Goose Green 4 Village Green

[jackangel]

But isn?t it one already?

It is designated as an Open Space, though often confused with being a little Park. (Think Peckham Rye Common, to which Goose Green was attached in the mists of time). But there is one sticky-out feature that militates against the usual concept of a village green ? and that is the fence. Not just the awful newish fence, all the fencing!

The Victorians and Edwardians seemed obsessed with demarcating things (?this is where the grass is . . .?) and we have inherited a touching faith in tradition that leads most people to assume fencing always serves some sort of useful purpose. But Peckham Rye Common and Park have abandoned most of their silly fencing over the years - and it?s time Goose Green did the same.

What is the function of the fence? I do not see small children boinging off the fence as they run kamikaze-like to the road; I do not see footballs bouncing against it. But I do see some owners who are out of control of their dogs relying on the fencing to contain their animals (in and out of the ?dog free? area), creating problems for other Green users.

Before you dismiss the de-fencing idea out of hand, consider some of the advantages.

People could cross the Green wherever they like. All of the Green would be used by a much larger range of people. The care and condition of the whole Green would become important. For many at present, the Green is just a diagonal short cut (that doesn?t actually let them go in the direction they want!).

Safety would be increased ? if there is a ?situation? you could easily leave the Green at any point. Similarly, services could enter from anywhere. Who knows, the Green may even get patrolled (more often?).

The number of chauffeur-delivered pooches to their fenced-in toilet would decrease. Dogs would have to be under control.

Vehicles and stalls for events could enter from the road nearest the assigned site, rather than churning up other parts.

Maintenance costs for fencing could be spent more fruitfully (e.g. reinstate the drinking fountain?).

Gates would never be left permanently open again!

. . . and it would look and feel so much better!

We are told that the anti-doggie fence is shortly to go for a trial period (!?). This is the time to push for the removal of all fencing at Goose Green (no, not that around the playground!).

What do you think?

[KestonKid]

Let's keep the fence, thus ensuring that at least a part of the Green remains dog-poo free. It's great to be able to use the non-dog bit without fearing the worst.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

But, KK, the enclosed bit is not dog-poo free: small ones can wriggle through the sides of the posts, large ones can easily clear the fence - both not intended by their handlers; and irresponsible owners deliberately walk their dogs in that part - dogs which in my opinion should be muzzled and always on a lead because they cannot be controlled properly. Invariably, the latter owners don't pick up after their dogs so you could still tread in ordure on the dog-free side.

Removing the dog fence would at least ensure that badly behaved dogs would have to be restricted by a lead.

[Michael Palaeologus]

I remeber one occasion when somebody actually did pick up their dog's poo in a plastic bag and THEN just dropped bag and poo in the middle of Dulwich Woods. This is the kind of people we are dealing with. What can you do?

Tsk

[Scruffy Mummy]

Keep the bloomin fence and give the money that would be spent on taking it down and then replacing it to the Livsey Museum.

[falcao]

One thing about having a fence is that it stops people dumping cars and burning them out on the Green. I've seen this kind of thing happening before in other inner city green areas.

[falcao]

One thing about having a fence is that it stops people dumping cars and burning them out on the Green. I've seen this kind of thing happening before in other inner city green areas without fences.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Dear Michael

Revenge is a dish, etc ...

Mea culpa - but it was an accident and since we'd traversed several miles in various directions I wasn't going back for it. I will join you on the scourging stool.

Anyway, back on topic, what about a merry old maypole? Perhaps we could start the ED Morris Men branch? I could see you with a sheep's bladder and bells on your toes.

Yours PGC

[SteveT]

PGC

Is it a full bladder(?)

What do they do with this article carrying half a gallon of sheep urine;-)

Dance around the sheep pool.

[SeanMacGabhann]

off tothe Quiet Room the pair of you

As for the fencing jackangel - I'm broadly in agreement with you. I'm not a fan of it generally in any situatoon and if it can be avoided then all the better. The fact that it does look hideous as well only makes it worse

Falcao - tell me your post was tongue-in-cheek. If not, man people worry too much about the wrong stuff

[LostThePlot]

As a dog walker, who does scoop I may add, I must say I am perplexed as to why the larger space of the green is given to dogs, and not the smaller area. That way, you could let the dog off the lead when you enter the area, without having to worry if the two other gates are open. Much as we'd all like dogs that are remote control to the nearest inch, you have to accept that they still have their own wills.

Peckhamgatecrasher....there is little point in muzzling a dog...the offending items are emitted from the opposite end that are the crux of your problem!

[PeckhamRose]

It all started with the Enclosure Act.

That was the beginning of all this mess....

[beef]

A great idea,take down all the fencing. They did this to the northern triangle of peckham common and I feel it's made a tremendous difference to the feeling of the area, much more free and open, a more pleasant space in general. My only concern would be the temptation of the petrolheads to use is as an occasional car park.

