may be viewed as out of control. Whether trauma counts as injury is moot, but I would not be surprised if it surfaces at some point. There is also civil law with a lower standard of proof, so dog owners really need to wake up and smell the coffee.

rahrahrah, exactly. Let's be clear, young dogs, just like young children, are going to have moments when they go off piste and test the boundaries. If I were the owner of the rottweiler and this was the very first time ever it had bounded up to a child I would thenceforth, apologise to the parent, get the dog on a longline and do intensive training, until such time I could be pretty confident the dog would not do this again. All this is normal dog behaviour and, as ever, I blame the owners for being absent in the moment and not taking training seriously. That said mistakes do happen and we cannot create a risk free world. On the other hand, if the dog had already behaved like this and was still being given unfettered freedom to bound up to people and children, then the owner deserves a real ticking off for potentially scaring a child and parent, but also for putting his/her own dog in harm's way. Otta, just seen your post and I do agree but times have changed and, let's be honest, people are not so canny about animals in general. In days of old you'd often see pictures of a terrier hanging off someone's trouser leg (that's just the way terriers are)and it was brushed off. If a child got bitten for standing on a dog's tail, the child learned the hard way not to do that again. Today, either of these two incidents could get a dog put down as vicious. My concern is with the reality of the law and what can/could be done with it should people decide to. Because I don't wnat to see swathes of normal dogs put down or kept on a lead all their lives, I urge owners to be realistic and train and supervise properly.

I would just repeat that, whether we like it or not, the law now provides the means for recourse where someone considers themselves to be unreasonably frigtened by a dog that is not under control. A dog that is off lead and that goes up to a child, unbidden, and 'snatches' a toy out of that child's hand is not under control. A large dog might be very intimdating to a small child. A snatchy dog, in a state of high arousal, can quite easily and unintentionally graze a small child with its teeth or claws. I do not want to see dogs banned from parks or orders requiring them to be on lead all the time in public parks, but if people continue to be so laissez faire around dog control those that want dogs out of parks will have a good case. In this instance, the second woman said the dogs were not just offlead they 'snatched' a toy out of her child's hand. If this happens in your own home it is still highly undesirable but only impacts on the owner- in this case the child and mother were simply out an about minding their own business. Were another strange child to march up and snatch a toy I am sure it would be viewed as undesirable and efforts would be made to ensure this was not repeated. Equally many dogs would not be at all amused if a strange dog approached and attempted to grab their toy. I do agree that parents staying calm will help the child not to develop a generalised fear of all dogs. I do despair of children that scream and cry as an on lead dog approaches on the street and they are comforted and shepherded by obviously, highly anxious parents, who probably do not help their child's anxiety. If I see this anxiety at distance and I am walking my dog I try to cross the road to give the child space, but perhaps parents with anxious children might also consider doing the same, occasionally.

J9duff, What part of the park were you in when thus happened? I agree with everything you say and would observe that dogs are allowed to run free on the open, field areas and should, in my view, be kept on lead on the path areas and in ornamental gardens. I think a problem might arise when you have toddlers and dogs in the field areas. My view is that young, untrained dogs should be exercised on a long line. I'd imagine that parents are close to their toddler at all times. If they see a dog running towards their child they could, if the dog is on a line, get it under control. This would likely calm the child as well as the dog. I can quite understand that the incident is scary for the child and I too wish dog owners were a little more aware. Use of park space means we all have to exercise give and take much more and we cannot expect to enjoy the same freedoms that larger spaces might afford. All I can say is that a sense if humour may help the child to understand that the dog is trying to play, though in an inappropriate way...i say this only to try to avoid any child viewing all dogs as terrifying and I do think parent reaction and attitude plays a part there, though this in no way excuses the actions under discussion. Actually I've just re-read your post and if, as you say, the dogs marched up to your toddler and snatched the toy from her hand I would be very annoyed. Dogs that snatch objects or food from human hands need to be kept under close control until they have learned their manners. One good reason is that it is not inconceivable that a snatchy dog could accidently hurt a child by, grazing the skin.

