first mate

Narnia, I agree, that is why I prefaced my comments with a "does make it look". I may be on completely the wrong track but, to me, it feels as though a plan is afoot to get use of the Rye one way or another. It does occur to me that in these cash strapped times the council might prefer to offload the upkeep of sections of the park, such an arrangement with Harris might be useful for them in that sense.

James, your mantra: that the school would not dream of asking for use of Peckham Rye but that this does not stop you, as a politician stating how silly that position is, does makes it look as though you and the school had a plan all along- them being good cop and you doing the dirty work. It is this sort of dishonesty that gives politicians a bad name. As I have said, promises were made and they should be honoured. If you did not agree with kids being bussed in and out then you should have ensured that a more appropriate site was found, one with enough space to meet the needs of the students.

Hi, I found some keys on Peckham Rye today. They have been handed in to the Peckham Rye Park manager. She is to be found in the green building attached to the toilet block (entrance to park behind cafe).

dbboy, the point about the school, in its current incarnation, being a positive thing all round is moot. My point is that some debate was aired about the use of PR prior to the school being built, because of local disquiet about that promises were made that use of PR would not be sought by the school. If PR is to be used it needs to be done with the full support of all in the community. As it is feelings are clearly mixed. The concern is that there was always an intention to use PR and certain promises were made to get the planning permissions pushed through with a view to slowly getting the use of PR once the school was built. I do not feel comfortable with the park being used as an extension of the school. If the school starts to use the park for regular sports sessions then how is that managed in terms of health and safety etc..? If Lord Harris begins to fund areas of the park on a quid pro quo basis then who does the park really belong to and who will have the final say on its use? Right now its common land, I fail to see how that could continue if a school starts to utilise it for regular sports sessions.

James, Thanks for your reply. It does sound as though there will now be attempts to drum up support for the use of PR by the school, on the basis that it is silly not to use land so close by. This does seem incredibly disingenuous when one of the main objections to the school, at the earliest planning stage, was that it did not have the necessary land/outdoor facilities to service the volume of pupils. As you know, many locals were worried that a later attempt would be made to begin to utilise PR for school sports, despite assurances that this would not happen. I refer to this 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. Edited to answer Phillyboy's question: This Academy will be linked to the Girls Academy on the other side of Peckham Rye. The sixth form will be joint, so some girls will occasionally go to the boys' site for certain subjects and vice versa. I note the velodrome is under threat. Since this was quoted as one are the school would be using perhaps Lord Harris could fun the facility?

marie, so many dog owners seem to have a blind spot when it comes to lead etiquette. If a dog is on the lead in a park it is for a good reason and other dog owners need to ensure their own dog is kept at bay. Unfortunately some dog owners, like some parents, want to take their charge out to run around freely while they chat on their mobile or to other dog owners, oblivious to what is going on around them. I also do wish that certain people would not let their in- season bitches run around the park offlead- simply bonkers and so irresponsible. Whinge over.

When the school was at the planning stages I thought that it had been made clear that there was never an intention that Harris Boys would use PR for sports. Many of us questioned this at the time, pondering how the school would manage with so little land of its own. At any rate, I was certainly under the impression that some kind of assurance had been given by the powers that be that PR would not be used as an extension of the school. Has this changed? I know there will be arguments both for and against but I would like to put those aside as they were aired before the school was built. All I want to know is has there been a U turn on a promise that was made?

ianr, yes, but a dog does not have to even touch a person for it to be deemed dangerous. For instance an offlead, friendly dog that bounds up to a dog phobic person might be deemed by that person as frightening and out of control. I know it is stretching a point but there have been rare cases like this. Most people know that in a park there are likely to be dogs offlead. If you are severely dog phobic I do not think it reasonable to ask or expect that all dogs be kept on a lead in that instance- dogs need to be able to run freely. In any other public place I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that all dogs are kept on a lead, all of the time and, that includes the small areas around park cafe. For those who will insist on letting their dogs wander offlead in the cafe area or, indeed, on the pavements and roads, I should point out that other dogs that are on a lead may dislike being approached by a dog offlead- it can and does cause fights. It makes sense to keep dogs on lead in all public areas except parks.

Toddinator, Toddlers unleashed at full volume can be extremely irritating. I would, however, tend to support the rights of kiddies to roam in a public area like a cafe over those of any dog- even my dog! The fact remains that while many dogs may be kind and friendly, any dog can also take a dislike to another dog and a minor dust up or snarling fest' can ensue - the anti dog brigade can then use this as evidence that dogs are unsafe. In addition, lots of modern children are seemingly scared witless by large dogs and even a friendly dog is capable of knocking a child over. I'm afraid the child versus dog argument is a non-starter and is not the way to go. I would agree heartily though that parents should return the favour when we keep our dogs on lead, by not allowing their toddlers/kiddies to run screaming around the animal, waving arms etc.. I do see this quite often, not just out and about but in pubs too! In my view and under the terms of the DDA, any dog in a public place must be under control at all times- the park being an exception to this. I think a park cafe is a public place. If your dog is offlead it is not under control. There are people on the council (and possibly on this forum) who would be very happy to instate draconian laws against the ordinary dog and its owner, ideally getting rid of dogs completely. Let's not give them the ammunition. I think keeping one's dog on lead around a cafe is a sensible and easy option.

