first mate

Gina, Any news? Well done to you for trying to help in difficult circumstances. Let us hope the poor dog is found.

Gina, If you think the dog will run into the traffic or try to cross the road then I would call the police- justified because it's rush hour and dog could cause a serious accident at what is already a traffic blackspot.

Gina3, Stating the obvious I know but see if you can get the dog to come to you. Get quite close and then bob down. Don't look at it just be calm and call it softly. If it's lost it'll be in a blind panic. Sometimes a dog will go to a person that seems calm and trustworthy. The local RSPCA is on 07952 680522- they might be able to give some practical advice. Good luck.

Tracy Dickinson, Thank you for addressing some of the concerns on the forum. I welcome the fact that you have amended the survey to clarify what constitutes a children's play area. I suppose my fear, shared by others, is that this clause of the proposed Southwark DCO's can be used in future to deny access to areas of parks that are currently open to dog owners. For instance, there are areas on Peckham Rye that are fenced off (The American and Japanese gardens) but that are currently used by children and by dog owners. Might these be designated children's play areas in future? We are also aware of the desirability of some local parks as areas that schools can use for sports, presumably such areas would be even more desirable if dogs were banned from large sections- you'd only have to put up a fence. Can Southwark give some reassurance that this is not on the cards? Most sensible people would not allow their dogs to run amok in an area that is fenced off for use by children, particularly if children are present and so it is a minority of "offenders" we are referring to. Ditto, irresponsible ownership of dangerous dogs is just one example of a serious of anti social behaviours that go hand in hand. Greater detail on how Southwark plans to effectively deal with offenders would be helpful. For instance, I have witnessed various types of anti social behaviour in local parks (not all involving dogs) and on only one occasion could I find a warden to report this to, despite attempts to find one on every occasion. Dangerous Dogs are a discrete area of criminality that has complex roots and mixing it up with general dog ownership is not that helpful. I would welcome moves to enforce people to keep their dogs on lead on public streets at all times, I would also welcome moves to enforce people to pick up after their dogs. However, without the necessary manpower it is hard to see how this can be achieved. I fear that the DCO's will be toothless in practice and that the only thing you will really be empowered to do is perhaps to limit the freedoms of decent dog owners in our parks at some point in the future.

Golly TQ, if that's your idea of a "menace", I'd love to have your life.

Hmmm, and you have to conclude that Southwark would be aware of the failure of the scheme in Islington, so what is the survey all about? If enough people give a negative response to dogs in children's areas and being offlead generally, and they will because the of way the questions have been designed,then the one thing Southwark would be able to do is to start to ban dogs from parks or parts of the parks. The target would be the decent dog owner (easy target). Those who dislike dogs would be happy so Southwark could claim success, it would also open up parks for "other" uses.

DJKQ, Indeed. I'd be far more worried about my youngster being contaminated by rat urine- now that really is a potential killer. We are all only 12 feet away from any rat population in the city- the burgeoning ratty- populace next to DKH Sainbos is just one example.

computedshorty, A point well made. Of course most dogs, owned by good citizens, are microchipped and hence both dog and owner are readily identified by a portable scanner. Natch, the antisocial type probably doesn't microchip, in the same way they may not pay car insurance or they may drive without a licence- of course these are just the types that wardens etc.. are not going to pull over and extract fines from- and we keep going round and round. Sorry, edited to say that I did not want to imply the homeless are bad citizens. One of the GOOD things Southwark has been doing is offering free microchipping- quite how a homeless person would be identified in that instance I don't know name and place and DOB I guess??

Rock N Roll Paddy, So will you be applying your zero tolerance approach to other, arguably more serious, types of anti social behaviour? The yawnsome refrain is bang on- owners are the problem, I'm sure even you can figure out that a dog cannot pick up and bag its own poo.

Yup, My feeling is that Southwark are quite knowingly tapping into the extreme anti dog prejudice out there. There are all kinds of negative experiences that we could use as the basis to fly into a rage and ban things left right and centre- guess that's just the irrational side of human nature. The real question is will these sort of dog control orders achieve what they set out to do and I have to say it's unlikely and I really don't believe Southwark think it will either. It's just kneejerk stuff pandering to tabloid sentiments. The threat of fines and jail have hardly stopped boy racers, drink driving or wilful speeding (see Barry Road thread). Finally Southwark say that they are working closely with Battersea and the RSPCA on dog control orders, I'd be keen to know the views of those organisations on how the proposed system will work in practice and how they would interpret the Southwark survey.

DJKQ I agree with you about the practicalities of extracting money from ne'er do wells- it just ain't going to work. Southwark know it I'm sure, and this makes me wonder what the real agenda behind this survey is.

Rock N Roll Paddy, On the spot fines for not picking up after dog fouling we can all agree on. They could also have stated that on the spot fines would be issued for dogs off lead on streets, paths, around council estates etc..Most people would not have a problem with that either. The way it reads at the moment makes the definition of children's play areas a moveable feast that could be applied to large sections of the parks etc.. That is not reasonable. Of course most people will say dogs should not be allowed into children's play areas, but without defining what those are the whole exercise could mean dog owners will be banned from large sections of the park in future. There needs to be clarity on this. The fact remains that the vast majority of the dog owning public will continue to behave well and the thugs will just carry on. In all my time walking the parks I've seen the odd dodgy type with a dodgy dog up to no good, but there's never been a warden in sight. How will that change? Who will issue these fines? I don't buy it.

