Jump to content

Poisoned Dog from Peckham Rye Park

B777

By B777
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

dimples Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> so must have been caused by either fungi or even

> could have been something digested before coming

> into the park ?!



Big coincidence though if two dogs in a relatively short space of time were taken ill with similar symptoms shortly after being in the park, both having eaten something before they went into the park?


Possible, obviously.

civilservant

civilservant

Posted
Posted

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-quells-fears-dog-may-fatally-poisoned-walk-peckham-rye/


?Rats take some time to die from ingesting it (normally dying from internal haemorrhage). That suggests that it may have been a far quicker acting toxin, or a mixture of toxins.?


if we agree it's not acceptable for dogs or cats to die like that, why is it ok for rats?

marisa_45

marisa_45

Posted
Posted

Good gracious... what kind of people would leave (rat) poison that may harm other domestic animals..

Thank you for the warning, OP. I always watch for suspicious items on the path that my dog is likely to sniff or even try but I am not always able to keep him away from them. He's too energetic and when he decides to eat something, does it in the blink of an eye. He's always gets scolded in situations like these but the effect doesn't seem to last for long.

Glad to know that your friend's dog is OK after all!

civilservant

civilservant

Posted
Posted

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because they are unwelcome, disease carrying

> vermin? Just a thought.


some people rate rats quite highly as pets. are you suggesting that these rats are different from the vulgar rats down the park that you'd happily allow to die horribly? just a thought.

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Because they are unwelcome, disease carrying

> > vermin? Just a thought.

>

> some people rate rats quite highly as pets. are

> you suggesting that these rats are different from

> the vulgar rats down the park that you'd happily

> allow to die horribly? just a thought.



It's hard to care for them - I wouldn't feel guilt chucking

a rat from my balcony - it'd probably survive anyway.


.. and yet when we all saw those baby Pandas it's awwww -

what we like and hate is ingrained, and it's not rats ;)

Penguin68

Penguin68

Posted
Posted

some people rate rats quite highly as pets.


Indeed, and these are bred from established blood lines -AND ARE VERY DIFFERENT from feral urban sewer (brown and back) rats - both carriers of (multiple) diseases (not their fault, but they are) and very destructive, which is - they will strip electrical insulation - causing fires - amongst other things. Feral urban sewer rats are simply in the wrong place - and getting rid of them is a necessity where they start to interact with us - which they do because we are their way of life. Very different from (large) field rats in e.g Vietnam, which are trapped and eaten.

civilservant

civilservant

Posted
Posted

thanks, penguin, i appreciate that there are many different species of rat, and not all of them elicit an awww response. you also don't need to remind me of the disease risks etc.

i'm suggesting that that's no reason to use (or to countenance the use of) inhumane methods to kill them - just because they may be pests in certain environments.


my own dog is curled up on my lap as i type and i feel great sympathy for the family that have lost their poor dog in such a horrible way


my basic point is that we use dreadful methods to get rid of some 'undeserving' animals and put many of the rest at this kind of lethal risk. that is wrong, full stop. i don't want to hijack this thread, so that's me done, no more on this subject

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • first mate
      Be careful on the pavements...

      By first mate · Posted

      @Sue said: nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? This is the point. Adults are meant to teach their children by example. It sounds as though the adult guardian/ father in this case did not react appropriately. Had a truly sincere apology been given,  I suspect the OP would not have posted on here. It is possible the OP snapped in the heat of the moment, but they were possibly startled because they were hit from behind? If we are startled it can be instinctive to initially react with anger. I also agree that it would be highly irresponsible to let any very young child ride or walk or do anything on a busy public street without supervision- most of all to protect the child. If in this case the child was out of the adult's line of sight that is perhaps another indication that the father needs a refresh in appropriate behaviour around a child, as well as his manners.
    • Dave 3
      Be careful on the pavements...

      By Dave 3 · Posted

      It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Sue
      Be careful on the pavements...

      By Sue · Posted

      Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Dave 3
      Be careful on the pavements...

      By Dave 3 · Posted

      Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...