first mate

marie, so many dog owners seem to have a blind spot when it comes to lead etiquette. If a dog is on the lead in a park it is for a good reason and other dog owners need to ensure their own dog is kept at bay. Unfortunately some dog owners, like some parents, want to take their charge out to run around freely while they chat on their mobile or to other dog owners, oblivious to what is going on around them. I also do wish that certain people would not let their in- season bitches run around the park offlead- simply bonkers and so irresponsible. Whinge over.

When the school was at the planning stages I thought that it had been made clear that there was never an intention that Harris Boys would use PR for sports. Many of us questioned this at the time, pondering how the school would manage with so little land of its own. At any rate, I was certainly under the impression that some kind of assurance had been given by the powers that be that PR would not be used as an extension of the school. Has this changed? I know there will be arguments both for and against but I would like to put those aside as they were aired before the school was built. All I want to know is has there been a U turn on a promise that was made?

ianr, yes, but a dog does not have to even touch a person for it to be deemed dangerous. For instance an offlead, friendly dog that bounds up to a dog phobic person might be deemed by that person as frightening and out of control. I know it is stretching a point but there have been rare cases like this. Most people know that in a park there are likely to be dogs offlead. If you are severely dog phobic I do not think it reasonable to ask or expect that all dogs be kept on a lead in that instance- dogs need to be able to run freely. In any other public place I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that all dogs are kept on a lead, all of the time and, that includes the small areas around park cafe. For those who will insist on letting their dogs wander offlead in the cafe area or, indeed, on the pavements and roads, I should point out that other dogs that are on a lead may dislike being approached by a dog offlead- it can and does cause fights. It makes sense to keep dogs on lead in all public areas except parks.

Toddinator, Toddlers unleashed at full volume can be extremely irritating. I would, however, tend to support the rights of kiddies to roam in a public area like a cafe over those of any dog- even my dog! The fact remains that while many dogs may be kind and friendly, any dog can also take a dislike to another dog and a minor dust up or snarling fest' can ensue - the anti dog brigade can then use this as evidence that dogs are unsafe. In addition, lots of modern children are seemingly scared witless by large dogs and even a friendly dog is capable of knocking a child over. I'm afraid the child versus dog argument is a non-starter and is not the way to go. I would agree heartily though that parents should return the favour when we keep our dogs on lead, by not allowing their toddlers/kiddies to run screaming around the animal, waving arms etc.. I do see this quite often, not just out and about but in pubs too! In my view and under the terms of the DDA, any dog in a public place must be under control at all times- the park being an exception to this. I think a park cafe is a public place. If your dog is offlead it is not under control. There are people on the council (and possibly on this forum) who would be very happy to instate draconian laws against the ordinary dog and its owner, ideally getting rid of dogs completely. Let's not give them the ammunition. I think keeping one's dog on lead around a cafe is a sensible and easy option.

Cate, Agree with you, one of my pet hates ('scuse bad pun) is those that let their dogs run offlead around the cafe areas, both in PR and DP. I don't care how well behaved your dog is, unless it will remain in a rock solid sit/down stay, offlead, for the duration of your time at the cafe, then get it on a lead. It does give all dog owners a bad name and is immensely irritating to other people, inlcuding other dog owners who keep their pets on lead at these times. Toddinator, indeed JR's more likely to nip/bite than a Lab, not because of their size but because they are hardwired with a much stronger prey drive, since they were made to chase and kill small game. In short they are far more reactive and much less biddable than a Lab that was developed to work to command and to retrieve game to hand, rather than kill it. Cannot completely agree with you about a Rottie. If well socialised and very well trained they are a lovely dog, but they come pre-equipped with a very strong guard instinct and this should be borne in mind by the handler. A poorly trained Rottie is in my view a liability because of its guard instinct and its size. As ever, its really about people knowing their breeds, what they were developed for and offering appropriate training and handling throughout their lives.

The muzzle all dogs argument falls flat on its face for the simple reason that the owners of vicious dogs will not muzzle them. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker. Do those who are advocating this really think that the kind of person who lets a vicious dog roam a park offlead, on its own, is going to bother muzzling it? To quote Eddy Milliband "come off it".

rahrahrah, or should that be ruffruffruff?

Hands up, it was me wot erroneously relayed the van colour- clearly eyes, brain or both need testing. Anyhow, hope they get the WHITE van driver.

Definitely report to police and give all details. The blue van driver, if he was holding a mobile and chatting on it whilst trying to park, has committed an offence.

Steve T, Show me where I have leapt to the defence of, or condoned dog pooh offenders? At no point have I said that I am all in favour of dog pooh or that I support those who leave their pet turds strewn around the streets (cue snigger of other forumites at ludicrous post). I just think that sometimes people try to justify a view with extreme points that don't really serve or support their argument. No rational person would say they "like" dog pooh all over the streets. There again, I feel some people get a little irrational on the subject and conflate a fear/dislike of all dogs with the issue of dog pooh (not looking at anyone in particular, Steve). There is a solution and that is that we all clear away dog pooh when we see it ( outside our house for instance). If you use a plastic bag it cannot hurt you. Yes, it is unpleasant and yes, you may feel you shouldn't have to but where antisocial behaviour is concerned perhaps this is the only way forward- or we just go round and round, repeating the same arguments and achieving nothing?! For what it is worth, I do try to clear up other dog turds,as and when I bag those belonging to my own,just as I would pick up stuff like glass if I see it lying around- community spirit it's called.

ZT, yes, on very rare occasions a child may go blind after contact with dog pooh or fox pooh, or some other carrier, but it is a relatively rare cause of harm to humans. My point is that a child is far more likely to die because of a speeding car than dog or fox pooh. The real issue is that dog pooh offends and it is a nuisance and that is why people dislike it. If you want to argue the case that we need to rid the streets of dog pooh because it is a major health hazard then expect a counter argument that points to more pressing health concerns.

