New opportunity to save the woods!! Deadline Friday 23rd

[dbboy]

That is right you can't TELL the council what to do, they are elected officials who run the borough with officers of the council to do the actual work, it is democracy in action. You can put forward a case, you did, they considered the case and decided that no case existed and so it was rejected.

You say your campaign is much bigger, great go and speak with Government, you'll get short shrift from them as well, if you disagree with burial, that's fine, but that is how some people wish to say goodbye to and remember their deceased, those remaining have feelings, beliefs, that's not going to change because it has been done like that for centuries and is called religion. If you have no belief that is fine, but you cannot be imposing what you want on others, that is not democracy and could probably be classed as communism. When You lose a dear loved one, then you'll understand the hurt and pain of those left behind, The grave is not only a way of saying goodbye, but remembering the person who died, Try it, cause it hurts like hell.

You say every grave in both cemeteries is going to be dug up, sorry that is not going to happen, The boroughs resident's would revolt. Like they did on Peckham Rye Common. And yes, people from outside the borough do buy a grave plot in either of these two cemeteries, because they do not want to go to the other end of the borough (Lewisham) in either Grove Park or Hither Green to bury their dead relatives, but prefer to bury their dead locally, however the costs to do so are prohibitive.

The Woodvale side is not ugly, in fact it is a whole lot better than it was. If the works had not been done, then the new entrance would not have been put in place and far fewer people would have walked through as part of the green chain walk. In an earlier post it said that 48000 graves would be mounded over and the way it was expressed was as though it was in the old cemetery, now it is referred to as in the new cemetery, so which is it?

The video is evidence of it being overgrown which the council are responsible for neglecting. Had the neglect not have occurred and the land used for what it was intended, BURIALS, none of this would have transpired. The sooner the council get on and do what they need to do the better.

And what is the connection between "cemeteries, woods, graves and green space, climate change and health and history and beauty", oh because one person wants it. Their is a saying, the needs of the many out way the needs of the few, you get me bro Donald!!!!!!

[Loz]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Who supports digging up the dead and selling off

> the plots off when there is new ground available a

> few miles away?

Where exactly is this new ground available?

[kiera]

He is referring to Kemnal Park cemetery, which is on the A20 in Bexley. It's a privately owned cemetery which is fairly new, so still has space. It's about 10 miles

away. Tower Hamlets council has bought space there for their residents.

[edborders]

We are against Southwark Council's plan to dig up or mound over graves and remove memorials in the cemeteries. Every grave over 75 years will eventually be dug up.

[ Here is another video of graves that are at risk from destroyed. Camberwell Old Cemetery, East Dulwich in the Autumn.

]

Will the families of people whose graves will be dug up get compensation for their loved ones being evicted from their 'final resting place'? When the council evicts homeowners from estates they have to recompense the homeowners.

Will the Council ask the families to pay to keep their loved ones in the ground?

Save Southwark Woods is against grave stripping, re-use, reclamation, grave excavation, grave exhumation, grave robbing or whatever you call it. Save Southwark Woods campaign does not have an view on burial. We are fighting to keep and increase the wild nature of the cemetery.

For Loz:

There is a new cemetery in Kemnal Park that was set up because inner London cemeteries are full. The same reason Camberwell cemeteries were set up in the 1850s.

Lewis Schaffer

One parent cremated, one parent buried.

[Loz]

kiera Wrote:

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

> He is referring to Kemnal Park cemetery, which is on the A20 in Bexley. It's a privately owned

> cemetery which is fairly new, so still has space. It's about 10 miles

> away. Tower Hamlets council has bought space there for their residents.

I just looked that up - it's about a 90 min trip each way by public transport from ED! Add in the time spent in the cemetery, that would be about a four hour trip just to put flowers on a grave.

That's really not going to be acceptable. If that's their proposed alternative, they've got no chance.

[dbboy]

SSW are a bit like quick sand, constantly moving and changing what they say, first it was digging up every grave in both cemeteries at 7.50pm, then at 10.50pm its any grave over 75 years old, can I suggest you have a strategy and stick to it rather than constantly changing your minds.

What do you class as "grave stripping"? Your words

What to do define as "reclamation"? Your words

What do you class as "grave robbing"? Your words

What do you class as "grave excavation"? Your words

What do you class as "grave exhumation"? Your words

What you are actually campaigning for is for the whole of the cemetery to be left to become an overgrown, out of control scrubland, wilderness like Nunhead cemetery? It ain't happening brov, you get me Donald. The council have invested too many resources in bringing camberwell old cemetery back into use to let that happen. What are you going to tell relatives, oh its now a wilderness and they will not be able to tend the graves of their loved ones, Great, you'll be even more unpopular than you are now when you try to propose that. Next and God forbid you'll be saying you want to run the cemetery, hahaha

[edborders]

Every grave in Camberwell Old and Camberwell New Cemeteries will eventually be dug up under Southwark Council plans. And the remains of local people moved. Every grave older than 75 years old. And over time that means every grave. An exception might be made if the families are found in time and are willing to pay keep their loved ones in the ground. We don't know.

