first mate

Ridgley, You know what I'm going to say- there are the same idiots that actually do urinate outside people's homes after a long night at the pub. Moreover I have now, a number of times, witnessed 'gentleman' urinating on Peckham Rye, in full view of everyone,in broad daylight, taking a 'comfort break' from their football match ( the cafe and children's play area only yards away).Yes, anti-social, thoughtless people are maddening.

Ridgely and Dulwich Fox, I can pretty much guarantee that in posting on a thread like this your are preaching to the converted. Those who don't pick up are unlikely to ask about dog friendly places. We all understand the frustration with this issue but at the root is an anti social minority who probably do all sorts of other dodgy stuff. You are wasting your time chastising dog owners on here. By the way, most people do not take their dog to the park to defecate, they do so to enjoy the fresh air and to give themselves and their pet exercise and socialisation. It is possible to teach a dog to defecate on command but not easy to do and not guaranteed to work. Anyhow, that aside it is great that ED is generally such a dog friendly place, full of responsible dog owners- evidenced, I suppose, by the amount of establishments prepared to let well behaved dogs across the threshold.

The Bishop: The Actress; Franklins; Pretty Traditional; Chandelier; nearly every shop on Northcross Rd; Moo II, Mrs Robinson (both shops) all dog friendly if dog is well behaved.

As a dog owner who regularly uses both parks, I think it is entirely reasonable to put your dog on a lead in certain sections of the park, as asked. Currently one is asked to do this in only a few areas, why not just comply? It is reasonable to give those who are worried by dogs an area of the park they can feel confident in. I don't care how well behaved your dog is offlead, you are being asked to put them on a lead. If you don't want to do this, then avoid those areas. By refusing, you are in effect curtailing the freedom of those who do not feel confident around dogs. There is a significant anti-dog contingent that would like to see all dogs banned from parks or, at the very least, the requirement to leash them in all areas of the park. By constantly flouting the request to put your dog on lead in the few areas currently required, you give them all the ammunition they need. I also tire of hearing the protestations of those who walk their dogs offlead around the streets, because their dog is so well behaved. Again, it is not fair on those who dislike dogs and it creates additional problems for those who keep their dogs on a lead. Of course, it is also illegal to cross a road without leashing your dog.

Bunny19, Quite. Stamping out offlead dogs on the street would tackle a whole load of problems in one go. It is easy and cheap to police. It is clear and unambiguous and there is no need to check on licenses, chips, breed type etc.. No investigations needed as to who started what. Also, if a dog poops while on the lead it is much harder for the owner to pretend they are not aware, on that note I would also ban flexi leads on the street- a short lead is what is required. Bottom line is, on- lead dogs can be avoided by those who dislike them, and properly controlled by owners. One of the big flaws is that is does not stop idiots keeping a dangerous dog and taking it out on a lead, in close proximity to their children- but individual responsibility has to kick in at some point.

A quick read of the Southwark strategy suggests that they are doing nothing to really tackle the problem. The main concern is trees damaged by dogs in the park and putting dogs on a lead, when asked in the park. In short, the fear of dangerous dogs is being used as an excuse to institute dog control orders in the park. I use the parks a lot and I rarely see trees destroyed by dogs- I see plenty destroyed by young humans or at the behest of young humans. The Southwark strategy does not address dogs offlead on the paths, roads and streets. They have missed a massive opportunity. For safer, responsible dog ownership LEASH ON THE STREET.

One of the simplest ways of ensuring safety on the streets is by making everyone walk their dogs on a lead. Heavy, immediate fines for dissenters would soon get the message across. This would not cover everything, but a dog on a lead can be controlled and avoided. In addition, those who have very small dogs and would rather not risk a confrontation with more pugilistic breeds offlead, can at least walk their dogs in safety around the streets etc.. If you see what looks like a big bull breed and feel worried, you have the option to cross the street and avoid, knowing it cannot follow you because it is on a lead. I'm sure parents would feel more comfortable with this too. I for one, cannot understand why the law has not been amended and clarified to get this small but significant change underway. It would be so much easier to police as well. So, no dogs offlead except on private property or in the park. Dogs that escape from the front path onto the pavement, would invoke an immediate fine, because the law of no dogs offlead on streets and paths would have been broken.

In addition to all the other objections, owning a car is expensive enough already, what with insurance and petrol hikes. Permits may push ownership out altogether for some people. In order to police the controlled zones you'll need more traffic wardens zipping around in their dinky little cars. How much extra funding will all that need? As others have said getting controlled parking just pushes the problem out to another area and enables permit creep. I really hope people think properly about this and not just about the short term gains for themselves.

