first mate

The increase in footfall is all well and good, but people will want to park, as will the 8 plus families that will live in the proposed new residential development- that is a massive increase in traffic and then, yes, frequent deliveries by huge lorries too. If you read the planning appilication the developers are under the delusion that people will all cycle!!! The garden centre is another big development waiting to happen. Perhaps this is why there were such huge efforts to push CPZ through. It doesn't seem like this has been thought through at all.

This could have a huge impact on Chesterfield, Ashbourne and Melbourne Grove parking, and not in a good way. The carwash puts enough pressure on the street as it is. If this development goes ahead it'd open things up for the CPZ lobby all over again. The other point is for a large shop like M&S where is the loading on and off lorries going to happen and what are the access points? Iceland juggernauts already cause enough of a problem; resident walls as well as cars have been badly damaged over the years. The development looks to be huge too. If there are any architects around could they say how much higher than the existing structure the proposed development is? Would there be parking for the proposed 8 plus residents as well as shopworkers on the existing site?

I've had a few odd ones recently- one guy at 10.30pm wnating to know if I needed any gardening done; another, similar time, syaing he was just doing his "annual rounds, but not to worry"....??!!

Hmmm, you'd think with a development of this scale that all the street would be consulted- only a handful it seems. It's been kept very low key. The rationale is that since all the existing parking behind Iceland will be removed this will reduce pressure from cars parking in the area. Not sure that makes sense? Where will the residents in the new units park? There is a carwash next to the proposed development and they regularly park cars waiting to be washed up and down the street- Southwark Wardens are awfully obliging about cars on yellow lines where this business is concerned;) Do we need an M&S? It is not clear to me how much higher than the exisiting structure this building will be?

Now, now Hugo, no need to get personal. You leave my haemorrhoids alone. Sooooo cruel to play on my paranoia too!:)

Will do. This was not meant to be a criticism of you just a question about the process. I have looked at the links and the information available online and it seems to me to be incredibly vague and loose. We are told that only necessary information will be taken, but not what that is. It is also implied that only people that need to know will have access to the information- again pretty vague. Oh well,one for Information Governance then.

I would go towards the end of a class and wait and then book for next class. It is likley that those who have managed to get in each time are able to book for the next time. This seems the only explanation otherwise there might be some cozy insider stuff going down. It'd be worth checking to see if the same people are there each week. Either way it is symptomatic of something deeply wrong in public sector services and needs to go right up to the top to be sorted. Leisure is a service industry- anyone with attitude should be given the boot pronto.

Is this to do with the summary health care records and what if you had opted out of those. I'm still no clearer exactly how relevant/what information is taken from the pateint records. Presumably practice staff do not have time to do this, so who would physically be putting info together and how? Is nature of info, name, age/DB , gender, address and whether surgery used in last year, or will more information be taken for 'statistical' purposes at same time?

If others recall, there were moves in the last year or so to widen access to patient records. I am not trying to muddy the waters, I just want to be clear as to exactly how this 'statistical' information is gleaned?

First question, just how do they get to 'pull' details from patient records? Will they have access to full records or simply a list of names and addresses supplied by you? I feel deeply uncomfortable with the idea of any LA personnel being able to 'pull' stuff off my records- just on principle!

Plus some children can find clowns really scary!

boosboss, Absolutely. This garden is clearly meant to be a quiet, tranquil spot. There are plenty of other spaces in the park for youngsters to run and burn off energy. All of us, single people; OAPS, parents, children and dog owners need to cherish this special area and to respect the massive amount of free time and labour that has gone into its creation. If that means we all have to police it to protect it too, then we should.

Microchipping is all well and good but the vast majority of owners already do this. Even if the ne'er do wells are in some way forced to microchip, who, in these times of austerity, is going to be tasked with carrying scanners to do spot checks? Remember also that chips can and have been removed by the same dodgy types, who have little compunction in visiting pain on their dog. I do so wish that having dogs on lead was enforceable on the streets, this seems to me a far more practical solution for less cost, a dog on the lead can be both avoided and controlled.

Thsmes Water is part owned by Kemble Holdings and the Chinese! It seems to have an incredibly complex financial and investment structure so I wouldn't be surprised if left hands do not know what right hands are doing. Do the inevstors care that much about the quality of service? Obviously they care about profit, but as seems to be the case thus far, making a profit does not have to be justified by the quality of service- they charge you anyway.

