first mate

DJQ, Of course it isn't all footballers. The ones I've seen on Peckham have all been adult males or much older boys. I have though seen younger boys (12-14'ish) doing this in Dulwich Park and on one occasion took issue with the adult males supervising them. I am pleased to say that I have never, ever seen a female footballer behave this way :)

AM- With respect that response is a little barking.

James, I'm happy to admit I may not have noticed Mark- but let's have more Marks. Perhaps there could be voluntary Park Wardens in the same way we have specials etc..? As DJQ has said, most of us are normal, empathetic beings, who believe in all rubbing along with a little give and take. Finally, I believe one of the greatest public menaces is the so-called status dogs that are allowed to walk the streets offlead. These represent a massive hazard to other dogs and thereby potentially to owners and other people. I am tired of rounding a corner to be met by some offlead pitbull mix. I guess you'd have to be a dog owner to fully appreciate how difficult this kind of situation is. In addition, it is awful for those who are scared of dogs as they also see that the dog is apparently free to do as it pleases. People who are scared may panic and the dog sensing a high arousal situation may growl or bark or in very rare circumstances bite. If a way could be found to ensure dogs must be kept on lead on the public highways and streets life would be a lot more relaxed all round. In my view, this is a much more important issue than dogs in parks.

Mark, It sounds as though you are doing a great job, but if you are spread around so many parks perhaps there need to be more of you. Renata, I would advise some discreet observation at football matches at the weekend, in the areas mentioned. Morning to lunch seems to be the time most play. Again, could I ask you to explore with your fellow councillors ways in which people can be made to keep their dogs on lead when on public streets outside of the park. It is my understanding that there is enough existing legislation within the various road and traffic bylaws and within dog legislation to make this enforceable.

Peckham Parkie, So glad you are around. The only problem is, and I do not mean to be difficult, is that in the many years of walking my dog, nearly every morning and weekend in Peckham Rye Park, I have never seen you. Not once. It is great that you have issued fixed penalty notices for those who let their dog foul and do not pick up, but public urinaters only get a ticking off? I thought public urination, where there is no effort to be discreet and hide, was as a public order offence? This does seem a rather strange order of priorities by Southwark Council.

Alan, Just to be clear, are you saying you are in favour of public widdling, because either it's okay or it is not. If okay, imagine if everyone did it? There you walking along and the woman in front of you squats to have a piddle- but it's only natural you say. Why stop there, let's get people defecating in the park too. The footballers have access to the same loos as everyone else, why not use them? Moreover, those I have seen widdling make no attempt at all to be discreet. Most people, whether it's down to conditioning or not, do not particularly want to be confronted by some sweaty footballer pissing against the nearest tree. I think it's bad manners and uncalled for, when there are public loos so close by. If some one is genuinely caught short that is different, but they'd make a real effort to stay out of view. The guys I have seen just let it all hang out for all to see.

Or having the last word. Go on, can you resist...can you?

Alright e-d, on current form, you of all people, should understand a little oTT'ness when one is trying to DRIVE a point home. Renata, I'm sure you will take my comments on board. The public widdling is, I'd guess, a simple matter of laziness and manners and easily sorted. Dog walkers tend to talk to each other about behaviour that is bothering others, so I am sure word will get round about the fenced garden areas. Scary people with status dogs are a whole different ball game and none of us like them or want them. As I have already said, a hard look at what can be done to make people keep their dogs leashed on the street would help in all kinds of ways. A lot of 'status dog' owners seem to have an aversion to leashing their dog on the street. Making them do so would ensure their dog is much more under control and the effort of leashing might even deter them from ownership, you never know.

