first mate

dulwichdogman, A good owner needs to know his breed and the individual dog/s he owns and control them accordingly. There is no doubt that some dogs, often terriers and Staffords in particular, have a stronger prey drive than other breeds (sight hounds are a problem here too). That genetic predisposition will be enhanced if they are being selectively bred for fighting and then, on top of that, encouraged to chase and kill small animals including cats and other dogs. Some Staffords are great with other animals but it is a well known fact that, as a breed, they are more likely to fight with other dogs than many other breeds. They are arguably more reliable with children and people than many other breeds unless of course they are deliberately abused and made people aggressive, as we know many are. I think the 'blame the deed not the breed' line is slightly disingenuous because we always have to consider what a dog was originally bred for. A dog that was developed for fighting will keep those traits in some of its lines. I do believe that many who get a Stafford or Staff type are won over by how friendly they are with people and forget that they cannot be trusted in the same way with other dogs and animals. Any dog may accept the animals he lives with, including cats, but those outside his "pack" are literally fair game.

cathg, Not really. The case where the guide dog was attacked clearly endangered the the blind lady- though thankfully she was not hurt; the point is she could have been, there are clear grounds for a criminal prosecution under the Dangerous Dogs Act. In the case of the cat being killed: unless a human, present at the attack on the cat, felt themselves to be endangered by the dog, then the DDA is of little use. I believe there is other civil legislation where the dog owner could be prosecuted for their dog not being under control in a public place- but it is tricky.

Y'man, There are no rules with regard to owning a pure Stafford. Pure Pit bulls or Pit bull crosses are illegal under the Dangerous Dogs Act, unless registered,neutered, muzzled and under control at all times. Proving a dog is a Pit bull type as opposed to a Stafford is hard to do. My condolences to the cat owner. Truly awful. If the same dog is regularly off lead and has killed other cats it may be possible to bring some legal action on the grounds that it is not under control, otherwise there are grounds in civil law.

????, Well said. Let them take the spin elsewhere 'cos it no longer washes with this forum.

If playing with fireworks and fire is a rite of passage then it is not "kneejerk" to assume that hooded youths might be responsible for a spot of arson too, particularly when you've observed a group of said youths playing with fire very close to and at the same time as, the crime in question.

POT, Eh, how do figure that? Have you read my posts?

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the new PR bowling pavilion burned down a few years ago and wasn't a tree on PR also set on fire? Also wasn't a teenage boy badly hurt on PR a year ago by messing around with fireworks or something similar? I'm with Curly Karen on this, let's not just dismiss this stuff as perfectly understandable rites of passage for youngsters.It does sound as though the cafe fire was kids "messing around". Curly Karen saw enough first hand to make that a reasonable conclusion.

Hi PR, Of course we must all talk politics, that's okay and just what this forum is for, as you say, all of life is political -with a small p. It's just if you are a politican, with a big P, whether active or seriously would-be, then I just don't entirely like that stuff being all mixed up with the views of us regular punters. So, a dedicated section would keep everything cleaner and clearer.

Slightly off topic but relevant: could we have a dedicated politics/soapbox section so that those forumites who are already politicians or looking to stand can take their various "lines" to one area? I just don't feel that comfortable with general threads being mixed up with politics, with a capital P, and party speak.

No and no again to controlled parking!

What mass hysteria? It makes sense for relevant organisations and authorities local to the area to be made aware that it is possible a young person in their care is exhibiting unusual and undesirable sexual behaviour- unless you are suggesting that masturbation at the railings of a children's play area is par for the course for many teenage boys? The sooner he is identified the better for him; letting people know is a great way to achieve that end sooner rather than later.

I agree if you need to go and nothing else is available it's sometimes unavoidable. My primary point was that there was absolutely no attempt to be discreet, for instance there were trees they could have gone behind, literally feet away. It was also clear to them that I was approaching, but I was given a full frontal view nonetheless. As I said, I'm no prude, it just seemed a bit odd given the age of the boys concerned. Anyhow, I don't want to detract from the main point of the thread which is this boy's inappropriate sexual behaviour. I do hope for his sake that he is identified and given help sooner rather than later. His whereabouts at the time of committing the act may be coincidence but extremely worrying if not. At any rate he needs to be counselled that his behaviour could land him in big trouble later as an act of indecent exposure.

Its a rather different issue but since this incident has been raised I just thought I'd mention that over the summer when out walking in Dulwich Park I had two boys of this age urinate quite openly as I was passing. They were with a football team and supervised by adults. I don't want to seem like a prude but, given their age- they were quite big lads- it didn't feel quite right. They made no attempt to be discreet or to turn away from me. I had a word with the men supervising who shrugged their shoulders.

Louisa, Are you really a Louisa in real life or are you a Julie? Your eye-watering posts would give a certain Ms Burchill a run for her money. Can't help but love em!

Cassius, You may have a point. In my experience there is always a bin handy somewhere in which to deposit the bag. I may have to carry the bag a little way but just view this as part of the responsibility of owning a dog. I've always assumed, I hope not incorrectly, that most people will not object to you putting the bag in bins parked out on the road, if you cannot find anything else. But, as I said, there is generally a council bin not too far from wherever you are.