[falcao]

Not tongue in cheek Sean...but then don't forget,I'm the one who has a dodgy Ironymeter...or is that metre?

[Moos]

I can't speak with authority on this myself, but are there any parents of young children who could comment on the fence? Just wondered if families might be nervous picnicking on the Green / playing footie without a fence to prevent the kids from going into the road.

[Scruffy Mummy]

me - and even worse when he was abit younger. The difference between the Green and the Rye is that it isn't large enough to have a non-fenced space - if you have a young child, it wouldn't take much for them to zoom off into the road or into the jaws of a nasty pit bull. Whenever it was designed as an open space, you didn't have the issue of car traffic nor nasty pit bull thingy's. Ban cars from the whole Goose Green area - I'd rather that thank you very much.

[MelbourneGr]

Keep the fence.

That fence saved me and a lot of other people a lot of bother. The amount of times I've kicked a ball facing the main road a little too hard...

You need to remember how small the park is compared to the "fenceless" parks.

An extreme example - whats to stop a mad man nutter from driving through the park to bypass the roundabout? - I've thought about it many a time, but decided against it because I wouldn't get very far with the fence there.

All these silly ideas people come up with - think about the practicality.

[jackangel]

I agree with beef about the removal of the fencing around the triangle north of the old Peckham Rye Open Air Swimming Pool. It is so much better. Far from the Goose Green fence costing us to be removed, I think the sale of it could make a nice little profit.

Car dumping, etc is a worry. Does this happen a lot on Peckham Rye Common or on beef?s triangle?

Maypole (with a beer tent) is a great idea.

I acknowledge that MelbourneGr would miss the fence and wonder if he/she could modify his/her behaviour to live without it? There are so many advantages for us all.

Although the main road was moved at one time, the Green was not designed as an Open Space ? that?s just what it is.

As parents, we have a natural duty of care towards our children. There is a lovely children?s playpark at Goose Green complete with grass. But even there, I would always know where my toddler was and assess the dangers ? such as being hit in the head by a swing, being set upon by another unsupervised child, or exchanging soft-voiced secrets with some dodgy character. We also manage so many shopping trips, walking right next to traffic without fencing!

Can I recommend Peckham Rye Park for picnics? It?s fantastic and really very much worth just popping round the corner.

The tedious hate dog/love dog argument rises again. The arrogant and pompous extremes of these two groups use every excuse to snipe at each other. The anti doggie fence is going and we should be able to sensibly debate the merits of taking away the rest of the fencing. Forget your narrow self-interest for five minutes! You can always canvass for your own particular Colditz at another time.

[Moos]

Jackangel, wonderfully poetic - it's an unusual parent who can write lightly (but seriously) of the idea of your toddler in conversation with the dubious.

But if you're having a picnic in what seems to be a safe place without leering strangers or flying swings, isn't it nice to be able to let the toddler roam without worrying he's going to nip into the road?

Anyway, whatever. Diminishing returns on this point, I think.

[Scruffy Mummy]

Yeah, like YAWN Comparing having a fence round Goose Green to Colditz shows the pointless of this debate - soon he'll be mentioning the Holocaust and this thread will be well and truly over!! But explain to me the bit about our own self-interest? Like HOW would removing the fence serve anyone? Whose quality of life will it affect? Will it reduce global warming? Campaign on something like getting people in ED to reduce car user or getting the council to fund the Livsey.

[jackangel]

Well Scruffy Mummy, to explain about your own self interest ? just read the original proposition and your response. Not a perfect example of narrow self interest, but close.

Colditz is a historic fortified enclosure. The Holocaust has become inextricably associated with the calculated extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis. I think your reference to this event in this context is either through ignorance or the desire to be simply offensive.

Oops! I?ve used the H word . . . is this the end of the thread?

[Ted Max]

I certainly hope so.

[MelbourneGr]

Yes, many advantages for taking down the fence, but probably more disadvantages.

On the church side of the green, you have a pavement approx. 400mm wide in most places. On the green side, I don't remember there even being a pavement. It's a narrow road.

Now we can't have fence on one side, as people will start jumping up and down because "it looks aysemmetric" or something daft like that.

I remember on a weekly school trip to the swimming baths, being stuck on that narrow road in a coach. If only the fence wasn't there, we could have just gone over the green where it was tight.

I have no kids - but I find I have a duty of care to ALL children whether they are mine or not. Forget your narrow self-interest for five minutes!

[Big Jim]

On a slightly more chirpy note, it is Friday after all, how about we set up a Maypole (as someone suggested) and have a Dwyle Flunk? I know a few people who could put a visitors team together.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Sounds a perfectly genteel pasttime. I suggest we repair to the green after the forum drinks.