languagelounger

I keep getting a message that our thread is storing too many PMs. Have deleted about 120 (rough guess) but still getting the message. Please could you advise how many is too many? With thanks for your helpful EDF service.

Hello Please could you explain why Park Rangers are employed in the Borough's Cemeteries? Does this mean that the cost of maintaining recent burial grounds comes out of the Leisure and Recreation budget, thus disguising the cost of providing and running cemeteries, while genuine leisure and recreation facilities are being closed down? Please could you clarify this and explain the thinking behind it? Thanks.

Administrator - I think you might wish to consider removing the post from "Gracie 66", at the very least you should bring this post to Shane Spall's attention, also to that of the Environment Agency investigators and Southwark Council's lawyers. As for "Gracie66", if she or he has relevant information about the criminal activity that took place at the cemeteries her friends were responsible for, under their noses, year after year, she or he should offer to provide a witness statement. And also bear in mind that trying to intimidate witnesses in a criminal case is a criminal offence.

Well I feel used now. I didn't bring a flashlight. I didn't bring a flashlight. Used.

PBB, have you had an answer at all from Southwark as to why they are reneging on the promise they made 10 years ago, that the 3 acres of open space they took for burials then, would be the last they ever took? This was following an expensive consultation exercise, and also, they said, a burial audit of all the cemeteries. They then fixed on a policy that said those 3 acres (in which they would dig deeper graves) plus the reuse of old public burial spaces, would provide them with graves for another 50 years, after which the only option would be cremation. That would have meant that they were provided with burial plots until 2050. I don't think anyone has been offered an explanation of why they're now saying that they now want to change this policy and spend more money on another public consultation and also, on another burial audit. The other aspect of this that needs to be questioned is how and why Southwark Council took a decision to stop carrying out burials in its existing cemeteries in 1992, when there was space left in them that had never been used. Given that we know (see the case in the High Court against the former cemeteries manager, Terry Connor) that illegal waste dumping, including dumping of asbestos and other toxic substances, took place in these cemeteries for many years, I think the public needs to make sure that there has been a proper investigation into how the closure of Southwark's existing cemeteries came about. Why on earth would the Council take a decision to close both Camberwell Old Cemetery and Nunhead cemeteries when there was land in these cemeteries that had never been used for burial, at the same time as claiming that there was a shortage of space? Obviously it would have been much more appropriate to use cemeteries as cemeteries rather than closing them down, partly unused, and starting to dig up a public park instead. We should remember that the decision to close the existing cemeteries was brought about in 1991 by Connor and his associates without any public consultation at all. If they had been kept open, and if the Council had not started on its plan of using Honor Oak Rec instead, the toxic waste dumping could not have happened. Let's remember the ?3.4 million pound bill for clearing the toxic waste that Southwark residents are now faced with and ask why energetic efforts are not being made to recover some of this cost from those who took bribes to allow it to take place. Someone should be taking a very close look at the individuals who brought these decisions about, and their bank accounts.

Please make sure you eat enough oily fish before descending into the gloom again tonight. Otherwise vitamin D will run low. Also is a good idea to have a stick that you can grab the wrong end of while blundering about.

Six left? Episodes 15,16 then 17,18 and 19.20 to come, so finale is Sat 26th March? If any of you had a heart, at all, you could post a bit of an update for those of us who haven't seen anything since episode 8. For instance, who is Olav? Olav? Did you make him up?

Do you think denoument night should be An Event? We could get sponsorship from the Copenhagen tourist board, invite the Danish ambassador, encourage knitwear and maybe get one of the bobble hats to auction for the distressed detectives fund. Or Unicef. Maybe the Mag would host. The bulbs are always blowing in the upstairs room so gloomy enough, and sofas big enough to hide behind. And I think they have served herrings before now.

