EDAus

Blanche since you took the time to pop by the EDF again today, ready to answer any questions yet? By the way, have SSW given a donation to the EDF, I mean you keep using it to promote SSW views and events? I really do like to be helpful so, attached is quick summary of all the questions that have been put to SSW to date, oh and the ones that have been answered. It only covers post/questions put directly to SSW on this tread - it does not include questions forum posters have proposed to each other or issues from the previous thread. Of course people may questions why bother, my response: 1) if you say you are going to do something, do it, don't talk about it, do it, live your values. Blanche Cameron 'I hope we can have a respectful and productive discussion and look forward to sharing information as it occurs, and in relation to this topic.' 2) the Alberto Brandolini asimmetry - the amount of energy it takes to refute rubbish is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. Most people simply give up and leave the conversation/debate. A minority of posters demand other posters justify their opinions but do not bother to explain their own. Holding a mirror up does not always produce a pretty reflection does it? 3) Rather then work with the community to build good will, consensus or even some understanding SSW have sort to divide. Praise anyone who agrees with you - Blanche Cameron 'Thank you both for your comments about the beauty and importance of the wildlife of the cemetery wood'. Ignore any searching questions or better yet start a harassment/trolling campaign against any specific individual/s who disagree with you. 4) I really, really dislike bully's and harasser's - they drive good people away from the conversation/debate and participating on EDF. There is no justification for this behaviour, not the 'trees' or 'butterfly's or 'stag beatles', nothing, how hard is that to understand? Disclaimer: no 'old textbooks' where harmed, used or even referenced in the construction of this post.

Blanche - Lovely to see SSW pitting the Orthodox Muslim and Jewish residents against the Christians and Atheists residents. What a way to promote harmony and good relations between religions/community groups. Cllr's agreeing to investigate an issue on behalf local residents, is not the same as them agreeing that LBS has inherent religious discrimination in their burial provision. Has this issue been raised at the Southwark Multi-Faith Forum? If so, what was the response? Please provide evidence i.e. a policy, letter or a complaint, that clearly states Orthodox Muslim or Jewish residents are denied that right to apply for burial plots in LBS cemeteries. Due to specific religious requirements some burial plots offered by LBS may be considered unsuitable, thereby potentially creating what could be perceived as indirect discrimination. Indirection discrimination, is justifiable under certain circumstances/provisions within the Equality Act. People may not like it, people may not agree with it but it's the current legislation. Mmmmmm sit in the same room as people who engage in trolling, bullying and harassment, thanks but no thanks. Disclaimer: no 'old textbooks' where harmed, used or even referenced in the construction of this post.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cllr Renata Hamvas/Helen Hayes, > > Perhaps you would answer andrewc's and others' > questions regarding actions to be taken on > religious discrimination in the existing burial > service by Southwark? > > Blanche Oh the irony - using the EDF to demand people answer questions all the while quietly ignoring questions asked of you.....................3 days and counting I am yet to receive a reply to my questions. I really do hope that Cllr Renata Hamvas/Helen Hayes answer in an appropriate manner and timescale or Blanche will call for their sacking just like Rebecca Towers - http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/complaint-rebecca-towers/4591770590 Everyone knows its the council officer's who really make the final decisions, not the full council or members. Southwark have an Frequently Asked Questions page which can be found here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/2231/the_future_of_southwarks_cemeteries/6, this extract may be of use: Q. Your burial plans are discriminatory. They don?t allow for Muslim or Jewish burial? A. Southwark currently has a segregated space for Muslim burial in Nunhead Cemetery. There are around 60 spaces remaining and based on current provision of the last 3 years we expect the current provision to last for another 8 years. Even if demand were to increase, this would still amount to between 4-6 years of burial space. As such current provision does not discriminate against Southwark?s Muslim Community. Southwark does not have a segregated space for Jewish burial. However, any residents, irrespective of any religious preferences, are welcome to use our cemeteries. In addition to dedicated areas for Muslim burial we also have plots located on un-consecrated land for multi-faith burial. As such Jewish residents are welcome to use our cemeteries and Southwark has already had 2 Jewish burials in the last 3 years. The burial strategy is likely to offer benefits to some religious or faith groups for whom burial is required. This will support equality of choice and the freedom to practice religion. Q. Why don?t you bury people outside the borough? A. The option to bury residents outside of the borough received very little support in the 2011 public consultation. Not only would it be expensive, it would also be unfair to expect residents to travel outside the borough to visit the graves of their loved ones. Furthermore, the Mayor of London?s ?London Plan? urges councils to ensure that provision is made for London?s burial needs, including the needs of groups for whom burial is the only option and that such provision should be based on the principle of proximity to local communities and reflect the different requirements for types of provision.

