Goose Green - Fence to be removed

[Louisa]

I consulted the council on this issue after witnessing and being involved in the fairly recent incident of a parent&child and an eledrly lady with her small dog. I rang Southwark to ask them about the fencing issue and even gave them some very sensible solutions, but in their infinite wisdom, I was sent a letter a few days after the request on the telephone inviting me to the Goose Green centre after the meeting had taken place! Need I say anymore about what a waste of space Southwark Council are? I personally think lemmings would do a better job at counselling suicidal fruit cases down at beachy head, than this lot are capable of being able to run a London local authority!

Louisa.

[Sue]

Louisa Wrote:

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

I personally think lemmings

> would do a better job at counselling suicidal

> fruit cases down at beachy head, than this lot are

> capable of being able to run a London local

> authority!

>

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

:)):)):))

[macroban]

The state of Goose Green fences in 1910.

[grandpafred]

Great picture, I think I may be old enough to remember the fence!

I think it is a great shame that the Council want to remove the fence, since it was put up it has been great to see so many people, including lots of children, playing and just sitting in the dog free zone.(My window looks out over the Green)

I love dogs my self, but not all dog owners will take their 'deposits' home,or keep their dogs on a lead.

I know my sight is not as good as when I was younger but I don't think the green mental fence is an eye sore, I've seen worse, I think this is the Council 'consulting with the community' in fact it's only responding to the articulate middle classes with time on their hands to harang their local Councillor.

[willow]

Asset Wrote:

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

> I think the streets are pretty rubbish free by and

> large, compared with other parts of London.

I agree. The streets are not "strewn with rubbish" as Louisa says. Credit where credit is due, I actually think Southwark do a bloody good job in keeping our streets clean. It's people that drop litter not the council!

[victor]

Went to play cricket with my 7 year old today in goose green.Upon fielding a lovely cover drive from myself my son slid into a dog turd.The consequences were not quite as a similar incident 18 months ago when he picked the ball up covered in dog turd and therefore all over his hands or the time the football was covered in turd and so was our shoes!!

Surely it is time for some clear thinking.The council must decide what they want the purpose of goose green to be.If it is for people to walk along the path and look/admire the green then dogs should roam freely.If they want people to use the green spaces for recreation then they need to accept some simple facts.Dogs and people cannot share the same area, as sadly not all dog owners pick up after their dogs.Nothing will change this,may reduce it but if it cannot be 100% then dogs cannot share the same space as people otherwise we get situation I referred to at the start.So another solution is we have a dog area separate from the people area(discussion then is about how big each area is and where)Simple

This situation of fences coming down(don't like fence) for a see what happens in 6 months is a complete waste of time.What we will discover is amazingly is that dogs poo and a few owners don't pick it up this sadly ruins others fun etc.The council needs to state their aim for goose green.Personally I think that the council should be encouraging greater use of this green space for people BUT their should be a dog area(discussion now should only be about where and how big.

[Muttley]

Am I right that the dog area is the triangle which sides onto the houses, while the non-dog zone is the triangle that runs along the main road. If so, this seems the wrong way round, surely if you want to kick a ball etc, or just read the paper, you want to be in the zone furthest from all the traffic. If they restore the fence after this experiment, the dogs should go on the main road triangle (and they are the ones who should be 'fenced in'.

[LibraCarr]

Dear Victor,

Do you think you may have been playing cricket in the wrong area, as from my viewing of the park some adults do tend to not realise which area is for the dogs.

By the way, doggy do doo's can be fatal for a child. In the first instance you must get antiseptic wipes and clean the infected area, then make sure the part of the body does not come into contact with the mouth of the child. When I lived in Sussex a child died as a result of this.

Regards,

Libra Carr.

[victor]

Dear Libra carr

can assure you I was in the area closest to the road and fenced in!

[James]

Whenever the "I hate dogs/I love dogs" debate comes up, why do the anti brigade always tar all of us dog owners with the same brush? Most dog-owners I know abhor the irresponsible people who allow their dogs to foul public spaces and bite children. The suggestion seems to be that because of an anti-social minority we should impose blanket bans.

Imagine applying the same principle to football matches or rock concerts? There'd be outrage.

We all pay our taxes so the park should be for all of us, dog owners and non dog owners alike.

[LostThePlot]

James Wrote:

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

>Most dog-owners I know abhor the irresponsible people who allow their dogs to foul public spaces and bite children.

This hits the nail on the head. While ultimately you can't stop a dog crapping if it needs too, you can train the dog to wait until it is in the right area (What I do with the dog I look after - We walk briskly to the Sainsbury doggie area for "toilet time", and the wander back is a sedate affair.)

> We all pay our taxes so the park should be for all

> of us, dog owners and non dog owners alike.

Yes it should, but in this instance I think the smaller area of GG should be for dogs.

