goose green fence

[p_in_ed]

Reg Smeeton Wrote:

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

> This is a Keynsian idea. 100 men are employed to

> take down a fence and then put it back again a few

> months later, injecting much needed cash into the

> economy via their earnings, and hence ending the

> credit crunch. Brilliant thinking.

Louisa, you missed Reg's incisive economic analysis earlier in the thread. It's BECAUSE we're heading into a deep dark recession that the council are spending the money. It's Southwark's answer to Obama's economic stimulus package. And there was no need to finesse it through the Council chamber; a small group of crusty old dog walkers got together on the Green one dark autumnal evening eighteen months ago, and all on there own came up with a plan to save the world.

The only flaw in Reg's analysis is that the fence won't be going back up. At least not here. It's going straight to a fence loving estate somewhere off Peckham Hill Street.

[KestonKid]

The long-delayed removal of the fence for "public consultation", while absurd and costly, is now a fait accompli. It therefore now becomes even more important that all who are keen for their views to be taken into account go to the promised public meeting/s and kick up a fuss.

[Huggers]

Bad dog owners of bad dogs have been using the fenced off people only bit for yonks-the very people least likely to pick up poo and the kind of people you wouldnt want to confront about it-so in fact you've been more at risk of poo in the dog free area than in the dog area. At least in the dog area you were prepared for it and watched out for.

You may find the bad dog owners now stay away- they used the fenced in bit because they had unsociable dogs that needed to be kept away form other dogs.

[Mark]

It seems to me that some people have made a decision on what should happen after the 6 month trial period without having been through the trial period. Please remember there are other options to a dividing fence down the middle including a dividing fence elsewhere, a small fenced off dog pooh area, dog control orders or perhaps removing all fences.

Make a judgement after the trial not before.

[first mate]

I would be concerned about dog control orders because this would set a precedent that might involve banning dogs from other green spaces in Southwark, infringing the rights of many law abiding, responsible and tax paying dog owners.

I would not be averse to a demand to keep dogs under control and on a short lead when it is a very small space like Goose Green. This would make sense all round and would make it harder for owners to miss their dog defecating. It would also help the small proportion of children that are scared of dogs. However, I would not want this applied on Peckham Rye and other, larger spaces

I say again though that there is already a decent enclosed space, especially for small children, adjacent to the Green. I think it's fine for young children to kick a ball around,but older kids, or larger groups should be encouraged to use the Rye.

[p_in_ed]

first mate Wrote:

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

> I say again though that there is already a decent

> enclosed space, especially for small children,

> adjacent to the Green. I think it's fine for young

> children to kick a ball around,but older kids, or

> larger groups should be encouraged to use the Rye.

first mate's views on the appropriate use of open space in Southwark are, I imagine, representative of the dog walkers that use Goose Green.

The view is that small children should confine themselves to the tarmaced playground over the road (which used to be the site of the local public toilet and the haunt of the areas winos), and that older children should walk up the road to the Rye. Goose Green should be left as the sole preserve of tax paying dog owners.

My view is that the local community needs to decide where its priorities lie. Should the needs of children be prioritised, or should the needs of dogs be prioritised. If the outcome of the six month trial is that it is neither practical nor desirable for children and dogs to share the same space for recreation, which group should be catered for on Goose Green?

Again, my own view is that children should be given priority, and that it should be the dog owners that are required to make the walk up the road to the Rye.

First mate refers to ?infringing the rights of many law abiding, responsible and tax paying dog owners.? I?m not sure tax is the issue. Parents pay tax as well.

It was dog walkers with views similar to those of first mate that attended the public meeting on Goose Green on that dark autumnal evening eighteen months ago, when the decision to remove the fence was made.

Referring to the article in the Guardian The Mess We're In one solution, widely adopted by councils around the country, is that Dog Control Orders are introduced and that dog walkers are required to exercise their dogs on the streets.

I know Mark councils that we shouldn't pre-judge the outcome of the trial, and that there are a number of options available for shared use of the Green, but having seen the Council take eighteen months to get around to removing the fence, I'm sceptical that money will ever be found for any kind of improved fence to go back up at the end of the trial. The dog walkers have effectively reclaimed the whole of Goose Green for their dogs, and it's the children and parents that will have to pace the streets to get their exercise.

[Mark]

There are other parties involved other than just dog walkers and children, Goose Green should be for the whole community not just those two groups. Like I said before if you want to keep creating a battle of "them and us", make it the selfish, irresponsible dog owners vs the rest of us, that way we're on the same team and more likely to get a better outcome.

[Louisa]

It is quite funny how back in the old days (pre gentrification) everyone used the green, there were never any issues, and no one got together to create pro and anti fence campaigns. Middle class people never cease to amaze me with their love of fighting for their corner and knowing their rights. Very amusing for a common old hag like me. After the lord mayors show eh?

Louisa.

[first mate]

p-in-ed,

You are the one who is polarising the argument not me. I said that the Green is for the use of all the community, and this includes dog owners, as well as parents and children. In addition to access to the Green children have use of an exlusive area adjacent. I also said that I, and many others I'm sure, would be happy to keep a dog on a short lead in that particular space.

