boosboss

Hi Dominika, Speak to Mary, lives in the corner house with the black labrador, she'll be very helpful. Joe

beatnic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > For me the biggest bugbear is the traffic > situation - the junction with Dunstans Road is > plain dangerous, especially with the speed people > drive up and down Forest Hill Road. New traffic lights are being installed at the jucntion with Colyton/Dunstans and Forest Hill Rd. And Nero you're correct it is Lorenzo's

I know it's a fair old hack, excuse the pun, but there's a great stables and riding school in Bexley called Mount Mascal (sp?) It's about ?20 per hr for a group lesson or ?25 for a 1 to 1, hacks are based on length of time, starting at about ?22.

New Jersey Turnpike - South Circ Time Square - Peckham Pulse

Depending on the initial walk, Bus #78 from Kings/Rye Lane - Shoreditch - 5 min walk to Old Street. Oakhurst Grove - St Thomas' Bus #12 Peckham Rye/Rye Lane - Westminster Bridge #78 too far from Plough :-$

Asset Wrote: Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 relates > to dogs of the type known as the pit bull terrier. > The High Court has decided that for a dog to be a > pit bull type, it must have a substantial number > of the physical characteristics of a pit bull > terrier. These characteristics are listed in a > number of places, and probably the most > comprehensive (and that generally relied on by > Courts) is the American Dog Breeders Association?s > Basis of Conformation for the American Pit Bull > Terrier. This is a functional standard which > describes the ideal, and so the dog does not have > to conform in every detail to be regarded as a pit > bull type. DEFRA has produced guidance which > summarises some of the main physical aspects of a > pit bull terrier From the Kennel Club. And fortunately it's because of that, that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not considered of type.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ok, so david_carnell wrote about Peckham Rye being > common land and I wrote to the council this > morning and asked: > > "Is Peckham Rye common land and if so would it be > covered by the proposed keeping dogs on leads > ruling that may be brought in?" > > and this reply came back: > > "I am not sure of the legal status of Peckham Rye > in terms of common land, but to answer the more > specific point, there is no proposal to keep dogs > on leads in Southwark's parks and open spaces > (including Peckham Rye). This is mis-information. > > A full statement will be issued to this effect > today" > > hmmmm, curious... Peckham Rye is Metropolitan Open Land,(Council mis-managed common land). The council should know this! Re Southwarks intent - Since the signs were erected last November, it has been denied and confirmed. Apparently now the signs were a 'PRINTING ERROR' by the sign makers. More like a Parks Management error!

Dog owning residents in Camden can breath a sigh of relief, as Camden Council have reworked their proposed dog control orders, after consultation with KC Dog, the national dog owner?s group run by the Kennel Club. Under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, which came into force in 2006, local authorities have had increased powers over dog owners all over the UK, and are able to issue dog control orders. Originally it seemed Camden?s proposed dog control orders would have meant dogs would have had to be kept on leads in parks and open green spaces (not designated as dog exercise areas) and excluded from monuments and shrubbery. In addition dog control orders were proposed to limit the number of dogs a person would have been allowed to walk together. Dog control orders such as these could have had serious implications for the animals? welfare, as dogs require vigorous exercise, which would be compromised if they were not allowed to be exercised off the lead. Since taking deputations in the Council from KC Dog, and concerned KC Dog participants, Camden Council is now limiting dog control orders to dog fouling, keeping dogs on leads only when directed to do so, and excluding dogs only from areas such as children?s play areas and flower beds. In addition Camden Council will only issue fixed penalty notices to dog owners if they refuse to comply with requests from authorised officers. http://www.swindon.gov.uk/dogcontrolorders Southwark Council could learn a lot from both Camden and Swindon Councils.

