Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I frequently cycle and walk on the Greendale cycle path in the evening and have noticed a big increase in the number of police cars and vans looking for people and dealing with incidents. Does someone know the backstory to this? I am wondering if it is safe at nighttime now.


Thanks


Z

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/299844-police-on-greendale/
Share on other sites

I walk my dog on greendale and met a guy who is on a council panel for reporting crimes. He said there's a lot of drug dealing activity and that path is used as a route. He also said armed police are sometimes used to move on people smoking dope and to evict the homeless people there because a visit from the PCSOs doesn't cut it.


Could be BS of course but that's why he said lots of cops around there.

I assume you mean the path from Champion Hill through to Greendale at the crossroads? If so is it mostly ok? yes, but i wouldn't cycle along it on my own at night. At more peak time there are lots of people, but its like everywhere in terms of being vigilant. I have the same issue re Burgess park, in that I won't cycle through the whole park, but do cut through the C17 section.
Yes I don't do that - the park is surprisingly dark - especially the link to the Canal path. I'm not sure I'd feel happier if it was lit though either - once it gets quieter I think going round is sensible. Its another reason why cycle paths through parks can't be the only option, we need safe routes from traffic but also for personal safety that can be used at night too.

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

    • It's called The Restorative Place. Also, the Fired Earth storefront is under offer too, apparently. How exciting...!
    • Perhaps the view is that there are fewer people needing social housing in London, going forward, or to cap it as it is rather than increasing it. We already see the demographic changing.
    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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