Renata, I've seen public urination by Rye footballers on three occasions in the last year. I didn't take in the detail- as I am sure you will understand under the circumstances. It was the area to the left of the cafe on the Rye and not far from the children's play area. Forgive me, but when you use a phrase like "antisocial behaviour or dog problems", it does sound as though you are singling out dog matters. Why not just refer to the whole lot as anti-social behaviour? Walking the dog in the park is an important leisure,exercise and lifestyle choice for a great many responsible, borough tax payers and voters. While I agree that people need to be reminded that some areas of the park are better served by dogs remaining on leash, your use of the term 'enforcement' suggests a very different agenda and this is what worries many of us. Please try to focus on the issues that really matter, like muggings in the park etc.. rather than reacting with so much alacrity to an issue like a friendly family dog jumping over a park fence. AS an aside, I do wish you at the council would put as much effort into getting people to keep their dogs on leash on the street, as you do to issues like the above. The street issue could make a great deal of difference all round and would really serve the public, in my view.

e-dealer, I'm more concerned that the council is not singling out dog owners for special treatment. So I am interested in Renata's response to other, arguably more serious misdeeds, that have been witnessed on the Rye of late. The introduction of Park Wardens would be a neat way to deal with all the various problems, Dog Control Orders would deal with a tiny bit- yet,in my view, there seems to be a remarkably high level of enthusiasm by some on the council for Dog Control Orders.

Renata, I will ferret around and try to find and post a picture of post-picnic detritus left on the Rye recently. Including empty cans and bottles, and various bits of congealed half-eaten food. Quite revolting. Then of course, there are the men, part of an organised football game on the Rye, that I have seen urinating in full view of the park public and children. Will you be pressing for enforcement on these kinds of behaviour too? Many thanks.

Spitting, if not illegal perhaps it should be. Disgusting habit and think of all those germs. Not sure if current ' No Dog' signs are illegal, strictly speaking, either. Nonetheless, if people don't start showing a little consideration around reasonable requests as to where they can walk their dog offlead, then hard and harsh Dog Control Orders will be implemented any time soon and tears will flow. So, in part I'm with you on this, just so long as you are not singling dog owners out. As I've said before, I don't like canine feaces left on the streets for us all to skid in, but I get really cross about broken glass too, and few people seem so bothered by that. Broken glass is darn dangerous and can impart a very nasty infection.

e-dealer, I think you make a fair point. I too would like to see the park rules/requests adhered to to make life pleasant and fair for all park users, and to stop more grist for the anti-dog brigade's mill. I also agree about other anti-social behaviour, to which you refer. I have not seen if you have already posted about these but no doubt you will soon do so, supplying photo evidence of people spitting in the street; widdling in public; throwing glass and food litter around etc.. etc..

Ridgley, You know what I'm going to say- there are the same idiots that actually do urinate outside people's homes after a long night at the pub. Moreover I have now, a number of times, witnessed 'gentleman' urinating on Peckham Rye, in full view of everyone,in broad daylight, taking a 'comfort break' from their football match ( the cafe and children's play area only yards away).Yes, anti-social, thoughtless people are maddening.

Ridgely and Dulwich Fox, I can pretty much guarantee that in posting on a thread like this your are preaching to the converted. Those who don't pick up are unlikely to ask about dog friendly places. We all understand the frustration with this issue but at the root is an anti social minority who probably do all sorts of other dodgy stuff. You are wasting your time chastising dog owners on here. By the way, most people do not take their dog to the park to defecate, they do so to enjoy the fresh air and to give themselves and their pet exercise and socialisation. It is possible to teach a dog to defecate on command but not easy to do and not guaranteed to work. Anyhow, that aside it is great that ED is generally such a dog friendly place, full of responsible dog owners- evidenced, I suppose, by the amount of establishments prepared to let well behaved dogs across the threshold.

The Bishop: The Actress; Franklins; Pretty Traditional; Chandelier; nearly every shop on Northcross Rd; Moo II, Mrs Robinson (both shops) all dog friendly if dog is well behaved.

