Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > For example, if you post a pic of your colleague

> being drunk at a festival, and it leads to them

> losing

> > their job, then you could be held liable for

> damages.

>

> I'm not sure that's a great example, Saffron. I

> can't believe that would stand up in court.


Facebook has taken to asking for my approval when my friends post pictures of me.

7 dogs being walked.

8 dogs being walked.

Why do people have to use absolute extremes and exaggerations to try to make a point - it betrays the true situation as not being as dire as made out and being in need of over-cooking to achieve the agenda intended by the poster.

Let's see the evidence of that wild claim !

7/8 dogs my arse.


BTW - I saw a dog pooing a 3-tonne poo on a grave you know, I did, I did, honest. It was the size of a skip lorry, bloody dog walkers !

(get it ?)

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 7 dogs being walked.

> 8 dogs being walked.

> Why do people have to use absolute extremes and

> exaggerations to try to make a point - it betrays

> the true situation as not being as dire as made

> out and being in need of over-cooking to achieve

> the agenda intended by the poster.

> Let's see the evidence of that wild claim !

> 7/8 dogs my arse.

>

> BTW - I saw a dog pooing a 3-tonne poo on a grave

> you know, I did, I did, honest. It was the size

> of a skip lorry, bloody dog walkers !

> (get it ?)


Your last paragraph is petulant and childish. I've regularly seen dog walkers with 6 plus dogs. I've also had to point out unnoticed crap left by their dogs.


FYI, I don't want dogs to be restricted to on lead walks only. Dog walkers keep the parks etc alive in the wintertime especially.

Ah contraire - it's an accurate example of the type of wild claim above. Sometimes such an example is needed to draw attention to the real agenda and the disingenuous way it's being set-up.

So exaggerating dog numbers is grown-up.

But exaggerating dog poo amounts is childish.

Right, I think I get it now !

Isn't the issue one of control, not numbers? I have seen someone walking eight (albeit small) dogs on linked leads - 4 a hand, in a very controlled manner, and someone else incapable of looking after just 2. Dog walkers should be doing a good job - controlling however many dogs they can control and walking them sufficiently to be exercised. If they can control 8 and be paid (as it were) 8 times an hourly rate for just one - well good on them. If they can't and if the dogs they aren't controlling then act up (chasing other dogs or people, fouling in the wrong places etc.) then actions should be taken against them.


And it is quite possible that someone photographing dog walkers is indeed putting together a portfolio for an exhibition.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Isn't the issue one of control, not numbers? I

> have seen someone walking eight (albeit small)

> dogs on linked leads - 4 a hand, in a very

> controlled manner, and someone else incapable of

> looking after just 2. Dog walkers should be doing

> a good job - controlling however many dogs they

> can control and walking them sufficiently to be

> exercised. If they can control 8 and be paid (as

> it were) 8 times an hourly rate for just one -

> well good on them. If they can't and if the dogs

> they aren't controlling then act up (chasing other

> dogs or people, fouling in the wrong places etc.)

> then actions should be taken against them.

>

> And it is quite possible that someone

> photographing dog walkers is indeed putting

> together a portfolio for an exhibition.



Once you say "heel" a dog should be right behind

you as if on a lead.


John aka Barbara Woodhouse

Dogkennelhillbilly and Loz

I'm a professional photographer and I have to carry consent forms and get them signed to release photographs of members of the public. It's also expected to ask permission (and also courtesy!). I am getting tired of people waving cameras and phones in my/ other people's faces as they please.

James Barber:


Yes, having spoken to there people about this, I am told the person is bragging about sharing those photos online. I think this is connected to 'Southwark's dogs consultation'.

I will thanks, I thought he might be taking photos of leaves before my head but he was pointing the camera in my direction. I became concerned afterwards when I heard other people (all with dogs) reporting the same behavior.
I pick up my dogs poop, as well as other people's dog poop when I come across it. When/ if dog walkers stop using this space, due to the unpleasant behavior they face daily, and are replaced by drug addicts, drunks, or people up to no good, people will miss having dog walkers/ owners keeping nature reserves safe for all to enjoy, service provided free of charge of course. People need to consider the benefits provided by dog owners. Unfortunately, some people are irresponsible, but those people will continue to ignore any new rules set up, will continue to not clean up after their dogs, will not exercise them properly, will not train them properly etc...
I would not do this as I am against our naming and shaming culture and as a photographer I am aware that you need to ask permission and use consent forms. The police will have to deal with it, but thank you for the advice!
I would advise those who feel that there is already sufficient in the council's armoury to control out of control dogs, dog walkers and dog owners (should they care to use the powers they have) to take part in the survey. Banning dogs from parks does not seem a sensible or nice thing to do. Neither is banning dog walkers. Making some areas of parks dog-free, or dogs-off-leads free may be a different issue, though there are many parks where these areas already exist. Encouraging (implicitly or explicitly) vigilante behaviour and 'shaming' web publication (if that is what is happening) is appalling. (NB I neither own, nor walk, dogs)
apparently he was challenged by other dog owners and responded that he was posting the images online, hence me being concerned and warning people walking in that area. Thanks for the advice :)
Well, the man I saw was not part of (the not so friendly) FONC, but this consultation seems to have comforted unwanted behavior from certain individuals into bullying dog lovers and walkers further (than they already are).
what they normally do for event photography etc... is put a note in entrances to make people aware that filming/ photographing is taking place, so that people who do not wish to be in a photograph can place themselves elsewhere. That's my experience, it's a tricky one...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...