Upwind

gromit3:16 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mabey there were no more seats in the park and he > wanted to sit down. If I believed in a god, I would ask them to give me strength!

savvygirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Upwind, are you someone who likes a scrap? You're > a bit provocative and a bit rude! You said: > > Hello Savvygirl. > Either you are one of the many who has not read > the OP properly or you seriously ought to consider > changing your user name! > > You also referred to people on here as "numpties". > I'm not sure in future that I could take any > opinion you may have seriously. Well the OP did say that she was in the playground for long enough to realise the man was there without children, yet you asked exactly that question of her! And you called 'her' daft!! So, did you read the original post properly or...??.? Also quite happy to have a scrap with a bunch of numpties bullying someone who was just sharing a bit of information for the benefit of other members on this forum.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Upwind: > ? KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "The OP didn't make any such assumption! It was > > > all the numpties on here accusing her of calling > > > the man a paedophile, when all she said was that > > > she was a bit concerned" > > > > 'concerned' about what exactly ? > > please advise: > > 1. > > 2. > > 3. etc.. > 1.An > 2.Adult > 3.Alone > 4.In > 5.The > 6.Playground > 7.Which > 8.She > 9.Thought > 10.Might > 11.Be > 12.Suspicious > Not sure why you specified the numbering system, > but happy to oblige if it makes things easier to > understand. > ? > Suspicious of what ? > Suspected of what ? No one said "suspected" until you did just there! As for "suspicious of what?" I think you may need to dig out your old English grammar text books and try to rephrase that.. I have pasted an excerpt from the Cambridge English Dictionary below with a definition and examples of the adjective suspicious. Hope it helps. Making you feel that something illegal is happening or that something is wrong: Her behaviour was very suspicious. The fire at the bank is being treated as suspicious. It's a little suspicious that no one knows where he was at the time of the murder. There were some suspicious characters hanging around outside. There's a suspicious-looking van parked at the end of the street.

savvygirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How long was the OP in the area? Was she there > long enough to conclude this man did not have a > child of his own playing in the playground? What > made her think he was a loner and up to no good? > > > This sort of thinking reminds me of my Mum who > would quickly make a judgment on a potential > boyfriend saying something like "his eyes are too > close together"! The OP's reasoning and logic is > as daft as my Mum's was! Hello Savvygirl. Either you are one of the many who has not read the OP properly or you seriously ought to consider changing your user name!

On a more serious note, back in the summer, an eight year old boy was abducted from the Burgess Park tennis centre changing rooms, before being subjected to a sustained serious sexual assault. Maybe if someone had noticed the man going in there without a tennis racket, sports kit, or perhaps a child, this boy could have been spared a lifetime of trauma. Fleothecat noticed something that concerned her and thought it would be helpful to notify members of this forum so they would be aware if the man was in the playground again. It was a shame then that the content of her post, was dissected, exaggerated, then mutated out of all recognition by a braying mob of EDF morons, all fighting to be the most morally outraged/wittiest poster, when a simple "Thanks for the heads up" would have sufficed. Some of the replies amounted to nothing more than ill-informed bullying. Shameful.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "The OP didn't make any such assumption! It was > all the numpties on here accusing her of calling > the man a paedophile, when all she said was that > she was a bit concerned" > > 'concerned' about what exactly ? > please advise: > 1. > 2. > 3. etc.. 1.An 2.Adult 3.Alone 4.In 5.The 6.Playground 7.Which 8.She 9.Thought 10.Might 11.Be 12.Suspicious Not sure why you specified the numbering system, but happy to oblige if it makes things easier to understand.

