first mate

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keeping a dog in the city is generally antisocial That's a bit OTT. Many would argue the opposite. As ever, the minority that don't pick up are a pain for the rest of us, including the dog owners, not forgetting it was a dog owner that started this thread.

Lane lover, Sue has already stated that she is very familiar with the noises foxes make through the seasons. She noted that the noises that alarmed her were different to the usual sounds foxes make- many of us have heard the blood curdling shrieks made by mating foxes and foxes fighting over territory. Sue was very clear that the noises that prompted this thread were different. I hope that the securing of the lost cat was the cause and that the noise has now stopped.

LD, I note in that last link that it is stated that Harris have 'exempt charity' status where they are not required to submit accounts to the Charity Commission- so who does have oversight? Must say that the article and comments from disgruntled staff makes rather worrying reading.

Back in November someone on the forum was contacted by one of the co-owners who promised to rectify problems and who blamed everything on the ex practice manager. Weeks down the line it seems as though his promises were empty words. What stood out for me was the co-owners comment that he owned many other GP surgeries, perhaps there is a clue there. I doubt that care is the primary consideration for the owners. Like Melbourne Grove surgery, it sounds like this surgery has fallen foul of the doctor turned big businessman. Each surgery has to be run carefully and of course the pennies have to be watched but there is a fine balance between proper care and running the business side. Where a doctor starts owning multiple practices I just cannot believe that patient care is still the primary concern. Everyone keeps mentioning the Gardens. I think I am right in saying that the partners do not own loads of other surgeries and that might be why they still offer the service one would expect from a community practice. The same problem is happening in care homes which, increasingly, are multiply owned by care moguls-are those guys truly interested in the care of their clients? Of course not- profit is what matters.

James, thank you.

James, can you help with the problem of junk mail and those that deliver it? On many occasions now I have arrived home to find the letter box stuck open with mail protruding. Aside from losing expensive heat from the house this is also like an invitation to any dodgy characters, advertising that the occupants are out. Any ideas how those who deliver unsolicited mail can be persuaded or even compelled to push it all the way through through the letter box?

Don't forget the Right to Light legilstion.Itmay or may not be relevant here, but if there is no pre-existing boundary structure of significant height then building one that is substantially higher and adding a further structure by way of a building/conservatory, may seriously impact on the light into your house. This is why you need to see plans which will show projected height of wall plus structure. There are legal firms that specilise in right to light, in your shoes I would be contacting one for some preliminary advice on what might count in your favour.

Seeing plans for any proposed works is important and even if it is being done under permitted development there will still be plans of some kind, even if they are only architect's plans. If you will undergo loss of light as a result of building then I would look at this very carefully indeed. Do involve Southwark planning, research the legal right to light angle and you also want to look at the planning portal http://www.planningportal.gov.uk this is the government's planning resource and outlines all the various rules and regs on permitted development, party wall agreements etc.. Most of all, don't sign or agree to anything until you are clear what your neighbours are doing, how that will impact on you, and where you stand in law. It helps to really read up on what is and isn't allowed nationally and to see what Southwark's stance on permitted development is,especially where terraces are involved.

Calsug, I think you may be overlooking the possibility that those against can simply be worn down over time by repeated applications that vary slightly each time. There are only so many times people can be galvanised to object, even if they really don't want a development. It is not so much M&S/the developer being dim, but them wanting something enough to try every possible angle to get it. Calsug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Thankjs AbDabs. I agree with you all > development > > isnt automatically good as Calsug postulates. > > > > HelBel65 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > No more of a postulation than your comments James, > but I suppose everyone in entitled to their > opinions - unless your comments are based on some > hard research instead of the consensus you have > obtained from the forum . I am intrigued as to why > you personally though are so anti the development > and if the council has actually given any > constructive feedback instead of blocking approval > every time M&S try - Surely they (M&S) are not dim > enough to keep on trying with plans that they know > you will reject.

James, yes, that old chesnut. Of course, one riposte goes if M&S snacks are so vital to one's quality of life why not choose to buy your house in an area that already has one? I guess the choice of location/you reap what you sow argument cuts both ways. Anyway, it was not a single factor decision and the lesser known point re boundaries and land ownership, is one that would probably have made the scale of the application unlikely to succeed, whatever the planning decisions.

