first mate

I am not for one moment suggesting that foxes have posed the corpses of cats on owner doorsteps. I for one will keep an open mind. It could be that some of the killings have been at the hands of a human/s and others have a different explanation. In these cash strapped times I can also imagine that the police might want to close down further investigation.

I have known of cats being attacked by foxes. Granted the cats were elderly but one was badly injured as a result. Foxes are opportunists and I would think a kitten or elderly cat might well be vulnerable at certain times of the year. That said it probably doesn't happen a lot because we would hear aboout it. RendelharrisWrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Angelina Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Foxes very rarely attack cats - they don't see > > them as something to eat or a threat. Foxes and > > cats keep to themselves. > > > > So, as long as it's rubber stamped it's gospel? > I > > am surprised how gullible people are. > > Foxes virtually never attack cats - I've seen my > cats in the past facing them up and owning them. > What foxes do is scavenge on cats that have sadly > been hit by cars - and they tend to go for heads > and tails, these being the easiest parts to eat.

roxie99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes as SNARL say > > 1.How come no cats killed this way by foxes in > other areas of England > 2. They do clarify why they still think human > involvement > 3. How come vet pathologist missed puncture marks > 4. Police statement wrong but they need to move > on? I wondered about this but think that with such an intelligent and highly adaptive species we have to allow for the possibility of learned behaviour that is passed down through generations of foxes in a particular area. London is unusually dense with very high populations of cats in close proximity, we also have huge amounts of traffic and roadkill makes for an easy meal.I haven't had a close look at other examples of this but would guess that similar episodes have always been in cities? Why the phenomenon should then die down again somewhat explodes my theory though. > > Rxie

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear all > > kiera - there is a consultation being launched > soon on two potential controlled parking zones. > One is in East Dulwich, and the other is 'Peckham > West'. Every street in Goose Green falls into one > or the other. > > The consultation will identify what appetite there > is for controlled parking in different areas. The > consultation area is quite big but the results > will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if > controlled parking is popular in some areas but > not in others then the former can have controlled > parking and the latter not. > > For my part, I want to be guided by the outcome of > this consultation. I have had this issue raised > with me countless times and people have strong > opinions on both sides. > > redjam - I agree that the closing of the sorting > office is a disaster. The Royal Mail should never > have been privatised. > > Helen Hayes MP has done a lot of work on this. I > do not want to reinvent the wheel so I have > contacted her to see if she has already > investigated it. If I can add any weight to this > then I will happily do so. > > Best wishes > James I'm sorry but I find this approach to CPZ so utterly disingenuous. S'wark Labour are forcing reduction of car ownership so why not just be upfront and say that the intention is to support CPZ on streets currently suffering from heavier traffic/reduced parking knowing this will displace the problem again and again until the whole of S'wark is CPZ. The fig leaf of democracy and a 'listening' council is simply not true in this instance- there is a long game around street by street CPZ consultation, hastened by unwarranted mass double lines everywhere.

Thanks nxjen, by thr looks of it not the deviation I feared. Hoping blood tests will also be offered.

For aome reason I had thought this centre would continue to offer some hospital services and this would be based on local need. Will people be able to get blood tests etc.. as has been the case? What about physiotherapy and rehab? It sounds as though the function has moved on considerably from what was being stated a few years ago? Can anyone say what services will be on offer here?

dresswaves Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimbo1964 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > dresswaves Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Does anyone know why they are using the Park > & > > not > > > the Rye? > > > > That would make more sense. Guessing the extra > > fencing? > > That?s what I thought but having seen the site > today they have put solid fencing round the whole > site even where there?s park fencing. Southwark website says the promoters had other choices but they especially liked the "pretty" backdrop of this venue and wanted the visual impact of the trees and park for their ticket buyers. The common has no trees. They also said that on the common sound would be harder to contain, the trees act as a sound buffer.

Rendel, yes, I got distracted mid post and had to go back to finish. Sweet accord prevails.

