Forum Topic

Sarah Brownlee · 03/11/2009 18:49:00

new.BrentfordTW8.com Communtity Forum Topic posting

Dangerous Dogs - A Serious Problem, please read

Why is it that the problem of dangerous dogs - namely Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Pitbulls - are still a problem within Brentford, espeially St Paul's park? Why is it that the majority of dog owners, who are decent, law-abiding people, are constantly having to watch their backs in case an irresposible owner decides to let his rampant dog loose, and there's a chance decent citizens' dogs might be attacked? But most of all, WHY are the authorities allowing this to happen? For almost a year, I was continuously pushing members of our 'authority' to do something about the problems regarding these animals and their owners within our community. I have had meetings with councillors, local police and the borough warden in an attempt to have the problem sorted; I created a petition that almost every dog owner of the local park (aside from the specific owners we're talking about) signed and sent it off to our local MP; I appeared in an article for 'The Informer' regarding this matter to try and create awareness of this issue; I have written to Lord Baker who instigated the Dangerous Dogs Act '91, who replied that he was sorry to hear of these problems and how unfortunate it is that this issue has spiralled out of control; Jacqui Smith, our Home Secretary, wrote to me with her department's suggestions for improvement for this issue; I have regularly encountered disgusting attitudes, verbal abuse and preposterous behaviour from the very people who own these dogs, whose big mouths and filthy language give the impression that they ought to muzzle themselves, as well as their dogs. The end result to all this?Well, the end result is NOTHING. I was walking in the park today and came across a lady who mentioned to me that her fourteen-week old terrier had just been attacked by a pitbull in the park. THAT is the result, everybody. We are right back to square one, back to where we started. It disgusts me that those of us who are decent dog owners must feel like we are under seige; that the minority who don't know how to handle their dogs will let them run loose - and on the many occasions where their dogs HAVE attacked they will usually laugh or else pretend nothing happened; say they "didn't know it would happen." Do they learn from it? No. Are they punished for it? No, of course not. People are afraid; the type of people who own these dogs are the types who would be quick to bite your head off should you dare to say anything back to them; is it any wonder their dogs are so aggressive when the owners behave the way they do?We must not be afraid any longer; we are talking about a MINORITY of dog owners, who all seem to own the same sort of dog, ie, Staff, Pitbull, Rottweiler. No, we know that not ALL members of these breeds are vicious and that ownership does have a lot to do with it; but if you own one of these breed of dogs and you know your dog is not dangerous, don't sit there whinging about stereotypes - get up and start doing something about the people who are CREATING this stereotype.So many dogs are being attacked thanks to out-of-control dogs and their irresponsible loudmouth owners (who it is easy to spot from a mile off) and it is simply getting ridiculous. Are the authorities going to help us? It doesn't look like it. From my experience with them, they all fob off the work onto each other; the police blame the law, the council blame the police, the warden blames the police, well what does it matter who's fault it is as long as you all get up and atually take action? And yet, still, after all my own individual persistance there is nothing to show for it. They are supposed to be protecting us but they are not. This issue has been brought to their attention many times. Yes, a few patrols round the park; yes, meetings and promises of action; yes, orders of signage to be placed round the park. But nothing. It's laugable.That's why we as the people must stand up and protect ourselves and make a difference; we must band together, for there is strength in numbers. These lowlives, the minority who don't only care nothing for us, but for their own dogs too, are getting away with it because they know that they can strike fear into the rest of us. What is there to be afraid of? A few spiteful words? Aggressive stances and threats? Once these irresponsible owners realize that we mean business, it is they who will start to feel worried, the same way we have all felt for a long time. So stand with me and help me do something about this problem; we can only achieve it if we work together, as a community.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6450d52 Comments

Hehe ... another example of the unwillingness to take action. Not a single reply.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6448d

Sorry Sarah, but to me your post simply comes over as something of a rant and I couldn't see any actual suggestion from you as to what "action" you were proposing. Nor can I suggest any such "action" you should take, yes it is the minority of owners and if anyone posts any criticism of the animals I'll react, but what do you want people to do ?. Citizens arrest ?.

Adam Beamish ● 6448d

Hi Sarah,It is quite clear to me as a dogwalker and frequent visitor to St Paul's Park that there is a problem with dangerous dogs in Brentford. More and more owners choose not to walk their dogs in the "dog area" with fear of attack from animals which are not sufficently controlled. Instead they go to the larger area next door with fear of a fine.But what to do? Is it worth us responsible dog owners pestering the council and or police until something is done?

Alistair Fergusson ● 6448d

"Is it worth us responsible dog owners pestering the council and or police until something is done?"The problem with that is that with the best will in the world, councils/governments tend to come up with "one size fits all" approached which tend to penalise the very people they are trying to protect. The DDA was a classic example of a law which was barely enforced and ended up affecting only the law abiding owners of "pitbull types." Several harmless family pets were confiscated and destroyed, but the dog owners who were causing the perceived problems simply ignored it or "relabelled" their dogs as "Irish Staffs" or "boxer crosses."

