first mate

Sorry, having read this thread properly it sounds as though 'Blue' has been attacking other people's dogs for a number of years and has now progressed to killing. Surely it would be worth collating all of the evidence, with witness statements and seeing if some kind of civil action can be launched against the owner- otherwise he is just going to carry on. He clearly knows what his dog is capable of doing.

This is awful, I am so sorry for the owners, the little boy and the dog. People need to be aware that many different types of dog can have a strong prey drive and, unfortunately, some staffy types have it within them to view small dogs as prey. The fact that 'Blue' was shaking the poor dog that died indicates this. Owners of these types of dog need to be particularly vigilant and UNDERSTAND the drives and motivations of the breeds they choose to own and take the necessary precautions. The owner of 'Blue' sounds utterly irresponsible and, in my view should not be allowed to own a dog at all. The fact that this dog has performed this action once means it is almost certain to do it again. We all need to be vigilant and report this person if he is seen out with the dog immediately. A dog like this cannot be let of lead around other dogs and my concern would be that the owner not only lets it off in the park but walks it offlead on the streets. There is the additional concern that if someone tried to intervene in an attack on their dog they might also end up badly injured.

Real early stuff

I think it is fair enough that street cleaners will not wnat to pick up poos with bags, but there are cheap handheld devices that could easily be used http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?q=dog+scooper&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=4411412128147679595&sa=X&ei=kL9hT4ywA8W68gOPmcG7CA&ved=0CHUQ8wIwAQ Of course, ideally everyone sould pick up after their own dog and I am in favour of on-the-spot fines for those caught not picking up, just as I would be for any deliberate littering. Has anyone else noted high levels of broken glass everywhere, again? I fail to see how you can accidentally drop and smash a bottle without realising- incredibly dangerous too.

The fact that this dog simply allowed itself to be beaten over the head by the woman is proof of a good baseline temperament. However, if you were trying to turn a dog human-aggressive I can think of no better way to start. Poor dog! I's also be slightly concerned about the dog standing over another dog with its hackles up- if this is what you meant by its neck hair being raised- this can sometimes, though not always, be a prelude to the other dog getting a pasting. Sounds like this woman is totally unsuitable for dog ownership and the rest of us suffer, most of all the dog!

Hugo, H said ------------------------------ People get confused about dyslexia (unwitting pun) - it's not about spelling problems, and those spelling problems which are created are usually quite specific, not general grammatical rules. True dyslexia is much broader than simply confusing or transposing letters, for example mistaking ?b? and ?d.". In general, symptoms of DRD may include: - Difficulty determining the meaning (idea content) of a simple sentence - Difficulty learning to recognize written words - Difficulty rhyming What's your source for that info? I'd always thought,perhaps erroneously, that dyslexia was an umbrella term that covered a range of things, and that most involve problems with memory processing. In this way problems with category, especially that sound the same- two/too/to- might arise as a result of dyselxia.

I saw a red robin and a red coloured grey squirrel at ED station yesterday!

James it could be that the 'anti bite' foul-tasting ingredient is not effective, especially if the dog is being worked up and encouraged to bite at the trees. A cage might be better. Anyone that sees dogs doing this should report it to the park warden immediately. Anyhow, it is the owners that need to be caught and dealt with- antisocial behaviour in its myriad forms is a problem for us all. Of course, in some cases the trees are just ripped at by people sans dog, I've seen young males doing this in the park. The regular grafitti damage to the Japanese summerhouse is a pain, but at least the bowling pavilion has not been burned down again. However, a couple of years back vandals did set fire to some trees on the Rye. What was it you were saying about banning those causing damage from the park and streets grumpy?

It's been said many times before, but since dogs defecate up to four times a day all you need is one rogue owner and the surrounding streets will quite quickly get filled with turds, giving the impression that there are lots of lazy owners about. ED is not overwhelmed with dog owners that do not pick up, the vast majority do. Perhaps the offlead Staffy needs tracing to the owner and a quiet word might be in order. Dogs offlead on our streets are a bad thing; the type of owner who can't even be bothered to put their dog on a lead may also be too lazy to pick up.

BNG, I agree, let us leave this thread to the 'clever' people.

I also think free bays should be looked at, just to see if it would maximise parking spaces. One way streets at the station end of streets like Derwent Grove. Routing traffic round towards Dulwich hospital site where some land could be used to provide low cost parking permits for dulwich businesses with multiple car use (estate agents) and commuters. Limit of cars per household- ideally one.