Yup, agree when in a dogs on lead area owners should comply. Seems this was not a dogs on lead area. That said, I would not personally let dogs or pups playfight on a path used by cyclists.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It was an unfortunate accident I know, but if a > > dog collided with your bike or your daughters > bike > > in that 'Shared use route' and if it was > injured, > > I would see it as being your responsibility not > > the dog owner. And maybe rather than expressing > > your anger here you could pay or contribute to > any > > vet bill? > > I can't quite believe what I've just read. OK, so > it's a shared use area. That means shared > responsibility. Someone's dog jumped at a six > year old girl and knocked her off her bike, if the > dog's injured mum/dad should pay for the vet's > bill? Just to reiterate, the child didn't run > into to the dog, the dog ran into the child. How > in blue blazes does that make any injury the dog > sustained the parent's responsibility? Where does it say the dog knocked the child off her bike? It simply says the dog "flew" into the child's bike and the OP was sure the dog was injured as a result. By stating as fact that the child was knocked over the whole episode is reframed. The OP says the child was fine. Just think we have to be careful with the facts here.

Think Blah Blah had most sensible approach, it was an accident, more care required by dog owners, glad no people/children hurt, and it sounded like the OP was concerned the dog was injured and did not want the same happening again.

Okay, well the OP said that had it been him the dog had run into "it would probably have been run over and crushed" that doesn't fit with a cyclist going very slowly does it? Perhaps he meant he would have fallen onto the dog and crushed it but he did say "run over".

Yes, but the slower the bike speed the gentler the impact and therefore injury all round less likely. Not ideal for dogs to be chasing around off lead on that bit of the park but I see way too many cyclists pelting at top speed through both DP and PR. Anyhow, in this case, hoping dog is not imjured and glad child was ok.

Please see lost section for information on reported lost dog Isis, that fits this description.

tortor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand concerns about the introduction of a > CPZ- not least the cost. However there has to be a > discussion about what to do about an increasingly > difficult situation... > > It is getting harder and harder to park around > East Dulwich- in lots of different areas. I can > easily be driving around for 20 minutes looking > for somewhere to park... it's not just that there > aren't any spaces on my street, but there are no > spaces within a 10 minute walk, which with 2 young > kids/ shopping etc makes things very difficult. > (Let alone the environmental issue of driving > round unnecessarily). > > But it's also difficult for some local businesses. > One hairdresser told me long standing clients are > just going elsewhere because they can't deal with > the parking situation. > > Things have changed a lot here in recent years > with more popular restaurants, shops which attract > people from further afield with cars (eg M&S) and > more people doing more building work with > associated tradespeople. In many ways that's all > great, but to simply say "no CPZ" without other > suggestions of how to help increased parking > congestion, there'll be no improvement. > > So what might work instead? Your point about M&S attracting people in cars from further afield noted. We were assured over and over again that people would not drive to M&S but would cycle or use public transport. Well guess what.... We are now being told CPZ will greatly improve the parking situation (in part created by those not listening to objections to the above and similar). Why would you believe it?

This 'survey' is deeply cynical and deeply disappointing , but sadly, not surprising.

Be in no doubt, Southark will meddle and tweak with road design and double yellow lines until they get the mass CPZ they intended all along. And it's not just S'wark Labour, James Barber was a major early champion of CPZ in ED and argued long and hard for it here on the forum. The street by street technique is a fave, get one street to go CPZ and soon neighbouring streets will follow.

Lee, yes think you make good points. I have wondered for some time if the anti dog agenda was related in some way to slow encroachment of Harris onto PR. The new imminent PSPOS state that dogs will not be allowed into children's playing areas, so note your comment about Grasslands East and the 'possibility' of a long game with a view to acquisition of parts of PR?

That said, agree with Lee, pretty poor show to see bricks and what not discarded into that stream, whatever happened to cracking down on anti social littering in the borough's nature and beauty spots, especially by a council funded contractor. Agree, disgraceful, why aren't the park wardens on top of this?