Mick Brent ● 6448d

It's a fair point. I met Sarah regarding this point and the local police agreed to pay extra attention to the park. I haven't personally had any reports for a while of this problem, though I'm not a dog owner and only really get to the park at weekends. I will speak to the Safer Neighbourhood Team and see if we can get the park prioritised.Matt HarmerBrentford ward councillor

Matt Harmer ● 6447d

I beg your pardon? If it came off as a rant then I'm very glad it appeared that way! Considering I've dealt with this problem for a long time and there's been next to no results, I think I'm justified in my "rant." So what you're basically saying is that because there is no immediate solution to the problem then we all may as well do nothing anyway. No thank you, I've had enough of that attitude in the past and it doesn't seem to be doing any good.Anyway, to those of you who feel a need to do somethig about this, signage may be a good start but we've discussed this before and it wasn't followed up. The thing is, there ARE laws that state any dog showing SIGNS OF AGGRESSION can be taken and monitored. The problem we have is that, when a dog is attacked or if one of these dogs does appear aggressive, the people whose dogs are the "victims" don't want to take action because they are afraid of repercussion. So you see why it's so difficult to find a way around it; I don't have all the answers which is why I was hoping we could put our heads together and come up with something. Why not create leaflets at least and post them around brentford, making people aware of the problem, the punishment that may be faced if a 'dangerous dog' is off the lead/not muzzled, and what the rest of us should do in those sort of situations? 'Dangerous dog' can obviously be applied to any dog, but I think we all know that the majority of these animals are usually of the same breeds, and there's an astonishing similarity between all the owners.You need to be in the park everyday to see for yourself that there is a massive problem. So to take this lightly is the worst possible thing someone can do. I have reason to believe that these dogs are being bred and sold for cheap, to owners who know very little about dogs at all. And yes - we must pester the council and police if that's what it comes down to because they still have the legit power. I think the most important thing though is creating awareness and somehow teaching people not to be afraid to stand up to the minority. Any ideas?

Sarah Brownlee ● 6447d

"The problem with that is that with the best will in the world, councils/governments tend to come up with "one size fits all" approached which tend to penalise the very people they are trying to protect. The DDA was a classic example of a law which was barely enforced and ended up affecting only the law abiding owners of "pitbull types." Several harmless family pets were confiscated and destroyed, but the dog owners who were causing the perceived problems simply ignored it or "relabelled" their dogs as "Irish Staffs" or "boxer crosses.""It's true. So does this prove that everyone in government/council is stupid and ignorant for tarnishing us all with the same brush? It appears so. So why don't they get rid of this image of themselves and understand that not every member of the breed is the same, same as not every member of a certain race is the same; it's true when I say that the majority of these dangerous dogs are staffs or pitbulls, but I'm not so foolish to think that every member of the breed is like that. I'm well aware there are some nice staffys, etc. So what do you think the solution to that is then?

Sarah Brownlee ● 6447d

Sarah, as a animal lover I might not find this easy to say, but as I see it such incidents are a simple reflection on human society and little can be done because you can't expect local authorities or the police to spend considerable time and resources trying to be pro-active about such matters.Signage is in my opinion completely pointless because the people who create any problems like this won't take a scrap of notice. Same goes for leaflets. I'm not trying to be critical but if you think signs or leaflets will deter the minority who cause the problems then I don't think you live in the real world. Sorry if that comes over harsh, but I do think the idea that greater awareness would change the conduct of such people is very much a 'rose-tinted spectacles' view of the world we live in.I'm pretty upfront with people and if someone behaves inappropriately etc. I'll usually open my mouth. However, the situations you describe generally tend to involve aggressive young men who own such dogs as some kind of status symbol, and any attempt to reason with such yobs will fall on deaf ears and almost certainly end up in a physical confrontation. Yes, I'd dive in and try to rescue any dog from such a situation and remonstrate with the owners, but my personal opinion is that those occurrances are more the exception rather than the norm and no-one should reasonably expect a Council or the police to be more pro-active about this particular issue.

Adam Beamish ● 6447d

I think it's you who needs to come down to the real world after reading that outrageous post. To me and all the others who find ourselves in this predicament, NOTHING is pointless; ANYTHING is worth a shot. Who said it would solve the issues completely? It could be a starting point. If you had read what I wrote properly, you would know that I want those leaflets to go, not just to the people who are creating this problem, but the people who are suffering from it too, and what they could do to help themselves. Your attitude is that nothing should be done by the council or police, that they shouldn't waste their time on such matters because there are only a few incidents. Disgusting. If you had any inkling as to what's really going on, you wouldn't say anything like that at all. Even if there was just ONE - and believe me there are many more than one - then the authorities should do everything they can to protect the people; that's what they're there for.You're saying that it's the exception rather than the norm. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. There is a feeling of fear within that park; there have been attacks and there will be attacks. That is the norm and it is wrong, it's the norm because people feel the same way every day, there is always risk of an attack when irresponsible owners let their dogs roam off the lead, when they know themselves their dogs may attack; why should people have to feel that way? You don't see this as a priority but believe me, it should be a top priority.It's your sort of sloppy attitude which is why this is going on in the first place; there's no enforcement, no discipline. These people get away with it because they know they can, namely because people like you seem to back them up in the most bizarre way: just lie back and take it. If you're not interested in trying to solve it then fine, but don't try and deter anyone else from it. The concept of sitting back and doing nothing repels me. You're not living among it so obviously you don't understand. I don't want this to turn into a case of a creature or human getting fatally hurt because people didn't see it as a 'priority.' I think the protection of the people, and people feeling safe in their own areas is a pretty big priority, don't you? Anyway, I don't much fancy getting into a long-winded argument with you. I know your opinion. You're awfully quick to go against any of my suggestions but not willing to make any yourself - except, of course, to do nothing, but I'm afraid that isn't really an option in my book.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6447d

