Southwark Dogs in Parks public consultation - deadline 16 Sept 2013

[mako]

First mate

just to clarify. 'Fair play for dogs' believe there should be dogs on leads areas and that those in place should be rigorously enforced, but these areas should not be extended?

[bonniebird]

No that was Nick on the Barking hour :)

[snorkmaiden]

How do i find out more about the dog club? I dont see anymore information about this or how to join?

[LadyDeliah]

Hi Chuff, yes I did both the survey and the petition.

[Lee Scoresby]

Where to start . . . Whenever I think my contempt for Southwark Council is utter, they go and pull another stunt. Like Southwark doesn't have actual useful things to do . . . Like Southwark has vast funds at its disposal . . . Like Southwark has a shining record of achievement (I direct readers to the squalid farce resulting in the present chaos of Rye Lane, as an example)

Free movement, unmolested (for example, by other people's dogs), in public space is a very fundamental democratic right, no question. Dogs should be under control, no question. Responsible dog owners agree. I have previously referred in an EDF thread to an horrendous incident several years ago in the Horniman Gardens where several children were attacked, and the yob didn't even get off his mobile. Oh, and the Met declined to attend, let alone take action.

However! For years in this country there has been a lazy kneejerk fascist tendency at all levels by those who rule us to deal with the misbehaviour of a few by banning whole categories of inherently blameless behaviour.

I point out two things of which readers may not be aware: Senior Southwark 'Environment' officers have been known for years to be fanatically anti-dog. And such is the decrepit state of local government in London that these faceless-nameless entities can push their agendas and obsessions. Second, in the wider ethnic politics of the borough, coming down on dogs plays extremely well with one group which fears and dislikes dogs, and another which considers them unclean. But this is England: the English keep and walk dogs. That is just how it is.

If Southwark really wants to get hot n' jiggy about our parks, how about cracking down on the people leaving vast piles of garbage strewn everywhere, every day, every week? Q: has even one person been prosecuted for littering in Peckham Rye, or any Southwark Park, in the last year? Has any sports group been warned that its (presumably much sought after) slot on the Rye is in jeopardy if they keep walking away from their horrible refuse? Nope, thought not. Pathetic. I suggest campaigners start talking photo's of this despoilation and sending them to Southwark with very great regularity.

Lee Scoresby

[mako]

lee highlights the need for some controls that need enforcing by referring to a major incident. He then falls into the trap of talking about dogs being banned which there is still no evidence for whatsoever. No-one has yet given any indication as to why southwark environment officers are 'anti dog' or given any evidence yet that in fact they are, yet it is often quoted as if fact. Like many threads Lee's thread becomes one of having a go at another group of park users rather than offering anything on the current dog situation and improvements that could be made by that group of users and for that group of users. As for suggesting southwarks intentions are race related-i find that incredibly unlikely. Southwark are clearly right to start informed debate in this area as there clearly are issues. If everyone simply engaged in the debate rather than essentially defending the poor control of a number of dog owners by citing other park users failings, more progress would be likely.

[mako]

I wouldnt say that they might have tried some unnamed action 5 years ago, constitutes them definitely having form

[Lee Scoresby]

To clarify Mako's comprehensive misrepresentation of my position:

By definition, proposing to exclude dogs from large areas is to ban their presence there, and thereby to prohibit general walking of dogs on Peckham Rye (for example) - as to 'informed debate', the reaction to the so-called 'consultation document' by all I speak to has been astonishment at its leading, biased wording - straight outta North Korea! you could say - any subsequent official action using results of this 'consultation' as justification would certainly be challenged in court

I am not having a go at "other park users" - as I say, free movement is a fundamental right - like many human rights, differing claims must be reconciled fairly

Mako may find my more general remark "incredibly unlikely" and I was extremely reluctant to express it - however it is naive to think Southwark politicians don't think about these things - look at some of Harriet Harman's material from the last general election . . .