I was bought up to believe that not responding to questions directly asked of me was rude. Then again I was also taught harassment and intimidation was unacceptable behaviour no matter the justification. I have provided feedback on the video - it is in the same message as the questions I asked that have been ignored on an ongoing basis? I would repeat the request here but it would be attempt number 3........................ I would be very concerned taking my family to any locations that contain industrial contamination and have been deemed unsafe to the public - to quote the Southwark report 'thresholds in respect of contaminants including benzo(a)pyrene are potentially exceeded'. As it is mothers day, I personally believe that people should be free to engage in their own private reflection, these are still active cemeteries, they have not yet been designated as 'recreational nature reserves'. I would hope that anyone visiting today is respectful of this. People have the right to hold views about being buried close to their loved ones, family and friends. The local community has the right to request burial services from their local authority, especially where the local authorities hold assets designated specifically for this purpose. You may not like it or agree with such views, but such views and opinions should be heard and not dismissed.

Azira thank you for your personal view on what constitutes an 'authority'. Always great to see individuals self pro-claiming what they believe is an authority. Of course no judge in the history of English law has ever read the statements or 'obiter statements' of any other judge and found merit in their arguments/points or found what they said persuasive in future deliberations/cases. Judges must really spend all their time writing statements so that academics and members of the public can tell them that they they not binding and therefore bear no merit under any circumstances. Thank you for your kind offer of an 'old textbook', but I personally chose to value the opinions and up to date expertise of leading professionals working on current leading edge HRA cases and issues. To be clear, it is ok for you to publicly test people on the HRA and to 'lecture' them but I am not entitled to my opinion on the way in which SSW conduct their campaign? Thanks for providing that clarity. You demanded a response not once but twice. As I have previously stated, that you have yet again deliberately ignored I am not on anyone's side. I did not accuse you of being part of SSW, you have chosen to infer this to continue your ongoing campaign. Such eloquent responses of 'You'll break your knees leaping to those conclusions.', 'Utter Bollocks' and 'making stuff up'. Text for your new book or attempts to prompt an over emotional response to distract from the real issues? I have taken the time once again, to respond to your post, you have failed once again to answer my question - For a third time, care to explain why you have chosen to raise this issue again & again and attack my interpretation/conclusions/arguments on the HRA / case law but allow the SSW views to stand unchallenged?

Azira Wrote: > Your failure to do > so suggests that you are just theorising about a > possible interpretation, which in my experience of > the HRA appears to be utter bollocks. Burials, the wishes of the deceased / family have been covered by case law in relation to Article 8 and 9 of the Human Rights Act. http://www.goodfuneralguide.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Your-legal-rights-and-responsibilities-att-doc-41.pdf "Funeral wishes are still not, as a matter of course, legally binding but, in certain circumstances, a court of law may order that they are carried out. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been invoked by one judge when pronouncing that funeral wishes are binding on personal representatives (Borrows v HM Coroner for Preston [2008]), but dismissed by another judge on the grounds that dead people do not have human rights (Ibuna v Arroyo [2012]). Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1988 may or may not uphold the funeral wishes of those with strong religious beliefs who expect to be disposed of in accordance with those beliefs. The law has yet to be tested in this matter." or [PDF]Legal Control of Burial Rights - CJICL joomla.cjicl.org.uk/journal/article/pdf/109 'Cranston J began his judgement by considering the common law principle stated in Williams in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); he observed that the impact of the ECHR had not been `considered by the domestic authorities' in relation to burial conflicts.130 Cranston J observed that while Articles 8 and 9 of the ECHR might be relevant to burial conflicts, Article 8 was the more relevant for the decision in Burrows. After a review of some of the relevant jurisprudence on Article 8, which attached importance to the wishes of the deceased in relation to their disposal, Cranston J observed: `[o]ne thing is clear, that in as much as our domestic law says that the views of a deceased person can be ignored it is no longer good law. That rule of common law can be traced back to Williams v Williams, where it was said that directions given by a deceased as to the disposal of his body were not enforceable as a matter of law'. Cranston J observed that this change of legal policy was dictated by the ECHR and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, under which the `views of a deceased person as to funeral arrangements and the disposal of his or her body must be taken into account'.131 However, Cranston J observed that the Strasbourg jurisprudence,which demands that the views of the deceased should be taken into account in relation to burial conflicts, is `easily accommodated within domestic law: in this type of case a person's wishes can be regarded as a special circumstance in terms of s 116 of the Act'.132 The earlier analysis of Buchanan, under which the burial wishes of the deceased were regarded as a relevant consideration for the purpose of section 116 of the (then) Supreme Court Act, justifies Cranston J's observation that domestic law has incorporated Strasbourg's jurisprudence according respect to burial directions. Furthermore, Cranston J observed that apart from the wishes of the deceased, the claims of other family members in relation to the disposal of the deceased might be engaged by Article 8(1) of the Convention: [t]here may be, for example, as there was in this case, the family life that Liam [the deceased] enjoyed with the Burrows family on the one hand and his family life with his mother, Mrs McManus on the other hand'.133 Thus, he observed that `there is no doubt that those in Mr Burrow's position can invoke art 8.1'.134 Such a conflict of rights under Article 8 would require the court to consider the `comparative importance of the different rights being claimed, and to balance those competing rights so as to minimise the interference with each to the least possible extent'.135" Azira, I await your responses quoting relevant quote case law.

