Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry but thats no excuse you should still be watching to see if your dog is having a poo wherever you and they are in the park and should clear up after them .Also I have seen three men with beer cans and their dogs in this area one evening so its not just the wandering dog being the problem.

Muley Wrote:

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

> BUT NO BLOODY KIDS

>

>

> Awlright Lenk?



A 'kid free' area of the park would be fantastic.


That cafe would be a whole lot nicer if kids were banned, they sold booze, you could smoke in there, and they had a jukebox full of thrash metal and Czechoslovakian jazz.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> That's because dogs can't read. If humans don't

> shut the gates, what do you expect?



This is not always the case. I've seen people going this area to exercise their dogs. On one occasion I said to the dog owner that this was meant to be a dog free area but they took no notice saying he could go in with the dog.


I have no problem with dogs, just those certain dirty owners what don't clean up the mess.

All park users dislike rubbish. Dog turds should be picked up by the owners, just as drinking straws, crisp packets etc should be picked up after consumption of food/drink- I've seen a proliferation of these recently.


There is also a problem with broken glass. I've had to report this to park wardens three times now. Twice loads of broken glass has appeared near the dog free area under discussion. The glass was scattered around in the grass and could have caused damage to a child or a dog.


There are also a number of deep holes in the same area into which tins have been sunken (not sure why but they are like holes you'd get on a golf course)any dog running at full pelt could catch its paw and end up with a broken leg.

lenk Wrote:

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

> Muley Wrote:

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

> -----

> > BUT NO BLOODY KIDS

> >

> >

> > Awlright Lenk?

>

>

> A 'kid free' area of the park would be fantastic.

>

>

> That cafe would be a whole lot nicer if kids were

> banned, they sold booze, you could smoke in there,

> and they had a jukebox full of thrash metal and

> Czechoslovakian jazz.



Now Lenk, you know what we said about sharing- it's not nice to be selfish, is it? You weren't being clever, and no-one else is laughing are they? No.

Now, any more silly behaviour like that and it's the naughty step for you, young man, and I mean it.

reetpetite Wrote:

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

> Me too I love dogs and know many responsible

> owners ,just cant stand people who blatently

> ignore the no dogs sign especially when they know

> these areas are used by children.


The whole park is used by children, not just that area. In my opinion, the fences are far too low to stop dogs going in. They should have made them higher. The signs saying no dogs are actually not enforceable, they are merely put there in the hope that you keep dogs out. Like polite notice signs.

Lenk, you're on fire! That cafe would be fantastic as you describe it! I'm with you on that one, just because I'm one of those mothers with the toddler and ridiculous buggy shoving my way through the cafe doesn't mean I don't know it's much more fun your way. Maybe after 6?

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

    • "Mysterious owners" 😆  If only there was a powerful search engine at our fingertips to find out such deep secrets.        
    • It's the "due to commercial reasons" line again that is vexing. Last year it seemed, although there was a similar level of objection, that the reasons were commercial - Gala didn't appear entirely prepared to run 3 more events, or more likely didn't have sufficient interest from other promoters / organisers who could 'sub-let' the site as with Brockwell Park (I believe?). This year they appeared more organised, had another year to plan & prepare, to the extent they actually had names for two of the three new events which indicated to me that they had third party promoters / organisers in place.  So yes, it does make you wonder whether the repeated level of objection, combined with the impending elections, led to the council 'advising' that maybe they shelve it again? I'm afraid I can't see the whole extension application just being a ruse to guarantee permission for the 'regular' event. Gala are a commercial venture with ambition - every festival's business plan is to expand, expand, expand, year on year on year. Gala won't give up until they have taken over the whole park for a Summer of Raves, and the mysterious owners are on their yachts counting their ££££
    • Thanks for that. Maybe forthcoming elections have stymied the 7 day request? If Labour get back in, do we think GALA will try with greater success in 2027?
    • Better late than never, same obscure reason as previously for not going ahead with the extended plan... "Due to commercial reasons, the event organisers have withdrawn their application to hold a 7- day event over two weekends. The application has been revised to request the use of Peckham Rye Park to hold a 4-day event over one bank holiday weekend with the following schedule: • Onsite: Monday 11 May 2026 • GALA: Friday 22 – Sunday 24 May • On the Rye Festival: BH Monday 25 May • Off-site Sunday 31 May 2026 This is the same event programme that was delivered in 2025."  GALA 2026 consultation findings report 1519.pdf
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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