p_in_ed

See the following threads: Poor Digital/Freeview Reception on ITV/C4 in East Dulwich? and Aerial engineer Poor Freeview reception in the area for ITV and C4 seems to be a general problem, although no-one has identified a cause yet.

I'd be delighted if this were the outcome. I really like the existing mural. I know the artist Stan Peskett had proposed doing something new, but if the current mural can be restored and protected, that's fine with me.

I'm with kristymac1; in between 'not fussed' and 'really liking it'. I felt quite postive about the design when they first installed it. Interesting to read charliecharlie's informed views on design, but in this case I think I come down on the side of function rather than form. Also not sure where I'll end up being catagorized with regard to AllforNun's 'Liberal Aesthetic'. I have to say, it doesn't sound like a good thing to have, but given that I don't like the blue half of the mural but do like the fence, hopefully I don't quite fit. All I do know is that I think the way the Green is organised at the moment seems to work very well for all concerned. I think we should leave it as it is.

Please keep him safe.

cdonline Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I always give the water a good thorough splash > around after I've relieved myself in the pool. > Just to make to sure it gets diluted. No need to > thank me for my concern for others. Thanks for your concern cdonline. Only just read your entry; still laughing.

An interesting website ed_pete; thanks for the steer; full of information but complex, and I haven't had a chance to plough through it yet. With regard to the Sony Freeview box, though, I have the same model but still have problems. The poor reception on C4/ITV started earlier in the summer. Prior to that I always had an excellent picture. As far as I can see, nothing about my setup has changed. I've had a good look at the rooftop aerial and it doesn't appear to have shifted. Also, on occasions, I get a good picture now, which makes me think it's nothing to do with the aerial/cables/Freeview box. When I look at the 'Technical Information' item on the Freeview box menu. it often tells me that I have a strong signal but it is of poor quality. I have a suspicion, based on no research and no information, that it may be something to do with engineering work in preparation for the Analogue->Digital switchover. Frustrating.

I seriously think the Council should revisit their decision. The Council should avoid unnecessarily spending Council Taxpayer money and leave Goose Green as it is. The current arrangement works well for both sections of the community (those that walk dogs on the Green and those that want an area free of faeces for outdoor recreation). If this forum is representative of community feeling, and it generally is, there are at least as many that want to keep the fence as there are that want it removed. I'd suggest that there are probably more that want to keep it. The Council talk about public consultation that took place prior to the public meeting on Goose Green. I haven't seen the output from the consultation, but this forum seems to be an effective avenue for eliciting views from the community. I think the views expressed here should be given at least as much weight as the unpublished consultations undertaken by the Council.

Yeeha ! Last night felt like some grand and glorious episode of West Wing. Who knows what tomorrow holds, but at last I feel optimistic about it. Not wishing to trivialize an extraordinary event, but Obama's election means that I can leave behind the resentment I felt about Ken Starr and the Republicans and the obsessive way they went about diminishing the Bill Clinton presidency; can leave behind the resentment of the Hanging Chads eight years ago, and the way the Supreme Court gifted the election to the Republicans; can leave behind the resentment of the attack ads four years ago. We can ignore the Bush hawks and the neocons for the next four years. It makes me feel tremendously warm about America and Americans again. It even makes me admire John McCain; makes me admire him more for having the decency to lose. The whole world feels like a better place.

Over the last few weeks I've noticed sporadic poor reception on all of the ITV/C4 digital channels that I receive through my Freeview box. Is it just me/my aerial? Or is it a general problem in the area? I wondered if it was related to engineering work on the Crystal Palace transmitter in some way. Some nights it's fine, some nights it's lousy. Any ideas? Or do I just need to get someone to look at my aerial?

My understanding is that the pool will be closed at the end of December to allow renovation work to begin. The gymn and other areas will remain open while the pool work is undertaken, following which a major redevelopment of the whole centre will be undertaken. The new entrance will be on Crystal Palace Road. The plans look great - they were on display in the leisure centre for a while - may still be. I agree Beckenham Spa is a lovely pool, but it's a drive, bus ride, cycle or train journey away. I'd far rather have a second rate pool on my doorstep rather than nothing at all. As it is, I suspect, if all goes ahead as planned, we'll have a greatly improved pool following closure for anything up to a year.