Azira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You'll break your knees leaping to those > conclusions. As you demanded, I took the time to respond to your comments and provide a reasoned set out response, more than can said of you and other participants in this debate. Care to set our your reasoning why my 'utter bollocks' interpretation/arguments/conclusions conflict with your own, or is it easier to make emotional and provocative dismissals to scare people off commenting on this thread? > I am not connected with SSW, nor did I make any > claim about the HRA at all in their favour, so > before you start lecturing me about logic try > actually reading what I've said on this thread. I > was asking out of genuine interest in the scope of > the Article. Clearly you have read none of my posts on the EDF, I am on no-ones side. You requested a response, I provided it - how is this lecturing you? For a second time care to explain why you have chosen to raised this issue again & again and attack my interpretation/conclusions/arguments on the HRA but allow SSW views to stand unchallenged? Are you seeking to derail the thread onto this single issue to remove attention from other relevant issues raised? > I am very well aware of what Article 8 covers. > What I asked for was whether you are aware of any > authority (i.e. a judicial decision) that extends > to your interpretation of it. Your failure to do > so suggests that you are just theorising about a > possible interpretation, which in my experience of > the HRA appears to be utter bollocks. > Looks like both sides are entirely capable of > making things up to suit their POV. Then I suggest as good practice you quote the legislation in the correct way, Article 8 is contained in the HRA not the ECHR as you originally quoted. I provided quotes and links to legal cases from the Equality and Human Rights Commission: 'The courts have interpreted the concept of ?private life? in a very broad way.' [www.equalityhumanrights.com]. Legal cases which review local government services and the way in which they are provided or delivered. One could theorize that no such cases have come before the courts because local authorities, including Southwark already provide non-discriminatory burial to members of the community therefore it has not been necessary to waste money or time on test cases. I have over 20 years experience working in the equalities field, including within local government which is why I am happy to set out my interpretations/conclusions/arguments rather resort to telling people that their views are 'utter bullocks'. I challenge you for a second time, feel free to supply an interpretation/argument/conclusion/cases that supports your views that Article 8 does not cover the issues raised.

Azira - I note that you do request SSW to justify their assertion that Southwark's current burial offering breaches the Human Rights Act 'We have tried to discuss this many times with Councillors, as it breaks both Human Rights Law and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010'. Not the first time SSW and their supports have used the logic of Alberto Brandolini asimmetry, based on their past behaviour neither will it be the last. By the way it is the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 a UK piece of legislation, the aim of which was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. Article 8 covers: * your sexuality * your body * personal identity and how you look and dress * forming and maintaining relationships with other people * how you personal information is held and protected. 'your body' - people have the right to determine what happens to their body upon death, many people make provisions to have a burial to stay close to family and friends to allow loved ones to visit them during the bereavement period. While some people may argue these provisions are extinguished at the death of an individual, the views of the deceased have been held instrumental in other area's of law i.e. transfer of assets under wills, burial wishes and organ donation. 'forming and maintaining relationships with other people' customs and practices exist within community groups in relation to burial and the celebration of a person life. The council are providing all sections and religions their local community with the space in which to practice these customs and practices. 'The courts have interpreted the concept of ?private life? in a very broad way.' http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/respect-your-private-and-family-life The HRA has been widely used previously to ensure that local authorities provide appropriate services to key groups within the community. These provisions could be extended to local council tax paying residents requesting the right for council owned assets i.e. land, being used to provide for public burial spaces within the borough. Feel free to supply a case that supports the SSW views, in particular that out of borough burials do not contravene the HRA Article 8 provisions.

