Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello,


Today I took a walk down Dulwich Park after a very long time to enjoy the sun like many others. A huge dog came charging at me. I was truly scared and asked the lady walking the dog, shdnt he be kept on a lead. As thats what it says at the very entrance of the park. Pics attached. The lady very rudely replied that if I'm scared of dogs I should not walk in a park and only walk on roads.


Now I have a few questions to dog walkers and I know not all of them are unreasonable or rude. I usually dont mind dogs who are not kept on lead as long as they dont come charging at me -


1. I pay as much and full council tax as anyone else. I also pay 40% tax on my salary to the government. Do I not have the right to walk the parks in London without the fear of being attacked/ mauled by a dog? I have nothing against dogs, but I do not like them licking me or worse, biting me. That scares the shit out of me.


2. If there are signs right at the entrance of the park that say "Dogs Must be Kept on Short Lead", is it so unreasonable to expect dog walkers to obey them? Especially when there were a few people in the park with their dogs on a lead.


3. Why is it that despite paying these huge taxes I'm considered unreasonable for following the law and some dog owners/ walkers are not even when they leave their dogs to charge at anyone and litter our walkways with dog poo?!


I dont frequent parks very often as I work full time but off late I have had some time off and wanted to clear my head with a walk. I had a terrible wallk as I was terrified throughout the time of those dogs running around and hoping they dint come charging towards me.


I live in East Dulwich and I really wish I can go to the park again for a peaceful time.


Sue

Sue, no currently dogs do not have to be kept on a short lead in the area you have photographed which is where people are asked to exercise their dogs off lead.


How close did the dog in question get to you? While I have every sympathy with you it is quite difficult to avoid proximity to dogs off lead in the areas where they are exercised off lead.


Those notices were installed by the council some years ago but are not enforceable. Given that the notice you show is placed at the beginning of the area where dog owners are asked to exercise their dogs off lead it makes for confusing information for both sides of the equation. That is possibly why the dog owner reacted in the way they did. I blame the council for giving out confusing messages.

Nigella, thanks for the suggestion, will do that.


First Mate, I was not attacked by the dog in those off the road areas where I have seen people exercise their dogs. I was attacked on the main road in the park very close to where the ice cream van usually stands.


I do not know if council's signs are wrong or not, but all I want to say is that surely parks are meant for people as much as dogs. Especially given we pay council tax and dogs don't! I mean seriously, is expecting to be not attacked by a dog in a public space unreasonable????

From the Southwark dog byelaws http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2859/dog_ban_byelaws


"1(3) Byelaw 6 applies to the public walks, pleasure grounds and open

spaces or parts thereof described in Schedule 3, hereafter referred to

as the "dogs on leads areas".

1(4) Byelaw 6 does not apply to any roads within the dogs on leads areas

for the time being designated under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act

1988."


It is actually byelaw 5, not 6. I assume that 1(4) is also meant to refer

to it: byelaw 6 is actually about removal of offenders. Byelaw 5 says:


"5. Dogs on Leads

No person in charge of a dog shall, without reasonable excuse, permit the

dog to enter or remain in any of the dogs on leads areas unless the dog is

held on a lead and is restrained from behaviour giving reasonable grounds for

annoyance."


Schedule 3 includes in the "Dogs on lead areas":


"Dulwich Park ? Central Area & Sports Pitches

Peckham Rye Park - Central Landscaped Area".


I'm not sure how conclusive the "central" is, but I think I'd assume it

excludes the entrance and road areas, regardless of whether or not 1(3) applies.

Perhaps the signs indicate the boundaries of the intended areas.

Yes that sign is confusing as it is right by the area we are told to exercise our dogs off lead. I have been told by the cafe people (who liase with the grounds people) that dogs should be on leads within the tarmac'd path, but are free to be off lead on the tarmac path and outside of that.


I might be misreading your opening post (so apologies if so) but were you actually attacked or did the dog just run near you? No it is not at all unreasonable to be able to walk about without being savaged by a dog - in which case you should contact the park authorities straight away (and police if necessary)

These kind of hysteria posts fill me with dismay.


And as Mustard says - did this dog really attack you, or were you simply caught unawares by a single over zealous boisterous dog? Yes - over exuberant dogs should be better managed by their owners, but honestly I think this is a complete over reaction, and knee jerk response to one unfortunate incident.


Dulwich Park is VERY busy. Myself and my children always have to avoid speeding cyclists, roller skaters, flying footballs - but hey, we live and let live. I was once floored (9 months pregnant) by a child on one of those yellow reclining incumbent bikes, I went flying, but I didn't start tub-thumping about it. The park is for us all - and we need to let everyone enjoy it.


(As an aside I really don't think how much you pay to the Government in taxes has anything to do with your argument - no one has a greater sense of entitlement due to paying more tax).

Sue, sorry, need a little clarity here. Were you attacked, that is did the dog behave aggressively and physically touch you, or was the dog aggressive and close to you or did the dog simply run towards you but make no contact with you? I completely understand that you might dislike be nervous of dogs and so not want to be close to one but the word 'attack' has a very different implication. If you were attacked you would have recourse under the Dangerous Dog Act and that owner might be required by law to always have their dog on lead in a public area.


