Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My husband has just got back from the park and my 2.5 year old son, his shoes and bike got covered in poo again..

I feel so exasperated and disappointed firstly that there are still so many irresponsible dog owners who don?t clear up but also that there seems to be very little that can be done in terms of fining those who don?t.

It's always been a pity that children can't pay on Goose Green because of the dogs and the poo. Most gardens here are small and some space to run about on would be welcomed. My son was chased by two dogs once and the owners told me it was his fault for running away.

Lynne Wrote:

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

> It's always been a pity that children can't pay on

> Goose Green because of the dogs and the poo. Most

> gardens here are small and some space to run about

> on would be welcomed. My son was chased by two

> dogs once and the owners told me it was his fault

> for running away.


That kind of sums up the attitude of some dog owners. When my kids were babies and the shoes or pushchair wheels got covered in poo I would dearly have loved to follow a depositor home and shove the contents of my baby's nappies through his/her letter box

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Time for this?

>

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35363

> 991

>

> Love dogs to a soppy extreme: despise

> irresponsible owners.



That article was from January 2016.


I'd be interested to know if the scheme was successful.


Oh, and it took place in Barking. Ahem :))


ETA: When I go through Barking on the train, I have to bark. Childish in the extreme, I know.


I don't do it if I'm travelling alone, I hasten to add :))

Yup, I absolutely love dogs, but anyone allowing that on a daily basis may not also be caring for their pooch properly either. Considering how many toddlers there are around the area these days, it's pretty dangerous and I wish some of our council tax got spent on clearing up Goose Green and keeping it sustainably safe and clean for both dog owners and parents of young children.
  • 1 month later...
I own two large breed dogs and it's appalling the amount of poo I see around. I cannot imagine leaving my dogs poo for someone else to step in/smell/see and I'm truly sorry for all of us forced to deal with those who are not responsible dog owners. Not sure about the street poo's you're finding, but I have seen dog owners completely oblivious to what their dogs are doing in the park because they are either a) chatting to other dog owners or b) on their phone. I'll point it out when I can and dog owners are always glad I did, but a little more diligence on the parts of dog owners to actually pay attention is needed, too. At the end of the day, unfortunately, there will always be the ones who just don't care.
Oblivious owners is a massive issue in the parks but think on the pavements it?s more that people are choosing not to pick up. Reporting to the council is key. Particularly bad when it?s on grove vale and it gets trodden everywhere by people heading to the station.

It would also be nice, whilst on this topic, if people could dispose of household waste correctly. Seeing old items of furniture, cabinets and wardrobes, mattresses, food waste, nappies, left to rot outside properties is not only unsightly but easily attracts vermin and foxes. The dog poo is part of a wider ignorance by some locals who seem to think treating a shared neighbourhood like a public lavatory is perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour.


Louisa.

Loutwo Wrote:

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

> It would also be nice, whilst on this topic, if

> people could dispose of household waste correctly.

> Seeing old items of furniture, cabinets and

> wardrobes, mattresses, food waste, nappies, left

> to rot outside properties is not only unsightly

> but easily attracts vermin and foxes. The dog poo

> is part of a wider ignorance by some locals who

> seem to think treating a shared neighbourhood like

> a public lavatory is perfectly normal and

> acceptable behaviour.

>

> Louisa.


This is a direct result of the council imposing a charge on collecting the above items. Those of us that have a house with a side entrance can collect this stuff in the garden until we have 10 items and then arrange collection. If you are in a flat and do not have transportation- what else are you supposed to do with the ONE item of household furniture you want to dispose of? Maybe we should have a facility for people to get together and when they have collected 10 items- one of them arranges a collection.

I'm surprised that the furniture etc dumping is not a lot worse.

As for the dog poo- I've lived around here since 1980 and there has ALWAYS been a problem.

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.

bels123 Wrote:

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

> Report it here

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/street-care/dog-fouli

> ng


I share the exasperation of the OP as I'm sure most do.


I would strongly recommend that this issue is reported to the council every time. They will come round and clear it up.


Hopefully, the more council resource is used dealing with this disgusting, anti-social behavior, the more inclined the council will be to proactively enforce the existing legislation which prohibits this.

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.

Some dog owners are utterly obnoxious.


I've often seen people in the parks allowing their dogs to run wild, terrorizing wildlife and children in areas where they should be on a short lead. I've even seen people letting their dogs into the dog free picnic section in peckham rye.

Many years ago, when we lived in SE1 there was a weird but very successful local operation to spray uncleared up dog-poo gold or silver and pop a little flag in it. It was in a particular area or street and aimed at one or two locals who everyone knew didn't clear up after their dogs, and residents got so fed up they started trying to draw attention to it and effectively call out those few people who weren't clearing up their local streets. Apparently it worked really well. I will see if the thread is still up on the SE1 Forum.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Some dog owners are utterly obnoxious.

>

> I've often seen people in the parks allowing their

> dogs to run wild, terrorizing wildlife and

> children in areas where they should be on a short

> lead. I've even seen people letting their dogs

> into the dog free picnic section in peckham rye.


I challenged someone in the flower garden part of Ruskin Park once as his dog was running amok after squirrels and birds...he said 'he's only chasing squirrels'....says it all about the attitude.

I live around the corner from a primary school and there was a deposit in the middle of the pavement ...needless to say it was everywhere by nightfall

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...