Beccy Thorp ● 6437d

If you think it's bad here, go and see what it is like in an average town in Essex.There are people out there with dogs on chains usually found along park flower borders. They fit the comedy stereotype in all but one thing. They are not funny. Too many, male and female are feral, thuggish, nasty, outwardly aggressive and their dogs are an organic equivalent of a baseball bat or a firearm.They are not 'pets', they are status weapons masquerading as a pet.Some keep them for 'security' others for protection but they must only be people who have something to fear or hide.It is not too good here either and several dog owning neighbours have made representations as they are the most likely to have the misfortune of contact with some of these people. Some are OK but the incidents of poor dog handling when often the dog is better behaved than it's charge is worrying.It should never have got to this stage and should have been nipped in the bud.local authorities do have powers to come down on this but as usual, someone makes it a 'political' issue and the merry-go-round starts. Common sense always seems to be the first thing to fly off it.We end up all paying the price as the only solution ends up being hidden cameras, and surveillance tactics. No enforcers will take on matters face to face and they do not get the full support and back up of either the Police or their masters.If anyone doubts the magnitude of the problem in a small or medium park then take some kids or a standard pet dog for a while and see how you feel.Relaxed? calm? refreshed? I'll bet not.

Michael Brandt ● 6435d

So Michael, whilst I don't disagree as such with anything you say, how do you solve the essential problem of the human scum on this planet ?. Because that is the problem here, and sadly there's no solution.

Adam Beamish ● 6435d

I agree with Mr Brandt ... and I want to know if any of the councillors have decided to take any action at all since I made my post? Even my 'insignificant' suggestion of leaflets could be worth something.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6435d

I'm afraid that is the 60,000 dollar question. How we, as one of the most innovative & progressive of modern cultures have come to have such a large nasty element that is growing despite such attention from so many who have tried to help prevent this.We as a society have got things so very wrong, an underclass that is far too big and despite so many attempts, fuelled a resolve running so deep that they will not change.We have of course, the equal problem at the other end of the scale with too many undeserving, earning too much and controlling the destinies of many below them for their own gain.Intimidation from physical presence or from manipulation. Neither should have a place in our developed society and all we really can do is resist it and do as much as possible to discourage it. Simple manners, respect and a clear definition of right from wrong. But sadly to me, it has become such a blur.I don't think there is a civil answer, where we are at the moment.

Michael Brandt ● 6435d

I used to own a beautiful intelligent border collie called fender who was quite well known in the Local area of Brentford.He was a happy dog but we had a hard life living on Lots Ait whilst i rebuilt my Broads cruiser.Every morning i would walk my dog before going to work,usually i would have to paddle across the thames to walk him,or carry him across the river bed at low tide.The stinking mud, rubbish left by the local hoodlums meant that letting the dog walk over river bed was to dangerous and smelly.On one morning at about 7.45am i was walking back with Fender who was on lead when 2 staffs (off lead) belonging to a drunk bloke launched and attacked my dog,one locked on his snout,the other locked on to his Genitals.I managed to fight both staffs and free my dog eventually but the damage had been done,after the staff fight i had to fight the owner as he felt obliged to also have a go.As he was slightly drunk it was easy to put him on the floor,he gave up and i did not need to physically assault him,even though i wanted to.I took my dog to the vet and the surgeon removed his tail and sewed him up.Fender was never the same after that,he could not sit down and was always in considerable pain.In the end i had to have him put down.The financial burden of operations,and sedative was almost £600 and the culprit idiot staff owner got away without paying a bean.It is surprising that in this so called modern society we still live amongst dangerous out of control,mindless idiots who do not care for their dogs in the correct manner.All dog owners should have a license and should be fined heavily if damage is done .All dog owners should at least keep the dog on a lead in such urban areas where free roaming areas are minimal.There was another time when in the Watermans park an elderly guy was walking two hunting dogs who were on the lead.When they saw my dog they pulled so hard away from the owner he actually fell to the ground,Then ran towards my Girlfriend attacked her and my dog.I had to fight them off aswell,what fun i had in Brentford.In the end i managed to recover the financial burden but the dogs owner was non apologetic and somewhat unconcerned.Even as a child i was surrounded by dogs and after a while a person who spends alot of time with dogs gets to understand and notice dog behaviour.On previous occasions i had spoken with the owner to try and warn him that his dog was losing the plot and needed special; attention.He chose to ignore my observations until one day a week after the attack the Lurcher in question attacked the owners wife and put her in hospital for a week,That dog was then put down.There should be a law that prevents keeping,hunting,psycho cross breeds,in Urban built up areas.There is no point in keeping a dog in a massively built up area if the owner is lazy and not able to control or exercise the dog.Brentford is such an area and if the inconsiderate owner is not prepared to run with the dog then why bother.

Markus Mason ● 6435d

Markus, I am so sorry to hear what happened with your collie, honestly, it's so terrible that these things happen and these scum get away with it.As suggested by a lovely man down one of the pubs in brentford, I will be doing daily checks to see whether the council are bothering to do anything about this issue - of course, my hopes aren't high. I've seen no action since my original post and from today - Day 1 - nothing at all. Let's see how many days we go by before action is taken.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6434d

Day 2 - Nothing.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6433d

SarahWith the proliferation of digital cameras in mobile phones, and the relative cheapness of digital cameras themselves, I would urge having at least one of those when you walk your dog. When a potential threatening situation arises take out your camera/phone and under the pretense of taking photos of your pet and/or accompanying friends/children make it overtly obvious you are taking pictures.Make sure any photo angles can also capture activities of potential threats and their activities.If you are challenged about such activity you need to enforce you are taking photos of you pet/friend etc and are fully within your rights to do so.By using this method you build up a library of evidence that identifies people and activities that are operating either outside the law or in an uncivilised manner. This hard evidence is what is required to move your case on with the authorities.I have personally found by stuffing a video phone into the equation and exclaiming to potential assailants that 'it is recording video right now' has diffused the situation resulting in the assailants leaving rather quickly taking their frustration with them.The one thing these people cannot hide from, and that is photographic evidence.Good luck.

