|
|
 |
| |
Fight this park apartheid by talking to dog owners
• I WAS disturbed to read Annette Trickitt’s account of her experiences at the hands – and paws – of a couple of dogs and their owners in Barnsbury Square and have no hesitation in condemning the treatment she has received (Dog owners have taken over our lovely square, March 13). I was nevertheless bemused by the overall tone of her letter, and do not recognise her description of local dogs or their owners.
Ms Trickitt plainly dislikes dogs, and by extension their owners, whom she characterises as an abusive, selfish, vindictive and generally irresponsible lot who neglect to pick up after their dogs and have no control over them. Not for her joining the Friends of Barnsbury Square, as suggested by some misguided council employee. A barmy idea – they’re all dog owners!
As we all know, there’s the odd anti-social element, dog-owning and otherwise, locally, but the picture painted by Ms Trickitt is far from representative, as she might discover if she ever tried talking to the dog-owning Friends she comes across in the square instead of railing against them so publicly.
But not content with ranting about their flawed characters, Ms Trickitt accuses them of allowing their dogs to destroy the gardens and even adds that “dog owners are not dog lovers otherwise they would find larger spaces to exercise their dogs”. No doubt they do. They just go to Barnsbury Square too.
I do not know Ms Trickitt, nor am I a Friend of Barnsbury Square, but I am a dog owner and reasonably regular user (about 15 minutes once or twice a week) of the square. I have chatted in passing to several of the dog-owning Friends Ms Trickitt so reviles, and watched them busily at work planting bulbs – now beautifully in bloom – for the enjoyment of all.
Far from ruining the square with their unruly dogs, as Ms Trickitt imagines, the Friends of Barnsbury Square have contributed hugely to the planting and upkeep of the gardens she enjoys, and – with obvious exceptions – succeeded in establishing a genuine sense of community in the square.
The solution is surely not to create an apartheid in the park between dog owners and non-dog owners but for Ms Trickitt to put aside her preconceptions about dog owners for long enough to communicate with them. She might just find these same dog owners receptive to her concerns and anxious to find a way for her to enjoy the environment in comfort, and feel part of the community.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
• RESPONSIBILITY for yapping dogs taking over lovely Barnsbury Square garden rests on our paid councillors. In particular, on councillors Terry Stacy and Ruth Polling, who were alerted last spring.
I wrote to Cllr Stacy on March 31, 2008, and to Cllr Polling on April 15, 2008. Neither has replied, notwithstanding that my letters were sent in response to invitations they made in your Letters pages for observations on dogs in parks. Reminders sent to them through Councillor James Kempton, the council leader who went on an expensive course to learn leadership, have not been fruitful. He assured me he had passed them on. Their continued silence could be regarded as dumb insolence.
My letters to those councillors, nearly a year ago, recorded experiences similar to the recent ones of Annette Trickitt. I wrote to Cllr Stacy: “The council has made improvements [to the garden] but the many dogs that roam across the grass and among the flowerbeds damage these.
“On a recent visit two yapping dogs alarmed the lady with whom I was walking and the man with the dogs responded with uncouth and unmannerly words when complaint was made and attention was drawn to the notice [that dogs must be kept on leads].” My letter to Cllr Polling pointed out that the park is no bigger than a large garden and that the notice on the gate stating that dogs must be kept on a lead is ignored.
The consultation that the council advertised on the issue of dogs in parks was flawed because it required council tax-payers to obtain information and communicate by the internet. The possession of computers is not universal, contrary to the position of councillors who are given them on council tax-payers’ money. Further, it appears that Cllrs Stacy and Polling have the services of personal assistants.
There has already been criticism of the salaries of “executive councillors”. What is the total cost of such, taking into account the supply of computers, telephones and the use of personal assistants?
When councillors were not paid they responded out of their own pockets to communications from ratepayers. Indeed, as an MP I had something to do with councillors being given expenses to enable them to pay for postage stamps and telephone calls to electors. It is disappointing that the arrangement has developed into providing councillors with a source of income while the means of communication, which some do not use, now comes from the council tax-payers.
At 2pm on Sunday two people with five dogs let them roam, barking around the park. Perhaps the three Barnsbury councillors should take a walk there sometimes. Barnsbury Square garden is intended for people, not undisciplined pooches.
ROY ROEBUCK
Brooksby Street, N1
• IT is quite true that Barnsbury Square has become an unpleasant exercise yard for dogs instead of the small and pleasant green space that it once was.
Dogs are exercised in large numbers – I have counted up to 14 at any one time – and they are taken off their lead as soon as they enter.
My experience is the same as that of Annette Trickitt. As a local resident who does not have a garden, I used to enjoy walking or sitting in Barnsbury Square. But on too many occasions I have had unwanted attention from the large number of dogs in the square. Their owners have responded in various ways – sometimes by ignoring their animal, sometimes by shouting at it and sometimes by shouting at me.
Notices pinned on the gates say quite clearly: “You are required by law to keep your dog on a lead in this area. Failure to do so when asked by an authorised officer may result in a penalty of £80.” When was the last time an “authorised officer” issued a penalty fine? Will the council tell us how many fines have been issued since the dog control orders were introduced last year?
And, as other readers have pointed out, the problem of dog faeces extends way beyond any one square. Islington is littered with it. Hasn’t the council noticed that signs telling people to clear up after their dogs are widely ignored?
When the council introduced the dog control orders, it promised to enforce them. It has not bothered to do so. I wonder if this makes Islington the smelliest borough in London!
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
• FOR those of us who have been made redundant in this recession, this spring could offer the possibility of feeling a little optimism, looking up at clear skies, cherry blossom and trees coming into bud.
But not in Islington, where you cannot afford to take your eyes off the street for fear of treading in yet another pile of dog poo. In the Arlington Square area the problem seems to be getting worse not better.
To mis-quote Oscar Wilde, we are all in the gutter, but most of us are only looking at the pavements!
TIM WILLIS
Arlington Avenue, N1
• ANNETTE Trickitt wrote about the problems caused by dogs and their owners in Barnsbury Square. Thornhill Square has the same problems: basically it is becoming a dogs’ lavatory.
It also suffers from uncontrolled and intimidating dogs running over and ruining the planting, and owners shutting gates to keep their animals in and being rude and abusive if challenged.
A few owners have even taken to driving their cars into the park to avoid getting a ticket from a traffic warden.
Thornhill has an additional issue in that areas of its railings have been vandalised by dog owners trespassing early in the morning before the gates are officially opened – we watch them going in through the gaps they have made.
The dogs’ barking at that time echoes in the square and we are regularly woken up well before we need to be.
Although Islington Council did attempt to plug some of the gaps with unsightly plywood, even this has now been removed in places.
Thornhill has a playground and football area which act as magnets for children. The continued presence of dogs in this park is an anachronism on health, safety and social grounds that Islington Council should address.
In summary: dogs should be banned from the park in Thornhill Square.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
|
| |
|
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
