first mate

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.

Should posting of photos, and naming and shaming, be done for most common forms of anti-social behaviour, or just dog fouling? I feel slightly uneasy about the idea, I can also imagine threads full of photos of one infraction or another.

How I wish I had been able to catch the serial litterers who had left Dulwich Park in such a state this morning. All along the bowling green, tissues, crisp packet, empty glass bottle, doilies, paper plates...nice. I spoke to the community warden and he said that he'd recently asked some picnickers to extinguish a BBQ, reluctantly they had done this, but left a load of rubbish behind. He managed to catch up with them and had a word and was told by one guy that he would like to punch him in the face. I just think that as a community we should try to tackle all forms of anti-social behaviour.

Chunksmum, I think your experience re the dog walker who had care and custody of the dog that has attacked your dog is awful. I would contact Trevor Cooper a dog law specialist to see what recourse you can get- I've a feeling you may have to sue the dog walker. If the dog he is walking has attacked your dog or other dogs before then that dog should be on a lead. I would add, as we know, all dogs are capable of 'having words' and one dog warning off or chastising another can look and sound very frightening but, if normal and proportionate, there is never a bite- as in puncture wounds. The severity of your dog's injuries means the dog that inflicted the damage is a danger to every dog and it needs to be pursued.

Elmgrove, from what I have heard the leaflets/survey were being handed out to people. Don't know of any dog owners who it was handed out to.

Precisely, there are already national laws in place for dog fouling where on the spot fines can be issued, there are already areas of the park where dogs should be kept on lead. If there are not the resources to police and enforce perfectly good existing legislation what is going to change with putting in more, will Southwark invest in more park and dog wardens...? Of course not. Southwark, by the way, axed all their dog wardens. The only difference with instituting dog control orders is that Southwark then have the power to make whatever changes they like without consultation.....complete ban of dogs.

I'd recommend going round to try to see whoever owns the dog, if possible try to see the dog so you can see what conditon it's in.It could be that the owners are going out in the evening and not aware of what their dog is doing. Failing that you could try the immediate neighbours. In my experience it is not that easy to get the RSPCA involved. If you cannot see the dog and it is on domestic premises they won't attend. Southwark noise will simply attend your property and take noise measurements- only if the sound exceeds so many decibels will they take action. I really hope you can talk sense into the owners because a dog that is barking and crying for hours on end is suffering immensely.

Taper, I'm tempted to say "stop urining"- but I know you're being ironic ;)

DaveR, come on, your simplification of points is a cheap rhetorical device. Your constructive contribution so far is to have a dog-free area in the park- good, except, as I have pointed out, those areas alrewady exist. Do you have anything else to add?

DaveR, I'm sorry that you have found nothing of use in this debate so far. It's never helpful, in my view, to label others as stupid, simply because you don't agree with what they say. Not the behaviour of someone engaging in a "sensible" debate, is it? Everything you have cited as of zero use and "stupid" is a matter of perception, those of others versus yours. As for your suggestion about a dog-free zone, I'm sure you'll know, there are already dog-free zones within the park, the problem is an anti-social minority do not adhere to requests to keep their dogs out of them. So, the real issue is probably policing and enforcement.

DaveR I'm pretty sure no-one here is suggesting that dogs and children should have parity in society,if that is what you are objecting to? As an aside, it is the case that the unique human/dog bond is partly fuelled by a mutual oxytocin flow that is not disimilar to the biochemistry of human/baby bonding- though obviously NOT the same. But it does explain why many get so attached to their dogs. For the record, again, I don't have a problem with people being made to pick up poo, being made to control their dogs etc... I would have a problem with dogs being banned from parks- my fear is that this may be Southwark's ultimate agenda, and it is one I will resist until I am clear about Southwark's aims.

joobjoob, Southwark have been offerd the services of trainers and also the opportunity to advertise training classes on their notice boards- they were not interested. I agree with you, more education is probably the way to go and it wouldn't cost Southwark a penny, since the trainers are free and people are also prepared to pay a small amount to attend a class. All Southwark need to do is allow a small space in the park to be used weekly for the purpose. A trainer used to do this on Peckham Rye, but the classes were discontinued....I'd love to know why.

I think to have your baby knocked over by a strange puppy is appalling, if the owner went to a good training class they would have already been coached in avoiding precisely this problem. I am glad (the mother of the baby) that you do not want dogs banned from the park and glad you expressed your specific concerns in the survey. My worry about that survey is the way it has been designed so that by answering yes to the non-specific "are dogs an issue" question, Southwark can use this to justify more extreme measures than simply fining people that don't pick up poo- that is if they catch them in the act- but that's a practical aside. The specifics on what issue you have with dogs comes later and will not necessarily be directly related to the more general statement when the data is analysed. As I have said, much depends on what is really motivating Southwark to do the survey, whether it's simply some control or the first step towards banning dogs from parks. The problem is that a couple of incidents of getting poo on shoes or something else, can understandably enrage people- honestly I feel the same, but I just wonder if the anger colours the issue of frequency? I only say this because I am genuinely perturbed and just don't see that much poo in the parks around ED. I also use the parks for pursuits other than exercising my dog.