Stephen Browne ● 6433d

Thank you very much for your suggestion, Mr Browne. You are right; also, there have been a couple of instances where I've met some aggressive characters in the park and the idea of pretending I was recording them crossed my mind, which I did, and they weren't so mouthy after that. But yes, I'll certainly be snapping them up whenever the chance arises, and advising others to do so.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6433d

Sarah - just be careful they don't snatch your phone though!

Steve Taylor ● 6431d

Hah, good point - don't worry, I won't have any lowlife taking my phone from me.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6431d

My dog was attacked outside my house in Layton Road by an unmuzzled staffie not on a lead and had to have surgery as the lovely staffie tried to bite of his genetails.The owner had a go at me for dragging her animal from mine and then protecting my pregnant wife from the dog too, luckily she stank of booze and so probably can't remember it. The police were on hand for a football match but as always did nothing, despite our insitence that we wanted to press charges, sod-all came of it.What is the point of the police in this country anymore?They serve to protect the violent, militant, terrorist, criminal element in this country whilst abusing the law-abiding and hard working people in this country.Why stop a violent crminal or a violent dog when you can issue speeding fines or arrrest childern that hand in a lost mobile phone (as in yesterday's paper)This country just doesn't deserve law-abiding and hard-working citizens anymore and only seeks to exploit us and protect those that would seek to harm us-what an awful place to live.

Niel Gavin ● 6427d

When did this happen, Neil? And what did the woman look like? I think I might have an idea who you're talking about."despite our insitence that we wanted to press charges, sod-all came of it."I urge you to call Sgnt Fane on 07881 723 891 - he is the local sgt and I've been pestering him for a good time about all this. They don't seem to do much but the more of us who pester him, the more notice he'll take. We're all sick of empty promises and empty words by authorities. What makes me especially sick is when people DO want to prosecute these owners and the police don't follow it up! Also, didn't Matthew Harmer say he was going to do something about this? Yet he hasn't said a word since his last post.I think I might run for ward councillor myself - at least I'd actually get something done. Day 9 and still nothing!If any authority members ARE reading this, you can see for yourself that almost everybody here is dissatisfied with the way this issue is being dealt with, and rightly so - you've seen posts from people who've had their dogs attacked, and from those outside looking in who can also see there is a major problem. So the question is, why aren't you doing anything about it? Isn't it your job to ensure that we are all safe and well in our environment?

Sarah Brownlee ● 6427d

I do have a suggestion for everybody reading this who is concerned about this issue - Perhaps we could meet up at some point and discuss between ourselves ways in which we could tackle this and put forward some sort of action plan? Please email me if you're interested.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6427d

You beat me to it Sarah, and apologies for not responding before now. I've spoken with Sgt Fane and it will be very useful if people keep a record/call in with reports of these incidents. Niel, your report is very worrying.There are mobile CCTVs available. At present there are few actual reports of these incidents. i'm not saying they don't happen, just that they don't seem to be reported. Getting a record makes it easier to get resources such as CCTV, police time etc allocated.If anyone wants to report things privately I am at matt.harmer@hounslow.gov.uk. And thanks again to Sarah.

Matt Harmer ● 6427d

In the first place, keeping these kinds of dogs is not allowed by the authority...then the authority should do something to keep citizens safe......

Jane Chang ● 6427d

Please don't blame the animals, I don't think so far here the issue has been the 'legality' of the dogs in question, but the irresponsible nature of the owners of the owners.

Adam Beamish ● 6427d

Thought you said there wasn't an issue at all, let alone specifying on it? ;)AS I said, if anyone missed that short post of mine area, if anyone would like to contact me to arrange a meeting it would be more than welcome.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6427d

Sarah,I was responding to Jane as I felt her post could be interpreted as suggesting that 'the authority' should do something about the dogs, rather than the people.I have never said this isn't an issue, what I have said is that sadly such incidents are inevitable due to the increase in the numbers of 'louts' in the world and I simply do not believe that measures such as leaflet dropping etc. achieve any purpose.

Adam Beamish ● 6427d

I thought the Local Authority had a Pest Control Department?

Steve Taylor ● 6426d

We have a Jack Russel Puppy (11 months) who has become difficult to walk in that park recently. He is fine in other places (Richmond, Chiswick house etc) but becomes terratorial in that park, I have spoken to many people and some have pointed out that there are a number of un-neutered males who are walked there (dogs not owners!) . (we had ours neutered at 6 months)I also find that also, probably because of bad experiences, some owners over-react when my puppy is a bit snarly with other dogs; what he needs is for them to put him in his place but sometimes this natural "hierachy" is never really allowed to happen. please don't get me wrong, I am not talking about letting dogs fight, but sometimes they snarl and growl until they sort things out. He can play beautifully for hours with some dogs, so I know he is well socialised.