FYI most dog owners do use the Rye. A few, like the elderly, like to take their dog on the Green. A highly inconsiderate minority walk their dogs offlead everywhere, including the streets, and also allow their dogs to poo without picking up. Those people are a pain for all of us. Even dog owners dislike stepping in dog poo. Many dog owners have children too!

Your us and them stance is unhelpful. Attempts to ban dogs from Goose Green will affect the decent majority of dog owners and have no impact whatsoever on the minority of offenders. We should all try to work together to improve our locale and save the invective for the few that really deserve it.

[fractionater]

Even though the dog poo has been picked up, its still on ground that has been poo'd upon.

Just imagaine a nice warm summers day on Goose Green.....you head out to the green to go chill and catch some rays and you fined a nice green patch of grass to lie on....but 10mins before you arrived a big dog has decided to lay a big cable on that same nice patch - the owner did pick it up though....but your still lying on that same patch...that no doubt will still have traces of the poo!!!

Worse still what if a little kid is playing in the same patch, drops his sweets\toys and sticks them in his mouth?!

let the dogs have their own fenced off area I say!!!

[Louisa]

Let the yummies have their own private park for the sole use of exercising their offspring. It would give the rest of us a bit of peace and quiet.

Louisa.

[Cassius]

OK - sorry for being terribly stupid here (and as I have NO dogs OR children I am not on any side), but, when I was a child there were dogs AND children sharing the same space. I can't see that dogs poo has got any more toxic over the years, or that children play in different ways. I am not dismissing the dangers of dog poo, but do wonder why it seems to be so much more an issue now than it was 10, 20 or more years ago.

[first mate]

Louisa,

I'm beginning to feel a bit like that myself. I don't know how we all survived up to this point.

Fractionater might want to add a huge dome to the private park, with a disinfectant dip at the entry point, just to ensure that the environs within are kept completely sterile.

[SimonM]

I think the Geneva solution is well worth an experiment...

[Louisa]

first mate, I think those would be minimum requirements, those poor fragile middle class offspring could catch a deadly virus at any moment, probably best we keep a doctor on site too just incase ;-)

Louisa.

[fractionater]

filthy beggars!

[Asset]

Oh I just love how a discussion about a fence becomes a class issue.

[fractionater]

Asset Wrote:

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

> Oh I just love how a discussion about a fence

> becomes a class issue.

Exactly - those with and those without!

[first mate]

ooooh, ouch!

[Asset]

?

[Colonel Blimp]

Years ago, I was involved with a local primary school that used GG for its summer f?te. GG is a lovely spot for that sort of event, but eventually I stopped the school using GG because of the large amount of dog-poo we had to contend with when setting up the event. I have always considered GG to be a dog's toilet; made so by irresponsible owners. This is truly a sad state of affairs because GG is a wonderful community facility that is currently being used as a dog's toilet by too many irresponsible dog owners.

Over the years, communities have become more expressive of their needs, and local councils have had to become more responsive to the views of their communities. Hence it is now possible for this community to express its views, which I'm sure will be listened to and may well shape the final outcome to deliver the most comprehensive use of GG by the community.

A 6 month process is in place, after which the community will be given an opportunity to state their views and/or preferences. It's good to read the various views posted here, and I hope that by reading them we will all benefit by broadening our thoughts on what constitutes a satisfactory solution to the 'GG problem'. There is no need to for us to be throwing brickbats at each other. A sensible debate, and a bit of compromise, is all that's required.

Let us all agree that the demons in all of this are the irresponsible owners who do not clear-up after their dogs have made a mess on Goose Green.

[cactus]

In 1996/97 I lived opposite Goose Green, and during that period the green just seemed to be a rather

muddy patch used mainly as a thoroughfare for local people, fair enough.

I left the area and moved back two years ago, again living opposite, and was pleasantly surprised to see the

fenced off area being used by the community, for games, picnics, sunbathing etc . The whole of the green just seemed

more welcoming than it was a decade ago, or perhaps my memory is hazy....

[AllforNun]

Wow what a fucking waste of money that was.

[kristymac1]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Let the yummies have their own private park for

> the sole use of exercising their offspring. It

> would give the rest of us a bit of peace and

> quiet.

>

> Louisa.

God this comment drives me to suicidale levels of boredom. At the end of the day the preference of parents with kids is, in this case, the same as the vast majority of the population of ED - and that is for Goose Green to be a place where you can enjoy the fresh air in a safe and healthy environment - whether you are parents, dog walkers, young or old adults enjoying the outside, reading a book, picnicing etc.....

This is not a 'us and them' - read 'parents and dog walkers' fight - this is about managing a public space as best as possible so all users benefit, so to those hell-bent on being antangonsitic on this issue, seriously you need a new outlet.

[first mate]

Problem is the us and them stance does seem to be perpetuated by a few parents who want others banned from use of the Green.