first mate

Sandperson, as a kid it was instilled in me from a very early age to avoid dogs you don't know and to never touch a dog until you have asked its owner if you can, and if it is safe to so. You are right not to let your toddler approach dogs on his/her own.

I feel threatened by bull breeds if I don't know the dog and, more importantly, I don't know the owner. But that is because I am a dog owner myself and my greatest concern would be for the safety of my dog. I would have no concerns for my own safety. In the wrong hands any dog can be a menace but some breeds have much more power than others. Staffs, if they are purebred, and have not been beaten and kicked into becoming aggressive towards humans by their human owners, are amongst the most reliable breeds with people. With other dogs, however, they can be highly aggressive, any responsible staff owner knows they have to be much more vigilant around other dogs. Many will be okay, but with some the job they were bred for, fighting and bull baiting, can come to the fore with disastrous consequences because they are so powerful. Few dogs, like people, are born psychotic- a few are made that way by being abused or by very bad breeding. But, as I have already indicated, that is not a breed specific trait. People and children who treat dogs sensibly and with a degree of respect, are unlikely to ever come to harm from the average pooch.

PR, Yes, I agree. It's probably worth reminding ourselves that anyone can be dodgy in this area too, not just older men. The most recent child abuse allegations to hit the press concerned two women working in child care.

PR, I'm with you on this. You don't have to be a parent to understand the power of the bond with a child. The human imagination allows us enough insight to understand things beyond our direct experience. The notion that non child bearing adults "just don't understand" is somewhat patronising and narrow minded, it is also rather undermining of those who adopt.

All park users dislike rubbish. Dog turds should be picked up by the owners, just as drinking straws, crisp packets etc should be picked up after consumption of food/drink- I've seen a proliferation of these recently. There is also a problem with broken glass. I've had to report this to park wardens three times now. Twice loads of broken glass has appeared near the dog free area under discussion. The glass was scattered around in the grass and could have caused damage to a child or a dog. There are also a number of deep holes in the same area into which tins have been sunken (not sure why but they are like holes you'd get on a golf course)any dog running at full pelt could catch its paw and end up with a broken leg.

Thanks all, will appeal and let you know how I fare. Your advice is appreciated.

Would appreciate the input of forumites. Today I attempted to park using a pay and display machine in Lambeth. The machine golloped up my change but gave nothing back. Reported machine as faulty and moved on to find another street and another place to park, carefully clutching the last of my change. By now I am pushed for time and trying hard to find somewhere else to park. New street and two machines opposite each other on either side of road, both equi-distant to my car. I parked up and noticed a woman at the machine over the road from me. I decided to use that machine because I could check if it was working properly (I could not afford to lose my remaining change in another machine). Woman said machine was working and I duly bought ticket and displayed it in my car. An hour or so later I returned to my car to find an attendant issuing me with a ticket- despite the fact that my ticket is clearly displayed and with 15 minutes to spare. After some time I finally discover that one side of the road is Lambeth and the other Wandsworth- though there is no signage to explain that tickets will only be legal on one side of the road. Help! Is it worth disputing this? I feel I paid fairly for a space and have been caught on a technicality. The parking attendant did not issue me with the ticket but went scuttling away with it- I suppose it'll be in the post as I write. What hurts is that I'd already lost a fair amount of change in one wretched machine and really feel there was no way of knowing the two machines were for different zones; they were almost diametrically opposite each other. Any suggestions gratefully received.

There cannot be many people who own a Husky that gets walked by a professional dog walker, so if the owner is on this forum they'll probably know who the woman is.

Well , it all looks lovely inside but where do all the kids go at break. Is there much in the way of outside space? Is there a gym? can't see where the space is for them to go out at breaks etc.. Or, is the idea that they all tip into the park opposite?

Skips, skips everywhere. Ditto loft conversions and other extensions. Massive inconvenience for others who have to negotiate huge pallets of sand and other sundry building materials left around on road and pavement, not to mention building dust that regularly smothers one's home, car and bronchial tracts. I won't even get into the light-stealing, aesthetic-smack-in-the-eye impositions of loft conversions. I don't know what this skip is for but spare a thought for neighbours who have to endure your building work.

Cate, Now I think about it the old Grace and Favour, when it sold food, was simply the best. It was a quirky but really restful space with great homemade cakes and grub....that is until it became the free ED creche.

The thing is, the times of day I am most likely to drive the roads are clearer, thus moving along at 20mph will almost certainly slow my journey. The evidence points to something other than speed being at the root of accidents. I'd bet that a lot of it is to do with mobile phone use and other technological distractions, possibly used by young pedestrians and drivers who are not "aware" (in your argument I think you refer to the lives of young people being saved). I also remember an advertising campaign, around this very issue, a year or so ago. Is there not an element of personal responsibility in all of this? In other words where is the line between legislation that reduces risk to as near zero as possible and we, as citizens, being responsible for the judgements we make? If you ask me is the right to drive at 30mph worth more than the lives of a 100 people, then of course I will say no. It's just that this type of legislation begins to feel a bit nanny state-like. H and Sean, I would add that I'm fairly swayed by your arguments but this other aspect is niggling. I suspect it may be part of PR's concern too.