I don't think anyone has said there is a right to park a car in front of your house- the point was being able to park on the street you live or in another street close by, more regularly than not- not the same thing at all.

It's balancing the needs of a smaller group of residents to get a decent night's sleep and to be able to park their car on or close to their street against a larger group of individuals' rights to buy tasty snacks and ready-made meals. It's tricky.

It wasn't just parking, it was also the issue of early morning deliveries every day of the week and the noise and disturbance this would generate. There are also boundary and land ownership issues which are known about, although these points are only addressed obliquely in the statement. For those that live in the immediate area it was quite clear that there was an attempt to stuff too much into the available space.

Jeremy and Landy, Fair points both, and with the hours that many have to work I understand. I really do hope that my fear that more chains moving in will spell the end of the current ED is totally misplaced. I will miss the garden centre though, what with that and plant nation closing we don't have anything similar. The only new shops opening seem to be cafes and supermarkets.

Jeremy aside from convenience in terms of having to walk a few hundred yards less to shop when stepping off the train, do we really need another supermarket-type store? As others have said we have Sainsbury's at either end of ED, we have the co-op, Tesco Express, Iceland/ M&S. I fear that the more chains that move in the more likely the small independents will fold and close and ED that we know and love will be lost. On another note, wasn't James Barber very against another local supermarket (Co-op) getting a late alcohol licence?

The owner has rexcently lost her husband, so the owner will be grieving as well as the dog. Getting a new dog will not help since the dog was bonded to the husband who has died. Dogs can develop separation anxiety after a sudden change in cricumstance- the disappearence of a beloved owner together with stressful events leading up to and during an illness and the subsequent grief of the owner and dog left behind amount to something like trauma for the dog. It cannot understand what has happened only that its world has turned upside down. The barking may be the dog trying to contact its male owner or simply a way to relieve massive stress and anxiety. I hope that now there is greater understanding of circumstances that people on the forum can manage to give a little more leeway to the lady for now. Frnakly there is many a time I have wnated to tell neighbours conducting building work- that has gone on for ever- to pack up and stop, but circumstances have made it necessary for them to build, so one learns to accept the noise. If the lady in question would like some advice please ask her to private message me.

Perhaps some grafitti artist could go and spray 'cycle route' repeatedly down the middle of it one night. Would that help?

mysticmark, I shall certainly look up those figures with interest. On a practical note, if a dog is seriously going to attack you, rather than you imagining it might be about to attack (I am sure you appreciate the distinction) then any pre-emptive attack on your part, with something like pepper spray, may increase the chance of the dog going all out to get you/your child. I say this because a dog that simply decides to attack a child out of the blue is likely to be mentally disturbed/ill and quite possibly will not back off when you go to attack it. Some status dogs are undoubtdely deranged because they have been so badly abused- attacking becomes a way of life and, seriously, attacking back, unless it is with a stun gun or high calibre weapon is not going to help much. If you are unsure about a dog that appraoches you and don't want it around one method is to throw some kind of food away from you so as to divert the dog's attention. This is obviously not an ideal solution but is one I recommend to dog owners who want to get another dog to back off from theirs. If a dog is actually attacking you the best thing is to keep still, don't run and if possible, feed the dog an item of clothing like a jacket or bag, so that it latches onto that instead of you/your child. However, I totally appreciate that in the event of a serious attack any ability to think straight flies out of the window. All I can say is that in many years of dealing with dogs, inlcuding rescue dogs with serious behavioural/aggression issues, I have never seen or heard of a dog behave this way with anything other than another dog out in a public space. Humans have been bitten but not randomly, out of the blue, there have always been warnings that were not heeded. More high risk points are in the home and in areas like the garden if, for instance a child has got into the garden or, indeed, dogs escaping from a front garden or through the front door to someone passing. Actually, I've just had a cursory google around and I think it is imporant to be clear about definitions. In law the charge of an 'attack' can be made against a dog that is jumping up. The dog is innocent in motivation, though inappropriate in behaviour- this is why I teach dogs not to jump up, because this normal behaviour can get them into a lot of trouble and of course, a jumping-up dog can still cause injury, though it is not motivated by aggression. So, reports on 'attacks' may be misleading. Bites should be separated from nips. A dog that nips must be taught not to do this, but a nip is very different from a bite that punctures. If a dog really wants to hurt, rather than warn, the results will be severe to any adult human and may cost a child their life. Unfortunately nips to small children can also draw blood and may require a&e attention. The dog that nips as a warning, though I in no way condone or undermine the fact that this needs addressing quickly, is very unlikley to launch a random attack on a child or person in a public place. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. To reiterate a dog that launches a severe attack in a public place upon a human or child is ill, deranged or treating the child as prey- again very unusual. I am happy to be proved wrong here but I would suggest that if you examine any of the sever attacks on children appearin in the press all will have happened in the home or on the dog's territory (gardens etc..). I do take on board your concerns and I agree that with the escalation in public fear, whether real or perceived (I would wnat to research this further) there do need to be good strategies that people can take away, if nothing else to reassure themselves with. Glad to hear you may be getting a dog- in my view and experience it is other dogs that are at great risk from 'status' type dogs. Why a sprollie- is this a cross you are familiar with?