The amendment to The Dangerous Dogs Act 1997 covers the inclusion of four banned breeds Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits four types of dog: the Pit Bull Terrier the Japanese tosa the Dogo Argentino the Fila Brasileiro The wikapedia discription of Pit Bull type which includes Staffordshire Bull Terriers, may have some credance in the US, but that description is not recognised by any official UK agency, be it government or animal welfare. Breed specific legislation has already been shown to be flawed, citing court cases brought by the CPS on behalf of Liverpool Police Authority and subsequently dismissed because of the ambiguity of breed or type descriptions and the inability of prosecutors to prove type. Thus rendering the DDA inaffective. The point of this topic, isn't necessarily about preventing authorities from addressing dogs 'running wild' ,out of control or stray dogs, which the Southwark Animal Warden service ought to deal with (and Yes Southwark does have animal wardens, if you weren't aware)or to prevent authorities from addressing fouling, but is to oppose the introduction of new laws which will affect responsible owners. Laws that were created to allow local authorities to impose regulations without having to go through the previously more stringent bylaw introduction process, as described in the Clean Neighbourhoods Act and Fouling (by dogs)of the Land Act. Excert from the Countryside Code By law, you must control your dog so that it does not disturb or scare farm animals or wildlife. On most areas of open country and common land, known as 'access land' you must keep your dog on a short lead on most areas of open country and common land between 1 March and 31 July, and all year round near farm animals. So, dogs being better of in the countryside than in cities is therefore subjective. Dog control orders do not apply to working dogs or guide dogs. and finally Cats? I don't see how cats are affected by this discussion. I've never seen a cat in our local park or any other park and don't know of any cat owner who clears their cats faeces from public land, that's not saying there isn't any.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's interesting why people view the proposal as > "punishment" - on who - the dog or owner. As I've > said,if the only excercise the dog has is to run > wild in a park the maybe it's the owner punishing > the dog I assume you then see no distinction between a dog being off lead and a dog running wild? Throwing a ball in a public park for example, for a dog to retrieve, is a dog running wild?

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Laws are made to deal with those > who break them. No! Penalties and punishments are established to deal with those who break the law!

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is already a law which states that > Staffordshire type dogs must be on a lead in > public places but that is ignored. Sorry, but you're confusing Staffordshire Bull Terriers with Pit Bull Terriers (Dangerous Dogs Act). There is no law as such in reference to Staffs.

kingtubby Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > For what it is worth, on my daily run around > Peckham Rye common, I took a note of the number of > dogs exercising in the park: 8. Number in the dog > exercise area: 0 (dogs & dog owners of all > ages/sex/types). The dog exercise area does look > extremely large to me. What dog exercise area? Peckham Rye DOESN'T have a dog exercise area! As has already been said, this new law will not address the issues it is alledgedly designed to do. It will be virtually inenforcable and create a greater level of animosity between park users. If and that's a big if, this does become a policy by Southwark Council, the parks will become places where many people would not wish to go, simply because the very prescence of dog owners is in itself a crime deterrent. So rather than dodge the odd dog poo, parents who do take the risk of going into the parks will be dodging the discarded syringes of the drug users that will take up residence and run a greater risk of encountering the occasional flasher or worse. Dog walkers make parks safer for all and confining them to specific areas will without doubt make parks less safe. Southwark Council had a campaign last year called 'Flag the Poo', Peckham Rye Park and Common was shown to be the cleanest in the borough, with far fewer deposits than expected. Education is what's needed, more poo bins and an efficent warden service to manage current legislation. Southwark council have also decided to amend or discard other bylaws, such as cycling in parks, effectively turning all parks into velodromes, rather than investing in and maintaining proper cycle routes. The city is a completely suitable environment for people and their companion animals to co-exist with the general population without resorting to ridiculous measures such as are being proposed. Why has the anti-dog brigade not been lobbying local councils to introduce these measures before? Why? Because the whole issue has been borne on the back of the farcical Dangerous Dogs Act and some recent tragic incidents, most of which occured in homes, citing the death of a child in Liverpool. Last year Southwark Council received approximately sixty dog related complaints, of which bites fell into single figures. This is in comparison to an average of 712 walks per dog owner per year (this adds up to an incredible amount of walks throughout the borough by all it's dog walkers, which I hasten to add are mostly responsible). Yes have legislation, but we already have adequate legislation, it's just not being policed properly. Campaign for a decent parks and street warden service before attempting to persecute the responsible for the actions of the irresponsible few.