first mate

Or invest it wisely, donating interest to the sacked bankers relief fund.

Pi- Kate Bush (sorry cannot find symbol for Pi)

Who'll take the ball from Maggie Thatcher - Corries

Maggie May - Rod Stewart

"Chelsea Morning" Joni Mitchell

Pitbulls and Staffies were orginally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting. Some lines, not all, should not be trusted around other dogs. When used for dog fighting in days of old, the owners needed to be able to separate their fighting dogs to avoid the death of one or the other, without the owners getting bitten. For this reason well bred Staffs and Pitbulls should be very gentle and totally biddable with people. They are actually useless guard dogs on the whole. If these breeds attack people they are likely have been badly abused or of unsound genetic material. Any dog, of any breed, can be taught to attack people but certain breeds are more likely to be people wary and Staffs and Pitbulls are not amongst them. Dogs with strong guard instincts are more likely to turn. A Staff/pit does not lock its jaw it simply refuses to give in once it has a hold. It has all the willpower and obstinacy of other terrier breeds but in addition, incredible jaw strength and a low pain threshold (making it a better dog fighter). One way to get a Staff off another dog is to hold it up by its back legs like a wheelbarrow and have someone else put a stick between its upper jaw. As a rule anyone intervening in a real dog fight, rather than a mild scrap, runs a high risk of getting bitten or worse. It is not advisable. The best thing is to try to avoid these dogs and ensure your dog is well trained enough to come to heel should you need to get it away from another dog. I avoid most bull breeds unless I know the dog and the owner. Ditto Akitas, Malamutes and Shar peis. I think too many people attracted to the gentle nature of Staffs around children etc.. are not always wholly aware how different they can be around dogs. I think a Staff (Pitbulls are totally illegal unless neutered and muzzled) that shows any aggression to other dogs should not be let off lead in public parks and other places. Dog fights present a real risk to children and other people in the vicinity. Too many "Staffs" are crossbreeds. They look like Staffs but do not necessarily have the breed and character traits of a Staff. Thus some may be vicious with people.

Hi Eric, Were the people hostile too or were they concerned about the state of your dog? Did they give you a name and address? Do you think they understood the severity of what the dog had done and will keep it on a lead in future, or are they clueless? Was it pure Staff, or a mix? Hard to tell I know. Is it smallish or one of the longer legged type? Were the police interested? As you know, if you were sufficiently frightened of the dog yourself and had good reason to believe it might attack you, that might be grounds under the DDA to have the dog siezed and PTS.

macroban, Sorry, badly expressed on my part and it did sound patronising. What I was trying to say was that banning dogs from the Green entirely would particularly affect those dog owners who were not up to daily visits to the Rye- amongst these these some elderly dog owners. A voluntary short lead policy would enable those dog owners who need to use the Green, because it is harder for them to go elsewhere, to carry on.

p-in-ed, Thanks for the reasonable tone of your reply. I think the poo and the walkers are two separate things and here's why why. The non scoop poopers are a tiny group who are not going to change, not without a really serious punishment and that would be difficult to enforce. First you have to catch 'em and these anti social types tend to walk their dogs at anti social hours or off lead everywhere. But, we'd all like to see the back of them. The walkers, a bit like me, are worried about dog control orders because for the minority that actively loathe all dogs and would like to see them banned everywhere, applying control orders sets a precedent that could go on to be applied on Peckham Rye etc.. I would like to see a voluntary code of conduct whereby dog owners keep their dogs on a short lead on the Green. Any dog needing a good gallop should be taken to the Rye. If the owner cannot do this then my feeling is they shouldn't have a dog that requires goodly amounts of exercise every day. This allows the elderly and others with lower exercise needs to potter around on the Green. In the same way I wouldn't expect to see full scale football matches and similar on the Green, it's just not of a scale for those kinds of activity- the Rye is. Of course, the really practical solution to the poo issue is that we all pick up what's there (any dog walker should always go armed with plenty of bags anyway) I heave at this idea as much as anyone but if the bag is a good one no harm can come to us. I expect to be hung, drawn and quartered for this suggestion. But it would go some way to solving the problem.

p-in-ed, I feel your pain at the poo but why do you keep assuming that removing or putting up fences is going to make any difference to the tiny amount of people that don't pick up? Rather like those who continue to wilfully speed or drink and drive, despite fines and points on licence, these people are the same. They don't care. I should just add that it only takes one or two of the same people plus dog/s, over a few days, to create the impression that every dog owner is doing it. Also what about the broken glass, haven't you noticed that too?

I believe "rasscluts" it is something akin to faeces becoming tangled in the hairs of one's nethers - bottom clots if you will. You might as well address a client/patient as "you pile of shit". In certain cultures it is a seriously abusive thing to say. If this word was used, it is, in my view, bordering on a sackable offence. At the very least the perpetrator of such vile language should be seriously disciplined. I may sound OTT but this is the thin end of the wedge and if you let this type of behaviour go, then goodness knows what we'll get next. Melbourne Grove Surgery in its current form is a disaster. I too have found the reception staff lippy with a whole lot of attitude and really quite unsuitable for the job they have been recruited to do. At the very least they need to be sent away to do intensive customer training and to learn the very basics in good manners. And I won't even touch the diagnosis by phone issue because few have anything to say in its favour. The cost-cutting "experiment" has been a complete failure.