EDBoost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peckhampam Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Craigyboy, empathy or commonsense is needed and > a > > children's' playground is not a public area > > How is a playground in a park NOT a public area?? > Anyone can go in or out. Not saying it wouldn't be > weird if there was a guy going just to see kids at > a playground, but it doesn't have to be for > perverted reasons! > > The point if this thread is to see if it was right > to call out a guy on a public forum and suggest > he could be a peodo, when in reality he's just > sitting there minding his own business. > > People shouldn't be so quick to judge. Your > statement makes no sense at all and ridiculous. FFS! No one knows or needs to know why he was in there. The fact is that the law states he should not be in there without a child. It really is that simple!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > macutd Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > this is a really difficult situation and I feel > > very cautious about writing anything. But it > seems > > very sad that an adult is seen as a pervert if > > they are standing near children playing. > > This. Perhaps he's enjoying watching the kids play > in an entirely innocent way. The assumption that > there must be some sort of perverted sexual motive > is just so sad. The OP didn't make any such assumption! It was all the numpties on here accusing her of calling the man a paedophile, when all she said was that she was a bit concerned. Some of you need to have a really hard look at yourselves with the way you become so outraged at an innocent comment that you don't appear to have read properly!

craigyboy71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know East Dulwich seems to have been taken over > by young families, but as a single male I can't > see the problem with this guy chilling out in a > public area at all. Let the man do what he wants > as long as he isn't causing any harm, or breaking > any laws. But he was breaking the park byelaw by being in the playground without a child. He had the whole of the rest of the park to sit in!

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So I'm going to be a bit harsh here and say that > frankly I don't see what the problem is. > > Has he broken any laws? > Was he filming anyone? > Was he touching himself in a way that implied he > was trying to arouse himself? > Did he do anything that would be illegal in the > eyes of the law? > > If the answer is no, then what you've essentially > just done is all but outright call someone a > paedophile for the crime of standing in a park > without children around. Do you understand the > seriousness of this sort of allegation, or do you > think that now 'because I've got a baby' you've > got the right to post outrageous threads actively > questioning someones innocent behaviour just > because it doesnt conform to your personal view of > the world? > > If you weren't prepared to confront, and you > weren't prepared to call the police, then how dare > you feel you can go online behind the safety of an > anonymous handle and essentially accuse someone of > being a pervert with zero evidence other than your > view of the world? More to the point, what > business is it of yours if he is standing there? > If there is no law forbidding it, and no > regulation preventing it, then he has every right > in the world to stand there. > > And before you get 'oh but the Children' try > asking yourself how you would feel if when your > baby is a little older, your partner took it to > the park and it went wandering leaving him > temporarily alone, and you logged on here, you > discovered that someone had put a post up accusing > your partner of being a paedophile? Thats exactly > what you've done here - made the gravest possible > allegation by implication without a shred of > evidence to back it up. Park byelaws state that adults are only allowed in the playground when accompanied by a child. It should say that clearly on the playground gates too. I can't quite understand the outrage at the OPs post when they were just highlighting what could have been an issue without making any accusations. Having read through the subsequent posts, I am probably more concerned about some of you lot than the fella in the playground!!

Azalea Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m resurrecting this thread to find out if any > controls have been put on commercial dog walkers. Yes. A borough wide Public Space Protection Order was introduced by Southwark Council in March 2018, limiting the number of dogs a person can walk, the number of those dogs allowed off lead and a few other things that I can't recall. They are listed on the notice boards at Nunhead Cemetery and I assume the council website. As a nature lover, I can vouch that the cemetery has become a much more pleasant place for a stroll now there are far fewer rampaging dogs running loose. Most of the commercial walkers seem to be very considerate now too.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suggested that maybe he could patrol Goose Green > in the afternoons during the summer when more > people/children are using the park, > > If professional dog walkers are the issue, as > suggested above, then patrolling when they are > about (often in my experience of other green areas > in ED in the mid mornings) might be more > effective. I'd guess they were more likely to > ignore the common decencies of picking up poo when > fewer people were about. The issue is more picking > up the poo in the first place, not warning those > with children to avoid it. Patrolling when they > can be seen by the Goose Green using public might > be good for their profile, but less likely to > catch the miscreants, in my view. The suggestion by the OP was that it was individual dog owners not paying attention rather than anyone else. Not sure there are many, if any, people walking large groups of dogs on the green anyway. PS. The people walking several dogs for money are very seldom professional, in that they have no qualification for their trade. I believe they should be referred to as commercial walkers.

