I knew when I suggested this that there would be a parade of affronted "responsible dog owners". Sandy67 Have you actually read the posts on this thread? You're engaging in the same spurious conflation of non-harmful and harmful regulation breaking as earlier posts (now moved to Beyond SE23 I think). Your smileyed analogies equate problems caused by kids on bikes with those caused by those caused by dog **** and by increasingly prevalent unpredictable and dangerous weapon dogs (See the link in my 1st post).

If everyone were like you, having a whole section of open land rendered unusable by children because animals need exercise would just be ****ing irritating. But it's not just irritating is it, it's dangerous because they're clearly not all like you are they.

Allowing any dogs means you're going to attract delinquent idiots who care nothing for rules. What's the problem with making the Triangle a dog park. It's a waste of time making that dog free - no one would want to sunbathe or eat a picnic over there so your dog would be safe from temptation.

That's what we like to see rational, considered and proportionate measures suggested .............. as usual.............

yes i had read the previous posts ...

my "smileyed analogies were clearly a reflection of the sillyness of the argument ...

i have not encountered any "weapon dogs" in horniman gardens //

and i am just as ****ed off as you are about the poop that irresposible dog owners don't clear up ..

but i don't see that the whole area of land is unusable by kids as you suggest .. i see more children on that field than dogs every day .

the triangle is obviously better for kids cos there are swings and slides and things in place which dogs are unlikely to use

(oops another smileyed analogy )

and anyway , these so called "delinquent idiots who care nothing for rules" will obviously use the park if dogs are banned because thats just another rule to break

Having read the posts you'd have seen my suggestion that the swings and slides be established as part of the Horniman renovations and be removed from the triangle. I'm quite sure the Horniman would do a better job of catering for kids than Lewisham Council have over there - including by enforcing any ban.

And that's what we like to see TTTTTTTTTT constructive and considered posts.........as usual.............

Out of interest what points did you consider irrational, ill-considered and disproportionate?

I must say I find this whole discussion so preposterous and draconian - to be laughable ......

I'm sure there must be a mention of the 'good old days' on this string somewhere.

The Horniman Triangle and Horniman Gardens used to be run by the Horniman in the good old days of the GLC according to one of the parkies. However, since the dissolution of the GLC, Horniman Triangle has been the responsibility of LBL and Glendale Grounds Management (020 8318 3986) and Horniman Museum for the Gardens.

It would be easy (but not cheap) to move the swings and slides from the Triangle to the Gardens and make the Gardens dog free, but I don't see that happening while they are run by separate entities. Also, don't forget that there is always the possibility of fox-poo even if you banned all dogs from the Gardens... it looks remarkably similar and what happens to parents who want to exercise dogs and children?

I think that the problem was summed up in the original post

Fair points well made there NewForester.

TTTTTTTTTTTTTT,

Do you consider your username rational, considered and proportionate?

Just curious.

There is ?40k of Lottery money (http://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=78), and potentially another ?50k (http://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=825) for redeveloping the Horniman Triangle plaground area (as a playground area).

I wonder whether the upper half of the Triangle could be fenced off as a dog exercise area, with the lower half as a dog-free play area for kids. Then the sloping field in the Horniman Gardens could ban unleashed dogs (with leashed dogs still allowed) to make a nicer area for kids and sunbathers.

- - -

The Horniman Museum (and Gardens) gets most of it's funding from the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport, as it says on
http://www.horniman.ac.uk/more/corporate.php

"The Horniman Museum is a charitable company, limited by guarantee. It is also a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). This means that although it receives most of its funding in the form of Grant in Aid from DCMS, it operates at "arms length" from central government."

How many of the forum members are 'Friends of the Horniman'? I have been for the last 4 years but each year I question why I renew my membership when I could just donate my subscription to the museum directly. My main reason for this is that, while I see some value in the 'Friends', it seems to me to serve a very narrow demographic (retired middle class).

With this year's renewal letter there is a comment about concern over a drop in membership over recent years. I want to write to the friends committee to voice my concerns over what I feel may be part of the problem but I'm not sure if I'm alone in my thoughts.

There is massive goodwill towards the Horniman from a wide range of people yet, on the whole, the events the Friends run are, to me, disappointing and noninclusive.

Yes I am a Friend of Horniman and agree with you. The magazine is not very interesting in my mind.
I , like you , would like to continue to support the museum and gardens but I am sure the Friends could be made more customer friendly.

Not sure why but 1/2 my previous post has been deleted and the other 1/2 bumped to Beyond...?

What I'd suggested was that fencing off Traingle / Leads in the Horniman solution is reasonable and workable but would have to be enforced.