The owners should have their dogs under better control and not allow them so much freedom if they cannot control them. As a dog lover I hate to say this but technically a 'friendly' dog that 'playfully' jumped up and in the process accidentally injured a child, might be deemed in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act. I think dog owners really need to be a bit more aware on this score. The issue of whether a parent would press charges if they deemed their child injured by virtue of trauma is moot, but it may only be a matter of time. it would be a shame if your child were to become frightened of dogs. I find collaring the owner and then asking if your child can tell the dog to sit on command ,or similar,can help the child get over a bit of their fright.

James, I was wondering if there was any more news on this consultation?

It is amazing how all these little technical hitches surface just as a consultation is closing. I wonder do our local councillors support demolition if these cottages to make way for yet more overdevelopment? I'd love to hear from, Barber, Smith and, Shimell, do they support demolition or not?

James, yes great if the limit is adhered to but so much evidence it is. Go for a spin up Sydenham Hill, early or late, and see for yourself how safe and relaxing it feels to stick to 20 mph.

I have to say that my experience is the exact opposite where the behaviour of other drivers is concerned. I would say more people are overtaking in a reckless manner. This applies to the section nearing the Horniman, up Sydenham Hill and onwards. Many drivers getting frustrated, tooting and overtaking at speed. Note that few commercial vehicles, including buses, are adhering to 20mph.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate, you don't seem to have read James B's > post fully. He outlined there that London cannot > cope with as much motor traffic as its population > grows. Etcetera! > > So we need to focus on pedestrians, cycling and > public transport. So the council is being > realistic - one could argue. > > So it isn't a question of CHOICE, first mate. > Can't you see that? > > It will be futile and short sighted to try to > blame political parties for actually planning for > the future rather than just carrying on as if we > can live this way forever. Which is clearly > unsustainable. But TG this is not planning, it is pushing through an agenda without fair dialogue with the community it affects. There are major questions about the efficacy of proposed changes to TR junction let alone all the other proposals. The rationale for each is also presented in a very slippery way, for instance changes to unrestricted parking are presented as " creation of free parking, helping local shops" . This is utterly disingenuous. If the underpinning thinking is that this is all about making us a slimmer,leaner and healthier borough then let it be stated that way and cut out all the other BS. BTW if the current incumbents of Southwark Council are so very concerned about the burgeoning population then how on earth do you explain the Heygate scandal, where council housing and land has been sold off to developers to fashion property for overseas investment buyers? Still, I digress. I am not a great car user. I walk and cycle. but I want to be consulted in major changes around me nit simply told. all of these changes are being made with unseemly haste and it does smack of manifesto box ticking for election time. The irony is I think it could backfire, bigtime.

James, While I may agree that it would be great if more people could get on their bikes, this should be a matter of choice. It feels as though the decision making is being done for us, with an illusion of consultation. The forced changes to hitherto unrestricted parking and to various junctions, are making a lot of people very angry and I am not convinced that the Lib Dems object in any real way to these changes. As others have said, this high-handed approach will not be forgotten come election time.

I do not think you are being paranoid. There appears to be a deliberate agenda throughout ED and surrounding areas to make changes that place ever greater pressures on traffic flow and parking- both Labour and Lib Dems would like to see a massive reduction in cars and everyone out on bikes and they will use fair means or foul to achieve that. The sudden appearance of yellow lines everywhere, the imposition of restricted parking where there was none before and odd experimental junction changes, like Townley, all seem to point to one thing. Changes are also being made to Northcross Road and every time you ask why a different explanation is given ranging from 'safety' to making the junction 'nicer and more appealing for users'. What is not apparent is the evidence to support the need for all these exepnsive changes. I don't know where the Tories are on this. It seems though that no councillor of any party is prepared to stick their necks out on the issues above, we are simply being told what will happen. The process of consulation seems dodgy on a variety of issues and, in my view, is merely window dressing to meet certain statutory requirements.

Well there remains the question, as you say, of them seriously and legitimately considering all objections. If the method is flawed and inadequate how can that be done? You said you agreed the consultation for this was not fit for purpose. Those in charge have thus far resisted this notion. In the name of democracy I would have thought this issue alone would be worth a bit more fight...perhaps not lying down in the road but more than simply meeting the terms of your job contract.