Cate, Agree with you, one of my pet hates ('scuse bad pun) is those that let their dogs run offlead around the cafe areas, both in PR and DP. I don't care how well behaved your dog is, unless it will remain in a rock solid sit/down stay, offlead, for the duration of your time at the cafe, then get it on a lead. It does give all dog owners a bad name and is immensely irritating to other people, inlcuding other dog owners who keep their pets on lead at these times. Toddinator, indeed JR's more likely to nip/bite than a Lab, not because of their size but because they are hardwired with a much stronger prey drive, since they were made to chase and kill small game. In short they are far more reactive and much less biddable than a Lab that was developed to work to command and to retrieve game to hand, rather than kill it. Cannot completely agree with you about a Rottie. If well socialised and very well trained they are a lovely dog, but they come pre-equipped with a very strong guard instinct and this should be borne in mind by the handler. A poorly trained Rottie is in my view a liability because of its guard instinct and its size. As ever, its really about people knowing their breeds, what they were developed for and offering appropriate training and handling throughout their lives.

The muzzle all dogs argument falls flat on its face for the simple reason that the owners of vicious dogs will not muzzle them. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker. Do those who are advocating this really think that the kind of person who lets a vicious dog roam a park offlead, on its own, is going to bother muzzling it? To quote Eddy Milliband "come off it".

rahrahrah, or should that be ruffruffruff?

Hands up, it was me wot erroneously relayed the van colour- clearly eyes, brain or both need testing. Anyhow, hope they get the WHITE van driver.

Definitely report to police and give all details. The blue van driver, if he was holding a mobile and chatting on it whilst trying to park, has committed an offence.

Steve T, Show me where I have leapt to the defence of, or condoned dog pooh offenders? At no point have I said that I am all in favour of dog pooh or that I support those who leave their pet turds strewn around the streets (cue snigger of other forumites at ludicrous post). I just think that sometimes people try to justify a view with extreme points that don't really serve or support their argument. No rational person would say they "like" dog pooh all over the streets. There again, I feel some people get a little irrational on the subject and conflate a fear/dislike of all dogs with the issue of dog pooh (not looking at anyone in particular, Steve). There is a solution and that is that we all clear away dog pooh when we see it ( outside our house for instance). If you use a plastic bag it cannot hurt you. Yes, it is unpleasant and yes, you may feel you shouldn't have to but where antisocial behaviour is concerned perhaps this is the only way forward- or we just go round and round, repeating the same arguments and achieving nothing?! For what it is worth, I do try to clear up other dog turds,as and when I bag those belonging to my own,just as I would pick up stuff like glass if I see it lying around- community spirit it's called.

ZT, yes, on very rare occasions a child may go blind after contact with dog pooh or fox pooh, or some other carrier, but it is a relatively rare cause of harm to humans. My point is that a child is far more likely to die because of a speeding car than dog or fox pooh. The real issue is that dog pooh offends and it is a nuisance and that is why people dislike it. If you want to argue the case that we need to rid the streets of dog pooh because it is a major health hazard then expect a counter argument that points to more pressing health concerns.

I know of someone whose son nearly died after contracting Weil's by playing in the street (via rat urine). Zoonotic infections are a risk that goes hand in hand with living in an environment we share with other living organisms. Fox poo (found all around ED by the way) is also a carrier of Toxcariasis so what are we going to do about that? At least most dogs are wormed. Foxes are not. There are far greater risks to child health than dog pooh- speeding cars for instance.

Did the note from the MET really suggest valuable police resources will be used to track down owners that do not pick up dog pooh- surely not?! Tracking down owners of dangerous dogs would make sense but dog pooh? Must say I can think of better ways for the MET to occupy their time.

Ridgely, if that's the worst you can think of I'd love to live in your world. I guess if we all feel so strongly how about a bit of community action and just pick it up ourselves and bin it. It won't kill you-honest. That seems to me the most practical solution.

A useful way of getting rid of dog urine smell is first to wash well with a washing powder and then rinse with water, when dry wipe over with surgical spirit- this breaks down the proteins in the urine, so removing the smell. It may work with cats too.

Chrissie Hynde, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, PJ Harvey, Bjork, Nina Simone, Laura Marling, Patti Smith, Billie Gentry, Dolly Parton, Joan Armatrading, Kate Bush.........

Fair enough. Other than Joni Mitchell- who else?

I have a question- why can't women write good lyrics? Or can they? If they can why no mention of any here? Answers? Theories?

Also agree Morrisey. Van the man.

Joni Mitchell deserves to be up there.