beansprout Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Three issues are giing to be taking priority. Nothing more than a box ticking exercise I'm afraid

For Goose Green, read pretty much every other park in the area too. Most of it is simply down to people not paying attention to what their dogs are doing.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you are local, your children are school age and > have no disabilities > > If you have to walk more than 20-25 minutes, > particularly if one child is in a push chair (even > if another is school age) then you will not feel > that much like 'enjoying' the park when you get > there, particularly with the walk back ahead of > you. Neither will your children. Mind you, as a > policy it will keep out those awful extended > families, people with dogs, the elderly, all those > ghastly people who cannot afford to live nice and > close (within easy walking distance from a park). > Effectively keeping out the hoi polloi (anyone who > can't readily afford the parking fee, even) is a > wonderful policy for the council to pursue. It > will be Dulwich parks for Dulwich people. It will > make the parks so much more private for those with > adjacent houses. And once the parks are unused > enough, well we can get rid of them. I believe there are regular buses serving our parks, or perhaps people could cycle? I am one of the hoi polloi who couldn't or wouldn't pay the parking fees. In fact I made a conscious decision over ten years ago not to own a car, despite having two young children. The money I saved by doing that is spent on public transport, the occasional cab fare and the even more occasional hire of a car when we really need one. As a consequence, we are all much healthier and fitter, with the kids now accomplished cyclists and happy to walk a mile or two to get somewhere. Yes, it may make some people decide to stay away from Dulwich Park in favour of their closer local park. Good, especially on those busy summer weekends when the car park resembles a major junction in Rome during the rush hour! Too many people in this area drive purely for the convenience of it. This policy will weed a few of them out and generate some much needed revenue for the council.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes. Dogs should require a licence and DNA record > kept. > No licence, dog confiscated right there and > mandatory cost of dog upkeep until licence > obtained / new owner found / dog put down. > DNA poo match, ?500 fine. Per poo. > Owners have had the opportunity but collectively > failed (agreed, it?s always minority spoiling it > for the majority) to show manners regarding dog > poo on street / in parks. Agreed it is a small minority who don't care and just leave their dog's mess wherever it is deposited, but, as a daily park user, I have seen there is a sizeable number of people ("Oh, but I always pick up") who pay little or no attention to what their dog is doing once in the park. These are the ones who are chatting/texting/gaily swinging a bag of poo oblivious to the fact their dog is depositing another three turds behind them. Not only that, but many of them become upset/angry when I point it out to them. I would be bloody mortified! Seen much the same in Nunhead Cemetery too, where you would think dog walkers might be extra vigilant. For starters, I reckon people keeping off their phone and walking a few yards behind their dog(s) would have the amount of dog mess left in our parks.

lrm123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The dog isn?t lost. We thought the same last week. > She just runs around the park hunting squirrels > for long periods and has such a high prey drive, > her owner, who is with her in the park (with > another dog) leaves her to do her thing. She?s a > lovely dog, a Podenco ? Spanish hunting breed, i > think. I assume the owner thinks the dog will pick up it's own poo and keep to the dog off lead areas. Lovely dog maybe, not such a lovely owner!

I saw a warden speaking to some people outside the caf? one day earlier this week as some owners had their dogs off lead, which could be a problem with people eating outside. He seemed perfectly polite and friendly and took the time to explain why he was asking them to put their dogs on lead. Rupert, check out the area outside the caf? and around the lake most weekdays between nine and eleven, there are plenty of off lead dogs in an area clearly signposted as on lead. Not saying that any of these dogs are causing problems, but the potential is there with other people's food and/or waterfowl nearby.

BBQs allowed at Crystal Palace Park. A lot less busy than Burgess. Their signs just ask for you to keep them elevated and dispose of your rubbish.