Heron was out in Japanese Garden in Peckham Rye today- enjoying the sun. Saw three rats too- very busy.

You can trust the Murdochs to try to exploit anything and anyone they can to their advantage -which one of them is running SKY now? As an aside, I've been told that other than HD most digital pictures will be inferior to good analogue. I must admit, I put on my new HD TV expecting a revelation and could see only a small difference. I'm already getting loads of dropout, picture freezing/ breaking up, so no better than analogue and possibly worse. Trying to remember the point of the switchover- oh yes, room for many more channels offering more choice..........? Has it all been a big money spinning con?

I second Razors. The extension over the outrigger can put your neighbour in shadow.

tallulah71, yes, the monitoring is really important and we should all do it, whatever the interaction.

beckyg, You make some fair points but it is noteworthy that 'Blue' has formerly had 'nice' games with dogs of a similar breed type- the problem was engaging with a smaller breed. One can only conclude that the owner's knowledge of his dog was not perhaps as rounded as it needed to be. It sounds as though he was not monitoring his dogs closely enough and was very slow to intervene. It is good that he has agreed to muzzle his dog but people have every right to be angry at what happened. Sad to say it also tells us something that dogs of very similar type (blue staffs) have been involved in other serious attacks on dogs. Either the dogs have been poorly socialized/inadequately trained, or they have a strong genetic predisposition to this behaviour.

LD, You misunderstand, David mech shows that wolf hierarchies are rigid. Wolf packs are rigid- but they are built on family units where the parents are boss and keep the kids in line. On the other hand, dogs though genetically related to wolves, do not form rigid hierarchies. Feral dogs may form loose packs but there is no hierarchy that reflects wolf behaviour. As I said I do believe that you get more confident dogs and more pushy/assertive dogs but somehow dominance implies a broad agenda that motivates actions which I do not believe really reflects what dogs are all about- I think they live much more in the moment. I agree about socialisation. Dogs have such an incredible range of morphologies and massive differences in behavioural thresholds that they really do have to learn about each other. Those differences almost amount to 'cultural' differences between breeds and types and this can cause poor communication and misunderstandings to occur. As I said, I do agree that owners can ratchet up a fear reaction but owners should not have to get to that stage. All of us have to read canine signals better and not just base all dog interactions using our dog as the measure. My dog might desperately wnat to get to the little dog over there- but she is cowering away- perhaps she doesn't feel well today or perhaps my dog reminds her of a dog that attacked her a few weeks ago- who knows. Bottom line, I should call my dog away and quit bothering the other dog. At the very least this will help to build the others dog's confidence. As a final note all it need take is one bad experience to make a fomerly confident dog fearful.

LD, Dogs are social animals and need boundaries and 'rules' if they are all to get along in the same household. However, I disagree with you that there are clear hierarchies- dogs are not pack animals in the same way that wolves are- and, as I am sure you know, the wolf pack is built on a family structure where the parents are in charge, which puts rather a different gloss on the whole idea of the 'dominant' male and female. Studies on feral dogs show that they do not form true packs or hierarchies, rather the relationships shift with different individuals being more assertive in different contexts. People who own many dogs together often notice the same thing- a seemingly 'submissive' dog may becomes very assertive in a certain room or outside of the house. A seemingly' dominant' dog changes in another environment. As a rule bitches tend to be more assertive in the home and dogs outside. Dogs that consistently get into fights might be viewed as maladpative since it is not a biologically sound strategy for survival. Psycho wolves tend to get ostracised by the pack because an animal that fights causes upheaval and tension in the group, it is a also a massive waste of energy, not to mention the risk of injury. Adolescent animals and junior members of the wolf pack are disciplined but those meteing out discipline are likely to be the parents (see David Mech on studies of wild wolves in Yellowstone Park).Much wolf beahviour is ritualized social signalling, to which they are highly attuned. When a wolf attacks it really does intend to kill. Some dogs have lost this sensitivity to social signals, others are more sensitive. Though dogs are genetically close to wolves, behaviourally they are different in many ways. Once you put humans into the equation things are more complex still. Rather than 'pack leaders' I suspect that dogs see us as reliable providers of food, security and play- we also make the rules. Perhaps we are closer to secondary parent figures than leaders. A major reason we can get dogs to obey us is down to conditioning/associative learning and the fact that dogs have an almost unique ability to read and respond to human facial expressions. In varying degrees dogs have been selectively bred to have a need to repsond to us. It really does not have much to do with dominance. I think different types of dogs have evolved through artificial selection for different functions and as a result they have different thresholds for reactivity, for social signalling and for the exhibition of fear or aggression. One can quite easily point to breeds that are more laid back generally. Like your GSD- an example of a dog exhibiting working traits at the extreme end of what he was selectively bred to do, guard, so much so that he could not function in the average domestic environment. On top of all this humans can cause problems through inadequate socialisation, over indlugence, poor/no training etc.. I do agree that owners can increase their dogs fear or aggression by their own behaviour. However, we will have to agree to differ about boiling dog relationships down to dominance/submission/hierarchies. It is a view promulgated by the likes of Cesar Milan who is viewed as woefully out of touch by cynologists and the canine scientific community.