To be clear, I absolutely support dangerous dog owners going to jail, and other irresponsible owners being brought to book - but this would need some credible presence on the ground by Southwark - the last decade has seen a whirligig of 'rangers' and 'wardens' come and go (mostly go), in all their various dinky uniforms and modes of conveyance

And, as I say, how about the mountains of refuse, Southwark?

elmgrove, I do not have names and the EDF moderator might well excise my post if I did mention any - mako is quite right that this 'common knowledge' needs to be tested - so, OK, what are the names, what are the facts, what are the standing policies? - what is there to hide?

Lee Scoresby

[mako]

Lee

Apologies if you feel i misrepresented you as i actually agree with a lot of your post, particularly that the initial survey was poorly worded. However this shouldnt be used as an excuse to avoid the issues that do exist such as should there be on lead only areas, dog free areas, how to deal with enforcement of existing rules. I feel many on this thread havent been prepared to engage in this debate, instead citing their issues with other park users which could fill up plenty of other threads. Also assuming a ban has been proposed and that southwark are anti dog, when i have seen little evidence of either.

[chuff]

Mako

Those areas already exist in our parks, that's probably why it's not been discussed very much. Enforcing those areas is something that could be discussed.

[DaveR]

But this is England: the English keep and walk dogs. That is just how it is.

No. Some people, English or otherwise, keep and walk dogs. Others don't. You are just the latest of many on this thread to imply that 'people' are supportive of dogs and 'they' ie Southwark council are anti dog. Hence the complete absence of rational engagement with the real issues

[DaveR]

Btw - North Korea? Really?

[LadyDeliah]

DaveR Wrote:

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

Hence the complete absence of

> rational engagement with the real issues

So what in your opinion are the 'real' issues?

[chuff]

We used to be called a nation of dog lovers, probably not something we can claim these days with the amount of abuse that happens and unwanted pets dumped.

I love dogs, who on this thread doesn't like them and why?

[Lee Scoresby]

Mako - thanx for your remarks - the appallingly slanted 'consultation' is prima facie evidence of an anti-mutt agenda at Southwark - but as I say, let's get it all out in the daylight - if we had a local press remotely willing to perform its democratic role we might look there, but . . .

One thing which most vexes many of us is this sense in trying to deal with 'our' supposed local government and getting the strong feeling of: nameless officers with agendas (as I said), Westminster party politics (toytown level), and just general drift and chaos and lack of glastnost

DaveR . . . sigh . . . my expression does not mean that ALL and ONLY the English keep and walk dogs - it does mean that in these (English) parks there is a longstanding and much-loved habit of walking dogs (unlike 'country X' say)- so, referring back to my observation that conflicting claims must be resolved fairly, this fact must be weighed in the final total balance - I do not accept that my posts express a 'complete absence of engagement with the real issues', whatever (as LadyD says) you feel these to be

I am very surprised no-one is supporting me on the issue of the piles of garbage - if you're going to have Southwark narks lurking behind bushes this is one very real and recurrent abuse of this public space which could be dealt with very effectively - as I said, I assume these sports groups book-in for a time and space - if they persist in leaving their piles of c-r-a-p they should lose that privilege - and again, groups walking away from revolting picnic messes could be easily intercepted - dozy old Southwark just needs to want to do it

Lee Scoresby

[chuff]

I mentioned on my first post about the litter, it bothers me too. There will no doubt be a mini mountain of it again on Monday morning, will take some pics if I'm there early enough.

[snorkmaiden]

Lee if you want to talk about litter why dont you start a new thread?

[snorkmaiden]

Mako speaks a lot of sense people are missing the opportunity for reasonable debate by deflecting onto other topics

[Renata Hamvas]

Cllr Barrie Hargrove, Gavin and I had a meeting with over 50 of the dog owning users of Peckham Rye Park on Saturday. There was helpful discussion and dialogue at this meeting.

I would firstly like to point out that the blanket dogs on lead signs that appeared a few years ago and that were removed following protest by residents were not under the current administration (it was well before my time as a councillor).