It'd be nice to have somewhere a bit quirky, with a bit of character. I miss the old Blue Mountain with its Chinese room etc..

Yes, but we don't live our lives according to averages. PR has a point in that the option to exercise discretion or judgement is being slowly eroded.

Cate, Dulwichmum does love her fur coats etc..!! Aside from that I suspect it's a case of keeping up with those over the pond.

Steve T, Poor you. That must have been terrifying. The problem is that I think there are yobs out there who are either training dogs to be people aggressive or deliberately breeding from genetically badly unstable dogs that are constantly on red alert and attack anything that moves. And yes, dog fighting and drug dealing are the reasons behind the breeding of this type of animal. It gives "normal" dogs and their owners a bad name. I should add that because of the above I too stay well clear of anything that looks like a bull breed type dog, when out walking my own dog, that is unless I know the dog and its owner well. A number of dogs have been attacked and killed recently by these rogue animals. My sympathies to you again- I would have been terrified.

If it was a pitbull or pitbull cross then these dogs are totally illegal and should indeed be muzzled and neutered if they exist at all. However, there are lots of long-legged Staffs and Staff crosses that might look like pitbulls but are not. In my view any dog can become nasty if treated badly but one of these dogs, if very badly treated, is much more of a danger because of their jaw strength and the fact that they will not let go once they really attack. Having said that, the Pibull, the Staffie and the Bull terrier are probably amongst the most people friendly breeds you can ever come across,they were bred to be totally biddable to humans, though unreliable with other dogs (the dog fighting heritage). The fact that the dog ran away probably indicates that it wasn't vicious, more than likely it wanted to say hello,they are very playful dogs, but also often too in your face. I say this only to stop you being worried about meeting other dogs like this. Nonetheless, the dog should not have been off lead and out on its own and I quite understand why you'd be frightened and worried for your daughter. It's the irresponsible owners that are at fault. On the other hand if I have misunderstood and the dog was showing aggression (unless you know dog body language it can be hard to know what their intent is if they approach you) then I hope that the matter is properly investigated. The only other thing is that the guy who works in the pet shop on Northcross Road had a bad experience on Peckham Rye where his dog got badly attacked by a black male Staffie, at the time wearing a fancy harness. Apparently this dog is also people aggressive. If the dog you came across was an entire, black, male Staffie type dog then it might be worth reminding the police of this other incident that was also reported to them.

Well, I don't know how useful a national calculation is, but if as the results seem to indicate, accidents have very little to do with speeding, I can see that reducing the limit to 20 does make sense. I wonder how many of the accidents are to do with lack of concentration through mobile/ipod use, both by drivers and pedestrians? I can't, however, deny the logic that whatever the reason for the accident, if a car is going slower it will cause less damage. I am surprised by the stats though, because in my own experience the worst and most risky driving seems to come from those doing their utmost to ignore any speed limit and just get by me, the law abiding driver, seemingly at any cost. I'm sure we've all experienced the mad, tailgating driver, cursing and swearing because you refuse to go faster, and who will acclerate very rapidly at the first opportunity to overtake. Aside form that, I have to say that I find driving a car at 20mph, on a main road like Lordship Lane, when there is less traffic, quite hard to maintain and will keep slipping slightly over. It's fine on a smaller residential street. Perhaps it is a matter of conditioning the brain, but I still think that if this rule is introduced there will be a lot of fines for people slipping over into 21-22mph.

I saw one in the garden beside the Library three days ago.

Thanks Huguenot, but does anyone have the figures? In other words, for every crash/accident in London/Southwark, do we know the speed the car was travelling prior to impact?

What is the evidence for showing the speed of each vehicle that has been involved in an accident/collision,prior to impact?

What is the evidence for showing the speed of each vehicle that has been involved in an accident/collision,prior to impact?

Sean, perhaps a bit of a kneejerk reaction on my part and yes the stats look very convincing. Nonetheless, based only on my own experience, and as someone who adheres rigidly to speed limits for reasons of safety etc.., it is the irate driver up your bumper, weaving in and out and then overtaking at 40/50mph, in town, that is the villain. How exactly is a 20mph limit going to change that behaviour- he has already willingly broken the speed limit for 30mph?

Sean, perhaps a bit of a kneejerk reaction on my part and yes the stats look very convincing. Nonetheless, based only on my own experience, and as someone who adheres rigidly to speed limits for reasons of safety etc.., it is the irate driver up your bumper, weaving in and out and then overtaking at 40/50mph, in town, that is the villain. How exactly is a 20mph limit going to change that behaviour- he has already willingly broken the speed limit for 30mph?

PR, I'm with you on this. We all know that those who want to speed and to break the law will continue to do so, whatever the speed limit; they have their little ways of disguising number plates etc..., leaving the rest of us to foot the bill for the new legislation when we accidently go one mile over the 20mph limit. The whole thing is a nonsense and it is, absolutely, about garnering revenue for cash-strapped councils like Southwark. Just like the traffic calming measures that are being reinstated all over roads off Lordship Lane, having being ripped up only a few years ago. But it's for our own good say planning, they want to keep us safe. Wait a minute though, it's also the end of the financial year and any underspend has to be put to "good" use- the real reason behind the speed bumps/traffic calming measures, I suspect