Great suggestion Mark. I'd be more than happy with that as a solution. How do we go about getting the Council to adopt this as the approach?

The greatest effort should be made to preserve a Grade II listed building, and any preservation attempt would certainly get my support. My recollection, from reading the local press several years ago, was that the new buildings standing behind it and built in the same style, were built as part of a deal between the London Borough of Southwark and a developer where part of the deal was the renovation of the listed building. The developer was allowed to build new houses on the proviso that the renovation was undertaken at the same time. They were obviously allowed to get away with building the new houses and pocketing the profit, but reneging on the renovation. Would be interesting to get a Council view on what happened with the deal and what the Council is now doing to secure a renovator. On a recent edition of Inside Out on BBC1, Lucinda Lambton, in reviewing a huge directory of endangered buildings in Britain, picked out the building on Lordship Lane.

My partner attended the meeting outside on the Green, one dark evening last Autumn. She reported back that the numbers in attendance were limited, and were primarily dog walkers. A show of hands was taken that evening approving the plans to remove the fence. I attended the Friends of Goose Green meeting in the Community Centre several weeks later, where the decision to remove the fence was presented as a done deal, although there was an opportunity for discussion around the pros and cons. I, for one, wasn't aware of any other consultation. I'm sure it took place, but it can't have been well advertised, otherwise I would have expected to have been aware that it was taking place. My impression, from the discussion at the Friends of Goose Green meeting, was that the move to remove the fence was initiated by members of FOGG who were unhappy about the aesthetics of the fence, and by dog walkers who felt their freedom to roam had been impaired by the fence.

Moos, the meeting you refer to was a Friends of Goose Green meeting, held in the Goose Green Community Centre, several weeks after the public meeting held outside in the park specifically to discuss removing the fence. The FOGG Meeting had a broad agenda, one item of which was a discussion around a decision that had already been made, following the public meeting in the park, to remove the fence.

My understanding is that the decision was made following a single public meeting, held in the park on a dark autumn evening about a year ago, where most of those that attended were dog walkers. Given that the small number that attended were mainly dog walkers, and that the time of the meeting was unhelpful for families with young children, it's hardly surprising that the outcome was a vote in favour of removing the fence. My view is that if the meeting had been held on a weekend afternoon, the outcome would probably have been different.

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.

I agree with Sue. I think the response from the Council has been excellent, and I'm delighted with the proposals to refresh or recreate the mural. I too, would like to see the William Blake theme retained. I love the existing mural and would be quite happy to see the existing design restored. If Stan Peskett, the artist, is keen to innovate and do something new tough, I'd be supportive but would be interested to know what his proposals were. Paul

I was there at 6 o'clock with my four year old. Ursula Allison was there, with maybe eight others at that point. I only stayed for fifteen minutes (bedtime called), but left my details with Ursula together with comments that I was keen to see the mural re-instated and was keen to be involved. Ursula gave an upate to us all on contact with Stan Peskett, who sounds as though he is willing to be involved in re-instating the mural, but won't be available until next May. One of the councillors arrived (Gordon Nardell I think - apologies if it was someone else - I was in a bit of a rush ) and gave an update on the willingness of the Council to fund the work. He also reported that he'd been in touch with the Dulwich Festival organisers, who were keen to be involved in some way. There are still hurdles to overcome; key one is getting the approval of the owners of the wall that the mural is painted on. Others may have turned up after I left, and I'm sure there was more detailed discussion. From my own point of view, I was pleased with the update, and don't see having to wait until May to get the mural re-instated as a real problem. Would be nice if it could be done sooner, but if it gets done at all thats fine with me. Paul

I?ve exchanged emails with Stan Peskett, who tells me he is now resident in the USA. It makes re-instatement more complicated, but not, I would hope, out of the question. It would be great if the Council, as a gesture of goodwill, could cover the costs of engaging Stan to re-instate the missing parts of the mural. Jon Sheaff says in his post earlier in this thread: ?If possible we will look at working with the community and Stan Peskett to restore the mural back to its former glory, with an appropriate anti-graffiti covering.? I think this is an excellent proposal. What do we need to do to make this happen?