LD, I'm not sure what you mean by a dominant dog? Very confident dogs rarely have to assert themselves- a submissive/underconfident dog would most likely be ignored by them. Dogs that go looking for a fight and to impress themselves on other dogs on a regular basis may be unsound, have a very strong fighting instinct (it cannot be denied that this runs in some staffy/staffy type lines) or they are fearful of other dogs/have been allowed to get into bad habits. Some dogs are allowed to become bullies because of inadequate training. The times I see dogs scrap are when two intact males meet- this is natural and hormonal and a reason why owners of intact males should always be careful when allowing intact boys to run together- especially if there are bitches in season around. Some boys get along, some just ignore each other, but there is always the risk of a competitive set to. Breeds vary in how well intact males tolerate each other. Some bitches can take a strong, lifelong dislike to each other- again hormonal. Adult dogs have varying degrees of tolerance around puppies and adolescents. Some adolescent males will be 'targetted'by older intact males- hormonal again. A fair number of adult dogs will react badly to having a pupppy jump all over them. There are breed variations. Some dogs require more space than others (see Marie's excellent posters)and dogs from some breeds do less well at reading social situations. This can cause fights. Very occasionally a group of dogs may gang up on a 'weak' elderly or sick member but this would happen more in a pack situation at home. Dogs can treat other dogs as prey. Some dogs with a strong fighting heritage can roll over from play into prey drive/aggression quite suddenly. I suspect this is what happened with poor Morph. Most Staffy breed websites advise owners to carefully socialise and monitor their dog's play with other breeds, teaching the dog when to stop. Most also advise that while these dogs are great with people they need careful supervision around other dogs. This is not dominance it is a trait that has been selectively bred for. None of these instances is about dominance. The only case that really matches that description is when two intact males fight over a bitch for for territory. Most dogs are merely social opportunists who want to meet other dogs for play or for sex- the whole dominance paradigm doesn't really make much sense in those terms. Dogs that repeatedly want to attack other dogs are either not quite right, have learned to do this through fear/human taught, or have a genetic propensity to do this. A spat is rather different and ,yes, dogs have teeth and they will use them to make a point- but there will be no injuries afterwards.

bluesupersted, I guess your real beef is with the owners and we are all with you on that. Dogs should not be offlead on the street at any time - this needs to be made law, which it is not right now. The park is a different matter though as dogs should be allowed some free running. Nonethless, owners should not allow their dogs to bound up to humans uninvited. I am also in favour of areas of the park where dogs should be on lead but would not wnat this extended to the whole park, but at least this way everyone has the option to avoid off lead dogs. On another note, I have recently had a succession of little children that have bounded up to my dog in the street and stroked him without asking. Fortunately my dog is reasonably tolerant of this but he does not always enjoy it. Children really must be taught to be more savvy about dogs- I feel it is something we have lost. But modern dog owners seem to be pretty ignorant about dogs too, so we have bad manners all round. Finally, I understand your fears about the dog 'Blue' and nothing is more important than the safety of your child. But the other posters are right when they say that the behaviour with a dog that went so tragically awry does not mean it would be aggressive with children or humans- the two are not interlinked. I can see how empty this might sound and I agree that the seeming incompetence of the owner is of major concern, but as the poster above says, dog on human attacks are rare.

I guess the grass will eventually grow back but it isn't only footballers that would like to use that area- it's a siginificant portion of the park that should be ready for other park users to enjoy over summer.

CC, I'm sure you meant that in a good way but it sounded pretty patronising to me. I think old age is rather more than a state of mind- your genes may have something to do with it for starters.