Ashanali

Totally agree with this statement.

Casey (my 9 year old) was bitten on the face by a dog when he was about three, he still has the scars (very small and faded puncture wounds now). He was 100% supervised, unfortunately he tripped and landed on the sleeping dog's tail and instinctively the dog turned and lunged at him. I still blame myself for not enforcing my direction of 'keep away from the dog' and I still blame the child slightly for ignoring me. No matter how stable you think a dog is or have been told it is, unknown dogs are ALWAYS an unknown quantity and it's up to parents to exercise caution. No, I wouldn't be blaming you or your child if she had been bitten, but I would still be looking at what could be done differently if in a similar situation again.

ah yes... kiddy harnesses. I keep meaning to buy two when I'm out but I forget each time. Freedom? They are small, they don't care.

There are two issues one - dog shouldn't have been in the salon. Yes it's nice when you see dogs at people's workplaces but really, it shouldn't have been there or it should have been in a back room and secured. two - I'm not talking about the little girl in question. I am talking about my lifelong experience in hair salons. There are SOME children that are just typical children. At around 20 months old, 'typical' includes being curious and wanting to check out everything in the world around you. They aren't monsters, they aren't feral, they are just being a normal and curious baby. Around this age children need to be supervised 100%. A parent sitting in a salon chair can't do this unless the child is secured in a pram. There are too many parents who go into salons, sit in the hairdressers chair and pretend their kids don't exist and leave hairdressers to be baby sitters. I am NOT saying children should be banned in salons, or never taking out in public because that's just stupid, all I am saying is that there needs to be someone dedicated to the care of the child 100% of the time and at THAT AGE PERIOD (around 20 months), it really can't be the person sitting in the chair and it definitely shouldn't be the hairdresser or salon staff. If the story is as lisa said it was earlier, then it's a very sad situation. It would appear that salon owner was very complacent about the dog, it would also appear that the parents of the child just took it all at face value as would most parents when they hear, "oh, dog's okay". The child probably did nothing more than look towards the dog, the dog simply saw a child at eye level and thought it was challenging him. (if the story is correct.) A terrible accident that could have been prevented Very very sad.

The winner of the portraiture brief is someone I know. She's still squeeeeing with excitment.

Most people in here have said that they don't agree with the dog being in the shop (myself included). However an unknown dog walking up to an unknown child is still a time to be vigilant no matter what the owner of the dog says. Sounds like the owner (not the parent) had become all too complacent. I said it earlier Poor child Poor dog

Shall I make him lay upside down on the rug too? Hell yeah What she said.

Bec.. I like your other model much better

Lo Pan has witnessed a dog latch on and attack me. He has also been witness to children running lose in my mother's salon. He know how fast both situations spiral.

I like your Murray calendar.

If they can talk.

Then why have the OH & S people not put signs in hairdressing salons demanding that all loose children must be kept harnessed and under effective parental control at all times ? Most toddlers cannot reach the height of the benches where the scissors are. When a toddler slips on hair on the floor they land on a bottom that is well padded by nappies. Some toddlers have been known to rearrange the plastic bottles of shampoo near the cash register but I understand that to date this has not resulted in harm to the toddler - though the staff have wished the little sod further. Much nicer for all concerned if the little darlin is somewhere else, but I havent seen toddler injuries in hairdressing salons featuring in the news much. The toddler is not the primary cause of the problem here. Souff There are many injuries in salons with toddlers. They just aren't sensationalised the way that dog bites are. I've personally seen split lips, burns (and I have a burn on my own leg from doing stupid stuff around hairdressing equipment as a child), cuts, scrapes and on the funny side - not an injury but I've seen a little one absolutely drenched when they climbed the chairs to the basins and turned the tap on themselves and the hose when flying all over the place. (Salon got a bit wet). I have a friend who has permanent oesophageal damage from drinking disinfectant when he was a toddler (he was at his mother's work, not a salon though.) You don't see stuff like that plastered all over the news. Children obviously haven't been banned from going out in public since then either. And I know my children are monsters in the 99th %ile for height, but they can easily reach the top of benches. (yes, I have freakishly tall children). I am guessint the OH&S people expect parents to actually parent their children. I know that hairdressers already do all they can in regards to the tools of their trade but seriously, it's a workplace not a creche!

Nobody has disagreed with these points.

I can walk past a salon in the suburbs any day of the week and see small children in their with parents, and they are not all in the barbers chairs. It may not be appropriate in your view, but in some places it is the norm. Souff Okay, you walk past the salon. How do you know that they person sitting in the chair didn't take another adult with them who is watching the child? How do you know the age of the child and what they are capable of? At nearly 20 months I have one who can barely talk and one who is only just starting to use two words together, some people have 20 month olds who are worse communicators and some have 20 month olds who can hold conversations. From walking past you have NO idea what the situation is. You don't know if there is actually someone there other than the parent who has volunteered to watch the child, you have no idea if the child understands direction and is happy to sit down and not be an annoyance. There are alot of assumptions in this post just from walking past a salon. Maybe you should try working in one when parents repeatedly come in, sit in a chair and ignore their kids. It's happens regularly. Not all parents are on the ball, just as much as not all dog owners are on the ball.