As a dog owner who regularly uses both parks, I think it is entirely reasonable to put your dog on a lead in certain sections of the park, as asked. Currently one is asked to do this in only a few areas, why not just comply? It is reasonable to give those who are worried by dogs an area of the park they can feel confident in. I don't care how well behaved your dog is offlead, you are being asked to put them on a lead. If you don't want to do this, then avoid those areas. By refusing, you are in effect curtailing the freedom of those who do not feel confident around dogs. There is a significant anti-dog contingent that would like to see all dogs banned from parks or, at the very least, the requirement to leash them in all areas of the park. By constantly flouting the request to put your dog on lead in the few areas currently required, you give them all the ammunition they need. I also tire of hearing the protestations of those who walk their dogs offlead around the streets, because their dog is so well behaved. Again, it is not fair on those who dislike dogs and it creates additional problems for those who keep their dogs on a lead. Of course, it is also illegal to cross a road without leashing your dog.

Bunny19, Quite. Stamping out offlead dogs on the street would tackle a whole load of problems in one go. It is easy and cheap to police. It is clear and unambiguous and there is no need to check on licenses, chips, breed type etc.. No investigations needed as to who started what. Also, if a dog poops while on the lead it is much harder for the owner to pretend they are not aware, on that note I would also ban flexi leads on the street- a short lead is what is required. Bottom line is, on- lead dogs can be avoided by those who dislike them, and properly controlled by owners. One of the big flaws is that is does not stop idiots keeping a dangerous dog and taking it out on a lead, in close proximity to their children- but individual responsibility has to kick in at some point.

A quick read of the Southwark strategy suggests that they are doing nothing to really tackle the problem. The main concern is trees damaged by dogs in the park and putting dogs on a lead, when asked in the park. In short, the fear of dangerous dogs is being used as an excuse to institute dog control orders in the park. I use the parks a lot and I rarely see trees destroyed by dogs- I see plenty destroyed by young humans or at the behest of young humans. The Southwark strategy does not address dogs offlead on the paths, roads and streets. They have missed a massive opportunity. For safer, responsible dog ownership LEASH ON THE STREET.

One of the simplest ways of ensuring safety on the streets is by making everyone walk their dogs on a lead. Heavy, immediate fines for dissenters would soon get the message across. This would not cover everything, but a dog on a lead can be controlled and avoided. In addition, those who have very small dogs and would rather not risk a confrontation with more pugilistic breeds offlead, can at least walk their dogs in safety around the streets etc.. If you see what looks like a big bull breed and feel worried, you have the option to cross the street and avoid, knowing it cannot follow you because it is on a lead. I'm sure parents would feel more comfortable with this too. I for one, cannot understand why the law has not been amended and clarified to get this small but significant change underway. It would be so much easier to police as well. So, no dogs offlead except on private property or in the park. Dogs that escape from the front path onto the pavement, would invoke an immediate fine, because the law of no dogs offlead on streets and paths would have been broken.

In addition to all the other objections, owning a car is expensive enough already, what with insurance and petrol hikes. Permits may push ownership out altogether for some people. In order to police the controlled zones you'll need more traffic wardens zipping around in their dinky little cars. How much extra funding will all that need? As others have said getting controlled parking just pushes the problem out to another area and enables permit creep. I really hope people think properly about this and not just about the short term gains for themselves.

Those who have lived in ED for any length of time seem to manage fine- let's not turn ED into Fulham etc.. The fact is everyone can park, sometimes it just takes longer. I also think that the majority will be firmly against. As I said earlier, I have not come across a long-term resident of ED that would support it. I really do believe it would be the thin end. Once a cash strapped council gets its mitts on parking control they'll squeeze you dry.

You don't need to have a space right outside your house. I'm more than happy to park up the road when necessary. I think it's a small price to pay to avoid the introduction of parking permits etc..We must keep pressure on to avoid the money-making permit game.

Jeremy, As I said before, the force of a dog bite in reality is not so much dictated by head or jaw size but by intent. Anyone who has owned a puppy before it learns to inhibit its bite will know what I mean- those bites can really hurt. Obviously a large dog can bite harder than a small dog and a large dog intent on hurting you will do more damage than a small dog- but dogs have become domesticated animals because, for the most part, they do not go around with the intention to bite humans really hard.

Dogs and humans have a shared history- at what point did human society, in its myriad forms, become civilised?