Will losing some parking on LL increase parking issues in the side streets making it easier to introduce controlled parking and permits in future? If it's only a couple of spaces then probably no issue, just musing. Just seen this already discussed earlier. Sorry folks.

Huggers, I agree with you. A fence behind the path nearest the roundabout would make a good dog area and dogs on short leads anywhere else is fine. Also agree the fence was hideous. The new fence should be the same design as perimeter fence. The Green looks so much better without the old fence. I still maintain though that the really irresponsible people will most likely carry on. But, fingers crossed and let this be an end to it.

Some were complaining when the fence was up. To hear them you'd think the whole non dog section of the Green was knee deep in dog poo all the time, indicating that partition was not working. To be honest I don't have strong feelings either way, just so long as I am not banned from walking my dog through the Green should I choose. I imagine the childrens sports days etc.. can carry on as before. It'd be a very odd person who'd let their dog off lead to defecate and run about willy nilly amongst a bunch of kiddies and their attendant parents/ adult carers at what is clearly an organised event. Human nature is generally more accommodating. If older children are using the fenced playground to kick balls in a way that is harmful to toddlers then parents need to sort it out between them. My view is to get older children running five minutes up the road to the Rye where they have bags of space to kick away and the little extra exercise in getting there can only do them good. This is not to say that they cannot run around on the Green of course they can- as you say it's all about compromise and common sense. As others have said we've all rubbed along quite happily in days gone by why such sound and fury now?

Problem is the us and them stance does seem to be perpetuated by a few parents who want others banned from use of the Green.

ooooh, ouch!

Louisa, I'm beginning to feel a bit like that myself. I don't know how we all survived up to this point. Fractionater might want to add a huge dome to the private park, with a disinfectant dip at the entry point, just to ensure that the environs within are kept completely sterile.

p-in-ed, You are the one who is polarising the argument not me. I said that the Green is for the use of all the community, and this includes dog owners, as well as parents and children. In addition to access to the Green children have use of an exlusive area adjacent. I also said that I, and many others I'm sure, would be happy to keep a dog on a short lead in that particular space. FYI most dog owners do use the Rye. A few, like the elderly, like to take their dog on the Green. A highly inconsiderate minority walk their dogs offlead everywhere, including the streets, and also allow their dogs to poo without picking up. Those people are a pain for all of us. Even dog owners dislike stepping in dog poo. Many dog owners have children too! Your us and them stance is unhelpful. Attempts to ban dogs from Goose Green will affect the decent majority of dog owners and have no impact whatsoever on the minority of offenders. We should all try to work together to improve our locale and save the invective for the few that really deserve it.

I would be concerned about dog control orders because this would set a precedent that might involve banning dogs from other green spaces in Southwark, infringing the rights of many law abiding, responsible and tax paying dog owners. I would not be averse to a demand to keep dogs under control and on a short lead when it is a very small space like Goose Green. This would make sense all round and would make it harder for owners to miss their dog defecating. It would also help the small proportion of children that are scared of dogs. However, I would not want this applied on Peckham Rye and other, larger spaces I say again though that there is already a decent enclosed space, especially for small children, adjacent to the Green. I think it's fine for young children to kick a ball around,but older kids, or larger groups should be encouraged to use the Rye.

p-in-ed, I think we have to accept that Goose Green is not there for the sole use of parents and children but for the whole community and that includes dog owners, some of whom are elderly and cannot get as far as the Rye. There is a fenced off play area for the exclusive use of children opposite. Older children who want to play ball etc.. have only to walk five minutes up the road to Peckham Rye, where there is much more space and again, fenced off areas for children. I should add that in and around all of these spaces I notice as much broken glass as dog poo but there never seems to be any concern about that. Litter is an urban problem of which dog poo is a part. There will, alas, always be those who litter without a thought or care for others. A little bit of vigilance on the part of park and community wardens as well as a few fines may help the problem on Goose Green. I don't believe a ban on dogs would work because the kind of people who litter with broken glass, discarded food and gum, food wrappings etc, and who don't pick up, are the types who will carry on doing just what they want to do.

Moos, I think if mums appear to be trying to be discreet that makes a lot of difference. It's the -wop em out and I dare you to have a problem brigade- that cause temperatures to rise. I think most of us sense when someone is struggling but trying and, on the other hand, the person who just doesn't give a d. Asset, you are correct, she changed the nappy while seated at a table. Even so, not really necessary when facilities available, surely you would agree?

Changing a nappy on a table that others will eat on and in full view of others eating, is selfish and unsupportable and...unecessary, given nappy changing facilities were clearly marked and available. Breast feeding in public is fine but should, out of respect for others sensibilities, be done with discretion. I can't see any reason why boobs need to be on full display. It's easy enough to carry a light (or heavy, if it's cold) shawl/wrap that allows the boob to be concealed. On this basis I can see no grounds for objection to public breast feeding anywhere. I can also see no reason why the Mum's who want to breast feed in public should not ensure they always have a shawl/wrap to hand.

Honk, actually many of us have black friends and neighbours from "round here". The fact that you view ED as an exclusively white enclave suggests you need to get off your high horse and out more.

Orla and Halcion, Thanks for drawing attention to this incident. It sounds like it was an unsettling experience. Honk you come across as a self righteous p**t. You were accused of being mildly sexist on another thread, is this a cack-handed attempt to show you aren't a racist too, or do you just have problems empathising with women? Either way your "point" about skin colour seems way off beam.

No, never!