Hi Have you had any answer from Southwark as to why they are saying they need to take the Rec now, given the promises they gave only 10 years ago that they would not be seeking to ever take any more land. They were already supposed to have carried out a burial audit in 1996, following which they stated in 1999/2000 that they would take another 3 acres of open space then, but that this in combination with other measures (reusing old land) would last for the next 50 years, at the end of which, the only option left would be to offer cremation. What has changed for them to go back on this promise? Here are some quotes from the records: [quote=minutes of the Regeneration Committee held at Southwark Town Hall on 18 April 2000: " 7.4 An extension of the cemetery by three acres will allow for an estimated 900 grave plots per acre and therefore over three acres, 2700 plots. At a cost of ?1000 per interment, the additional three acres will yield ?2.7 million in income to the Council over a twenty-five year period." Do we know if they are now claiming that they in fact sold 2700 plots in 10 years instead of 25? And who has decided to reverse the earlier decision, and why?

I think that's a bit unfair TT. I'm not a political supporter of James or his party but I think it's hugely impressive that a local Councillor is even prepared to communicate directly with people in the way that James does. My experience in the past when part of a local amenity group is that most of them, plus my local MP Harriet Harman, can't even be bothered to reply to emails/letters. The train company would have asked for someone from the council to be present and if this initiative was in fact generated by the local Councillors, why shouldn't they be there? I find it a bit heartening to have people in public life who can be bothered with the mundane things that actually make a difference to oiks like me, and personally would prefer not to get drenched and frozen waiting for "the train to London Bridge which is x minutes late" (again).

James Given all these cuts to services that many regard as essential and the hardship that will be caused to a lot of people who are having a very tough time already, please could you offer your opinion on whether Southwark should be planning to expand its cemeteries? There's no legal obligation for the Council to provide graveyards and they are extremely expensive to maintain. Most people already chose cremation so it's very difficult to understand why the majority should have to pay to subsidise inner city land being used up in this way? At the moment of course the Council is talking about digging up a public park for its new graves and - I think this is so - is the only Council in London that is even prepared to think about doing such a thing. Would be interested to hear your view - for or against. Thanks.

Hi, just to mention, it's funny the way Southwark Council always mentions 1901, but never the papers from 1956. In 1956 the surrounding area was pretty much as it is today. The huge Honor Oak Estate, housing 5,000 people, had been completed in 1937. The local Borough Council at the time (not the same as Southwark Council which didn't exist then) announced that it was going to take some land, out of a 30 acre site it owned below One Tree Hill, to use as Camberwell New Cemetery, but they had done this without getting planning permission from London County Council. The Borough Councils was then required to put their proposals for the whole site to the LCC and these were also commented on by the Minister for Local Government. This is London County Council's Town Planning Ctte report from 16th Jan 1956: "The Locality -- The locality is a residential one and the existing public open space standard is about 2.5 acres per thousand population. A considerable additional area, would, of course, be necessary in order to achieve a standard of four acres per thousand and the Borough Council's present proposals for playing fields may be welcome as contributing to recreational facilities in the vicinity." 19.19 acres were designated for tennis courts and playing fields, plus "2.41 acres for a public open space adjacent to Honor Oak Park as well as being joined to One Tree Hill, in accordance with the Minister's suggestions" and "3.16 acres for Temporary Allotment Gardens...pending eventual redevelopment as public open space". The amount of space allowed for the cemetery was just 2.87 acres. The para headed "The Locality" also states: One Tree Hill affords extensive views across London and much of the New Cemetery land, which lies on the slopes of the hill, is in turn visible from nearby points, including particularly Blythe Hill Fields and Hilly Fields. It is a matter of considerable concern that the landscaping of the area should not be adversely affected by a more extensive area of white stone memorials reaching up to One Tree Hill and St Augustine's Church". Modern London Government never intended this area to be taken out of public recreational use.

their suppliers at 650ft Kirkbymoorside Didn't know you could do market gardening up there, thought it was just sheep and curlews.

