Lively dogs and little kids - Peckham Rye Park

[first mate]

DaveR,

You are correct and this is where dog owners need to be a bit more aware. Of course, any case that goes before a court will be judged on its merits but the letter of the law emphasises the issue of perception- apprehension that you are about to be attacked is not the same as being attacked.

[MissMadMoo]

This thread's going round in circles..

[Blah Blah]

Dave and first mate, there are no witnesses but the account of the OP, so technically it's heresay anyway and wouldn't even get to a court, if we really do want to get pedantic here. No corroberative witness acoount, no injury, just the perception of the complainent who took what action he deemed right according to that persepctive. And yet, we are talking about the owner, and then dogs and then their owners in general blah blah. See my point?

[DaveR]

I'm not interested in your point, I was just correcting your mistake. Blah blah blah.

Edited to add: I'm not going to bother correcting your mistake about hearsay (the spelling and the meaning) as not relevant to the subject matter.

[Blah Blah]

You didn't correct any mistake Dave as 'grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person' still requires a burden of evidence that does not exist here.

And excuse me for making a spelling mistake! Excuse me for also not worrying about that or that you belong to that group of sad people who feel the need to point that out.

[LadyDeliah]

Sorry Blah Blah, but the OP giving an account of what he saw is not hearsay. If someone else was to use his post as evidence in their own case it could amount to hearsay.

[Otta]

Blah blah, as DaveR & LadyD are both clued up on the law, I'd leave it there.

But having only just seen it, I too read

"after all you are his dad and know what is best for him. No one else has the right to tell you otherwise,"

And thought WTF.

[fizzmoll]

Many thanks to the two guys and their dog who scared the crap out of my three year old son yesterday on Peckham Rye. The dog came out of nowhere, jumped all around my son and barked loudly. They were about the same size.

The dog's two owners said to me "Don't worry, he just wants to play". Well, why are you telling *me* this? Instead, why not try to explain it to my crying three year old son? He now seems utterly terrified of all dogs. The dog then left my crying son (who clearly didn't want to "play") and ran off to another little child (sitting on a picnic blanket) and did the same thing, with the same result.

Thanks, well done guys! Cheers.

[HappyFamily]

Sorry to hear this Fizzmoll

Ive seen this happen a few times myself on the park and did read the original thread in agreement with OP (but with a heavy heart!)

Im a dog owner myself and I get really annoyed that some people think that just "having a dog" is where the responsibility ends, especially when let loose in the park. I really hope we dont see a child bitten soon but I do worry having seen some owners with complete lack of control of lively dogs

IF YOU HAVENT BOTHERED TO TRAIN YOUR DOG AND/OR THEY DO NOT OBEY YOUR COMMANDS THEN THE DOG SHOULD BE ON A LEAD.

Maybe we need a sign up at the entrance to the park reminding owners of this.

On the plus side, there are alot of responsible owners so I hope you get to meet them too !

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sorry to hear about this fizzmoll. Unfortunately too many dog owners personify their pets and so are incapable of understanding why 'their trying to play' might be upsetting. I've come up against this intransigent attitude so many times now, I can't tell you. I hope your son is OK.

[fizzmoll]

Thanks for the kind words Rahrah and HappyFamily!

Most dog owners that I know and that we meet out in parks and streets are like you guys - considerate and mindful of other people (esp. children) and with well behaved and absolutely lovely dogs! Hopefully, if my son meets a couple of nice, gentle dogs, he'll be all right! :)

[rgutsell]

I cannot believe that there are some here who put the right to have an uncontrolled animal running free, over and above the right of a parent to have their youngster playing safely and securely in a public park.

Whether the child/parent is acting "logically" or "rationally" is actually irrelevant. It does not have to be a "by the book case" of threatening behaviour. The person just has to feel threatened for it to be taken seriously.

The number of people having pets such as dogs and bringing them to the parks has burgeoned massively over the last 20 years (you need to be old enough to have noticed!! LOL)

For all of us who are fed up with the "dogs in parks" issue, rescue is coming; dogs will soon be required by law to be tagged with micro chips that link them to their owners. Some councils are already gearing up to use this to manage the issue of stolen dogs, and the amount of dog faeces on the commons, additionaly using DNA samples drawn from the poo. It won't be long before the same methods are adapted to link dogs to their owners in cases of uncontrolled behaviour.

In the meantime, you can use your phone; film or photo the uncontrolled behaviour, and the owner, and take it to the police.

[Pocket]

Good grief. What a miserable, joyless post.

100% of responsible dog owners have their dogs microchipped; it's routine during first vaccination / check-up.

With council cuts I really can't see Southwark bothering to DNA test dog faeces.

The long and short of it is for people to control their animals. The majority do, but as with all things in life there is an idiot minority who don't.

Less of the bitter anti-dog militia talk please.

rgutsell Wrote:

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

> I cannot believe that there are some here who put

> the right to have an uncontrolled animal running

> free, over and above the right of a parent to have

> their youngster playing safely and securely in a

> public park.

>

> Whether the child/parent is acting "logically" or

> "rationally" is actually irrelevant. It does not

> have to be a "by the book case" of threatening

> behaviour. The person just has to feel threatened

> for it to be taken seriously.

>

> The number of people having pets such as dogs and

> bringing them to the parks has burgeoned massively

> over the last 20 years (you need to be old enough

> to have noticed!! LOL)

>

> For all of us who are fed up with the "dogs in

> parks" issue, rescue is coming; dogs will soon be

> required by law to be tagged with micro chips that

> link them to their owners. Some councils are

> already gearing up to use this to manage the issue

> of stolen dogs, and the amount of dog faeces on

> the commons, additionaly using DNA samples drawn

> from the poo. It won't be long before the same

> methods are adapted to link dogs to their owners

> in cases of uncontrolled behaviour.

>

> In the meantime, you can use your phone; film or

> photo the uncontrolled behaviour, and the owner,

> and take it to the police.

[first mate]

I agree, I wonder if this poster advocates filming all the various kinds of undesirable behaviour in the parks or does this just apply to dogs and owners?

Yes, some dogs need to be better controlled by some but let's keep a little perspective.