Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Where did you find out nancysmum?


Let the "Bring back the Fence" campaign begin.


The council have had the whole winter to run their misconceived trial period, and yet nothing was done.


And now, just as spring and summer beckon, and the prospect of sitting out and playing on the grass returns, the dogs are given free rein and the park returns to the squalid, unpleasant state it was in before the fence arrived.

Ah, perceptive Reg. So this will be a great Roosevelt style public work. The Hoover Dam of south London. We could get a modern day Diego Rivera to come and repaint the William Blake mural. And the Goose Green Fence will be visited for generations to come by people who want to see the project that sparked global financial recovery.

A beautiful day. Clear blue skies. A sense of spring in the air. And the Goose Green fence is coming down.


Just as we all feel like returning to the Green after a long and muddy winter, the dogs will get there first.


The contractors are on-site this morning. The first panel has been removed.


The update on the Notice Board says that the reason for the trial period is to look at how the Green is used when there is no dividing fence, and also to see if different users (I guess they mean dogs and people) could use this space compatibly.


I can tell them how the Green is used when there is no dividing fence. For most of my time in the area the Green has had no dividing fence. Dogs use the whole Green. And the whole Green becomes squalid and unpleasant. I remember it well. Prior to the dog free area, I would never have dreamt of using the Green for anything other than walking across, as a short cut from one side to the other. It?s been great for the last few years to see it become a genuine community resource, a green space that everyone could enjoy.


The notice board promises warden enforcement and fixed penalty notices. Let?s hope this becomes a reality, and that we do see a step change in the behaviour of dogs and dog walkers.

p_in_ed Wrote:

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

> Ah, perceptive Reg. So this will be a great

> Roosevelt style public work. The Hoover Dam of

> south London. We could get a modern day Diego

> Rivera to come and repaint the William Blake

> mural. And the Goose Green Fence will be visited

> for generations to come by people who want to see

> the project that sparked global financial

> recovery.


Don't leave it all to public enterprise. Does ED not have its own Joseph Williamson? http://www.williamsontunnels.com/intro.htm

ianr Wrote:

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

> p_in_ed Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Ah, perceptive Reg. So this will be a great

> > Roosevelt style public work. The Hoover Dam of

> > south London. We could get a modern day Diego

> > Rivera to come and repaint the William Blake

> > mural. And the Goose Green Fence will be

> visited

> > for generations to come by people who want to

> see

> > the project that sparked global financial

> > recovery.

>

> Don't leave it all to public enterprise. Does ED

> not have its own Joseph Williamson?

> http://www.williamsontunnels.com/intro.htm


I used to live in the old Matlock Pub across from the entrance to those. Used to go quite far in at night armed only with a marine torch. Pertrifying. I think there's a visitor's centre / lights in them now.

One of the mums at St Johns told me she was on to the council re the fence (asking them to think again about taking it down) and she received an email telling her the fence was coming down - that's how i found out. I have to walk across the green everyday with anywhere up to 6 children, (3 toddlers, 3 4/5 year olds). I look forward to playing 'dodge the crap / mind the over friendly staffie/alsation/shi-itsu with them. No doubt in the summer we can go to the peckham park 'no dogs' area ... oh wait a minute, people let their dogs go in there too! nice!

A great article in the Guardian today, and perfectly timed with the removal of the fence:


The Mess We're In


"Over the last 12 months, 50-plus parish, town and district councils have enacted orders denying dogs access to open land - walkies and the attendant business will have to be performed on the town's streets; on a rough and unwelcoming patch of ground on the edge of town; or a car journey away in the countryside."


"Quite right too, thinks Claire Gunningham, mother of two children at the school. "I know lots of responsible dog owners, people who pick up every time," she says. "But I'm sorry, it's just not compatible, is it, to have dogs pooing on the ground and then kids coming along and playing on it? It's horrible, absolutely horrible. Really disgusting. And unfair. If it was humans there'd be uproar. Dogs we just let get away with it."


Southwark Parks seem to be swimming against the tide in removing the fence and expecting people and dogs to co-exist.


The set up we had before, with a fence dividing dog-walking and dog free areas, seemed like a very workable way for both communities to make use of the park. Bring back the fence.


The dog walkers will be grateful that they don't live in Geneva, where non-scoopers are fined ?1,700 for the first offence, and then ?8,000 for subsequent offences

So everyone agrees that the main problem is the dog pooh so shall we make that the common enemy? Not the fence, not the lack of fence, not the council, not Southwark Parks but the irresponsible and selfish dog owners who do not clear up after their dogs. They are the ones who cause the problem, a solution was tried and it caused an issue. The fence is in the process of coming down so whether you're happy or not, why not get together and focus on tackling the people who cause the "crime".

The poo is the main problem - my own son was outraged this evening that he would now have to play football with more poo potentially everywhere.


But also, lots of children are terrified of dogs, particularly those not on a lead. So dogs and children sharing the same area freely is an issue.

Mark Wrote:

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

> the main problem is the dog pooh so shall we make

> that the common enemy?

> Not the fence, not the lack of fence, not the

> council, not Southwark Parks


I agree Mark, the fence or lack of it is not the problem. But it did seem like a workable solution that allowed both dog walkers and others to use the Green together. The fence has gone though, and I wonder if there is any solution that allows both children and dogs to use the Green in any way that is acceptable to children and parents. I doubt it. Although the significant majority of dog walkers are responsible, those that aren't will always make it untenable that dogs and children should use the same area. I'd like to think there would be a radical change in behaviour among a minority of dog walkers. I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, the children loose a spring and summer of carefree use of the Green while the experiment is conducted.


My own view is that in the absence of a fence, the only practical way forward is to exclude dogs from Goose Green, and require dog walkers to go up the road to Peckham Rye.

Maybe the next issue on the green will be inconsiderate yummies changing nappied and chucking them onto the grass in the hope that a common/working class person may trip up on it.


More council funds wasted testing out what is best, who would ever have guessed we were heading into a deep dark recession?


Louisa.

I agree very much with Victor - whilst dog poo is a major problem on the green there is also the issue of unleashed dogs and (unleashed) children in very close proximity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think most dogs will attack a child completely unprovoked, the issue is about managing both dogs and children whilst giving them the freedom to run around in the fresh air (despite dog poo) - I honestly dont think you can do that in an open place without segregation.

I was a fairly 'prolific' poster on the last thread about the fence, and emailed the appropriate people at the Council accordingly, so it'll be no surprise to most that I am very disappointed that they went ahead with the removal of the fence.


Anyone know how long the trial period is for?

p-in-ed,


I think we have to accept that Goose Green is not there for the sole use of parents and children but for the whole community and that includes dog owners, some of whom are elderly and cannot get as far as the Rye. There is a fenced off play area for the exclusive use of children opposite.


Older children who want to play ball etc.. have only to walk five minutes up the road to Peckham Rye, where there is much more space and again, fenced off areas for children. I should add that in and around all of these spaces I notice as much broken glass as dog poo but there never seems to be any concern about that.


Litter is an urban problem of which dog poo is a part. There will, alas, always be those who litter without a thought or care for others. A little bit of vigilance on the part of park and community wardens as well as a few fines may help the problem on Goose Green.


I don't believe a ban on dogs would work because the kind of people who litter with broken glass, discarded food and gum, food wrappings etc, and who don't pick up, are the types who will carry on doing just what they want to do.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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