Like you Bobby P, I am not falling for the pro CPZ rationale. Parking has become a little more difficult of late but not impossible and I have never expected or been able to park outside my house. If people are physically infirm there is always the option of disabled bays. The majority double park outside their home when there is a need to offload multiple or heavy items- this takes only moments- and then go and find a space elsewhere. I am happy to park on another street if need be and would be surprised if the majority found such a short walk taxing. Really do think any reason at all is being scraped up to justify CPZ.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rupert - Your area will not be overrun by people > when the CPZ comes in. It will get vastly > quieter. > > There will be no overflow from our CPZ to yours > once your own CPZ comes in. I know that I helped > local residents in your area with your own CPZ > campaign (again at their request) and I do think > you are over worrying about the outcome. The > primary driver for a CPZ will be commuters who > need all day parking without risk of ticketing. I > know when I wander around your street at the > moment that it is full of commuters and builders > who use it as a dumping ground. But, if they > cannot park there all day anymore, then they will > go away and park elsewhere. > > > I don't understand who you think these mysterious > drivers are who are going to start using your road > when the CPZ lands, where they are coming from and > why they will appear in your road post CPZ if > they're not there already? Perhaps you can explain > this to me, because I assure you that your road > will be vastly quieter when it happens. > > > The drivers you get are commuters who need all day > parking. Take the ability to park all day away > without a permit (even for 2 hours) and they will > go. Its utterly simple and been proven in other > CPZ - like I keep telling you, if you don't > believe me, go and wander round other 2hr CPZ > zones at different times of the day. It will allay > your fears. Instead you keep going on here about > this rather than just going out and seeing the > reality. The success of your model seems in part to depend on the notion that streets will be quieter with CPZ because drivers ( the builders and commuters you refer to) will go and park elsewhere, on the streets with no CPZ. What happens when everywhere is CPZ, are you absolutely sure all the streets will still be quieter?

Bobby P, spot on. Sadly the council have their 'ways' and the push to get this through has been ongoing for years and our own councillor Mr Barber was one of the early supporters.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > On 19 March Southwark is introducing Public > Space > > Protection Orders with which to 'police' the > dog > > owning public. It will be interesting to see > how > > the policing works in practice, which > individuals > > are tasked with this and how fair it is. The > PCPOS > > are set to be in place for 3 years. > > > > Press around these orders elsewhere has been > > variable and at times highly critical. > > > > PSPOs can also be introduced for littering and > > other anti social behaviour, so it will also be > > interesting to see if Southwark pursues other > > areas of perceived public nuisance in a similar > > way, bearing in mind Southwark's plans to close > > down a significant part of PR for a 3 day music > > festival this summer. > > If it means one can have a picnic in the park > without having their food stolen, or everything up > ended by a dog, well, that would be nice. Rahrahrah, If the intention really is to get irresponsible owners to be more considerate that is fine and it remains to be seen if that is the case? I am interested in who will be doing the policing- there are very few park wardens and community wardens have better things to do, surely?

On 19 March Southwark is introducing Public Space Protection Orders with which to 'police' the dog owning public. It will be interesting to see how the policing works in practice, which individuals are tasked with this and how fair it is. The PCPOS are set to be in place for 3 years. Press around these orders elsewhere has been variable and at times highly critical. PSPOs can also be introduced for littering and other anti social behaviour, so it will also be interesting to see if Southwark pursues other areas of perceived public nuisance in a similar way, bearing in mind Southwark's plans to close down a significant part of PR for a 3 day music festival this summer.

That does not quite ring true for me. An experienced security dog and handler would not have the dog bark at every noise and movement because it would become a public nuisance. I also doubt that humans are sitting out all night, especially in this weather. Additionally, by law, if the premises is being patrolled by dogs this must be clearly stated in signage. The law also says that security dogs must always be under the control of experienced, qualified handlers.