first mate

Is it possible someone in the local managment team is a member?

Perhaps Councillors can find out the how, when and who of the decision to let out a large section of Goose Green to a private company, seemingly circumventing its own climate change commitments in the process? In addition, how much money will Southwark get from the letting and where does that money get used? It would be great if Councillors McAsh or Smith could post here on their findings.

What we need to know is exactly how much money the Council will make from the enterprise this year and where that money will go - not to fund more nursery school type murals it is hoped.

I had understood from those on site that this is to do with the large proposed development opposite the Clockhouse.

Words fail!

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a parking space right at the end of > Spurling Rd that, as far as I know, has never seen > a car parked in it. Instead, it has become an > extremely unpleasant and dangerous dumping ground > for all sorts of items - old sofas, boxes, broken > glass, old sanitaryware and builder materials. > It's a total eyesore and shouldn't be permitted. > The council have twice refused to clear it on the > grounds it's private land but its an offence to > the entire neighbourhood and simply must be sorted > out. > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to force > the council to act? Might there be plans afoot to develop this sight, turning 'unsightly wasteland' into flats?

Slightly surprised Nx shops and shoppers would vote this in. If it had been some sort of signage it would make a bit more sense. It features really bright primary colours and, I think, it looks dreary in our cold, winter light. I wonder if the shop owners like it?

FreyaMikaelson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever it is it looks like it belongs in a > childrens playground. Perhaps that is how the council view local resident and environs.

Presumably not finished then? Guessing NX road market or similar to be inscribed on mural?

Yes Sue, that's the one. As I said I don't want to be negative but went and had a look yesterday and try as I might just could not find anything to like. It looks part creche part Teletubbies. As you say, perhaps not yet finsihed and will be transformed as more work done. Perhaps other people will absolutely adore it and it will become a treasured local landmark- each to their own. But...I am interested in who commissioned it and cost.

Agreed, but look at the environmental impact and cost of other types of litter- cigarette butts and plastics for starters- these are not 'harmless'. Granted, the immediate personal cost may not be so great but they still have a negative impact. Broken glass is another and there is loads of it around. I understand the considerable rage and disgust experienced after stepping in dog poop and it is massively inconvenient to have to clean it off- not to mention the dangers to health for children and pregnant women, I doubt anyone is disputing that. But I still don't agree that posting up photos of alleged perpetrators, without clear cut evidence, is the way to go. if you have all that then the person can be properly reported. If online photo shaming becomes more prevalent it would be open to abuse. It is a modern version of the stocks and I could not support that.

It seems part of the justification for posting photos is that dog fouling is a criminal offence and it's nasty...all true. However, other forms of littering are also a criminal offence. Suppose I decide to post up pictures of people I see dumping ciggie butts or empty beer bottles, or chicken bones? What about footballers who publicly urinate on Peckham Rye- another criminal offence- should we post photos of them up? What about spitting in the street? None of these examples to be photographed while caught in the act mind, just saying I saw them do it with a photo to identify and shame them, on a public forum. If you have evidence you take it through the proper channels, if you don't I am not sure the above is the way to go. Again, I personally believe KK. I think use of phrases like 'I don't recall' go some way to a tacit admission by the dog owner that it probably did happen. If this person was seen allowing their dog to foul and not clean up on a regular basis I would suggest there is an opportunity to gather evidence and take it to the council. However, it could also be that the dog owner genuinely did not notice, or had left the house that day without a poo bag, and this may be the first time she fell short of her responsibilities...we all make mistakes. If the latter, being publicly shamed by a photo seems especially harsh.

If true that is a pretty poor use of public money. Is there anyone who can confirm the cost and whether a council commission? In my view it has no merit whatsoever.

I'm with Texas on this one. It doesn't feel comfortable and has a whiff of online vigilantism about it (if there even is such a thing). Glad Admin has taken the photo down. That said, I don't think KK would make it up.

I fear this is a good point.

Yes, fantastic.

Is it done by the same people who did the sign near the rail station? Who's idea was it and who is funding it? I think it will attract graffiti. Sorry to be so negative but I really don't like what I've seen so far.

Not loving the colour choice. Looks like interior of a nursery.

Renatus, sorry to say your dog probably is having just that, a panic attack. The Dog's Trust give out some very good advice on Fireworks and also Halloween.

That Act was repealed. Dog fouling now covered by Cleaner Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and one to do with anti social behaviour and policing 2014 ( sorry cannot recall full name). In a nutshell, dealing with fouling is down to local councils under existing Dog Control Orders or new PCSOs. Goose Green is a under a PCSO as is Peckham Rye, so the legislation is there and wardens etc.. can issue FPNs of ?100 or if it goes to court ?1000 fine. Not sure how streets are covered. Perhaps under the 2014 Act but not sure. TBH the legislation has always been there for fines to be issued by Council Officers.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most supermarkets sell selection boxes that are > bang free. We buy those. Fantastic that they sell a bang free version- that makes a massive difference.

There must be some kind of process that governs removal of cars for the purpose of 'vital' roadworks, one wonders if in this case that process has been breached? This is something our local councillor should defintitely investigate and get an explanation.

It is interesting isn't it how Southwark have greenlighted so many roadwork schemes in such a small area, to all happen simultaneously. It looks to be extremely poor management, which makes you question if many of their decisions to do with traffic and streets are ever well thought out? Why have such intensive work on Melbourne and Chesterfield at the same time as Lordship Lane and Barry Rd? Do Councillor's enjoy causing chaos or is there some other reason for this? Does it allow them to experiment with traffic management in a way they could not otherwise do?

Agreed, and for the umpteenth time, nobody is trying to stop other people enjoying fireworks unless asking for a bit of communication in advance is perceived as 'stopping people's enjoyment'?!