Does anyone know how much exactly has been spent on clearing up the toxic dumping at Honor Oak that at least one member of Southwark staff was responsible for? We keep hearing the figure "millions" but no details? Quite a lot of this should be recoverable from the senior officers and councillors who knew that dumping was taking place many years before it was stopped - eg they were shown photos in 1996/7 of a dumper truck that had just emptied its contents leaving the premises and asked what was being done about it, in a Council sub ctte meeting, and by phone and letter to the CEO and Leader of the Council. I remember a very famous actress, or are you supposed to say actor, was at the sub ctte meeting when it was specifically raised, as was Reverend Michael Counsell of St Augustine's, now retired and living in Birmingham but very likely to remember. This was also reported in full detail at the time to the South London Press who covered it and asked the Council how come a man with a dumper truck, seen leaving several small mountains of waste on the site, came to have the key to the Council's gates. Do I seem to recall that at the time, people were told that as this was Southwark Council's property, only the Council could ask for a prosecution to be brought? So why no prosecution? Do we have a report we can read on why dumping continued for another 10 years? There's also the question of what role the toxic dumping racket played in the moulding of Southwark Council's "cemeteries policy". The Cemeteries Manager, one Terry Connor, was very active in trying to get Honor Oak Rec (constantly full of people who could see what was going on, and were reporting it) closed down and the adjoining cemetery extended (nice and deserted, lots more room for dumping in).

I could never find room to park even a v small car after about 8.15am, anywhere off HOP. When it's really busy you can always park on Honor Oak Rise. There's a gate at the end of HOR that leads into One Tree Hill. IF you can manage it, that leaves the very steep climb to the top of One Tree Hill then and a nice walk down to the station. Alternatively if they would just open the gate into the cemetery from Brenchley Gardens, which I understand is at the site of an ancient stile that was a public footpath going back to the 19th century at least, people from the south of Nunhead could have a walk completely on the flat, enjoying the lovely panorama over Kent from Honor Oak Rec, on their short cut down to HOP station and the ELL.

Sargeant! We are not going to solve The Jumper case like this. Were there two Jumpers, outer and inner. all the time, or is the episode 10 Jumper a New Jumper? By the way, did anything else happen in episode 10 pls, you know, like something that might have caused her to shed The Jumper?

ayresc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > great idea. > > shocked about the lefty response! Is being a republican the same thing as being "lefty"?. Eg Oliver Cromwell, Nicolas Sarkozy, Presidents of the US (various)? Several members of the Royal family are on the left of the current government anyway. Charles is against food monopolies and speculation on food prices, he would def be a vg thing at Defra, and Her Maj the Queen I'm sure would stop short of leaving the sick and elderly out on hillsides to die, which is pretty much the way we seem to be going.

So there are people knitting The Jumper. Is this just because they like The Jumper, or because they think it will instill them with the nake no totice spirit of Sarah Lund? Are they going to gather on a pan European Jumper wearing day and banish emoting, fakery and inappropriate clothing back to where it came from. And we all know where that was. DJK, I may have spent a few minutes googling, but now I know where the Faroe Islands are, and I have learned the word "Faroese" from ianr, unless he just made it up. And I'm thinking in 12 hours you could probably learn to knit and produce The Jumper. What do you think?