Southwark Council will be cutting down trees on One Tree Hill and in Camberwell Old Cemeter. Up to 12 acres.

What would you tell relatives when they go into the cemetery and find another person's headstone where they expected to find their loved one and their loved ones' remains moved out?

The headstones and beautiful monuments will be removed - who knows where they will go.

Then the plots will be sold off - or rented off - to people out of the borough. Boss Peter John said on BBC Radio he wants to provide burial for London. Sold off to people who probably they don't that the dead will have only 75 years.

Video of ITV News report. https://youtu.be/0eklxkk30bQ

Lewis Schaffer

Local resident

[dbboy]

more scaremongering and untruths.

[DaveR]

"Southwark Council will be cutting down trees on One Tree Hill and in Camberwell Old Cemeter. Up to 12 acres"

Please be clear - are there proposals to cut down trees anywhere other than in existing cemeteries? You keep on saying "One Tree Hill" but if you mean that part of the area that is within the boundaries of a cemetery, you should say so. I'm sure you wouldn't want anybody to be misled.

[Sue]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> more scaremongering and untruths.

This is getting really tiring.

No wonder the council officers and councillors don't reply - I wouldn't either if I was constantly getting bombarded with stuff like this.

ETA: In case of misunderstanding, I am referring to edborders' posts on here - not dbboy's quote above.

[Penguin68]

More and more hyperbole and misleading information...

The '75 year rule' (in so far as it exists), starts with the premise that a burial which is more than 75 years old is unlikely to have living mourners visiting it - for a 'family' plot with multiple burials this would mean the last interment. Southward attempts to contact plot 'owners' before taking any action. Clearly, where there is an infant burial 75 years may not be long enough - siblings might well live longer.

Over time (a lot of time) re-use may mean that the burial sites of all current interments may be excised, but we are talking, I would guess, a minimum of 75 years before that might happen, and very likely much longer. The idea that someone would turn up to lay flowers and find their loved one disappeared is simply fantasy - although the option, as you can with country churchyards, of visiting the graves of family members 100s of years dead is lost.

I do not want yet another bit of park, particularly one which would have no management money for it be anything other than a dangerous wilderness which would probably have to be shut-off on health and safety grounds if nothing else and thus completely unavailable for local use as anything (other than for fly-tipping, as in the past when parts of it were criminally neglected).

I enjoy walking amongst the older and new graves, I like it that locally we have a focus for grieving (if that's your thing), I think cemeteries are as much an amenity as parks, or indeed schools. And the pricing structure still very much favours locals.

Had you focused on trying to ensure that the council's plans were carried out effectively and sensitively I would have applauded this. But your very clear aims to destroy the cemeteries, as cemeteries, is wholly (to me) unacceptable. If there is anyone out there in 'destruction' mode, it is you and your gang.

[Otta]

edborders Wrote:

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

> What would you tell relatives when they go into

> the cemetery and find another person's headstone

> where they expected to find their loved one and

> their loved ones' remains moved out?

>

But this is not going to happen. If anyone does have a lived one there and cares about the grave, then they'll know about the plans, it's not like they're going to turn up and be surprised.

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

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

> edborders Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > What would you tell relatives when they go into

> > the cemetery and find another person's

> headstone

> > where they expected to find their loved one and

> > their loved ones' remains moved out?

> >

>

>

>

> But this is not going to happen. If anyone does

> have a lived one there and cares about the grave,

> then they'll know about the plans, it's not like

> they're going to turn up and be surprised.

Otta, it's pointless trying to reason with somebody like this.

They distort the facts to suit their agenda, and use emotive language to appeal to people's emotions and to disguise their distortion of the facts.

It's sad, but I suppose it's human nature when somebody feels strongly about something.

The problem is that it completely destroys any credibility they have, and means that if they do actually sometimes state a fact without distortion, it probably won't be taken seriously because of their past history.

ETA: I like the "lived" typo, btw. Quite appropriate!

[nxjen]

Sue - spot on!

[edcam]

It's about time we realised that burial isn't viable, especially in cities. Whatever your beliefs, the fact that it's now pretty much guaranteed that you're eventually you're going to be dug up again makes a nonsense of burial.

