Jump to content

Recommended Posts

nununoolio Wrote:

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

> Although I do have to ask First Mate this. In what

> way is pointing out the council can't afford to

> take on several court cases 'scaremongering'. They

> would be criticised for wasting public money.


If there is a such a problem in the borough with so many wanting action then I doubt the council would be criticised for taking perpetrators to court and winning. Councils regularly have bulk days at Magistrates Court for non payment of council tax. I believe the costs for the application etc.. for summary charges do not exceed ?100 per individual. Why would this be different?


You did not say whether you think the council would have to contract PSPO enforcement out to a private enforcement company? This is what has happened elsewhere.

Probably 9-10 years ago, I vaguely remember a lady training dogs (and owners?)on that triangle of grass near Barry Rd. We were all for it and I took some of her cards to pass to dog walkers I thought might need her services. No idea why she stopped, but it certainly wasn't to do with the council.

> You did not say whether you think the council

> would have to contract PSPO enforcement out to a

> private enforcement company? This is what has

> happened elsewhere.


Not heard that this is in the pipeline or even being considered. I will begin to feel distinctly nervous if I do hear anything!

nununoolio Wrote:

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

> Probably 9-10 years ago, I vaguely remember a lady

> training dogs (and owners?)on that triangle of

> grass near Barry Rd. We were all for it and I took

> some of her cards to pass to dog walkers I thought

> might need her services. No idea why she stopped,

> but it certainly wasn't to do with the council.


I understand it was the Council.

nununoolio Wrote:

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

> > You did not say whether you think the council

> > would have to contract PSPO enforcement out to

> a

> > private enforcement company? This is what has

> > happened elsewhere.

>

> Not heard that this is in the pipeline or even

> being considered. I will begin to feel distinctly

> nervous if I do hear anything!


And with good reason Nunoolio. Hiring of private companies to enforce PSPOs is happening a lot elsewhere. The reason is that council do not have enough officers on the ground to enforce. Watch the Panorama (called Inside the Litter Police and using secret filming) earlier in the week.

first mate Wrote:

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

> nununoolio Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Probably 9-10 years ago, I vaguely remember a

> lady

> > training dogs (and owners?)on that triangle of

> > grass near Barry Rd. We were all for it and I

> took

> > some of her cards to pass to dog walkers I

> thought

> > might need her services. No idea why she

> stopped,

> > but it certainly wasn't to do with the council.



Good if Southwark council are all for allowing dog training to take place in the parks (as mentioned here by park warden), then could this be taken forward? The Kennel Club do a "good citizen " scheme which gives dog owners understanding of their responsibilities of dog ownership and basic training in dog handling. I do think the majority of dog owners are either responsible or want to be responsible, perhaps people new to dog ownership would really appreciate this?





>

> I understand it was the Council.

For those who believe that legislation will cure all ills, have you considered that dog walkers often walk around in twos or threes for companionship? This would result in more than four dogs in one place at one time, even with a limit to dogs walked per person in legislation. Is your answer to this to legislate against dog walkers being in the vicinity of other dog walkers? Gets to look a bit draconian, doesn't it?

As basically the problem of Dogs fouling the pavements and parks has already been up before Southwark council before and nothing has been done about it as yet!!!

I think people should name and shame. Someone must know or see which owners are responsible for which dogs.

I have two dogs myself and would never ever leave poop behind if they done it of course.

No excuse Dog poop sacks are free for Southwark residents available at Southwark Libraries.

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...