Hello Here we go again. Anyone remember 1991? It's not Honor Oak Park Recreation Ground, it's Honor Oak Recreation Ground, and has been known by this name since it was opened. The area historically called Honor Oak straddles both sides of the Rec. The Honor Oak Estate, on the opposite (easterly) side is in SE4. Honor Oak Recreation Ground is the only open space for thousands of people on this huge council estate, including thousands of kids who need it - not an extra - they need it, for essential physical development. HOR is also the local park for lots of people in Crofton Park and Nunhead. In 1955 the then Minister for Local Government was absolutely clear that this space should never be used for burials. It should, he said, become the Hampstead Heath of south London. What may have been thought in the 19th century, when the land was used for burials because it was then in the middle of the countryside, is completely irrelevant now. I'm curious to know why Southwark is still persisting with this totally outdated and discredited attempt to close down an inner city public recreation space and use it for burials. No other council in the land is doing this, the cemetery managers' professional body had concluded it is definitely not the solution and central government is promoting increased use of open space in the inner city as a health essential. Please bear in mind too that Southwark has already taken two big chunks of land from this space for burials. When they took the first tranche of Honor Oak Rec in 1991, they said that there would be no call to ask for more land within the lifetimes of anyone present at the council meeting. And they told the same story again when they came back for the next bit. They are now on track to use up the whole site within 30 years, gone forever, if we are daft enough to let them get away with it. We now know, of course (see press reports re High Court case, last year) that Southwark's former Cemetery Manager (the only unqualified person to hold such a position in the entire country) had a nice little arrangement with local criminals to allow them to dump toxic waste on the site. Local councillors and MPs were told about this as long ago as 1997, and refused to take any action to investigate or stop it. I have been told that the relevant records of the council meetings have been "disappeared" from Southwark Council. As has a large survey of the site, which Groundwork Southwark were paid for, out of our Council Tax, at huge expense, which was quoted to justify using the land for burials. At the time, no member of the public could get hold of the original of this large survey. Just a brief summary. Apparently neither Groundwork Southwark, the specialist environmental surveyors who carried it out, nor Southwark Council's environmental services department, nor any of the elected councillors, managed to hold on to a single copy of the report. Which is a great shame, because there is a question that really needs to be answered still, which is, how could a firm of specialist environmental surveyors and ground contamination experts manage to miss the now established fact, that the site they were surveying was being used as a toxic waste dump? The cost of the clean up from the toxic dumping is running into many millions. And we are paying for it. Has any of the huge sums that we know must have been paid in bribes, been recovered? How likely is it that only one Council official was involved? Anybody? That they are now coming back to try to take what is left of the public park just shows how hopeless and helpless this area is in the face of the most obvious and blatant corruption. The Councillor for the Honor Oak/Crofton Park side last time was one Margaret Moran. That's the same Margaret Moran who went on to become an MP and has since been disgraced and forced to resign. She was also caught out by Channel 4, offering to sell her services as an MP to an undercover reporter. How I laugh now (not) when I think that the public were turning to such abysmal characters to try to defend this wonderful place. I don't suppose there are any Egyptians living in the area who could lend a hand with some tips on how to deal with corrupt and unaccountable thugs? (edited - re Minister for Local Government, and to clarify was Channel 4 that caught Margaret Moran red handed).

That's a viable theory, she could have six, or more, but turns out it's a 280 euro jumper. She could've thought she was paying 28 euro, and internet shopped it by mistake while having to keep one eye on the shifty corner-cutting bloke detectives, and now has to wear it every day of her life to get 280 euros wear out of it? stubborndetectivejumper They also do a fantastic matching bobble hat, proceeds to the Unicef girls' education fund: ultimate bobble hat

Apparently there is no book so can't save 12 hrs by reading it on the bus. DJK, I agree, it is much better than the usual rubbish, and has realistic haircuts, as well as The Jumper, although we're supposed to believe there's one decent and courageous politician who is actually the one his party elects to represent them, which is stretching it more than a little and spoils the overall effect. If you are a very kind person perhaps you could post updates, including Jumper news, so I can pretend to be doing something more useful.

There must be someone out there who will tell. I suppose I could try to read it in Danish, which would make me feel better, if only learning Danish wasn't as big a waste of time as watching telly.

That's very kind of you to let me know Scribe, though I was thinking that perhaps you should edit it out now to avoid spoiling for others.. I hadn't even noticed such a person as you mention in the first eight hours, so thinking you have to spend most of the 20 hours in telly land before the killer even comes in. Unless you are teasing. Which is not very kind to a flu afflicted person. Your jumper theory quite sound. Possibly even the actress's real mother knitted it or her family has a knitwear business. There's got to be a motive, those kind of jumpers are really itchy apart from anything else.

That's all very well Scribe. But it doesn't answer the enquiry, does it? Strange is the right word for your attraction to a woman who hasn't changed her jumper for 8 days. This jumper is now imbued with the scent of police station (not pleasant); canal water (nasty, doesn't wash out); decomposing human remains (stomach turning, does not wash out); morgue (nasty, lingers). On day 6 she gets on a plane planning to go straight to her chap's housewarming party on arrival still wearing of course, said jumper. What's more her mother, who is prone to making usual motherly type comments, and lives with her, has never mentioned the jumper. That's just not realistic. I think we are supposed to have concluded by now that the teacher didn't do it.

Please, is there someone who could PM me who did it? Only started watching this because sofa-bound with the flu and found out too late that it goes on for 20 hours. I'm too old to waste another 12 hours staring at the telly so would be ever so grateful for a PM with the d?nouement. It would be a big relief too to see a post notifying when the detective finally changes her jumper. I was starting to find the jumper more worrying than the murder.