I agree with other reasonable posters here, it is sad to lose any green space/woods and the best possible outcome would have been for a compromise to be found. The council should be held to account and questions asked especially around removing contamination, potential flooding, fiscal responsibility, replanting and reuse of the land. The problem is any voices of reason are being drowned out. Sadly SSW have run an extremely unprofessional campaign, founded on a lack of facts/evidence/credibility coupled with a directed campaign of intimidation/harassment against anyone who does not agree with them or seeks to test the validity of their facts/arguments. Rather then address these issues they continue to re-post the same old material and discredited arguments, losing valuable support along the way. I have participated in a number of successful campaigns against Local Government Council proposals and even campaigned to save old growth rainforests/sites of historical importance, so feel qualified to judge this campaign. By the way SSW, I have no intention of assisting or helping out in any way due to the behaviour of key SSW leaders/spokespeople. What I see in the video is: 1) a massive lost opportunity - a properly run and evidenced campaign could have reduced the impact these changes 2) dangerous overgrowth and insecure memorials/stones that could topple and injure human beings - which could of course be fixed with proper planning 3) insecure pathways that are inaccessible to all members of the community - again this could be fixed with proper planning 4) the council attempting to clean up contamination on the site to protect the public - while it does look terrible now the community could have positive input on how this could be improved in the future, including the layout of graves, replanting etc. 5) a cemetery being used for it's original purpose - burials 6) loved ones respecting their family and friends by leaving flowers and keep sakes, some on freshly dug graves. I wonder how they feel about SSW supporters criticizing their highly personal decisions at such an emotional/personal time plus using their loved ones in this self serving manipulative manner. Did SSW ask for their permission prior to videoing their fresh memorials/burials? SSW need to start providing evidenced and factual responses to the questions raised by members of this forum, not emotional sound bites or they risk losing further credibility with the community. My own below which is still outstanding: 'as it breaks both Human Rights Law and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010.' What about the right to a 'private life' under the Human Rights Act e.g. mourning the loss of a family member or loved one within a reasonable commuting distance of your home? The council offer a burial service to cover all faiths, SSW openly acknowledge Nunhead Cemetery is open and suitable for people of the Muslim faith. The council is not required to support each equality strand/group from each council building, facility or resource. Splitting the burial service provision between two cemeteries would be seen as a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' i.e. providing a burial service to the all members of the public within Southwark. What evidence does SSW have to support the statement 'They claim the 6-8 Turkish Muslim burials a year in Nunhead Cemetery are all that is required - yet they now this is not true.' Does SSW have evidence that Southwark Council have ignored complaints from the Muslim community? Do SSW have evidence of complaints from the local Turkish Muslim community in writing, are they formally supporting SSW claim of discrimination? What about the behaviour of certain SSW supporters - this contravened specific provisions of the Equality Acts Harassment sections, so what do you propose to do on that front? Like others I would ask why are only some questions being selected for a response? SSW are proposing that Southwark Council close the cemeteries and create nature reserves but still fund their maintenance and care - where will the money come from? Council's are facing further budgets cuts between now and 2020. Funds are limited and priorities have to be determined. Are SSW proposing that older people or disabled people or children in care go without support to fund their proposal for this site? What services should the council cease providing to the wider community to fund creation of the 'Nature Reserves'? Are SSW prepared to take over management of the 'Nature Reserves' in the future - does SSW have a sound management structure and funding stream proposed? If so, how do you propose to fund the cleaning of contamination on the site or address the issues of flooding, plus ensure disability access as per the Equality Act provisions SSW have championed? What this campaign is lacking is well evidenced arguments and credibility.

