Talk:Victoria Park, London
|WikiProject London||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
The northern part of VP was certainly in Hackney Met and London (post 65) boroughs. This is proved by the 1:50000 OS of 1984. What happened was that in c1995 the Local Govt Boundary Commission made proposals to ironm out inconsistencies -- so all of VP was added to Tower Hamlets (just as all the Lea vallet reservoirs went into Enfield LB). The entry needs amending! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I'm prett sure that Victoria Park isn't all within Tower Hamlets. My family home backed onto the park from Victoria Park Road and that is certainly Hackney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- I believe the park was extra-parochial on it's foundation by the LCC (board of works?). The LCC became the GLC and when that was abolished there was some discussion of it being taken over by the City, but LBTH stepped up and agreed to administer the park (LBH going through a periodic crisis of finance), dividing it between two neighbourhoods in the mid-90s. I don't think the acreage of VP has ever been added to LBTH land, but that's who administer it.
- VPR lies on the north side of the park, and that is wholly inside Hackney. I hope that provides some clarification.
- Apropos of nothing, does anybody remember the Queen Mary nuclear reactor on the north east side of the park? It was owned by the QM nuclear engineering dept. and rather made a mockery of the 80s no-nukes policy of both boro's. Kbthompson 10:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I would not have removed the Margaret Muller line if someone had taken the trouble to create an entry for her, not just create a dead link in the hope someone else would fill it in. It was a horrible murder, it likely needs expanding on - if someone wants to include it, do it, but don't just refer to an empty link.
And, yes, I'm an Inclusionist - just figured out where I'm coming from, so it hurts for me to delete something.
Tarquin Binary 02:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Even more dead links eliminated. Sorry, Steam Boat Club, if you're that keen, why not create your own 'pedia page? Then link to it. Hence my sarcasm. Fix those things that are those what I have done, and put your own blooming page up, don't expect someone else to do it for ya...
Tarquin Binary 03:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
That was mean, sarcasm removed, a 100-year old Steamm Boat Club probably deserve an entry - dead link removed nonetheless, though para is as original.
Tarquin Binary 14:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Apparent error re bathing
The caption to the photo of the pond read, The 'Bathing Pond' in Victoria Park. It has not been used for bathing since 1936, when the park lido opened, but it is very popular with anglers. I changed "opened" to "closed" as otherwise it makes no sense, but I am relying purely on logic, not knowledge of the facts.
- The lido replaced the bathing pond in 1936 (they were on different sites) so it was correct as written. The pond (no longer used for bathing) is still there but the lido was covered over more recently. MRSC 06:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed so, this is what the signs there say. But I'm a bit confused now - I assumed that the 'lido' was the other pool very near the 'bathing pool' to the east, which is an open pool, in fairly good repair, though no-one was using it when I was walking by. It didn't seem to have any signage. I've checked some online maps and can't see a lido marked, and I can't recall encountering one while wandering through the park in the past, so I assumed that was it.
- Tarquin Binary 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm informed that the lido was in fact on Grove Road to the south-east. It's just marked as white space in the current A-Z. Missed it somehow... Tarquin Binary 18:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Its the area adjacent to Grove Road that is all concreted over. MRSC 18:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I have added a link to support the reference to angling on the 'Bathing Pond'. I hope I have done this correctly, it is my first attempt. I intended to add the link as an External Link but read that is better put to the discussion page. Please also consider a link or reference to the book by Philip Mernick and Doreen Kendall, ‘A Pictorial History of Victoria Park, London E3’ (Published by the East London History Society, ISBN 0 950 6258 1 7). Schnuzola (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Second World War
Added this section after an email I received from a native Hackney resident of the time. Subterranea always pique my interest, so may go and take a look down Cassland Road, though doubt if there's anything to see now.
Tarquin Binary 19:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Bethnal Green disaster
It is a different slant on what I have believed about the disaster, it was recognise that a drunk threw an empty steel drum near the entrance of the Bethnal Green Underground causing the panic. I would go along with that theory. Yes, the first salvo that was ever fired by the rocket guns in the park, did cause a racket, and certainly put the wind up everyone in the locality. but they would not have been fired until the enemy aircraft were within range; people would have by then been in the shelter long before, not on their way into it at the time the disaster occured. concidering, the sirene alert would have been 10 or 20 minutes before the planes were over head.