I was a Friend but haven't received any newsletters lately, so I assume my membership has lapsed. (Can't remember if I set up a standing order or not, and haven't got round to checking with their membership secretary.) Didn't receive a renewal reminder - perhaps that's why their membership has been dropping!

I don't fall into the retired middle-class category and don't recall off-hand what the Friends' organised activities were. Daytime week-day trips and classical music concerts?

One of the problems with voluntary organisations is that they're run by people who have the time to do so, and that often means they're retired or can afford not to be in full-time employment (ie affluent/middle class). That often includes the members too, so the events etc are geared to suit them and their interests (hence daytime week-day events which are ill-suited to people who are at work) which is likely to attract like-minded new members, and so it goes on. A voluntary organisation's output will reflect the interests and capabilities of its active members so if you're dissatisfied with an organisation then become an active member and try to broaden their output ? they?d probably welcome you with open arms!

Vipes you are clearly not a sharing, caring individual! The park is rather large and traditionally people use public spaces to exercise their dogs, there are clearly set out spaces for both dogs and humans.

This, as usual is typical of moany Londoners. Just like the alcohol ban on the tube you have come up with a knee-jerk reaction solution to a problem. These solutions are ill thought out and only put a band aid on the effect rather than treat the cause, at the same time persecuting all the people that treat the park and others responsibly.

If you looked to come down harder on the people who do not treat and train their dogs correctly this would be far more beneficial than treating all dog owners as criminals, segregating them to a clearly inferior park.

I hope people like you never come into positions of power, it's scary!

I indeed agree that dog owners in the area need somewhere "safe" to exercise their dogs.
London as a whole is limited to where you can do this, however such facilities are usually abused by dog owners too.

Dulwich park for example, where people feel there is not need to clean up after their dogs in the designated "dog exercise area" As a result of which... IT STINKS!!

As a dog owner I would like to see safer places I can exercise my dog without the risk of parents allowing uncontrolled toddlers to run over and shove their hands in his mouth, while mum or dad sends a text......

CAW blimey CAW! That's me told. Never thought of myself as a knee-jerk moaney reactionary but maybe I've learned sonmething important about myself. Thanks. And don't be scared, I have no megalomaniac aspirations beyond thinking posting on forums like this might be a step towards improving our community.

I understand dogs are currently (officially) banned from the Triangle. I presume you consider this decision to have been uncaring, unsharing and knee-jerk? If not, why is it you consider swapping the ban over the S Circular so extreme?

Also not sure by which criteria you judge the Horniman a "rather large" park. It's significantly smaller than most parks in the vicinity.

I too believe this to be a good sounding board for opinions, I was merely pointing out that your opinion was subjective as a non-dog owner and tried to push the undesirable dog owners and people to a triangle of grass that is poorly kept and pales in comparison to the horniman park.

The Horniman is a large park in terms of different areas and relative quiet nature. It is not always packed and there are areas for non-dog owners to take their children if they do not wish to be around dogs off their leads. There are also park attendants at busy periods to keep people to the rules.

I'm a non dog owner and I wish dog owners would be more considerate. It's probably a case of the minority spoiling it for the majority - but dog poo in parks is beyond the pale. I'd give dog owners a warning and say if any poo is found then dogs are banned and see what happens.....

Another thing I'd like banned is the sheer number of lorries and vans going through the park. I've lost count of the times I've seen parents have to run and grab their kids as the rubbish lorry bursts through the gates. shame the deliveries have to come through the park.

There is not much published information on the Horniman Museum's own website about their masterplan for the Gardens. Whilst local people have always regarded the 16 acres of open green space which surround the Museum as their local public park, since 1986 the Horniman has been run by a board of trustees and management team with a very different view. Having now read on the foresthillsociety.blogspot the summary of the April presentation made to a selected audience by the Museum's Director, I have some real concerns about the current proposals.

Concern No 1 - Their current plans include:
- Moving the boundary of the Gardens to include the footpath between London Road and Westwood Park and the adjoining Nature Trail
- Creating a "Wild Play Area" at the Southern end of the Nature Trail and a "Kickabout Area" to the North.
Objections:
- The Nature Trail is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance in its own right. It follows the route of the old railway line between Crystal Palace and Nunhead and is a very popular walk. Plans are well advanced to add it to the Green Chain Walk Route.
- It is much too narrow a plot to accommodate both play areas for children and walkers; these children's play areas can and should be created within the Museum's existing 16 acres.
- The "footpath" is also a TfL officially recognised route for cyclists and leads to a cyclist friendly crossing over London Road (the A205 South Circular Route) linking to Sydenham Hill.