If it is the case that the dog was running around within yards of you and you felt uncomfortable with that then it is a somewhat different scenario.


I do agree that on tarmaced areas and areas around caf?s and so forth it would be reasonable to expect people to have dogs under greater control and unless they are highly obedience trained this probably means a 6 ft lead.

The area photographed by the OP and which includes the sign is at the periphery of the park and is known by many as the dog walk. It seems almost deliberately confusing on the part of the council. The signage was actively challenged a number if years ago and the council backed down.

The dog came charging at me at high speed and I screamed. Yes I did not wait for it to attack me and then post this. But I have been approached, touched, licked, attacked by dogs in the past in parks, but did not want to do anything abt it.


Why is it that live and let live rule never applies to law abiding ppl who actually respect public places?


And I mentioned abt taxes only because I was told to not walk in the park if I'm scared of dogs charging at me. Park being busy is one thing not being safe is entirely a different matter.

Maybe if you'd started the exchange with the dog owner with 'I'm scared of dogs' rather than a passive aggressive 'shouldn't your dog be on a lead', you might have met with a better response. Most dog owners would quickly remove their dog and apologise in that situation.


The park is a public space, it's not always the experience that we'd want but that's tough really. We choose to use these spaces and we have to muddle along together.


I'm confused about the tax issue though? How does that relate to the park?

There will be plenty of posts that pick apart your story, pull you up on loose language around being "attacked" etc....but the facts are, people are supposed to have their dogs on leads other than the exercise area (pretty clearly marked) but hardly anyone does.


Not going to change unless the council start enforcing it - which they won't.

Op - I think the nitty gritty is that you are terribly frightened of all dogs, and that you see every dog who is not on a lead as a potential 'attacker'. What I fear from your post is an underlying narrative to see dogs banned from parks.


While I appreciate you have this panic and terror around dogs, you are intimating that because you have this fear all dogs should be placed on a lead in case they 'come charging at you'. My point was that speeding cyclists scare the beejeezuz out of me too but I don't want to restrict them in anyway - it's not MY park, it's a local park for everyone. I just get on with my time, and move away or avoid the areas where the cyclists are (i.e. the perimeter track).


There are clear areas for dogs to run off lead, and clear areas where dogs should be on a short lead. And yes - if the dog that came bounding up to you was in the latter then of course you are in the right to speak to the owner about it. But if the former then no - and in future definitely avoid that area so as not to feed the fear.


And I think you find 99.9% of the people in Dulwich Park are 'law abiding' people.

Anyone actually attacked by a dog (i.e. the dog attacks and bites or attempts to bite, with clearly malicious intent) deserves sympathy and is right to seek a remedy; but from what the OP has said, it is clear that she is frightened of (any) dogs, and reacts alarmingly (screams, apparently) if approached by a dog. There are numbers of dogs (particularly labs and retrievers) who can be naturally boisterous and ?tigger-ish? but which mean no harm.


Dogs which are not vicious have as much right in parks (assuming their solid excretions are properly collected by their owners) as any other park users. Their boisterousness is part of their pleasure, for many people.


This appears to be a phobia for the OP (irrational fear) ? there are many treatments for phobias, including CBT, and I would suggest it is worth examining them, so that you can share park space with dogs and without excessive anxiety. [it is not ?wrong? to have a phobia, but it can be inconvenient for the phobic, and it is addressable].


Those people with dogs will also be tax and community charge payers. Who will also think they have rights.


The signage and its positioning is not helpful.


Edited to say, cross-posted with message above, which makes some of the same points, Sorry.

Steve, where is the dog exercise area clearly marked? There are no dedicated dog exercise areas. There is a request that people should exercise their dogs on around the periphery of the park/and on the fields and should keep them on a lead elsewhere but there is nothing to indicate a specific area on which to exercise dogs.


I would add that use of the word 'attacked' where there has been no display of aggression and no physical contact is a little more than 'loose language'. Of course, if the OP replies and says that the dog growled or snarled at her, bared its teeth while lunging at her with aggressive intent, or indeed bit her, then I will retract that statement.

I don't think there are any areas on or outside the circular road where you can't let your dog off the lead. Ridiculous that you can't have your dog off the lead in all areas of the park really. If you are afeared of dogs, Dulwich Park really isn't for you.

taper, given that the park should be for all I think it is fair that there are areas where people are asked to keep their dog on a lead. It is common sense really. For instance, I would not let my dog run around offlead where people are playing football or having a picnic (unless I knew he would recall on command every time without fail as well as walk to heel)nor do I let him offlead around the cafe areas, or on the hard paved areas or indeed in and by the children's playground. Once would hope that people don't have to be asked to do this. If everyone adopted these simple and straightforward guidelines I think we would all be a lot happier.


I agree that demanding that all dogs be kept on a lead everywhere and at all times is unreasonable and draconian, it would also affect the welfare of the dogs.


I think that if people are scared of dogs it would be nicer for them if they could visit areas of the park where they know people will keep their dogs on a lead.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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