People used to go to the shelters to sleep whether the warning went or not. Besides the nesrest residence lived more that 5 to 10, possibly 20 minutes away from the Underground station. It wouldn't give them much time to get to the shelter after the first alert if they were not already down there. the panic happened as people were going down the steps from the pavement,and not at a slow pace either because the first in got the best posse to spend the night, out of the draugh,handy to the toilets etc.
- Hi, is that Ray? Your info, though valued, was rightly moved here by another user. Always best to make sure you have clicked on the 'discussion' tab at the screen top.
- Anyway, your point is well taken, and the MoD still maintains the 'steel drum' explanation. That's why I stressed that the issue is controversial, and I hope that the article comes down on neither side. However, I think the theory the BBC based their program on is interesting. At worst it sheds some light on the use of Victoria Park for AA. Until the BBC documentary, which I saw, came out in 2003, I wasn't even aware of the use of these 'Z-battery' rockets, so some interesting history came out of it. Incidentally, another theory, which seems not to be supported by any evidence, was that a large cache of UXBs had been exploded in the park.
- I can easily imagine many ways a panic could happen in a large crowd negotiating some narrow steps, and sometimes wonder why it hasn't happened more often. I've been jammed on to a narrow escalator in a modern rush-hour and felt a sort of Bethnal Green panic imagining what would happen if just one or two people slipped...
- Oh, have now changed wording to ''Some eyewitness accounts have led to the suggestion that...', as the old one suggested that all the evidence pointed that way.
- Tarquin Binary 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
A long section, but I think this bit of history is important. Gives me the excuse to add more pix, anyway :) I don't quite know how to link up internal page references with a  or whatever, and have to run off so no time to research it, but I've put a temporary attribution. Tarquin Binary 21:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Added wiki links to this, but I hope no-one will be tempted to do this to the quote. Doesn't seem right to hyperlink a late C19 quote somehow, even for Swedenborg... Tarquin Binary 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Old London Bridge Alcoves?
This article says that there are only to remaining alcoves of which the park has both. This is not true as Old Guys hospital which is next Guy's tower and forms apart of the medical school there also has one. I have not edited this page as i am unsure how many more there are.
Victoria Park, East London
I'm trying to work out why this important, and early parkland is being pushed to the verges of the wikispace. No-one refers to Regent's Park as 'Regent's Park, West London'; so, why is this space being marginalised by tiny acreages elsewhere?
I know everywhere has a Victoria park, but this one is the template for them.
Yes, the article needs work! Kbthompson 11:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is at least one other Victoria Park in London- at Finchley Church End. It's perfectly reasonable to disambiguate between them. I don't think it marginalises Victoria Park in Hackney at all. Badgerpatrol 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't checked whether the passage quoted in the body of the accompanying article was misattributed to the UK intoxicants-trade periodical by the editor who added the passage, or someone later. In any case (besides fixing that) i am replacing the second-order citation
- <ref><cite>[[William J. Fishman]], East End 1888, Duckworth, 1988, 0-9541059-0-7. Page 267. [The author's Politics chapter, from which the Harpers quote is taken, reports on many significant political events in Victoria Park. Fishman himself goes on to say "[...]''As a boy I went to such meetings there, albeit over forty years later, and the scenes so marvellously evoked by this narrator remained very much the same.''"]</ref>
(to which our editor accurately attributes the mistranscription "Rooney"), with
- <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=G_YvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA412&lpg=PA412&dq=%22big+central+lawn%22+-%22evokes+a+scene%22+%22Victoria+Park+%22&source=bl&ots=GrGKJ9-aYi&sig=nfh8o-ORFpRZPIJIHL8kV5GbgAw&hl=en&ei=ZEZMSpGoONbJtgfrjqyiBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 J. H. Rosney, "Socialism in London", III, (in Googlebooks facsimile of ''Harper's New Monthly Magazine'', vol. LXXVI), February, 1888, pp. 412 & 414]</ref>
But i leave to others to explore whether "J. H. Rosney" is one or both of J.-H. Rosny, authors of the novel Quest for Fire (which underlies the film of the same title); the dates are quite compatible.
I have left out the Fishman comments, as i don't see why they need to be in the footnote, if they don't have a place in the body of the article, and i don't care to make the decision about moving them there.
--Jerzy•t 06:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)