I agree with peckamboy, time for some constructive thinking. I too suspect that James made some kind of promise to those residents suffering on Derwent Grove and this might explain his apparent tunnel vision last night. As an aside I happened to walk through Derwent Grove this morning and was somewhat suprised to find it densely parked by with 5 spaces available (10am). Perhaps it was a coincidental blip. Anyhow, it is important that some way is found to alleviate the parking problem for those closest to the station. I wondered if uncontrolled and free marked out parking spaces might help? In that it might ensure the maximum amount of cars can fit onto the street at any given time? Of course, it might make it worse- has anyone done the maths on this? Could the street be made no entrance at the station end, routing non resident parkers round closer to the hospital where some kind of cheap parking deal might be effected for commuters? Just seen Peckham boy also suggests one way streets. Worth considering?

Oh dear.

f71, Were you there last night? Given the strength of your views and vitriol I'm sure you must have made the effort. If you were there you'll know that along with the majority effort to halt the steamrollering through of CPZ, were also an overwhelming number of calls for some creative thinking to relieve parking in affected roads. The view from the floor and from petitioners and a majority of councillors was that there had to be a better way than CPZ. You are right about James et al as conviction polititicans- they came across as blinkered, sticking rigidly to their CPZ dogma, come what may. It did not invite confidence.

Yes, big cheer for EDF. I was wondering if it could be nominated for a Southwark civic award/ or has this already been done? Without the EDF we may not had the result we got tonight.

I was shocked by James tonight, it is one thing to bravely/pig headedly hold one's line in the face of overwhelming opposition, but this was something else.... a unique perspective on the figures. I would also like to thank Giles Sirett, Max Sharp (hope I got the name right) and Gill (?) who all did a sterling job.

Agenda and address for community council meeting tonight- start time 7pm. Please everyone, try to be there. http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=3992&T=0

James, But you cannot be sure that, as you stated earlier in this thread, CPZ "will have the desired affect", that means it is not a clear solution either.

I wonder what people think of Scottish independeance? Should only the people of Scotland (Derwent Grove) get to vote or should the whole UK (grisett and co) decide on Scottish independence. Do people think that more than 50% of the whole population should vote for independence of just a majority? Eitherway, it would be really appreciated if the CPZ thread could stay there. James you wrote the above on your other thread- but I am transposing as you have asked for the other thread to be kept clear. It's disingenuous. The consulation 'consulted' with a zone and that zone returned a majority voice against CPZ. If you are now stating that the only valid voices are those on two streets, then why was the consultation not limited to those two street

Gsirett, You know how Southwark would get a trial CPZ removed- by a street by street consultation ;) You are right, a trial would simply be the council foot in the door, and CPZ permanently.

DJKQ, You make a good point about the terms of the consultation being extremely open to interpretation- allowing for lots of wiggle room. Information about it was also kept very low key and was not easy to find on the Southwark website without a link.

Loz, that is an excellent point- if the problem is simply moved on how on earth can it really be termed a solution?

fazer, It is well recognised that residents on two streets feel they have a problem. The objection is that the 'solution' as proposed, will merely shift that problem to another street- as you suggested, streets on the edge of the CPZ will always have a problem. A further objection is that the majority of those participating in the consultation have said no to CPZ. Many are also distrustful of how any CPZ system would be managed in terms of permit costs etc..There are also fears that an overriding political motive is 'money' dressed up and presented as the 'greater good'. In short, I think many distrust the process, the motive and the proposed system.

I really do think we should stop any personal attacks on James. It may be true to argue that he is playing politics with this issue but then he is a politican...... Pointing out flaws in his arguments is perfectly fair though. Let us focus on the issue which is CPZ. There are extremely strong arguments against and thus far, the only argument in favour seems to be that it may help a minority of residents on two streets although, as James has stated, there is no guarantee it will defintely have the 'desired affect', and the problem will, of course, simply be passed on to the next street.

"others has been told controlled parking across all East Dulwich is proposed - it isn't." James, come on, you know that the displacement effect will mean that large sections of ED are likely to become CPZ once a few streets are actioned. You keep citing streets that say they'll have CPZ if the adjacent street gets it- that is because of displacement, they are not in favour of CPZ as a principle. CPZ is not a solution it moves the problem on to a new street, until the whole area is CPZ and then we are at the mercy of council permit hikes and all the other shenanigans we hear of in other CPZ zones. No doubt you'll have plenty to say on the subject at the Dulwich Communmity Council meeting on Tuesday 24th.