'as it breaks both Human Rights Law and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010.' What about the right to a 'private life' under the Human Rights Act e.g. mourning the loss of a family member or loved one within a reasonable commuting distance of your home? The council offer a burial service to cover all faiths, SSW openly acknowledge Nunhead Cemetery is open and suitable for people of the Muslim faith. The council is not required to support each equality strand/group from each council building, facility or resource. Splitting the burial service provision between two cemeteries would be seen as a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' i.e. providing a burial service to the all members of the public within Southwark. What evidence does SSW have to support the statement 'They claim the 6-8 Turkish Muslim burials a year in Nunhead Cemetery are all that is required - yet they now this is not true.' Does SSW have evidence that Southwark Council have ignored complaints from the Muslim community? Do SSW have evidence of complaints from the local Turkish Muslim community in writing, are they formally supporting SSW claim of discrimination? What about the behaviour of certain SSW supporters - this contravened specific provisions of the Equality Acts Harassment sections, so what do you propose to do on that front? Like others I would ask why are only some questions being selected for a response? SSW are proposing that Southwark Council close the cemeteries and create nature reserves but still fund their maintenance and care - where will the money come from? Council's are facing further budgets cuts between now and 2020. Funds are limited and priorities have to be determined. Are SSW proposing that older people or disabled people or children in care go without support to fund their proposal for this site? What services should the council cease providing to the wider community to fund creation of the 'Nature Reserves'? Are SSW prepared to take over management of the 'Nature Reserves' in the future - does SSW have a sound management structure and funding stream proposed? If so, how do you propose to fund the cleaning of contamination on the site or address the issues of flooding, plus ensure disability access as per the Equality Act provisions SSW have championed? What this campaign is lacking is well evidenced arguments and credibility.

'Over-emotional', 'over-exaggerating', 'shrill' - all words commonly used to denigrate the views of women. Language matters. Southwark is a public body who should be held accountable, protections are in place to ensure this happens. However, people who have experience in campaigning or working with Southwark/local government are unlikely to be willing to help due to the behaviours and attitudes of certain individuals connected with or indirectly supporting this this campaign.

Sue completely understand your wish not to seem vindictive, the approach you wish to take shows maturity and restraint which is more than can be said for the harasser. Providing feedback to employers and sponsors is often a quicker and more effective method than legal action which can be both costly and time consuming. Most organisations now have codes of conduct, social media policies and/or standards of professional behaviour documents for employees, volunteers, sponsee's etc. Employers and/or sponsors are concerned about damage to their corporate brand/reputation by people using social media inappropriately and so will take action.

We are discussing the issues, including the way in which a public campaign is being conducted. If SSW don't want such scrutiny they should not run a public campaign. Regarding the Rebecca Towers letter - I note it is yet another women being named/shamed in public. Whether you agree with someone or not, you can show respect, dignity and courtesy. Meaningful engagement is required on this issue not threats and personal attacks. By the way under the current provisions of the Freedom of Information Act - the council has 20 days to respond to any request for information. They are under no obligation to send it when you want it because you want to launch a legal action. They can also deem certain requests 'vexatious'. SSW need a professional person with experience of running campaigns against local authorities proposals or their actions are doomed to fail.

Mynamehere - why did you remove your post stating that the SSW function last night referred to this thread on the EDF? Your post clearly states that it has been altered - "Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was today, 09:01am by mynamehere." To be honest your originally posted comments at 12:03AM were not a not a great surprise but spoke volumes about the SSW campaigns values & ethics. Re: your constant requests to stop this thread - Was it the inability to discuss any topic rationally with supporting evidence that scared the SSW people off? I personally found it very hard to get any key evidence or facts through all the emotional dribble. Or was it the joining up of like minds to fight against harassment & thinly veiled misogyny that is really upsetting the SSW campaigners? Victims of harassment should not be gagged from seeking support and assistance. Why should the residents of East Dulwich who are genuinely committed to engagement and discussion on this issue be silenced simple because they don't conform to the behaviors, vales and ethics of the so called SSW group?

Sue maybe you could try: Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Harassment_Act_1997 Malicious Communications Act 1988 - makes it an offence to send a communication with the intention of causing distress or anxiety. Section 127(2) targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety. A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. This offence is part of the fixed penalty scheme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988 Communications Act 2003 Section 127 - Section 127 makes it an offence to send an electronic message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. Maybe civil torts of slander, libel and defamation? Thankfully the British legal system does not recognise the defence of trying to save some scrubs/trees as a good reason to embark on campaign of sustained harassment. You could also consider contacting anyone who directly supports Lewis i.e. his sponsors http://britishamericantax.com/ and https://www.resonancefm.com/ - alerting them to his behaviour and the actions that you are taking. It could be argued by their association with this individual they are bringing their organisations into disrepute.