This thread is a rarity for me. Agreeing with LoPan and disagreeing with Souff. Hmm... I think I need a break.

Since when is a hairdressing salon an appropriate place for a dog to eat? Agreed But also, since when is a hairdressing salon an appropirate place for a child to wander around?

I know this was to someone else but this just proves that you had some sort of control over your child. You wouldn't have left them wandering around like many parents do. but still agree the dog shouldn't have been there.

You are highlighting my point. Unless the parent can effectively supervise the child then the child shouldn't be there allowed to wander around. I hate what ifs but, what if it wasn't the dog? A 20 month old could just as easily pick up something and shove it in a power socket, they could get into a chemical, they could cut themselves on a razor, they could pull stuff down on top of them (all things I would expect to happen if my 20 month old sons were poorly supervised in my dad's salon.) A parent simply can't move fast enough to stop any of these events. The child needed to be left with someone else or should have had someone else there to supervise. I have an appointment at my dad's salon next week. You can bet that it's written in the diary so my husband doesn't book any work in - I need him home to look after the kids. The is NO WAY I will have a 20 month old anywhere near a salon when I know I can't watch them constantly.

You might hate dogs in places like that (I don't necessarily agree with it either) BUT why did the parent think it was okay to leave the child to run around unsupervised? It's not the job of the staff to watch children and a person sitting in a salon chair can't really do much. Owner of shop is at fault Parent of child is at fault They are both morons. And who suffers the consequences of their idiocy? the poor dog and the poor child. Ashanali, I disagree that the parent is at fault. The very last thing I would expect to see in a hairdressing salon, which services all sorts and sizes of the public, would be a dog. Children go with parents to barbers and hairdressers all over Australia every day of the week. A hairdressing salon is an appropriate place for a child to be and I never tied any of mine up while I was in the chair. They were told to stay in the salon and not go outside. They were free to do whatever in the salon, except be a nuisance to other people (or to me). Most parents in a barbers chair would not have been able to quickly intervene in this situation and any warning growls were probably drowned out by hairdryers. A hairdressing salon is not an appropriate place for a dog to be and is fraught with risks. Those risks will now almost definitely take this dogs life. Souff I respectfully agree and disagree. Agree the dog shouldn't be there Disagree about the parent not being responsible. You are looking at it from the point of view of a consumer with a child. Yep, children need to go here, there and everywhere. I totally understand that. However at 20 months (the same age as my twins), there is NO WAY that they should be left to wander around a hair salon without supervision. With proper supervision OR if they understand to sit down and behave, that's perfectly fine, but at 20 months many children are still too young to totally understand direction. A salon has dangerous chemicals that can sometimes smell nice (tasty even), it also has many sharp implements. It is not the job of the staff to follow a child around. I was practially raised in a hair salon. There was always someone in charge of us when we were little and as we got older we knew to keep out of the way (or else we were made to sweep floors). I was attending clients and washing hair by the age of eleven. The amount of people that come in with small children, plonk themselves in a chair and expect the staff to run around looking after them is unbelievable and incredibly rude. This is why I say the parent is partially at fault. He knew he was going in there for a haircut. He knew he'd have to sit in the chair and not be able to watch his daughter. Sound like he expected that he could let her run around the salon. I still don't agree with that. I think the parent should have had someone to look after the child. Dog or no dog. (ETA: for the record I think there is accountability on both sides... moreso the salon owner than the parent)

You might hate dogs in places like that (I don't necessarily agree with it either) BUT why did the parent think it was okay to leave the child to run around unsupervised? It's not the job of the staff to watch children and a person sitting in a salon chair can't really do much. Owner of shop is at fault Parent of child is at fault They are both morons. And who suffers the consequences of their idiocy? the poor dog and the poor child.

My mum would sometimes take her cockers to the salon. They would either be crated (and on lovely beds and quite happy and people would ask to pat them) or they were tethered outside... and people would go out and pat them. Loose in a salon... nope. Never.

Owner of dog should have not fed dog with people around. She should have suggested that the parent find someone to look after the child or she should have moved the dog to a back room. Parent should not have expected to leave a small child running around a salon without someone else to help watch her. *pet hate when I worked in my parents' salons was people who sat down and ignored their kids and thought it was my job to run around after them - it's a workplace with chemicals, electricity and sharp implements*

tlc - your waterfall shot is quite nice, but next time use a tripor or find something solid for it to rest on and also use the timer to take the photo. There's a touch of camera shake there. However, it's nicely composed and there is definitely a great sense of movement in the image. mcosta (and everyone else) portraits are most flattering when they are shot at a focal length of 50mm or more and from slightly further away. You can go less than 50mm if you have to, but if you do, try not to go too much under 35mm as you then get unflattering distortion (although some people do wide angle close ups for fun). It's all trial and error

Hey, I know what I'm talking about. It's all about giving the public what they want.