I know of someone whose son nearly died after contracting Weil's by playing in the street (via rat urine). Zoonotic infections are a risk that goes hand in hand with living in an environment we share with other living organisms. Fox poo (found all around ED by the way) is also a carrier of Toxcariasis so what are we going to do about that? At least most dogs are wormed. Foxes are not. There are far greater risks to child health than dog pooh- speeding cars for instance.

Did the note from the MET really suggest valuable police resources will be used to track down owners that do not pick up dog pooh- surely not?! Tracking down owners of dangerous dogs would make sense but dog pooh? Must say I can think of better ways for the MET to occupy their time.

Ridgely, if that's the worst you can think of I'd love to live in your world. I guess if we all feel so strongly how about a bit of community action and just pick it up ourselves and bin it. It won't kill you-honest. That seems to me the most practical solution.

A useful way of getting rid of dog urine smell is first to wash well with a washing powder and then rinse with water, when dry wipe over with surgical spirit- this breaks down the proteins in the urine, so removing the smell. It may work with cats too.

Chrissie Hynde, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, PJ Harvey, Bjork, Nina Simone, Laura Marling, Patti Smith, Billie Gentry, Dolly Parton, Joan Armatrading, Kate Bush.........

Fair enough. Other than Joni Mitchell- who else?

I have a question- why can't women write good lyrics? Or can they? If they can why no mention of any here? Answers? Theories?

Also agree Morrisey. Van the man.

Joni Mitchell deserves to be up there.

Dogs, the species I believe you are referring to, are already restricted by, for the most part, being kept on a lead. Most people agree that dogs should not be allowed to roam unleashed on the public highways and byways. Any dog that is so aggressive and strong that it can drag its owner towards something it wants to attack is, first off, so unusual that it becomes a statistical anomaly, and would not anyway be curtailed by muzzling (as Huggers has already said). Any person that regularly walks a dog offlead on the street/has a highly aggressive dog that they do not control, is not, I think, the type of person to muzzle their dog whether it is the law or not. You may not be aware that it is already illegal to cross a road with an unleashed dog- people still do it though. It is my belief that dangerous humans, prone to violent behavior, probably enjoy greater freedom and exist in greater number than do highly aggressive dogs. It's a slightly flip observation but I do feel the dog thing is somewhat sensationalised by people who don't really think through what they are saying.

It's arguable that the animal species with the greatest capacity and motivation to harm you and that is wandering around unrestrained is homo sapien.

Huggers, Quite.

Steve T The Pedigree Dogs Exposed programme which you refer to was highly contentious. Yes, there are problems in some breeds, but the KC was already on to the German Shepherd club before the programme was made. I saw the programme in question and have to say that although valid points were made there was a terrific lack of balance, the KC was not represented fairly (though it did not help itself by the quality of interviewee on offer). I am neither an apologist for the KC or for the PDE documentary but the simplistic view that all line breeding is inherently wrong and all outcrossing is inherently right is misleading, as is the notion that crossbreeds are always more healthy. The whole territory of genetics and hereditary disease is much more complex and breeders are learning. Sure you get bad apples and money- making opportunists but I would say the majority of pedigree dog breeders care passionately about their animals and in ensuring they are as healthy as they look. A virtue of the pedigree animal is that in terms of look, size, temperament, drive (and some knowledge of illness in the line) you pretty much know from generation to generation what you are getting, with a crossbreed you don't. This is why line breeding is used in producing livestock, the successful farmer wants to know what he'll get. In the view of many in the dog world the whole furore around PDE was misplaced energy. A far greater concern is the puppy farmer and back yard breeder who do not register their dogs with the KC. They'll mix up any old combination of breeds if they think it'll sell and they don't care about temperament or health and they are the reason why we see so many rescues overflowing with unwanted bull breed crosses and why out on the street you'll see a thug with his bull breed bitch, nipples almost to the ground because she is being used as a money making machine. Forgive me, this has sweet *f* all to do with the Kennel Club. Finally, Pedigree Chum withdrew their sponsorship from Crufts an annual event. Who cares. I would not feed something like that to my dog anymore than I would feed my kids on a diet of chips. (Sorry Admin if I cannot say that here)

Dirty Box, What are the facts upon which you base your conclusions about the Kennel Club? Cocker Spaniels generally make great family pets. As we know, however, lots of people buy a dog without knowing how to bring them up etc.. (bit like people who have kids but are rotten parents) a badly brought up dog can behave badly. Cockers are a popular dog therefore the liklihood of them turning up in any set of statistics is greater, both as biters (result of bad owners)and as good family pets. There is another element, it is believed that solid coloured, red, Cockers may be prone to a type of neurological problem that manifests as sudden, out of the blue, rage attacks- known as cocker rage. Yes, staffs were in part bred for fighting OTHER DOGS, not people. As already explained, they were developed to be highly affectionate and biddable to people. The Staffs that attack people are either crossbreeds, fruitloops or have ignorant/bad owners that do things like leaving them alone with a toddler (a seriously bonkers thing to do)or abuse them through puppyhood to make them wary and aggressive to humans. My own problem with Staffs and the like is the people that own them. Anyone who owns a Staff should know that they have to take extra care around other dogs and animals outside their own household. A properly brought up Staff will have been carefully socialised with other dog breeds and have learned what will and won't be tolerated- such dogs are little problem.The bad owner will usually insist on keeping their bull breed entire and that creates further problems. The much bigger issue is that dogs that look like Staffs probably have something else in them and so you don't know what mad mix you are dealing with