Harassment of individuals in any way shape of form is wrong, full stop, no excuses. Lewis choose his behaviour, he made a deliberate and calculated choice to to personally attack on the EDF: * people for their occupation * their alleged partner/marriage - to be clear it's 2016 some women have different opinions to our husbands, some people even find this refreshing! * their alleged professional affiliations The EDF community has spoken, Lewis's behaviour has been considered inappropriate and he has been banned. His actions determined this outcome he was warned by Admin and choose to deliberately ignore this. He made a further conscious decision to hunt down one women to attack her, for her views & display her personal details on Twitter. This is a pattern of unacceptable, offensive harassment and abuse. Lewis is a bully who when he cannot get his own way chooses to attack one women rather than direct his energy to his so called campaign. SSW have lost my complete support - I originally signed one of the petitions. I will now be writing to the church and Southwark to make my views known. I am also disappointed that the Ivy House are giving Lewis a stage this evening, especially as they are a co-operatively owned pub.

James - When Ashbourne Grove was last resurfaced, residents requested a barrier - this was flatly rejected. As residents we actively sort out other options which lead to the implementation of the speed bumps. We discussed this as a street and formed a consensus. Grok - It must be remembered we all live together in the same community, not that far from each other, our kids go to the same schools, we attend the same churches/community groups. Both groups want to make a positive contribution to the local community, we just disagree about the best way to achieve this. anoTHer - Still in the same house I have been for the last eight weeks and haven't seen anyone from Melbourne Grove Traffic Action at my door? I have received two letters through the door with statements such as: 22 or 23 June - 'signed a petition supporting a barrier point between Tell and Ashbourne Grove', 'Our support for a barrier' 31 August - 'we've received some funding for a feasibility study into a barrier across Melbourne Grove'. You seem very keen to suggest that there is no reason for 310 people to sign a petition. Melbourne Grove Traffic Action need to stop characterising the anti-barrier group as irrational and start actually listening to locally impacted residents concerns. Melbourne Grove Traffic Action had the opportunity to discuss our concerns both at the meeting on 9 September and afterwards, they failed to take these opportunities.

I spoke for the deputation at the Dulwich Community Council (DCC) on Wednesday 9th September 2015. In summary the Councillors: * listened to our deputation and concerns, which we detailed as much as possible given the time granted to us. Over 310 people signed our petition. * failed to withdraw the funding for a feasibility study and gave full support to the claims made by Melbourne Grove residents. The feasibility study will go ahead and be funded up to ?10k from the Cleaner, Greener Safer budget. * gave assurances to the deputation that the feasibility study would incorporate wider traffic calming measures - not just a barrier, take into consideration local residents concerns and the terms of reference would be drawn up professional Council Officers. Since conduct at the meeting has become a hot topic: * as the main speaker for the deputation I introduced myself to the members of Melbourne Grove Traffic Action sitting in the audience, in the meeting break prior to our deputation speaking. * personally, I feel that a number of Councillors were dismissive of our deputations concerns, aggressively defended the decision against evidence presented and attacked our deputation/residents group for organising an alternative view point and presenting at the DCC. * one Councillor described the campaign as 'hysterical' - a gendered term. When was the last time you heard a campaign lead by a man/men described as 'hysterical'? * our deputations submission was interrupted numerous by members of Melbourne Grove Traffic Action in the audience, they were not asked to stop. While I admire their passion, I do feel that we should have been given the opportunity to represent an alternative view to our elected representatives without interruption. I do feel that the DCC continues to show favouritism to Melbourne Grove Traffic Action. * one member of our deputation was denied the right to make any comments or statements. From my perspective this was clear and pointed - a deliberate gagging attempt. It makes me wonder why are the DCC so committed to silencing this person? When asked the Council Officer explained that Melbourne Grove South was not a priority for the council and no central funding would be provided: any studies, proposals or implementation costs would need to be funded by Cleaner, Greener, Safer budget. It was therefore recommended that the scope of the feasibility study be limited to Melbourne Grove South. Charter School, NHS and Harris developments will be required to undertake traffic studies on their developments as part of their planning applications. This further calls into question the judgement of the DCC to allocate up to ?10k for an additional traffic study of the same area. The rational thing would be to incorporate them into one set of analysis or study. There's no point in running a traffic study if the actions taken as the result of another invalidate it. Our deputation have made the offer to meet with Melbourne Grove Traffic Action to work on issues jointly, they have responded that they are currently considering how they would like to proceed. I hope they'll choose to change strategy and try to engage with the concerns of local residents. If people wish to make their views known about the DCC decision to fund the feasibility study related to traffic calming measures on Melbourne Grove South - I would suggest emailing the Councilors who sit on the DCC outlining your concerns, details below: East Dulwich Ward james.barber@southwark.gov.uk, rosie.shimell@southwark.gov.uk, charlie.smith@southwark.gov.uk Village Ward anne.kirby@southwark.gov.uk, jane.lyons@southwark.gov.uk, michael.mitchell@southwark.gov.uk College Ward jon.hartley@southwark.gov.uk, Helen.Hayes@southwark.gov.uk, Andy.Simmons@southwark.gov.uk I know that committed people in our deputation, who have all worked exceedingly hard over the last eight weeks (big thank-you to everyone) will continue to engage with local residents, Council Officers and will input into the feasibility study proposed for Melbourne Grove South. I am sure that further developments will be communicated to both the EDF and the wider community. If anyone has any questions, concerns or idea's please see free to ask me here or message me privately.