SteveT The stuff on your bin may be fox doo. Foxes go everywhere, I find it in my front garden and back on a regular basis. They like to mark their territory, especially at this time of year. Plus it can look very like dog doo. I'm sure you are not really suggesting that a dog owner would deliberately smear excrement over your bin. Perhaps I have misinterpreted what you said? Anyhow, there is a dog close to where I live that regularly deposits on my street. It is an entire male, light tan, older labrador. It is always walked off lead and the owner/s (a mother and son) never pick up. I am waiting for an opportunity to have a word. I would also add that of the many, many dog owners I know this is the one and only person I know who does this and who walks their dog offlead. Not surprisingly, just this one dog produces a lot of mess, some of which I have picked up myself. If they ever read this forum perhaps they will be shamed into changing their ways.

Huggers, I agree. There is no good reason I can think of that a dog should ever be offlead on a public street, be it major or minor highway (unless its a guide dog). Dogs being dogs are far more likely to get into fisticuffs if they are "trapped" onlead and confronted by another dog offlead in a small space- which a path is. I don't want to stigmatise certain breeds but we have to agree that the most likely dog to be seen careering around the street offlead is the staffie/bull type, often male and often entire. The breed type, the gender and the un-neutered status of the dog all serve to increase the risk of a fight when offlead. It is also a fact that the majority of people who let their dogs offlead in this way are probably totally irresponsible in other aspects of dog ownership.

puzzled, As I said, strictly speaking an attack by a dog on another animal would be a civil offence, and there is legislation to cover this scenario as a civil offence. However, if in the course of the attack human witnesses felt themselves also to be at risk of attack by the dog then it falls under the Dangerous Dogs Act. The key here is that the dog does not necessarily have to actually bite the person. If they feel sufficiently frightened of the dog and believe they will be attacked and the dog is not under control, that is on a lead or muzzled, then they may have grounds to prosecute under the DDA. I have to admit that dogs on lead on the streets is a slightly grey area. It is a criminal offence for a dog to be out and about without a collar stating the owner's address. Under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988 councils can insist that dogs are kept on lead on designated highways. Thus every time an owner crosses a designated road with their dog offlead they are committing an offence. An offlead, unmuzzled dog that behaves in a threatening or aggressive mannner towards any human might be deemed out of control and culpable under the DDA. Again, the dog does not have to bite a threatening display would be enough.

Mark, Point taken but I'd hope that the community police would put the needs of the community ahead of a personal reaction to a throwaway (though rather silly) line from a forumite. I think the priorities discussed here stand despite my rather low remark.

ayresc, Quite. Perhaps these community wardens or toy police-people, or whatever they are, can be given the power to issue on the spot fines to those with dogs offlead on the streets, to those who don't pick up poo and, while we are at it, fine the litter louts who throw broken glass, gum and food detritus around etc..etc... A much better use of taxpayer money than funding those assorted wardens and clampers who prowl the streets looking to fine car owners for minor, or even imaginary infringements,of money-making parking laws.

ayresc, I'm sorry but with respect you seem to be slightly missing the point. Dogs offlead on the street are already illegal, therefore the "scrotes" to whom you refer are already in breach of the law- but they continue to break it do they not? Why not use existing leglisation to prosecute or fine offenders, thus pursuing the miscreants and leaving the law abiding majority alone?

Xlena, My commiserations to your friend and all the others who have had pets harmed in this way. I should add that other dogs have also been on the receiving end of such attacks. I do understand your anger and your desire to come up with a solution but must echo the views of others here in suggesting that your route will simply penalise the vast majority of responsible dog owners; those who behave irresponsibly will continue to do so. We know this is true because it is already illegal to walk a dog offlead on the street- it is a certain type that struts around with a dog offlead and they will not change by extending dog control orders- they are already breaking the law. Given the above and that it is already illegal to walk a dog offlead on the public highways etc.. I am not quite sure what extending dog control orders will achieve. I should add that it is already a civil offence under the Dog Act of 1871 if a dog is dangerous to people or to animals and is deemed out of proper control, that is off lead, wherever the offence happens. The dog can be subject to a destruction order and the owner may have to pay costs. Perhaps your organisation should look at taking legal action against the person in question. Though a civil matter the police were informed and you have the vet's report as evidence. The profile derived from a successful case plus a hefty financial penalty to said owner would, in my view, be appropriate justice and much more of a deterrent.

curlykaren, I was sufficiently startled by the vitriol that came my way, for no good reason I may add, that I spoke to the relevant authorities about it. I was taken aback that a group of girls should be so rude and overbearing and saddened that en masse they seemed to have a real hatred of dogs. I think it is doubtful that the whole lot of them have been attacked by dogs so can only conclude that they have learned the dislike. I too see more and more children who run and scream at the mere sight of a dog, not only in the park but in the street, where the dog is clearly on a lead- I note that the accompanying adult often seems to share the child's dislike.

I was ordered by some Harris girls to leave the park once, on the basis that they did not like any dogs. If my dog had been kicked by one of these youngsters I would have taken the matter to the school and the parks authorities pronto.

earlsam, please could your inspection address the problem of litter in general, including but not limited to: gum, broken glass, chicken bones and other food waste, and dog poo.