Mary OConnor ● 6421d

No-one misunderstand me here.It is not the dog's fault that my dog almost had his "bits" ripped off, dogs are dogs and the un-neutered males are very dangerous indeed, only a fool would think that they are safe around other dogs, especially same sex ones.But my problem with this attack on my dog was that the "woman" (I use this term very generously, beer can was more apt) that was supposed to be the owner couldn't give a hoot about what her lethal animal was doing, if that had been my 2 1/2 year old son, I would have reacted more violently than I did and most likely killed the dog in defence of my son. As it was it was all I could do to break this other dogs grip on my Jack Russell, I had to use some serious force to get it off and I like animals, make no mistake.My dog is gobby and has typical small male syndrome and I always let him and any other dog just "talk it out" but not a killing machine like a staffie. When are these morons going to get their just desserts for owning such beasts and allowing them to do whatever they want, regardless of who gets injured?Why are the police so very good at enforcing petty laws and ignoring the important ones like violent crimes of all kinds?I will not walk my dog in Brentford ever again as a result of this. Brentford is rapidly becoming a rotten place to live, what a waste

Niel Gavin ● 6421d

Day 14 - still nothing, despite Mr Harmer's post that he would be taking action - but I see no action.To the local authority, again as you can see there are some very unhappy people here about this situation, and we are still waiting for you to take some proper action.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6421d

Sarah, reading back through Councillor Harmer's point I see no reference to whether he says he would be taking action. He says, quite reasonably in my view, that he would be speaking to the Safer Neighbourhood Teams to try to ensure more frequent patrols etc. That is essentially the limit of any 'action' either a Councillor or the Council can reasonably undertake. However, you post appears to mply that you are anticipating 'action' of a different or more direct kind ?.

Adam Beamish ● 6421d

Yes, it'd be nice if you didn't try nitpicking at things for the sake of playing devil's advocate. Matthew Harmer knows as well as I do that action, in any form, needs to be taken; it doesn't matter what it is as long as it addresses the problem. Why don't they all knock their heads together and come up with something a bit more effective than a couple of extra patrols a week? That has already been done and it didn't exactly do much good because we're right back where we started.I don't SEE any significant action and, aside from the councillor's post that he will be talking to the local police about it, I don't see any brainstorming of that kind going on. And THAT is why I'm counting the days - it'd be interesting to see just how long it takes for them to make this one of their main priorities, AS IT SHOULD BE!

Sarah Brownlee ● 6420d

"That is essentially the limit of any 'action' either a Councillor or the Council can reasonably undertake. However, you post appears to imply that you are anticipating 'action' of a different or more direct kind ?"Adam, without wanting to speak for Sarah, as I believe she has already reiterated her concerns / fears / frustration, I believe many will agree that people are sick and tired of the Council talking, talking, and then passing the buck. People are sick and tired of a Local 'Authority' that seems to have no 'authority' and no muscle or will to tackle the problems taxpayers continually encounter and bring to the Council's attention. As soon as a problem arises which in effect means that the Council has to start thinking 'outside the box', we just seem to get excuses or reasons of what the Council cannot do. Nobody in 'authority' seems to want to take responsibility and come out and say what they WILL do to tackle the problem

Steve Taylor ● 6420d

Well said, Steve !

Sarah Brownlee ● 6420d

Steve/Sarah,Apologies if perhaps my point sometimes comes over in an 'heavy handed' tone, that is never the intention of my posts, it is more a case that I never feel comfortable where there, rightly or wrongly, is an expectation amongst the public that I know a Local Authority cannot meet. I felt Sarah's post earlier today on this topic suggested that she had interpreted Councillor Harmer's previous posts as meaning that some kind of definite 'action' would be taken, and whilst I cannot speak for Councillor Harmer I fear that expectation (which I do not think he has set through his own posts) cannot be met.I must state however that I don't wholly agree with your views and I'll explain why from my own experience. I once had the misfortune to be employed at Team Leader level at a particular Council (the misfortune being the Council not the job !). My Director was approached by a Councillor who sat on the Executive expressing the unhappiness of his constitutents about the existence of an ugly fence to commercial premises.The fence had a history, numerous years back it had been erected without planning permission and had been investigated by the enforcement team, who at their stage did its duty by getting the owners to submit a retrospective planning application. That application then got mislaid by a Planning Officer and the Council forgot all about the fence, so sufficient time passed for the fence to become immune from any action the Council could take and therefore lawful.The Director's response when the Councillor raised this issue again was to ask my boss (I wasn't employed at the Council at the time) to try to get the situation resolved. I could always see the logic in that, and had I been employed at this Council at that time I would have paid the owners a personal visit and tried to amicably discuss the situation with them to hopefully reach an compromise.However, my boss instead got one of our Team to write to the owners of the premises asking for their co-operation. Two letters were sent, neither were responded to, and that Officer also telephoned the owners, and was essentially told where to go, as the owner knew the Council had no legal powers.I was then employed by the Council and received an email from the Director telling me to get my staff to send yet another letter. The team I managed had, at that time, over 800 ongoing investigations, the vast majority of which had resulted from complaints from members of the public, and whereas those investigations could be legally enforced where appropriate, this fence could not be. As a Team Leader responsible for the resources of a Council function I attempt to raise my concerns with the Director, pointing out the legitimate expectation of the general public in respect of the 800 plus investigations we could do something about legally, the fact we had already tried 3 times to amicably approach the owners and been rebuffed, and the fact that if we continued to try to do so any other member of the public could either (a) reasonably request that we would do a similar thing for them despite having no statutory powers to do so, or (b) feel that Councillors were being given preferential treatment by Officers. I never gave any indication to the Director that I would not carry out the instruction.I felt those concerns, as a Team Leader in charge of the resources of a Council function, were wholly reasonable and professional. The response I received from my Director was blunt and to the point - "I will decide what you do and what you don't do". I never had before and never have been since addressed with such a complete lack of respect by a superior, and I duly told the Director that I would not carry out her request, as there were clear professionally justifiable reasons why it was not 'reasonable' to carry it out.I hadn't intented to leave that Council, but as a consequence of my actions I was firstly suspended, and then shortly afterwards had my contract terminated and received (despite me never once asking for a penny) a substantial pay off (because the Council clearly realised that the request wasn't reasonable and that I wasn't 'scared' of standing up to the Director).Now, my point is that you could say that I was being excessively awkward and I should have done as I was asked because I'd have been tackling what certain people thought was a problem. But what about the 800 complainants who had complained about matters the Council had legal powers to do something about ?. How would they have felt had they known that the Council was devoting resources to something it had no legal control over ? (particularly when that was a direct result of the Council's own failings ?). As I say, I totally agree that one attempt should have been made to resolve the issue (as I say had the Director approached me and previous attempts hadn't been made then I would have visited the owners when out on other work visits) but after 3 attempts to me it was reasonable to draw a line.I have absolutely no regrets about the stance I took, even though I then went 6 months without employment, and it amuses me that every boss I've had since that time always says how professional and reasonable I am. But the idea of going through a similar experience at another Council does seriously put me off ever returning to the public sector, because I ended up feeling that my professional abilities and opinions were completely irrelevant, I was merely employed to do as I was told.The point I'm trying to make is that it is very easy for any of us to moan at the Council about an issue that is particular close to our own hearts, but Council officers can never keep everyone happy as the same issues that are close to your heart may/will be seen by other residents as completely irrelevant.