I would suggest redirecting the ?10k agreed at the last meeting of the DCC, which I believe is from an under-spend in the CGS funding. I emailed James Barber on 26 June asking how residents of Ashbourne Grove could input into any feasibility study produced, the response I received the same day from James: 'Council officers will design the feasibility study' Yet James now posts the draft terms of reference from the Melbourne Grove residents????? It appears our views and opinions simply do not matter. I would encourage all residents in streets off Melbourne Grove South to speak up now, write to their local Councillors or sign the petition - have your views heard now before it is too late. Link to the petition: https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barrier-for-melbourne-grove

I had been planning to co-ordinate with Hellosailor but cannot send any messages as the mail box is full - hoping that she will read these updates. We don't have a car but are members of Zipcar, so if necessary we could hire a car and drive down to Brighton one day - we have some friends we could visit to make a day trip of it. I have been speaking to Ali who co-ordinates Children of Calais - she can provide details of the drop off points etc when needed. As they are volunteers, I think it may be different depending on which day you go to Brighton etc. I am sure that they would love a delivery of tinned foodstuffs etc. We have personally bought some tinned food, shower gel, deodorant, wash bags hygiene products & sanitary wear, children's toys etc. All ready to go. Kind people have also dropped off sanitary wear we have added to the goods. Jayyfa - we based on Ashbourne Grove just off Lordship Lane between HSBC and Barclays Banks. Once we have a date for heading down to Brighton I could pop by on the day and collect or people can message me and arrange an alternative drop off time etc.

The issue with the junction of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove is visibility - cars park so close to the corner that it is difficult to exit safely. My understanding is that residents of Melbourne Grove have fought against the yellow lines being expanded due to the reduction in parking spaces. The junction of Ashbourne Grove and Lordship is a hot spot for small accidents due to the parking spaces and banks etc.

Two incidents - I reported the below incident this morning: My four year old and I were nearly knocked down at approx 8.15-8.20am today - if I had not read the post above from Galileo above we would both be dead or seriously injured. My little one was awake for 3 hours last night, so we decided to take the pram to nursery as she was too tired to walk. Heading North, the 185 bus had stopped at a red light, the green person was clearly showing - I checked both ways and went to step off the pavement with the pram leading, a dark blue hire car came racing around, overtaking the 185 clearly speeding and straight through the green light crossing, I screamed at them to stop which they ignored, I checked again went to step off when a second dark blue hire car did exactly the same thing. The second driver clearly saw me and just shrugged. Had I stepped off with the pram leading, both my daughter and I would have been killed or seriously injured.

