Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Steve Ive no idea what I would do. Did this happen to you in Peckham Rye? That is terrifying.

Are there attacks like this going on in Peckham Rye that would warrant these muzzles and enclosures on normal dog walking people?

are dogs attacking human beings on a regular basis?


Its a pretty regular dog walking crowd in PRP and we tend to keep an eye out for eachother and keep an ear to the grapevine.


I thought original posters were complaining about being rushed by disobedient dogs rather than attacked by vicious ones .Hence my advice to ignore if you are phobic, so as not to increase interest and interaction .


No collar no owner? that is illegal straight away, so would such a dog ever be muzzled or 'walked in an enclosure'?

Dogs this dangerous have no business being in a park at all, and no muzzle or enclosure is going to make them safe.



Dogs scare me when they are off the lead in the residential streets- off lead dogs in the streets are illegal and yet I see guys cycling along with dogs running on the pavement. Not only intimidating and illegal, but dangerous re possible RTA. I expect to be able to walk my dog on a lead down the street without being harrassed by an off lead dog- the most likely scenario for a fight or for me to get bitten


edited to add:

the law already requires the muzzling and neutering of all pit bull type or dangerous breed dogs-and of course for all dogs to wear a collar.

This thread is becoming increasingly hysterical (on more than one level).


The VAST MAJORITY of dogs we see in our parks are well looked after, have sensible owners, are not 'trophy' dogs, and are completely harmless. The chance of being attacked - even by the remaining minority - is pretty minimal. To be scared of every dog that we come across in the park is irrational. To then pass on this irrationality to children is quite sad; personally I find it a shame for children not be encouraged to like and understand animals. To be scared of animals is to miss out on so much.


I walk in Peckham Rye, Dulwich and other parks most days with my small children - and feel completely safe. If anything I feel more wary about the cyclists zipping around the park - but I certainly wouldn't go around thumping a drum that we should have separate areas for those on two wheels to protect me and my kids.


The park is for everyone - dog or non-owners. Yes - there are irresponsible dog owners - but be reassured that they are a tiny minority. Live and let live for goodness sake - and perhaps we can all enjoy a walk in the park.

Huggers Wrote:

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

> ditto



me too, well said:) There are already enough areas in Peckham Rye park where dogs either aren't aloud or are to be kept on a lead. My dogs are no threat to anybody and I would not want to be stuck in one area of a park where dogs are allowed off lead, and muzzle them when they come out of that area!! Why should I? They are teensy and have NEVER shown any aggresion to anyone, don't tar responsible dog owners with the same brush as the irresponsilbe ones:X


I pay my taxes and my dogs are very well behaved, I want to walk around the park, where I want to go, not be told where I can let them off, in a "DOG AREA" Forget it!

cloudnine Wrote:

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

> > I walk in Peckham Rye, Dulwich and other parks

> most days with my small children - and feel

> completely safe. If anything I feel more wary

> about the cyclists zipping around the park - but

> I certainly wouldn't go around thumping a drum

> that we should have separate areas for those on

> two wheels to protect me and my kids.

>

> The park is for everyone - dog or non-owners. Yes

> - there are irresponsible dog owners - but be

> reassured that they are a tiny minority. Live and

> let live for goodness sake - and perhaps we can

> all enjoy a walk in the park.


Very well said. I have dogs myself which would be more likely to lick you to death than attack you, but I wholely recognise that my love of animals isn't shared by all and do my very best to train them and keep them on the lead when they may be a nuisance to others....and walk elsewhere like the woods when it's busy. People do have the right to run round the park without dogs tearing after them which as someone said is usually the excitement of a young dog rather than aggression....but it doesn't matter....it shouldn't happen. But I do agree that this care of each other has to be reciprocated by all groups....on many occasions either I or my dogs have narrowly missed injury from cyclists who speed round the park without any due care for pedestrians. Or the summer inevitable spate of mopeds no doubt stolen being driven round by kids with no helmets. Oh dear, maybe I should start a rant thread!

I have 2 dogs that I walk regularly on both the Rye and in Dulwich Park. I have to admit that the Harris girls who have kicked both me and my dogs (who are always under control at all times) as we have walked home, are more scary to me than any dog off a lead. I have also had mad cyclists in Dulwich Park crash into my dog and hurl abuse at me as we have walked around the park.
yes, the harris girls do seem particularly hysterical when it comes to dogs, my little mutt has been terrified by them screaming at/because of him, on more than one occassion...always on the lead I might add. first mate, I hope you ordered them out of the park on the grounds that screaming teenage girls are the very worst of the species...

curlykaren,


I was sufficiently startled by the vitriol that came my way, for no good reason I may add, that I spoke to the relevant authorities about it. I was taken aback that a group of girls should be so rude and overbearing and saddened that en masse they seemed to have a real hatred of dogs. I think it is doubtful that the whole lot of them have been attacked by dogs so can only conclude that they have learned the dislike. I too see more and more children who run and scream at the mere sight of a dog, not only in the park but in the street, where the dog is clearly on a lead- I note that the accompanying adult often seems to share the child's dislike.

I saw something strangley annoying this morning. Some great oaf, and his nasty terrior chasing Squirels in the park. Now, i know there are two many grey squirels in this world, but..... this idiot of a man was actually holding back his dog, antaganizing it, then releasing so he could chase and almost slaughter the squirel.


What the hell is going on? CHILDREN play in the park, you start teaching your dog to kill... surely something bad could happen!


Prick

davidC Wrote:- this idiot of a man was actually holding back his dog, antaganizing it, then releasing so he could chase and almost slaughter the squirel.



It's part of the dog fighting training course for a gold digging pit-bull owner, gives the dog a taste for killing


and blood.

LegalE-ish wrote:-So restrict all dogs cos you got attacked once?


I do believe that if you read the press there have been many other attacks apart from the animal that attacked me. There was a case a few days ago where two Alsatians were fighting and when the owner tried to intervene, they turned on him and killed him.


In some countries dogs are not allowed on the streets without a muzzle. So why not here?

It certainly does the dog no harm and may save them from being harmed.

As I said in my original response, I was looking for food for thought about what I thought about dogs off leads in Peckham Rye.


So, here is where I am after all the great posts:


1) Peckham Rye is a shared resource - which we are all entitled to enjoy

2) To enjoy it we all need to understand where our rights begin and end

3) Dog owners totally have the right to walk their dogs on the Rye

4) If someone has a problem with dogs it is not up to dog owners to judge that person - it is totally within the rights of someone to expect to be able to walk around Peckham Rye without being approached by an unknown dog

5) If someone has a a dog under control it is totally their right to exercise their dog without being abused by people who may not like dogs

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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