Adam Beamish ● 6420d

That just about sums up for me everything that is wrong with how the system works. Team leader this, team leader that, line manager this, line manager that. What a load of old cobblers!No wonder common sense and the ability to make a sound decision cannot be made. It has been made to be impossible.Staff end up being brainwashed and conditioned by a system that is riddled with seminars and courses and anything else except the task intended.The Police are becoming the same, conditioned into a collective that become disenfranchised from reality. Paranoia, and sooner or later, someone snaps. We've all seen in recent days what that leads to.The dog issue is simple.Serious enforcement of bye-laws, Full enforcement back-up for animal wardens and park keepers with enforcement powers.And long term, councils to lobby for proper licencing and clarify the Dangerous dogs act.Where is the local MP on this? Too busy doing her expenses forms I expect.

Michael Brandt ● 6420d

Adam,It's unfortunate you had that experience, however I must say this:No matter what, there is no excuse for the council, the legal authorities who are supposed to protecting us and looking after us, to turn their backs on a serious problem such as this, or a problem that anybody has within their borough. It is their duty to come up with the solutions, it is their duty to ensure the safety of their people; to say they don't have the resources and there are things out of their power, and to say that there are bigger priorities is, to me, nonsense. Also, to say that they can only deal with major problems is nonsense, plus the fact that this IS a severe issue for many. If anything, all it does it spell out the laziness and incompetance of the council when they don't respond to our needs and cries for help! I also have worked in the council, my overall impression when I left being that it was a case of 'overpaid and underworked.' They are not actually 'rushed off their feet'; it is an extremely relaxed and lenient setting. At this particular council, of course. And also, without wanting to downplay the problem with your fence, I have to say that this issue with the dogs and the yobs stretches a bit higher on the importance scale, and this is NOT just the case for dog owners; mothers with young children, the elderly who are harrassed by these yobs and their dogs, they all are also suffering from the same problems. I gather that the fence wasn't running around, sniping at other animals or people? Regardless of that, you're saying that there is only a limited amount to what the council can do; it's not true. The council, with regards to this issue of the dogs, can do a LOT. They can enforce laws that are already there, ie, if a dog shows signs of aggression it can be seized; they can put officers on the beat properly, not just once, twice a week, but make it a MAIN PRIORITY. You're saying, once again, that it isn't a priority because not everybody thinks like that. Well, I can assure you that even if just ONE person felt this way, the council should do everything in their power (and they have a LOT more power than they let on) to ensure that this issue is met and resolved - no excuses whatsoever! Action is more than possible, as are finding solutions to this problems, and most importantly, acting on those solutions, instead of just sitting back, talking a lot and doing nothing. It's a question of actually DOING it, rather than that it cannot be done.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6420d

Adam I have always respected your views and valued the input of 'insider knowledge' of how the Council works and I believe your detailed missive of your own experience again hi lights the need for change in these fast moving times. The 'mind set' of senior officers of writing letters, having committee meetings, getting reports from Line Managers etc etc is simply no longer acceptable and is a total waste of taxpayers money and the sooner these highly paid Senior Officers accept it, the better. I mentioned before to Chris Calvi-Freeman, whose views and input on this forum I also greatly respect, that the culture of this Council seems to be to leave it to the juniors to write letters and waste time rather than senior officers deal with problems at senior level (probably because the seniors are too busy in committee meetings) Your own detailed experience confirms that taxpayers money is being wasted. As I have said before to Chris CF over the Thames Water road works debacle - it can't be left to the office junior to contact a Thames junior by letter. Senior officers should pick up the phone themselves and speak to a Thames Director. If I, as a member of the public can do it (and get the required action),- why can't a senior officer of a Local Authority? Your own experience at a different council confirms the 'red tape' apathy of Council.This dog issue is similar. The Cllr who is responsible for St Paul's Park simply picks up the phone and speaks to Cllr Barbara Reid, the Lead Member, who in turn speaks to the Director of Environment, Michael Jordan, who in turn picks up the phone and tells Tony Bull, the Head of Pest Control, to get over to Sarah Brownlee and visit St Paul's Park and take action as appropriate Under section two of the Dogs Act 1871, as amended.That's the longwinded method. The easier way to deal with this is simply for the Cllr, whose constituency covers St Paul's Park, to simply speak to Tony Bull directly and ask him to take the appropriate action. Its not rocket science!

