Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know I've raised this a few times before, and I'm not going to start a big thing about it. But please please please, if you are going to use the path, particularly if you have a number of children and prams etc be aware of people in front/behind you. Also, is anyone else having issues opening the gate opposite St.John's Church? Many thanks.


Louisa.

I agree. This is an outrage.

Not once, BUT TWICE, I have had to stand aside to save my ankles whilst Scootering children are enjoying themselves far too much. It is as if they think they are in a public park!

Now, I love solving a problem such as this for the greater good of the community so I thought long and hard about path management and came up with a break-through concept, which I admit, I believe you might get quite excited about - The OFF-PEAK Path Walker.

You see, I am now an OFF-PEAK Path Walker, and since the day I had my ankle-saving epiphany it's as if Goose Green and the treacherous path in question is now my own private thoroughfare. Walking heaven.

To the community of East Dulwich and The Forum: The Goose Green Path Management in Peak Hours Problem is now SOLVED!

And for those of you who are interested in becoming an Off-Peak Path Walker, the Off-Peak Path Walking club meets at 06:30 every first Monday of the month. New members always welcome.

I thank you all.

H.

You do not address the very pressing issue of the sticky gate at St John's. This is an issue both ON PEAK and OFF PEAK and therefore your solution looks completely half-baked. If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything useful at all - or so my mother used to tell me.


I propose perhaps a traffic light system at the roundabout end and permanent closure of the St John's gate would solve the problem. The path will only be accessible by those capable of leaping over the fence thus reducing the problem caused by inconsiderate parents, the elderly and infirm, and heavy-dog dog walkers.

Could perhaps the council be lobbied for sufficient funds to widen the path, perhaps to three lanes with a hard shoulder?


A crawler lane would be a compromise, or perhaps restricting path usage strictly to people over 1.4m, like the good rides at Thorpe Park.

Tea and burgers? Surely you mean single estate artisan coffee and sourdough foie gras baps.


maxxi Wrote:

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

> Agree path widening is the answer - maybe a lay-by

> half way up with a little caravan selling tea and

> burgers?

Glad to see people finally taking this issue seriously. Some of the solutions do seem a little extreme, I think just a little thoughtful consideration would be enough. Widening the path would be an option, but this involves removing more green space which I'm sure many would think is unnecessarily at this stage. I've noticed of late a significant number of double prams made worse by a sort of side by side mentality. I've been forced onto the grass more than once.


Louisa.

Louisa, I'm afraid you've just given away that you're one of those speed daemons who insist on tearing along at dangerous speeds. The double pramers are probably just obeying the Southwark wide new limit of 20 strides per minute - which now applies to all pavements controlled by Southwark (95% of those in the borough).


Maxxi I'm afraid widening the path would encourage more people to use it, creating more pollution as they perambulate, exhaling carbon dioxide, directly into the atmosphere - and right next to a school too. I think narrowing is the real answer.


Finally I think it's about time the council offered free seating at strategic points along that path, limited to 1 hour and no return, Mon-Fri 7-6 and Sat 9-6.

These suggestions are ridiculous.


The simple answer is to ban children from using the path. This can be enforced by installing 'path cameras' at both ends and will have the added benefit of raising revenue for Southwark council.


There are plenty of pavements around Goose Green for toddlers and young children to walk on and they can enjoy a closer view of all the cars and buses whizzing by.

You're all crazy.


Obviously a proper risk assessment needs to be carried out before this can go out to stakeholder consultation. Has anyone reported it to the environment team at Southwark? The path should be closed to all users in the meantime.


As a long-term solution I think the green should be taken over to build much-needed new housing - win-win.

Goose Green must NEVER be built on. I will chain myself to the dubious gate if it were even considered. Any councillor reading this thread thinking this better get those thoughts banished pretty damn fast. On a serious note, the congestion is becoming unbearable during the peak hours of 3-6pm. I often get so angry I feel like exploding in that little park. I swear prams were put on this earth to torment me. And you lot wonder why I use my car?


Louisa.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> As a long-term solution I think the green should

> be taken over to build much-needed new housing -

> win-win.



As long as a replacement route along the same path via a poorly-lit, graffiti-adorned, piss-smelling subway is put into place to provide the area with some much needed 'edge'.

Excellent suggestions all, and tremendous collaborative community spirit.

As the founding and currently only member of the Off-Peak Path Walking Club I wholeheartedly second Maxxi's suggestion of "a poorly-lit, graffiti-adorned, piss-smelling subway...to provide the area with some much needed 'edge'.

For Off-Peak Walking such a subway adds much desired je ne sais quoi.

Baggs - You are quite right. My solution is, in fact, half-baked, as it takes no consideration whatsoever of the troublesome sticky gate, or ON-PEAK Walkers.

Forgive me for coming on The Forum with clearly such a self-centred viewpoint with no consideration for the needs of others. Walking along the path in question in Off-Peak faux-privacy has clearly gone to my head, and I momentarily developed delusions of the whole area being solely dedicated for my enjoyment.

Yours apologetically,

H.

I feel I must stress to all readers that, however angry you may get, on no account would it be advisable to explode in the park. Asides the obvious damage to oneself, this action will almost certainly cause danger to other park users, would damage the path itself and cause the entire park to be closed for some considerable duration while pieces of you are removed from the surrounding trees and landscape.

after careful consideration of all the ideas (& I do sympathise with Louisa) I now actually have a stomach ache from laughing so much. Thank you!

p.s. what about people who stand by the bus doors then don't get off. or does that need another post...

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

    • Hi, I went to the council's planning portal to look at the application, and I encourage others to look at it. It looks like a pleasant building, with thoughtful landscaping. as Pugwash said, the big oak would be retained, only two smaller trees are supposed to be cut, one of which is already dead according to the Tree Survey. It sounds like 38 people in great need of it will gain supported housing thanks to this development, a very positive change. Of course a solution has to be found for the 3 who will need to find other accommodation during the works, but that doesn't seem enough of a reason to oppose the development. The current building is 4 stories, so I would be surprised if one extra storey was considered objectionable, especially considering the big oak stands between the building and the neighbours' back gardens and the fact that the neighbours it's backing onto are all 5 stories houses themselves or only have blank walls facing the building. In the context where affordable housing is sorely missing, a 100% supported housing development is great news. Personally I've never seen a less objectionable planning request
    • I also wonder if all this, recently events and so many u turns is going to also be the end of Kier Starmer.
    • And I replied: Mandelson and Trump have much in common. They are both shallow, vulgar and vain. They both fetishise wealth and power, irrespective of who holds it or how it was accumulated. They were both close friends and associates of the late Jeffrey Epstein and have moved in the same circles, as Ghislaine Maxwell’s address book allegedly confirms. Recognising another who is utterly transactional and lacking in a moral compass, there’s every chance of “Petie” fitting right in Mar-a-Largo. That Starmer couldn’t anticipate that Mandelson’s past behaviour would be problematic just proves how inept this government is.
    • Can't agree with that because he is a superb communicator - a really smart and  smooth talker. He studied PPE at Oxford and was communications director for Labour for many years.  Setting aside the "minor"  indiscretions during his time in government he has all the smoothness and ability to flatter Trump without appearing obsequious. Plus he can manage and exploit  Trump’s ego. He is highly polished socially, comfortable in elite circles, skilled at making personal connections. He can flatter and disarm, which is a useful tactic with Trump, who responds well to personal respect and praise. As a former EU Trade Commissioner and Cabinet minister, Mandelson understands international relations, trade, and diplomacy. He knows how to frame issues in terms of “wins” that Trump could claim credit for. I honestly hope that he survives.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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