James, you're either fundamentally misunderstanding what's going on here or deliberately misrepresenting it. This is an actual example of concerned local residents trying to deal with the council "jumping the gun" on a roadside scheme that seems purpose-designed to lift the house prices of a few residents. I'll remind you that said residents (largely absent from the East Dulwich Forum I note) demanded the closure of a public road immediately with no consultation. Local residents were informed via a letter two days before the above meeting in a way that seems deliberately designed to appear inclusive whilst minimizing the chances of any contrary voices actually being heard. As you know, on 24 July Councillors of the East Dulwich and Village Wards were emailed a survey conducted by the residents of Ashbourne Grove, which detailed numerous concerns. I would post the response that residents received from you but we are still waiting........................... Why should concerned residents trust in an undefined and unpublished feasibility study when they were not even consulted on the need for such a feasibility study in the first place? *You've summarised the wider study you're asking for by saying don't close Melbourne Grove. Why are you asking for a study you've pre determined the outcome.* Again, you appear to be ignoring the context here. The context is that you've been heavily championing this as the only possible solution to a problem with pretty vague but narrow terms of reference. And again, I'll remind you that if Melbourne Traffic Action had had their way, the barrier would be in place already. It is my understanding that the Council's own officers do not believe that a barrier is appropriate for Melbourne Grove South. Therefore how would any robust, professionally constructed and executed study, undertaken by qualified council officers recommend the barrier currently being proposed for Melbourne Grove South? *If Melbourne Grove was closed why would anyone divert to Townley Road?* Let's take a concrete look at what happened two weeks ago. There was a serious accident on Lordship Lane - we wish the person a speedy recovery. We had back to back cars going down Ashbourne Grove and then onto Melbourne Grove through where the barrier is proposed. Now, while no-one wants that many cars on their streets, if it was blocked Townley Road would be the next best route. *I would have thought it makes more sense to call on the feasibility to be widened to cover the wider area and all local issues - we then need to list those local issues.* James, you're a councillor, why did you not propose this in the first place? If you think this is such a good idea, by all means go and do it. Please don't try to suggest something you have no intention of doing to try to combat objections to something your are actively advocating.

I am happy to take denotions in and co-ordinate with Hellosailer when she is back - the only thing is that I work full-time so drop off times may be a bit limited sorry! Feel free to message me and I will try to find a way to make it work. After reading a Facebook update from a friend's, friend who is currently helping in the 'jungle', I could not help but become emotional - children disappointed with toys because they are so hungry they would prefer food, after handing out one piece of fruit and one tin to each person they still had to turn a line full of hungry people away.

A group of concerned residents living in Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove have started a petition requesting that Southwark Council reconsider the proposal to block Melbourne Grove and instead implement a comprehensive traffic study for the area. Melbourne Grove is a publicly funded and maintained road, our taxes pay for this road and 85% of community use this road in a law abiding and safe manner. Below is a link to the Petition on Change.org: https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barrier-for-melbourne-grove If you are signing please ensure you put down the house/flat number and street that you live on e.g. Jo Smith, 120 Ashbourne Grove, East Dulwich SE22 8RL, so that Southwark Council knows you are a local resident and a stakeholder. You will be given the option to click a box which will hide your personal details if you so wish. I would encourage all residents in the following streets to consider signing the petition: 1) Townley road - which would become an alternative main North/South route 2) Lordship Lane - would bear the load of additional traffic and pollution. Further, in emergencies where would the traffic go, Lordship Lane would become a car park? 3) Tell Grove/Blackwater/Bassano- with the new schools being opened parents will need to drop off students - where will they park? The whole length of Melbourne Grove and surrounding streets would be available to distribute this load/burden evenly. With the barrier these streets would bear an unbalanced burden. 4) Matham Grove - cars will cut through off East Dulwich Grove to get to Lordship Lane. 5) Chesterfield Grove - with the introduction of M&S and the schools, this street will become even busier, it also has a wide entry point at the western end so people are more likely to turn down this street than Ashbourne Grove etc. 6) Melbourne Grove North - the proposal does not address the numerous issues on this stretch of road, which has significantly greater levels of traffic in terms of volume Remember: if you are signing please put down the house/flat number and street that you live one.g. Jo Smith, 120 Ashbourne Grove, East Dulwich SE22 8RL - so that Southwark Council knows you are a local resident and a stakeholder. You will be given the option to click a box which will hide your personal details if you so wish. The survey has been created on-line via Change.org - this was for a very clear and specific reason - no hidden sheets of paper with unclear terms of reference, no absence of published transparent information - all the details are available to all. There is no ambiguity.