Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have 3 small dogs.


They are not dominant, submissive or aggressive.


In fact, they love everyone..... other dogs, cats, children etc.


One of them was attacked a couple of years ago by a staff. He was on a lead at the time, the other dog wasn't. I posted about it on here.(luckily my dog was unhurt, shaken up, but not as much as I was)


There were then a couple of other incidents in Nunhead cemetery where larger dogs took a dislike to mine, & only intervention from the owners prevented attacks from occuring.


Now I am in the sad situation where we never go to the cemetery, never go to Peckham Rye park......Never go anywhere, apart from pavement walking on the lead. I take my dogs out one at a time now, rather than altogether, which is both tiring & time-consuming,


If I do see a staff/bull breed/ large dog coming towards us, I cross over or pick my dog up.


All because I don't feel safe anymore.


The way things are going, it is only going to get worse.

Small dogs will be always be at risk unless there is a law to prevent dogs running free in public places, by being kept on leads.


And before all the responsible dog owners reply and say it's not fair to them if their well-behaved sociable dogs should be penalised by being kept on a lead........


Sorry, but I'm a responsible dog owner & I have to keep mine on a lead in order to protect them :(

Fuzzyboots, hope your 6 year old son is getting over seeing something so terrible.


Last Friday I was walking through the Greendales after just leaving a playgroup with 2 toddlers in pram. A woman with a dog off the lead was just in front of me. I slowed down as it was a type of dog I just don't feel easy with (sorry dog owners).


A man with a black labrador dog on a lead was coming towards us. The woman's dog just went mad, ran towards it and started attacking the dog. It was horrible to watch. It must have lasted a few minutes but the man and his dog came away bleeding. I asked him if he was ok but he (and I) was so shocked and he just said he "was sick of dogs off the lead" and walked away.


I shouted at the woman "put your dog on a lead". She was maybe 500 yards from me. She looked at me and just carried on with the dog running alongside her!

  • 4 weeks later...
A blind friend of mine was walking her guide dog near Brixton. A man was using a phone box and his dog was off the lead. The dog mauled my friends gorgeous Labrador and it needed vetenary treatment,stitches, and was horribly shaken.The owner didn't even apologise!!Yes people should keep their dogs on leads if there is even the remotest chance they may be aggressive.

lilly123 Wrote:

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

> i dont care what dog people own, but the law

> should be made for every dog that is out in public

> to be muzzled, forget about having a dog licence,

> a licence will not stop a dog attacking a

> child,human or another animal.

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


Completely agree Lilly123 - scary number of dangerous dogs (as now classified under relatively new laws) out and about without muzzles and often pulling their owners along, usually smirking at the fact they feel powerful with something that could seriously hurt someone if they gave the right order. Why do people want dogs that could attack or hurt another animal or even a child / adult?? I just don't understand the need for it personally, plenty of lovely types of dog that make perfect pets and do no harm to anyone, yet we still hear about "random" attacks on family members and unsuspecting children... Roll on stronger laws against dangerous dogs and their owners. There are plans to chip every dog I believe, at the owner's cost, can't wait!!

esme-how can you completely agree with lilly123??


-they are saying they don't care what dog it is & that ALL dogs out in public need to be muzzled-you agree with the statement but then go on to say there are plenty of lovely dogs that make perfect pets & do no harm to anyone-so should these "lovely dogs" also be muzzled in your opinion?


Recent high profile attacks on children have been by parents/relatives own dog & within the home-so should dogs have to be muzzled at home too?


The problem lies with irresponsible owners, not the dog (regardless of breed)- the majority of dog owners are responsible.

Microchipping is all well and good but the vast majority of owners already do this. Even if the ne'er do wells are in some way forced to microchip, who, in these times of austerity, is going to be tasked with carrying scanners to do spot checks? Remember also that chips can and have been removed by the same dodgy types, who have little compunction in visiting pain on their dog.


I do so wish that having dogs on lead was enforceable on the streets, this seems to me a far more practical solution for less cost, a dog on the lead can be both avoided and controlled.

I agree First Mate. My friend recently had a very near miss with a dog off-lead who ran into the road. She stopped the car for the dog on a very busy road, and called out to the owner to ask if the dog was alright. He said "don't worry - that's how he'll learn". Appalling.

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...