I came out of my house on Adys Road at 9.30 am on Sunday morning. A Southwark Council badged car with two traffic wardens had just pulled up, and the warden was ticketing a car up the road (not mine thankfully) that had been parked six inches over a dropped kerb area. Sunday morning monitoring of parking infringements seems unnecessary, verging on the obsessive, on the part of the council. I?m sure the service pays for itself, but I?m not sure it does anything to persuade me that we have a council that works hard to improve the quality of our lives. Beside the car was a rubbish bin with torn bags beside it that had been left uncollected for the last three days. I?d rather see the car un-ticketed and the rubbish collected.

I'm heartbroken to see the mural painted over. Art and local artists have been at the heart of re-generating the Bellenden area (Anthony Gormley, John Latham, Tom Phillips, Zandra Rhodes and many others), building on historic artistic links such as association of Peckham Rye with William Blake. The mural transformed the immediate area when it was painted and is treasured by many/all who live in the area. The mural with graffiti is infinitely preferable to a bare wall with no mural and no graffiti. The ideal, obviously, would be for the council to maintain the mural and keep it free of graffiti. According to Wikipedia, the orginal artist was Stan Peskett: Wikipedia entry for Peckham Stan has a website at the following addess: Stan Peskett which includes an item on the William Blake Mural: William Blake Mural I'll email Stan to see if he's aware of the damage to the mural and if he still lives in the area. On his site, he talks about a similar incident in 1997: "In 1997 part of the mural was stolen brick by brick. Unfortunately neither the Local Member of Parliament Tessa Jowell nor the local church that used the mural for fund raising purposes wanted help in the reinstatement of the mural. Even though it has become a historic fixture and featured in the tour guide books along with the Globe theatre for the London Borough of Southwark." Unlike 1997, on this occasion we know who is reponsible. And hopefully, some kind of concensus can be achieved on re-instating the mural.

I've had a couple of excellent lunches there with friends. And I recently booked the Olive Room for a drinks recepeption following an arts event in the area. It was a perfect venue. The sun shone, the doors to the terrace were open, and the 50 or so guests moved from food and drinks in the Olive Room to the tables on the terrace. The food was excellent, the service was attentive, and Cherif, the Manager, went out of his way to make sure everything worked. I like having a good Italian Restaurant at the top of the road. I went to The Green many times, but the main dining room was hopeless during the day. It was so dark. The simple innovation of knocking through a couple of windows has transformed the space.

The point Mark makes about aggressive dogs underlines the need for a fence to divide the dog-walking and non-dog areas of Goose Green. Parents with young children need more reassurance than the good-will of the dog-walkers to provide peace of mind that the Green is a safe and friendly place for their kids to play. In my experience, the great majority of dog walkers use the park responsibly, but on a couple of occasions I've spoken to dog walkers who were walking their dog in the non-dog area, and their reason for doing so was that aggressive dogs scared their own dogs, and they were consequently using the non-dog area for the well-being of their dog. If dog owners are reluctant to share a space with aggressive dogs, then children certainly shouldn't be expected to. The worried dog owners will have to take their chances in the dog-walking area. But keep the fence (or at least, keep some of physical speparation - 'nicer' fence, hedge, or whatever)

A good suggestion from AllforNun. My own preference would be to spend nothing and leave things as they are - the most cost effective approach. The current arrangement has worked fine for the last couple of years. Personally, I have no objection to the Green being divided as it is at present, and quite like the fence. I know there are those that don't. If the alternative were the proposal from AllforNun, I'd be more than happy. Spend some money, reposition the fence to keep those that find it unattractive happy, and reduce the size of the dog walking area.

Noticed that it was my little boy's favourite playground that features in the C4 'Disarming Britain' trailer: http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/disarming_britain/index.html Hm