Those who have lived in ED for any length of time seem to manage fine- let's not turn ED into Fulham etc.. The fact is everyone can park, sometimes it just takes longer. I also think that the majority will be firmly against. As I said earlier, I have not come across a long-term resident of ED that would support it. I really do believe it would be the thin end. Once a cash strapped council gets its mitts on parking control they'll squeeze you dry.

You don't need to have a space right outside your house. I'm more than happy to park up the road when necessary. I think it's a small price to pay to avoid the introduction of parking permits etc..We must keep pressure on to avoid the money-making permit game.

Jeremy, As I said before, the force of a dog bite in reality is not so much dictated by head or jaw size but by intent. Anyone who has owned a puppy before it learns to inhibit its bite will know what I mean- those bites can really hurt. Obviously a large dog can bite harder than a small dog and a large dog intent on hurting you will do more damage than a small dog- but dogs have become domesticated animals because, for the most part, they do not go around with the intention to bite humans really hard.

Dogs and humans have a shared history- at what point did human society, in its myriad forms, become civilised?

KK, I'm interested to know what you have in mind? Ban the breed type and people will move on to the next best thing,it used to be GSD and Rottweilers. A cranky collie can be scary. Or are you suggesting that we remove dogs altogether? I know some will applaud this idea. Ban dogs, ban cars, ban guns, ban knives......er what else can hurt people...oh yes, other people.

Not automatically no. The dog might be unbalanced/mad, there is an equal probability that it has been poorly trained or abused. Finally, it might be ill or in severe pain and the owner did not know. All of these are reasonable explanations based on some knowledge of why dogs attack their owners.

kidkruger, I think you'd be surprised at just how dangerous a small dog like a rogue Jack Russell/ Cocker Spaniel or Beagle can be and how hard they can bite and how much damage they can do if they have the desire to hurt you. Any of these are more than capable of killing a child if they want to and doing very serious damage to you. Bottom line, just about any dog has the potential to be dangerous, it comes pre-equipped with some very impressive weapons.

Louisa, What is your source for that assertion? A pitbull is a very different proposition from a Staff, the first has a guard instinct the second does not. A bull type breed could mean any amount of crosses- it is a mongrel. The key is the soundness of dogs bred from and then the way they are brought up/ trained. I do agree, however, that powerful breeds whether badly bred or badly trained/abused are a loaded gun. As ever, the real problem/culprit tends to be the human that owns them.

Jeremy, I understand what you are saying and why, however, a 'sound' dog that is properly socialised and healthy is highly unlikely to turn and severely bite its owner because it has got a fright etc.. An extremely frightened dog may snap if it is cornered but they will exercise what is called 'bite inhibition'. It sounds as though this dog was biting hard, it either meant to hurt its owner because it was poorly trained and socialised or of unsound mind/bad breeding. Even dogs with the most powerful jaws learn early on how to inhibit their bite, a puppy has to learn this in order to interact with other dogs, as well as with humans. It is not clear how badly the woman was injured. If she suffered puncture wounds then that is an uninhibited bite, if she was grazed or bruised that would be an inhibited bite. Just to add any displays of aggression to humans are generally different to those displayed by staffs etc.. to other dogs, cats etc.. That is prey drive and involves different parts of the brain from other types of aggression. Granted, some rogue dogs may treat children as prey but it would be unusual and children should never be left alone with any dog.

Blame the backyard breeder. Staffs are generally totally solid with people and children (provided, of course, children are not allowed to do really stupid things to the dog) but may be unreliable with other dogs. This dog may have looked like a staff or a some other bull breed but is probably a cross. You get rogue dogs but aggression to humans is not a trait associated with Staffs as a breed. I see lots of people who have a penchant for kicking/punching bull breed type dogs and that may be another root of this dog's outburst.

*Bob*, Why, what does it mean? Given the burst water main in Brixton, perhaps there is something going down. However, 1.30 in the morning seems an extraordinary time for people to be working.

Like all the best ideas, simple but stunning. Hope you get plenty of work out of it.

JimmyJay, I agree too. That is why the council keep pushing for it- it's a lovely revenue source and who knows how far they'll hike the prices once they get the controlled parking in. I would fight this every inch of the way and, interestingly, I know of no resident that supports it.

Loved it.

Perhaps commuters are a problem but I would plead with you not to go the way of controlled parking. We've always managed without it, and once tied up into paying those fees there is no way back. Aside from the car wash and builder vehicles another bugbear of mine is two car families.

James, You may have a point about my memory, however, it does not take a genius to work out that those residents and others unable to park in Chesterfield because parking is already gobbled up by the numerous car wash clients and abundant skips and builders vehicles, will go to the next street- Melbourne Grove.

gwod, sorry, not meaning to be obstructive, but voluntary work does not preclude training and the possibility of some level of insurance/legal cover. I'd gladly sign a petition demanding a reduction in council chief exec pay though- ?250, that's virtually the cost of ownership of a home/flat a year.