Steve Taylor ● 6416d

1 - who does what?And within a week the council would grind to a halt because the people at the top are too busy doing what the people under them are hired for. It is just not physically possible (time wise) for councillors to action every query they get. I would prefer Councillor Reid to be busy on the action against the third runway than whether someone can walk a dog in a park.There has recently been a root-and-branch assessment of staffing levels at the Council by KPMG, the results being many people losing jobs, indicating staffing levels are now compatible with the workload. But the people below the councillors are there to do the work, not have the councillors do it themselves. You don't hire a cleaner and clean yourself.How the councillors ever get a life with all they get involved in I will never know, but they wanted to be elected.2 - why is it done this way?Council procedures appear overly cumbersome but in the current climate of litigation it has to be. The council has to be completely bullet-proof in every decision it makes or every process it undertakes because all it takes is one person to complain (make an accusation etc) with their lawyer in tow and the council has to defend itself through a long-winded and time consuming process.So to eliminate those possibilities it undertakes long-winded and time consuming processes to make sure it can defend any decision or action it takes.Example - developer puts in application, council denies application for legitimate reasons, developer appeals (throws toys out of the pram). Time, resources, money all wasted because of a petulant developer who just wants it their way.The bureaucratic culture exists because it has to, it has been forced to, by the people the council serves.

Stephen Browne ● 6416d

"It is just not physically possible (time wise) for councillors to action every query they get."Yet this is an issue brought time and time again to their attention for a long time now, including the attention of the deputy mayor, police, etc etc. And something that many are clearly disatisfied with. No matter how over-run they are or stupidly muddled up they are, this is their job, to protect us and fix this issue. You said you would prefer that the councillor takes more action on the runway than the dogs, whether as example or not, I don't know if I can stress enough the scale of the issues - with the dogs, we're talking about direct fear of physical harm, direct threat of physical harm, that could result in severe injury or even death; therefore something that rates very highly on the importance scale.I don't know why I'm repeating myself over and over.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6416d

Stephen, I'm personally far from convinced that consultants like KPMG actually perform a useful function, and the cynical side of me suggests that it wouldn't look good (or ensure they get whatever astronomical fees they charge) if they ever reported back that no jobs should be cut. As you know I worked for many years managing Planning Enforcement Teams for various LPA's and only at one (ironically the one where I had the unfortunate experience I mentioned earlier) did I have anything like sufficient staff to meet all our statutory targets and be able to assist the public. Yes I think the 'dead wood' needs sifting out of Councils, but in my experience that is more a case of getting read of the people who are 'dead wood' rather than just generally getting rid of x number of staff without a thorough assessment of the skills, abilities etc. of each individual.I totally agree about Councils needing to appear bulletproof, excessively so sometimes in my view. A member of the public who had a grudge against me doing my job once make a formal complaint that I had phoned his house and told him that my Team was always overworked because of the problems Asians caused in the Borough. I knew I have never phoned that person and my Team had noted (I asked them to because I sense this person was the type to fabricate something) earlier that day when I was in meetings that one particular person kept phoning me and when someone else answered the phone they refused to speak to anyone else or leave a message. I made sure my Team witnessed all telephone coversations I had that day (I said 'outbuildings', apparently very clearly, not 'Asians')and as soon as the compliant came in I immediately asked for records of my phone calls which proved I had never called this person but on the day in question that person had called me four times. I was still subjected to a full formal interview and the person making the complaint got a 6 page letter which came across as though the Council were apologising for that person having to complain, whereas my view was that that person should have been told very firmly where to go.As for your example about planning, to be fair and as you know if an developer appeals on completely spurious reasons without presenting a reasonable case the Inspector can make a full award of costs against the appellant. And equally a developer can seek a similar award of costs against a Council who behaves unreasonably. Only today I was advising a third party to an appeal that if a Council now acted in a certain manner (in presenting its case) it would open itself up to a potential application for Costs. So developers aren't always 'the bad boys' !.

Adam Beamish ● 6415d

Steve,Thanks, I agree, the other advantage of what you suggest is that the 'junior' Officers who you refer to are actually then given the opportunity to display their skills/abilities and use their own initiative, rather than being seen as 'puppets' to Senior Officers.I do find, working in the private sector, that I encounter this quite regularly at Councils, where the 'juniors' are clearly not given the opportunities to learn and develop, but are essentially there merely to follow orders. I very much doubt I would achieved what I have in my career if I had ever worked in such an environment (other than the place I lasted under 3 months at - which actually benefitted me as private sector employees always say how that demonstrates that I cared about what I did and wouldn't just blindly follow orders) and equally I always have and always will encourage staff and colleagues, no matter how experienced or inexperienced they are, to take every opportunity that comes their way.

