Nunhead cemetery strange man with DSLR camera taking photos of dow owners and dog walkers

[JohnL]

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.

[KidKruger]

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 ?)

[Lynne]

I've seen 7 dogs being walked

[Rosetta]

Kid Kruger,

Being childish isn't going to help this. Someone needs to be posted at both gates of Nunhead Cemetery, without a fanfare, to monitor how many dogs are coming in with one person.

[KidKruger]

Calling out wild claims is surely an adult pastime !

[Rosetta]

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.

[KidKruger]

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 !

[Rosetta]

Who is exaggerating dog numbers and making wild claims?

[KidKruger]

"The dog walker would be paid an hourly fee, say ?10, while the owner raked in ?70/?80 if eight dogs were being supposedly walked."

*yawns*

[KidKruger]

edcam - there you go.

[Penguin68]

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.

[JohnL]

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

[Penguin68]

Once you say "heel" a dog should be right behind you as if on a lead.

But of course, as you know, many dog-walked dogs are not fully (or indeed at all) trained.

[angel_lemarchand]

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.

[angel_lemarchand]

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'.

[angel_lemarchand]

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.

[angel_lemarchand]

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...

[angel_lemarchand]

.

[angel_lemarchand]

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!

[Penguin68]

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)

[angel_lemarchand]

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 :)

[angel_lemarchand]

Now that you mention it, I remember seeing this sign in the past, thank you!

[angel_lemarchand]

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).

[angel_lemarchand]

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...

[angel_lemarchand]

thanks, that's very useful.