skylorrikeet, well said, if you want you or your child to get bitten then using pepper spray is a great way to go about it. As Anna said earlier, rather like child abuse, canine on human attacks are usually carried out within the home and are invariably the reult of poor boundaries and ownership- very occasionally you get a rogue dog with a screw loose. Dogs that are very badly treated may become fear aggressive to humans or children. Children, if not taught how to behave around dogs can end up getting a warning nip. However, random attacks by strange dogs on children when out in parks etc.. is very rare. I too worry about the levels of panic I see in some children when they are around dogs and wonder why this is? There have always been kids that are phobic about dogs, often because they have been pushed over as kids by an overly excitable, poorly trained, dog, or even been given a nip, however I often come across kids on the street (where my dog is on a lead) who shrink away in fear as I approach with my dog, or even start to cry and scream. The parents also seem anxious. Given that my dog is small and I am not a gorgon I find this puzzling.

Prior to being a sewing shop, Moo 2 was an excellent clothes shop for many,many years and one that will be/is sorely missed. I just pray a chain does not move in because a homogenised high street would spell the end for the ED I have known and loved all these years. Be careful what you wish for folks. As to the landlord, I have heard a rumour, though that is all it is, that another independent shopowner on the lane is also landlord of a number of shops on the street, one of which is the former Moo2. Anyone know if this is true?

Mako, Just to clarify. There are already areas of the park (PR) where dogs are not allowed and where it is asked for dogs to be kept on leads. Parkies already have the powers under law to issue on the spot fines for dog fouling. So, the issue is how to get people to adhere to what is already in place. For instance, would Southwark put resources to more Park officers...that is the only way fouling could be reduced, by catching offenders and fining them on the spot. There is a feeling that Southwark will not want to increase these officers because they don't have the money. So, on that basis, how will they tackle dog fouling? DCO's won't make any difference at all. As an analogy, there would be little point in making more and more legislation against speeding cars without the means (cameras or traffic police) to catch the speeders. There is really only one way that DCO's could improve dog fouling and that would be a straight ban of all dogs from parks. The fear about instating dog conrol orders is not about dogs on leads in certain areas per se, it is the fact that once in place the council can extend them as they see fit WITHOUT consultation in future. I hope that is now clear.

The wolves of the forum ;) I too miss Hugo and underneath the puffery and plumage of le coq sportif was a sometimes wise and kindly bird....just to keep the animal theme going.

Hickory, That is awful. It is strange that someone can be given quite a tough penalty for doing much the same on twitter at distance, but if they are following you, presumably looking for an opportunity to carry out what they threaten, then it doesn't quite count. Of course, I know that twitter gives solid evidence and a trail to the culprit, but it is discomfiting to learn that the police are able to do so little. I hope you are okay.

Mako, indeed, my feeling is a more broad ranging survey on a variety of perceived issues in the parks, might be more efficacious, killing a variety of birds with one stone, so to speak. It might be cheaper too and give a general overview of ways public spaces could be improved as well as providing more balanced and coherent view of what the public want. It is also the case, I believe,and from what I have gleaned on the forum, that the biggest issue with dogs is fouling (as in the title of this thread) which is arguably a kind of litter, albeit a highly unpleasant form, and one that none of us want.

Well yes, okay, but that survey is only one very specific kind of anit-social behaviour, there have been no surveys on litter or the like.