Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree - I did say this in the written consultation but the anti-fence folk won. I think they've won now anyway - I can't see the council removing the fence, then having a 6 month trial and then really putting up another fence. Seriously doubt that is going to happen.

I'm a dog owner and do think it is better to have a dog free area, either as it is, or switch to the other side of the fence. I think the only problem is that the gates need to be self-closing because few dogs will be able to resist going through a gate that has been left open, which doesn't make it very dog free!


If the fence is removed, I think there should be an investigation into why so much money was spent on it in the first place and if the person/people responsible put it in without proper consultation they should be held to account.

Dogs can be one of the irritations of life. But things have got better; it?s not really that long ago since dogs were simply put out of the house for exercise - and if anybody picked up after them they would probably be considered perverted.

Unfortunately, where there are dogs there is dog poo, no matter how well intentioned the owners are. Despite this, Goose Green has always been well used for all sorts of purposes.

It may be news to some, but nobody likes wading through the stuff ? even dog owners! But consider the health risks to the poor children. Er . . . wait a minute, the poor children already have a special, protected play space at the Green. Oops! That argument loses some emotional kneejerkiness.


Goose Green is the nearest thing we have to a village green. Sure you can carve it up with fences and segregate people as a sledge hammer to a difficulty rather than address the obvious: Don?t allow dog owners to let their dogs leave crap. Don?t allow dogs to be out of control. Enforce the regulations. Let?s stay together as a community. ? Nah! let?s just fence off some people!

Goose Green is a historic open space. Shouldn?t it be protected as a whole, rather than crudely sanitised for some?

Accusations of incomer ponsification of East Dulwich roll off the back like the proverbial water, but if we are to have enclosures can I make a bid for separate ones for drunks, drug dealers, spoilt whingey children, arrogant buggy pushers, men with poor fashion sense and those at imminent risk of throwing up?

(Now if she had doggy children, she wouldn?t be saying that!)

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

    • Surely only where the local businesses offer clear advantages, otherwise you are rewarding what should be failure. I want to be served by a better bakery than Gail's, not a worse but local independent one. Certainly give a local independent some time to get the offer right, but don't buy goods which are worse and or more expensive just because the outlet isn't a chain. 
    • Let’s just boycott all chains in favour of local businesses.  Places like Gail’s popping up everywhere has a very damaging impact on small businesses. It’s just the same as the new empanadas place but on a bigger scale. I’ll say it a million times more, we hold the power with our choices. Let’s use our power to look after ourselves and our environment (which includes small local family businesses). And yes, I also love Chacarero.
    • You know that the top 1% of earners pay 30% of all total tax in the UK right? If they leave who picks up the tax slack? This is an inconvenient truth ignored by many. This is why Labour did a u-turn on non-doms because they started leaving and left the Treasury with a growing tax hole to fill. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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