Earl Aelfheah

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?

This has 'quality programming' written all over it.

KP1 you have your 'Caps Lock' on.

... that said of course, maybe they'll make it?

It's kind of silly for them to again miss their own opening date. I know it's a major refurbishment and you never know what you're going to uncover - making it difficult to estimate how long building works will take - but surely the old adage of 'under promise, over deliver' applies here. After missing the original 'christmas opening', they really should be a bit more conservative with the announcements.

... if they are planning on opening in 2 and a half weeks time, they'll need to start selling tickets pretty soon.

They sent this out a while ago: "...You may have noticed that progress on the building work has been slower than expected. But we have all been working as hard as we can, and we are now pleased to announce that we will be opening our doors on ? drumroll please ? Friday 20 March. We promise it will be worth the wait!" Haven't seen them promoting this opening date online anywhere though, so perhaps they're not too confident about it. Looks to me like there is still a lot to do in less than 3 weeks.

Surely some gang activity?

.