It's a pretty poorly designed survey. Aside from the bit on dog fouling it all seems rather vague- what is a children's play area exactly, is it an area that has been sectioned off specifically for children or any area where children play? If the latter that could be any open space at any time. What about all the kids that play footie in the park at weekends, does that mean dogs will be banned from those areas? We already know that certain local politicos would like to see greater use of Peckham Rye by schools- making it a children's playing area and therefore subject to dog control orders and a ban......maybe?? The survey seems designed to get the most anti dog resposne possible and so could give Southwark the power to ban dogs from all kinds of areas. I know this would have some forumites jumping for joy but I would urge the responsible dog owning public to get onto this one now before it is too late.

Definitely get checked by GP. Mini strokes can cause a variety of temporary neurological problems.

I must say that Goose Green is such a small area that it is probably common sense not to have dogs offlead- given the Rye is just down the road. On the Rye itself there is, of course, a large children only area. It is fenced off and is a great safe area for toddlers to learn to take their first steps in peace.

Neil, Guess you think all other animals don't defecate/piss too - rats, foxes, squirrels, birds.....oh and humans occasionally. By far the stinkiest widdle I have ever smelt on the odd street corner is from human males. But hey, I guess dreams are always less than rational.

James, You know as well I that the level of usage is key to the concerns. High usage is a very different proposition to low usage. It is the proximity of Harris to the park that suggests high usage would soon be the order of the day. I cannot seem to pin you down on that detail. It's likely you do not know but surely, even you must agree, it is fairly important to be clear on usage otherwise we do not know what exactly you are proposing?

James, I'd have thought in your position, given your involvement at planning, and with such strong views, you'd be more on top of the detail. Current usage by schools is only light, is it not? You need to be clear about what you are suggesting for Harris- what sports would be played, how much time would the school take up on the Rye each day? What changes would have to take place to make the Rye fit for dedicated sports use by a school, if that is what you are suggesting? I feel you must have thought some of this stuff through already? I'm not sure anyone has said that parks are not for schools. Any member of any school has the right to use a park. Just about everyone has said they do not object to light or occasional use by schools- the issue is whether a section of the park is turned into a dedicated playing field. There is also a fear that if Harris were to have light/occasional use of the park this would soon change to heavy/ constant use.

Well, let us see if James will answer this one. 2 schools or 3? If 2 would Harris usage exceed that of the school before, if so by how much? What sort of sports are we talking about?

DJK, Helpful, informed observations. Just for the record, I'd like James Barber to clarify his position. I know it's the detail but, as we know, that's where the devil lurks.

Narnia, In a nutshell a park is designed to be a park not a playing field. It is already clear that even the sports pitches, meant for community use, not as dedicated school playing fields, cannot is their current state sustain repeated use over time. If the school funds changes to the sports area enabling dedicated use by the various schools that have been mentioned (one of which is a sports academy) I can forsee those sections of the park become slowly unavailable to the rest of the community for much of the time, not least because of the needs of schools re health and safety, it also gives the school massive leverage in terms of how those sections of the park would be managed and used. I fear such a move would also irrevocably change the character of the park and who knows, once some sections are taken, who is to say more would not be used in future? James Barber is talking up the "madness" of the current situation where another school (not, I believe, a sports academy?) is busing children to the Rye, whilst Harris does not use it, in part owing to assurances to that effect, given at the planning stage with which James Barber was involved. I want to know, therefore, if given the problems I and others have briefly outlined, James Barber is proposing that three schools use the sports facilities instead of two, or that Harris takes over the current usage of another school and whether that level of use would be enough for a boys academy?

James, why not say what you think should happen? You are not speaking for the school, as you have made clear. You clearly feel very strongly about it so, I ask again, do you think both school boys' schools should use PR or just one?

James, Are you suggesting that both schools use the pitches or that Harris takes over St Thomas Apostle' slot and they bus their children to a new venue? Would the Harris level of use be the same or more?

In an earlier post James Barber was suggesting that in return for use of their changing rooms and conducting drainage work on the Rye sports fields, Harris Boys could use the Rye for sports, given that they have no suitable space on the school site. James was involved at the planning stage for the school. Please read the post by Muttley from 2008, below. post by Muttley on 3/7/08: I was at the meeting. At times it got quite heated and emotional (at least, among the members of the public). The whole case seems to be founded on the fact that, in order to be viable, there has to be a five class intake, i.e. 150 per year group. This seems to be the conventional wisdom for schools these days. Personally I find it hard to believe that a school can't offer a great curriculum with just a four class intake, which would have brought the numbers down to under 800. I'd happily trade a more limited curriculum for more space. If you look at the building plan, there is almost NO outdoor space for the boys to play during breaks. The second fundamental driver for the 950 total was that the school needs a sixth form to provide mentors for younger pupils. I can see the argument for this, though where Year 7s will get to see these sixth formers (other than along crammed corridors) is unclear. It was reported that Tessa Jowell's own survey had revealed a majority of locals in favour of the school. I'm extremely cynical about this. The only fair way to assess local opinion would have been to hold a representative survey, asking specifically if people were in favour of a school for 950 (with pictures so that they could see what it will be like). I'm not aware of such a survey. Of course East Dulwich parents are in favour of a new school, but I suspect most people will be shocked when they discover the details. Final point of note: it was clear from the meeting that there will be NO use of Peckham Rye for sport by the school (except perhaps for the odd special case). Boys will be mini-bused to other sports venues, including South Bank University (is that Burbage Road?) and the velodrome. The latter will offer 'exciting' opportunities for bike activities, apparently. I don't think we've heard the end of this.

James, well then, if I've got it all wrong I apologise. I'll watch this space. As you know, I have no objection to the school just use of the Rye for sports, on anything more than an occasional basis.