[James]

I don't know, if you were to look at statistics for those who actually use Goose Green regularly, dog owners are probably in the majority. Why should we be crammed into a smaller section of the green?

I think we should have the bigger section. And we need to find some way of imposing punishment on those who don't retrieve their dogs' mess. How about taking a picture of offenders with the camera on your mobile phone and emailing it to the council who then put it on their website and/or the park noticeboard?

[LostThePlot]

James Wrote:

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

> Why should we be crammed into a smaller section of the

> green?

It's hardly Crammed is it really, let's be honest about it. The benefit is that there is only one gate in and out, so less escape routes to worry about when dog is off the lead.

> And we need to find some way of imposing punishment on

> those who don't retrieve their dogs' mess. How

> about taking a picture of offenders with the

> camera on your mobile phone and emailing it to the

> council who then put it on their website and/or

> the park noticeboard?

The laws exists, but aren't enforced. Why not mail the council with this suggestion?

[p_in_ed]

I attended the most recent 'Friends of Goose Green' public meeting. I was surprised to discover at the meeting that the Council had no powers to enforce the dog free area. I made the point at the meeting was that the current arrangement seems to have worked well over the last two years on the basis of goodwill. In marking an area as 'dog free', the majority of dog walkers have been prepared to observe the division, whether enforcable or not. This seems ideal to me. Dog Control Orders seem to be an option if required, but if the two groups (dog walkers and others) can co-exist without the need for legislation, there seems to be no need to take this route.

I made two other points at the meeting:

1) That if the public meeting last September had been held on a Spring or Summer weekend afternoon, when families were using the park, the views of the meeting would probably have been in favour of keeping the park segregated. As it was, the meeting was held on an Autumn weekday evening, when the majority of people in attendance were dog walkers

2) That if a 6 month trial of giving free access to the whole park for dog walkers was to be undertaken, it would be more sensible to hold it in the autumn and winter, rather than the Spring and Summer, when the park is most enjoyed by children and families.

In walking across Goose Green last week, on the sporadic days when the weather was good, I was encouraged to see children playing football and adults sitting around in the dog free area, and dog walkers congregating, chatting and walking dogs in the dog walking area. It is, as far as I can see, a well regulated and effective arrangement that ensures that this invaluable community resource is enjoyed by as many people as possible. I don't think there is a problem that needs solving. It all works well as far as I can see.

And as far as the fence is concerned, I have no problems at all with how it looks.

Paul

[AllforNun]

Hooray for the ED liberals and their one Conservative friend in the village. Can we all get a rebate now ?

[first mate]

I disliked the fence from the first. I think it's incredibly ugly and much preferred the look for the park without. Can't recall any consultation prior to it being put up, though there must have been.

More important: instead of banning dogs why not insist all dogs be put on a short lead in Goose Green only? When on lead it is harder to miss the fact that one's pooch has taken a dump. A frequent excuse/reason for not clearing up after the dog is that it is too far away, off lead, for the owner to have noticed.

Those who say their dogs needs to run off lead need only travel a little further down the road to Peckham Rye. However, the rights of the elderly or infirm to walk their dog closer to home are protected, as are those who want to cut through the park with their dog, or families with a dog who want to picnic on Goose Green.

Because of the tiny size of the park I think this is a reasonable compromise. But I would not want to set a precedent for large green spaces.

With enough publicity and signage I am sure eagle eyed members of the public would be quick to intervene and remind dog walkers who don't pick up.

[Louisa]

I would say the vast majority of dog owners who use the green are responsible and pick up any mess after themselves. I cannot see why the fence idea is so bad myself, surely it gives everyone what they want? A decision was made and they should stick to it, otherwise we round in circles wasting money forever.

Louisa.

[first mate]

Agree that it's better to keep the fence because of expense involved in removing it. Just wish it hadn't been put there in the first place.

[p_in_ed]

After school this afternoon I took my son to play football on Goose Green. I was with a friend, whose two year old, while playing in the leaves, promptly put his hand in a fresh dog turd.

I?ve lost track of where we are with the proposal to remove the fence for a trial period (I believe it?s still due to happen), but referring back to some of Victor?s posts earlier in this thread, I believe the exercise is pointless. We already know what the outcome will be. Save the money on removing the fence and then potentially putting it back at some later date and find some other way of deciding how the park should be used. As far as a minority of dog walkers are concerned, the fence may just as well not be there already, and the Green is becoming increasingly unpleasant as a place to play.

Dog walkers frequently use the dog-free area these days, and the ones I?ve spoken to always seem to take offence when I point out that they could just as easily use the dog-walking area. The idea that they might be asked, voluntarily and in a spirit of goodwill and community spiritedness, to use one half of the park rather than the other, seems somehow to offend their sense of natural justice. Rather like mass trespass in the thirties established public access to rights of way, it seems they intend to do their best to reclaim use of the full extent of the park for dog walking. This seems unnecessary and antagonistic to me.