Adam Beamish ● 6415d

"I would prefer Councillor Reid to be busy on the action against the third runway than whether someone can walk a dog in a park."Please, please no! This is way, way out of her depth. The way she handled the Mogden expansion and questions she asked showed clearly a lack of understanding of environmental matters, the duty of care of utilities, the duty of the regulator and the duty of Council under the Aarhus Convention and Community legislation by virtue of Directive 2003/35/EC and UK law by virtue of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) In any event the third runway issue is out of her hands. Its now in the hands of the big boys. Lets leave it with Boris, Vince Cable, Susan Kramer and of course, ultimately, the Courts. Cllr Reid would best serve the community by dealing with smaller local issues like whether someone can walk their dog in a park.

Steve Taylor ● 6411d

Local issues need to be dealt with by local councillors when called upon.This is certainly one of those issues as the council officers seem to be unable to get their act together on enforcement of this problem. They are probably as scared of some of these anti social chummies as most of the rest of us are.Then if it becomes wider (like the runway issue) the full council needs to be ascertive and instruct it's officers to act on behalf of the residents and their representatives. A decent capable councillor should be nominated as overseer. Like Cllr Cadbury for example.The police seem scared of the situation and the one or two officers who could deal with nasty dogs are currently suspended as they do not seem to be able to tell the difference between a mouthy protester and a feral animal!The dog issue is a problem Londonwide (and in reality all over the scuzzier bits of the UK) The laws need changing and urgently.This is where the MPs are supposed to come in.....Ah! Now where is she? Still filling in the latest expenses claim?

Michael Brandt ● 6411d

Has everybody read this?http://www.brentfordtw8.com/default.asp?section=info&page=animals01.htmHere is an example of a dangerous dog - who has actually previously attacked and possibly killed other animals - that has killed another dog. While it is good that action was taken, this dog should have been seized and destroyed. The councillor is not wrong when she says it could go for a person - and the owner paid only £250???? What on earth??? One man's dog has died, another lady's cat has died due to the vicious dog but still the rottweiler is not seized and destroyed? So much for justice. There is a particularly vicious rottweiler near where I live and the owners are just as vicious as the dog - the dog has made attempts to snipe at my Jack Russell in the past and it's things like this that just really get my hair up.Also, if you take a look in the Chronicle today, you'll see a piece on a pitbull that was seized and destroyed. At last - a bit of enforcement. If anyone can contact me regarding this, it would be very appreciated.

Sarah Brownlee ● 6406d

Indeed. Which is why I said earlier: "The Cllr who is responsible for St Paul's Park simply picks up the phone and speaks to Cllr Barbara Reid, the Lead Member, who in turn speaks to the Director of Environment, Michael Jordan, who in turn picks up the phone and tells Tony Bull, the Head of Pest Control, to get over to Sarah Brownlee and visit St Paul's Park and take action as appropriate Under section two of the Dogs Act 1871, as amended.That's the longwinded method. The easier way to deal with this is simply for the Cllr, whose constituency covers St Paul's Park, to simply speak to Tony Bull directly and ask him to take the appropriate action under section two of the Dogs Act 1871"

Steve Taylor ● 6405d

I have contacted Sarah directly with my concerns regarding St Paul's Park. However, I felt compelled to respond on the topic of "un-neutered" males being blamed for aggression. I have an "un-neutered" male Basset Hound who show's absolutely no aggression whatsoever and is so submissive he can play in the park with some of the dog's other dog owners avoid like the plague. My husband and I have discussed it at length and having consulted the vet and considered the pro's and con's have no intention of having him neutered. It is not true that neutering a male dog will always destroy his urge to mount female dogs or that it will reduce aggression. It can help in some cases but is no substitute for the council enforcing the law's regarding dangerous dogs. Aggression is learnt and also responsive behaviour. It is up to owners to control aggressive behaviour and muzzle dangerous animals. Female dogs are just as capable of being aggressive as male dogs, off the top of my head I can think of two female dogs who regularly visit St Paul's Park that I would not walk my dog with. One of them is the dog that Sarah has referred to and who snapped at her Jack Russell. Unfortunately, as many people have pointed out the owners are often as un-pleasant as their dog's.I do agree with Mary that some owners over-react, I guess I have taken the odd risk with my dog to allow him to be put in his place; for example I let a female Rhodesian Ridgeback do it and now they are the best of friends. However, I did that at my own risk and am not suggesting other people should do the same. I think it is also worth mentioning that there are friendly staffordshire bull terriers that visit the park and they are not the only breed responsible for aggressive behaviour. My dog was nipped by a Yorkshire terrier so little dog's are not without fault.Ultimately, both the police and the council need to enforce the law. One point that hasn't been raised is that a number of vicious dog's live in social housing. My Mum live's in social housing and had to obtain permission to have her dog and was warned that if any complaints were received the council would investigate. Clearly this is not happening in our borough???? I have seen police support officers in the park recently but they appeared to be chatting and eating their lunch rather than investigating dangerous dog's!

Louise John ● 6403d

So how long has it been now? Any changes? Nope. Just the usual foul mouthed lowlife who shoots me the odd dirty look with her rottweiler every now and then, her sons usually following in her footsteps with the pathetic harassment thing; the staffs/pits who turn up and start running riot in the park, usually accompanied by the drunk who doesn't know whether he's coming or going.I have been very busy with regard to studies lately and so have not been able to pursue this as much as I would have liked; however, I still recall that several councillors were going to look into it. For the hundredth time, why has nothing still been done?

Sarah Brownlee ● 6354d