The reason this survey came about is due to the death of pet dogs following attacks by out of control dogs on Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery and other parks/open spaces in the Borough (also a pet cat in Nunhead Cemetery) in the last year or so. Also, there is the issue of dog mess not being picked up by a minority of dog owners (as well as costly to remove, yukky to step into, it's also a health hazard). I do agree the survey could be better structured/worded. Barrie said that this survey was not done with any ideas of changes to what there is currently in mind, he also said that it is highly unlikely there would be any changes to Peckham Rye Park. The vast majority of dog owners using the park do so in a responsible manner. It's that very small minority who don't clear up after their dog or let their dog roam out of control in a dangerous fashion etc that need to be dealt with.

There have been other surveys, eg libraries, where it was apparent that residents were concerned that some libraries would close when the survey outcome led to all remaining open and some of the smaller libraries now are open more days in the week than prior to the survey. Surveys are there to engage with residents and find out their opinion. I do therefore hope that residents fill in the survey, even if it's purely to say, for example: we use Peckham Rye Park and we are happy with it as it is.

In terms of litter left by groups using the park. This has been reported to me before and I have passed on the complaint. If there is a day/time/place where you observe a regular user eg a sports team that leaves their rubbish behind, let me know and I will report it.

Renata

[mako]

Hopefully the meeting will put to an end the conspiracy theorists who keep referring to a blanket ban and that there was a hidden agenda. Instead the debate can move on to enforcement of current rules including fouling, dealing with out of control dogs off leads (please dont say they dont exist as we have plenty on this thread saying they are scared to walk their own dogs), and improving owners and non owners understanding of the others viewpoint ( for example lots of people dont want dogs running or jumping at them even if their is no danger. An apology when this happens would be nice rather than expectation from an owner that the recipient of said jump will find it funny). My suggestion would be the best chance of this is self regulation from the owners who with a strong Owners group could educate their members and put pressure on those who dont comply, including the bad dog walking businesses that i feel are responsible for many complaints.

[LadyDeliah]

I totally agree with Lee. The question of what is a problem in our parks should not just be confined to dogs. By narrowing the issue to dogs and posting an extremely biased survey, it is clear that dogs are being unreasonably targeted.

If the council are worried about hazards in our parks, there are plenty of other things they should also be looking at.

We need to think about what it is they are actually trying to achieve here? Are they really interested in just gauging opinion? And if so, to what end? I imagine the most commonly reported incident that will come out of this extremely flawed survey, will be that people hate dog shit.

And??

How will this information add anything to anything? We know this already. There are already rules in place to address this. If it?s still the most commonly reported incident, then that?s because the rules are not being enforced due to staff and budget cuts. Additional restrictions won?t make any difference to this, unless dogs are completely banned from parks.

If dogs off lead comes out as the biggest incident reported and the council decides to bring in additional restrictions, again the current rules are not enforced, so what difference will additional restrictions make (thinking about their staff and budget cuts), unless dogs are banned from parks.

So if this is not a way of gathering support for draconian restrictions on dogs and their owners, then at best it?s a total waste of money, as there is nothing useful that will or can be done with questions that everyone knew the answer to already, without a huge investment in park staff. In a time of austerity, this is as likely as me joining the Tory party.

[davidh]

there will be no widening or change to dog off-leads areas in peckham rye park. that was made quite clear to the meeting on saturday by coouncilor barrie hargrove, southwark's head of parks and open spaces. this assurance was given with no qualifications or get-out clauses so we take it ss kosher. peckham rye park is now officially wonderful for everyone on two legs or four!

[LadyDeliah]

That's one park. What will happen in parks with less organised dog owners?

[ianr]

boosboss Wrote: (12 August, 2013 02:16, p.1 of thread)

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

> I'm waiting for more information on the stated

> increase in dog related incidents. I've requested

> details under the FOI act so I can see the said

> increase for myself. As a very regular park user,

> I can't say I've noticed an obvious increase and

> am not willing to just accept that there is one. I

> find the approach to this survey and the questions

> within it very leading.

What was the reply to your request?

[DaveR]

"The question of what is a problem in our parks should not just be confined to dogs. By narrowing the issue to dogs and posting an extremely biased survey, it is clear that dogs are being unreasonably targeted."

That's a classic tactic to prevent action when it touches on something you disagree with. There has been an explanation of why there is perceived to be a problem; it's no answer to say 'there are other problems'.