[nancysmum]

I'm with P_in_ed on this. Maybe I am turning into a grumpy old woman (I'm sure I am) but since i have had my daughter and look after other people's children I rely on the dog-free zone to be just that so that the little ones can run around, roll in leaves and not end up covered in doggie number 2s. Alas, even with the fence up (I like the fence, at least it isn't by the guy who did the one for the queen mum!) I can't guarantee that they wont crawl hand first into a dog turd thanks to those who think it's oh-so-revolutionary to let their dogs into this area to relieve their bowels and bladders. And Southwark council now 'hoover' up the leaves and crap into big piles and seem to just leave them there. so, you have a tempting pile of leaves with concentrations of poo that kids want to jump in and kick about...the illogic is blinding!

You may say, take the children to the swing park, but that isn't an option when i have 3 under twos who like nothing more than hurling themselves off the climbing frame. Also they have to dodge bigger children playing football in the swing section. I've tried taking the children to peckham rye but even there, where it says "Dogs must be kept on a short lead", invariably some aren't. We're feeding the ducks and then the next thing you know some hound comes bounding over because he wants the bread the children are throwing. I've even seen dogs in the dog-free picnic area there. So maybe it's just that dog owners can't read.

I have tried approaching those persons who let their dogs roam freely in the dog free section (surprisingly, old people with incontinent dogs) to ask why they they don't use the other side so that children can play freely and safely and I invariably get some gruff response even though I ask politely. One even asked me if I were the park police!

That all said, I don't think dogs should be banned from Goose Green. I think a 50/50 split is fair and reasonable, but it should be enforced, as should the rule for cleaning up after your dog.

I've tried to get info about becoming a Friend of Goose Green and haven't heard anything back, despite repeated requests..perhaps they know i'm not a dog owner?!

Like P above said, we should try to work as a community and meet all the community needs - that includes dog walkers, people with children, people who don't want to accidentally walk into dog shit, etc.

End of rant.

Oh sorry, one more thing... to the lady who quite happily sat by smoking while her three children stamped on and removed the safety barrier around the hole on goose green dog free area, please if you are going to condone that kind of irresponsible and unrespectful behaviour, please dont.

[Mark]

nancysmum Wrote:

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

> I've tried to get info about becoming a Friend of

> Goose Green and haven't heard anything back,

> despite repeated requests..perhaps they know i'm

> not a dog owner?!

You should sign up via their website http://www.friendsofgoosegreen.org.uk

[Moos]

Nancysmum, your post is very true and very depressing. I live quite close to GG and take my small child there regularly, and almost every time we go I have to stop him from treading in, falling on or picking up dog turds. Luckily he's still fairly slow-moving!

When people politely challenged by other people to live by the rules accuse them of playing 'park police' then one can only conclude we've gone beyond a situation where there is any point in discussing the issue. Clearly a significant number of dog owners just don't care that their dogs are fouling the park, or don't understand that using the dog-free area (even when they pick up after themselves) legitimises the incursions of the irresponsible dog-owners. What's the point in bringing in new regulations banning this or that when they are widely ignored and can't even be enforced by challenging bad behaviour?

Once my child gets big enough to run further than I can quickly grab him we will stop using Goose Green. I don't see any other solution.

[LibraCarr]

Hi,

Has anyone noticed the big hole on the Green? it has barriers around it which have fallen over, it seems to have been insitu for ages.

My question: Is the hole there for moaners and numbheads or is it there for doggy doo doo's?

regards,

Libra Carr.

[nancysmum]

I think one solution would be to keep the supposed status quo - half for dogs, half for non-dogs. Maybe Southwark should suggest the community wardens to come out of their comfy office on east dulwich road and patrol the green and surrounding areas. I'm sure if I'm paying council tax for the wardens, they should be of some use! then if they see a doggy fouling and its owner not cleaning up after it, they can face on-the-spot fines.

failing that, we should take all our dirty nappies and leave them all over the place and see how dog owners like that!

bring back the stocks and dunking pool!

Also, have you seen the new community notice boards - not much use if the community can't use them! I've heard of someone getting a ?70 fine from southwark council because they put a sign up saying they had lost their cat or something.

[Mark]

nancysmum Wrote:

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

> Maybe Southwark should suggest the community

> wardens to come out of their comfy office on east

> dulwich road and patrol the green and surrounding

> areas.

They do patrol the Green already, they don't have to as it's not "their area" but they do out of the kindness of they're hearts and to to stop the Friends of Goose Green pestering them to do it. Have you seen them just sitting in the office then when they should be working?

The notice boards referred to are Goose Green notice boards to give notices about Goose Green on a board. There's even details on them about how to join the Friends of Goose Green. No one posted a cat lost poster on there and is being fined for it.