Earl Aelfheah

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's about give and take rahrahrah. It's a shared > space. Everyone needs to make the best of it. Dogs > will run about because they need to exercise. They > will occassionally pinch a ball or try to play > with others. Dog owners should apologise if > offence is caused, but similarly others should > stop instilling fear into their kids, when there > is no need of such. I completely agree with this, but I don't think it's fair to assume that the parents in these cases have 'instilled fear' - or have responsibility for the child's response. A lot of kids will be naturally scared of a large animal which is jumping up at them. My children have grown up with dogs and are generally comfortable around them. But they have been frightened by large dogs running up to them, seemingly out of control. This is actually a pretty rational response IMO.

MissMadMoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I respect a whole load more the parents who > approach me to ask if their kids can pet my dog. > The reason they do this?. To avoid exactly the > issues the OP has. > > Teach your kids how to respect dogs/ animals and > interact with them rather than instil unwarranted > fear? You think it's a parents responsibility to introduce their children to your dog in a controlled manner? I'm sure they'll be over the moon that they have your respect. Presumably the ones introduced to an out of control dog, which is running out of sight of it's owner, at a time not of their choosing, should have done more to prepare themselves?

Dog owners are all so freaking evangelical. Maybe the kid / their parent's don't want to get to know your dog. Or maybe not right at that moment. It's not for you to take responsibility for ensuring the kid is 'properly socialised' with your hound. Just keep your dog under control and don't let it run off, harassing random people.

Here's what I take from this - Whilst out in public, try and keep your dog under control. If he gets out of control and upsets someone, don't make excuses by personifying your dogs actions 'he's playing... he's saying "hello" etc. Just apologise. It's simple.

So a dog twice the kids size bounds up and jumps all around. Another ?vigorously investigates? his school bag causing him to get scared and run.... and the owner is nowhere to be seen. This is a problem with the child?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the shared space thing again isn't it. Shared > space needs give and take by everyone using it. > > I do think that as a society we've become over > protective, of everything from our kids to our > rights over others. If the worst that can happen > to your child, is a hapless payful dog running > about, then you should be thankful imo. Most of > the things we fear are learned from our parents/ > peers anyway. If a child is frightened by a > playful dog, then all the more reason for the > child to engage with dogs as soon as possible to > overcome the fear. But maybe the kid doesn't wish to engage with a 'playful' dog at that particular moment. Why should it be forced to? Maybe you should train your dog not to jump up at people when it's out and about - or maybe if you see it running towards someone you should recall it? A lot of dogs are molly coddled in my opinion and that's part of the problem.

You're right, that wasn't in the OP. I guess the original story got exaggerated somewhere during the course of the thread. But regardless - If my dog jumped up at a small kid leaving them very upset (whether it's snatched something or not), I'd apologise. You think that's wrong?

Dulwichdarling Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The original post said nothing about a dog taking > something.... Hmmm... that's wierd, someone else must have added that bit. Still, the point remains. If you're dog has upset a small child by jumping up at him apologise. Don't make silly excuses like 'he's only playing', or 'hes saying 'hello', or whatever. It's pretty simple.

Put it this way... if a dog runs up to me and grabs something from my hand I will expect the owner to retrieve said item and apologise. I would also hope they'd take measures to try and train their dog not to keep doing it. That's all.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was thinking just yesterday (about an unrelated > topic) that we are in danger of raising a > generation of real soft useless people, not equped > to deal with the world they live in because we > wrap our kids in cotton wool too much. I agree that we are in danger of doing this in many aspects of modern life, but dog owners having control of their dogs and generally being responsible isn't about wrapping kids in cotton wool, it's about consideration for others.

All dog owners must be kept on a lead.

Don't think anyone is saying that dogs shouldn't every be allowed off the lead, but that when they are, they should be under control and the owner able to be recall them. What's clear is that a dog that runs up to a child and snatches a toy from it's hand is not under control.

You're right, it's working for me now. Thanks

May have misunderstood dwe's post, so apologies.

You are spot on First Mate.

Broken link

dwe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well surely I am, by stating that dogs should be > on leads in areas designated as such, and in areas > that they don't need to be I am happy with that > too. > > If those are the rules of the public space, and > everyone adheres to them, what then is the area of > concern? Nice 'compliance mentality' - Just because 'the rules' don't require your dog to be on a lead, doesn't mean there is no obligation to keep an eye on your dog, to have it under control and be able to recall it should it be upsetting someone.

Unfortunately there are so many dog owners who just don't get it. Not everyone likes dogs - not everyone think it's cute to have one run at them, or jump up at them. Personally I don't like to be hassled, by strange dogs or strange humans when I'm just going about my business, strolling in the park. I think this is reasonable. Children should be able to walk and play in the park without a massive (to them) animal jumping all over them. Your dog isn't just 'saying hello' (if you are personifying your pooch in this way, you're delusional). It's 'intentions' are unknowable and irrelevant - it is intimidating a small child and you as an owner are responsible. If you choose to house an animal in a built up urban environment, then you should learn to control it.

albert Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mid April now. They're a bit behind. The Irish > shop is going to be part of the cafe I think. Is that the new 'official' opening now?

My issue with this 20mph limit, isn't the limit itself - but the fact that it's a lazy way of claiming that you're 'doing something' about dangerous driving. The fact is, it'll be little enforced and won't go anywhere towards targeting some of the really dangerous and irresponsible drivers I see regularly. That's not to say that it won't have any effect, it's just that it's a weak intervention.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I still maintain there are very few time savings > of going fast in inner London. > I see people racing off from traffic lights then > coming to a halt 10 m down the road. > We should concentrate on getting the 'red' roads > running freely. I completely agree with this. When on my bike you get a very different perspective. I regularly see the same car overtake me at speed half a dozen times on the same journey - without getting to their final destination any more quickly than I do (often much less quickly). Their speeding from one set of lights to the next is entirely pointless, but from their point of view, I suspect they believe they're 'saving time'. It's changed the way I drive in London - I'm much more circumspect / relaxed behind the wheel.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > make_some_sence Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Here is the S**t used by the overlords at > > southwark > > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail > s.aspx?ID=4728 . > > The most interesting part of this is a that > Southwark has quietly included cyclists in the > 20mph limit. There's going to be a LOT of howling > when the first few are presented with speeding > fines. I can't find any reference to cyclists being included in this. Either way, it's entirely unenforcible.

Fingers crossed.

Hmmm - not sure about that. I'm assuming the builders agreed a price up front to do the job - in which case they should do it. Can't imagine that they make any more on it by dragging things out.

Why are you looking for a Costa specifically?