James

"dog owners as a whole need to brow beat their thuggish element into toeing the line to prevent the majority suffering for the minority" Totally agree with most of your points Tom but why are good dog-owners responsible for "browbeating" bad dog owners? Are good drivers responsible for making bad drivers behave? Are decent football supporters responsible for policing bad ones? And what form will this "browbeating" take exactly? Are we to put them in the stocks? Denounce them ceremonially? Throw rotten tomatoes at them?

"D'you know what?" used before the speaker announces something ("Of course I don't, you haven't told me yet) "End of." "Vice-a-versa" instead of vice versa "asterix" when people mean asterisk

"To celebrate the launch/opening/release of..." PR bollox

Innit. Innit?

How about a grant for a "Screen on the (Goose) Green" during the summer months? or we could use it to try to bribe M&S to open a Simply Food (runs for cover)

I must admit I was thinking of the song "Lola"

ChavWithALawDegree I sympathise with your frustrations re. being patronised by posh people. But I don't understand why you choose to brand yourself a "chav" as if to suggest that all working class people are chavs by default. I know working class people who would be totally offended by this. I also think boasting about fighting is a bit dubious too. If you really were a chav you probably wouldn't know it.

I hope you're going to keep the horse on a lead. Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

SoLoLa (Plough Pub area - "South of Lordship Lane") TriCriPa (Crystal Palace Triangle) Little Italy (area facing Peckham Rye, near new pizza place) Help me someone!

I stand corrected. And you could call them something that rhymes with "hunt" as well.

How about investing in some really eye-catching Christmas decorations for LL and Northcross? Saw some excellent ones in France once; everything was silver with disco balls - sounds tacky but it actually looked really cool and understated. It could be headline-grabbing at a time when local businesses need all the support they can get to compete with the shopping centres.

Posh people with ferocious dogs? This isn't a phenomenon I have encountered, to be honest. In situations where I encounter posh, loutish, self-centred idiots I call them "posh tw*ts".

Sean - I'm afraid that until we get Oyster here I think lots of people will need to buy the odd ticket occasionally - without having to make a special trip the day before to get one! I don't see why the rail network of one of the richest cities in the world finds it so difficult to provide tickets. But I suspect the answer is a little word that begins with P and ends with T. BUT I DIGRESS (sorry!) Back to the matter in hand. At the risk of sounding snobby the majority of people with aggressive dogs are CHAVS of all races but generally white. By a CHAV I mean someone who celebrates being loutish and ignorant, has no regard or respect for other people and is generally working class. And before the PC brigade go nuts there are repulsive people of all races and classes but face facts, the the ones with ferocious pit bulls tend to be as I have described. Sorry but it's true.

But Sean M, those who flout the law repeatedly and excessively are a small minority. This has been borne out by police statistics and anecdotal evidence time and time again in all aspects of criminal behaviour. I have no problem with penalty fares. It's the way they are administered that bothers me; another thread showed that many people were simply unable to buy a ticket and were forced to travel without one. This is not criminal behaviour. I have found myself in this situation and it's pretty frustrating. I have no need or desire to fare-dodge. As for speed bumps, I'm okay with the ones that are properly constructed. It's the steep ones that bother me as they cause excessive wear to my suspension. Why can't we have more police speed traps along places like Barry Road instead where people regularly drive at dangerous speeds? My point applies equally to this whole dogs-off-leads thing. It takes a bit of thought to target the true offenders; a quick knee-jerk response that penalises indiscriminately is easier but also pretty unfair on everyone else.

Well said Ednerd. What worries me is that it seems to be part of a trend towards more and more regulations that end up penalising the law-abiding majority rather than the anti-social, criminal minority. It seems that the powers that be are too scared to tackle the real offenders, preferring to go for the low-hanging fruit. I can think of several examples of this: 1) Penalty fares. I have been challenged and "interrogated" on several occasions for not having a ticket when it was unavoidable due to broken machines and absent staff. Yet on more than one occasion I have seen people jumping barriers, unchallenged by staff (presumably they are too afraid). 2) Speed bumps and speed cameras. I read the other day that the worst offenders of the speed cameras are never caught - they simply ignore the demands and their vehicles are probably unregistered anyway. Speed bumps affect us all and some (e.g. Peckham Rye/Uplands road) are so badly constructed that they can damage your car's suspension even at very low speeds. They are spreading everywhere - again because a hard-core, untouchable minority refuse to obey the speed limit.

Hooray!!!

I sort of thought that was masterful! For about 5 minutes. Then I listened to the original and felt all dirty and ashamed for being unfaithful to Mozza with a pair of Europop Russian lesbians

Again, let's put in place a mechanism for punishing people who let their dogs in restricted areas, or allow their dogs to threaten/attack people and/or other dogs. Let's have a clampdown on illegal breeds. Let's even reintroduce a licensing system and random checks to make sure people aren't cooping their dogs up all day without walks. Let's introduce clear guidelines for how dog walkers should behave towards other park users (e.g. if your dog jumps up on someone or nicks their picnic food or intimidates them you could get an on-the-spot fine at the discretion of the "victim"). I would welcome all of this as it would encourage people to take full responsibility for their animals. It may surprise you to know that I too am frequently irritated by the behaviour of selfish and irresponsible dog users, and I don't think it is acceptable to impose your lifestyle on someone else. I don't want a dog jumping up and wiping its muddy paws on me, growling at me or behaving in a menacing way towards me. When it happens an apology and show of discipline from the owner does the trick for me. But I fully accept that someone not used to dogs might need something more. However, to give up our animals right to run off-lead in the park as they have always done is totally disproportionate and unfair to those who are respectful of others.

Tsk tsk, such disrespect for the Cheeky Girls. Next you will be dissing TATU

Louisana, if what you say is true it's dreadful, shocking and we need more legislation to stop people like these owning dogs. I think they should be jailed for a minimum of several years. But you are generalizing about dog owners & dogs in a shocking way. To suggest that we are living in constant risk of any dog behaving like this is pure fear-mongering. I fully sympathise with what has happened to you but I fear your judgment has become clouded by your own unfortunate experience.

I don't like people who have an irrational hatred of innocent dogs, seagulls and flies. So how about we do a deal? You have a no-dogs area in the park* and I'll have an area that's off limits for people who hate dogs. Of course, then we'll have to have an area for people who don't like yummy mummies. Then we'll have one for people who don't like children. And a tarmac area for people who hate grass. Actually, why don't we all live in a hermetically sealed bubble so that we never have to go anywhere near anything that doesn't please us? Even better! Or we could just all agree to live and let live. Hmm. *Actually there already ARE several areas which dogs are not allowed to enter. Which is fine by me.

OK Karter, think I've got it. Is it gonna be where that furniture place was that shut down at the corner of Upland road and Landells? (Sorry if someone has already asked this)

Right. I think you have a phobia of dogs. That is "an irrational, persistent fear." Here, I looked it up on Wikipedia for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

Ahem. Who's going off subject now? I see you still haven't answered my question... Btw thanks but I do know what a straw man argument is! But it really is a bit lazy to label any analogy you disagree with as a straw man. It's what politicians often do when they don't want to answer a tricky question.

But I didn't say that at all! Do read my post again. My point was that basically, nobody has yet explained how responsible dog ownership impacts on other people any more than any other chosen lifestyle (e.g. having children, driving a car). I'd love it if someone could explain this to me. I don't want people to be running away screaming or in tears next time I walk my dog off lead in the park.