[Penguin68]

From edborders

We are against Southwark Council's plan to dig up or mound over graves and remove memorials in the cemeteries. Every grave over 75 years will eventually be dug up.

So - 'dig-up' or 'mound over'? - obviously 'dig-up' sounds more sensational, so let's go with that then. Within two adjacent sentences we get contradiction - with the most gruesome being chosen as the runner. With the ground conditions we have, someone buried 75 years or more ago will not be leaving a lot to be dug-up. And quite a lot of the interments are actually of ashes in family plots. Where 'digging' does occur, and recognisable remains are uncovered, there are quite strict rules about re-internment.

From:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18505222

Strict rules apply to the exhumation of bodies. In England and Wales, the Ministry of Justice first has to grant a licence for their removal, it then has to gain planning permission and adhere to rules set out by organisations such as English Heritage and the church. Because of the age of most of the burial grounds this tends to be the Church of England.

Reburial must also take place - usually in other nearby cemeteries.

The graves in question date back at least 100 years, though many are much older. In some cases, they are unmarked by headstones and any living relatives are no longer contactable.

As Draper adds, the lack of close living relatives could for some be the line between acceptable digging and not.

"Some would argue that the whole thing about burial is actually more for the benefit of the living than the dead. Once the living connection is lost, then you lose completely the reason to rest in peace in that particular way."

In practice old bodies are sometimes buried in the same spot, but deeper, to allow for another burial on top.

Also see http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/06/recycled-graves-coming-soon-to-a-cemetery-near-you/.

[henryb]

It is both. There are mounding over the public graves and some private graves as part of this phase and for the short term. Later they will be "re-using" private graves which means digging out and exhumation. It is all in the strategy document.

[dbboy]

Really, so they are going to exhume the deceased's remains, can you post the document that states that. Because if the council started to do anything like that, and as I am sorry to repeat, the residents in the borough would be in revolt, so unless you can prove this in black and white, I have to say I do not believe what you are saying.

[henryb]

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11857/lednet_report

"because if the council started to do anything like that, and as I am sorry to repeat, the residents in the borough would be in revolt,"

Quite. I guess that is why they are are keeping quiet about it but that is their long/mid term strategy.

[Penguin68]

The attached document shows that the two possible strategies, where bodies are encountered, is 'lift and deepen' for private graves, where the body remains in situ but at a greater depth, and 'lift and re-inter' for public graves where the bodies are re-buried in consecrated ground (and only done with the permission of the Church). In both cases it is expected that the bodies will be treated with respect, and will be dead no less than 75 years (and often, in the case for instance of the wilded parts of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries) for considerably longer.

I doubt, in fact, whether such actions will in fact cause a furore (as they would for current and recent graves, which are not included in this policy).

For those with the time, page 12 of the document linked above shows in great details the necessary constraints placed on authorities who wish to re-use graves - worth reading as it shows a very different attitude to remains than that implied or indeed stated by the anti-cemetery lobby.

[panda boy]

dbboy - this is exactly what they are proposing, exhumations.

I will try to find the relevant document and link it for you.

I hope this leads to people in the borough revolting over this.

Personally my objections stem from the cynical way the southwark councillors behind this have acted on this issue. Disinformation, failing to act in an open and transparent manner, failing to undertake proper public consultations, scheduling public meetings with little notice and at times designed it make it hard for people to attend, basically being pretty underhand in their approach.

Incompetence at best, cynical money grabbing at worst.

[Penguin68]

dbboy - this is exactly what they are proposing, exhumations

No, they are proposing re-interment - either in exactly the same spot, but deeper, or in other consecrated ground. Exhumation is all about removing a body from the ground, normally for e.g. forensic (sometimes historical) examination. Exhumation is not, in itself, about (obviously) re-burial. And re-interment of very long dead bodies, without traceable relatives to object. If I declared I wanted to dig-up a row of trees in a park you might (I am sure you would) object. If I said I wanted to re-site or re-plant trees there might still be objections, but of a very different sort, and some who would object to trees being dug up might well not to them being re-sited and re-planted. Words (as you well know) are important.

[henryb]

No, exhumation means to removing remains from a grave - which is what they will be doing. Southwark's own document use the word.

It is true that the any remains they find will be re-interred either in the same grave or somewhere else.

[Penguin68]

No, exhumation means to removing remains from a grave - which is what they will be doing. Southwark's own document use the word.

It is true that the any remains they find will be re-interred either in the same grave or somewhere else

So the 'exhumation' - for private graves - will be for a matter, probably, of a few minutes, perhaps half an hour as the grave is dug deeper, the bones bagged and put at the bottom of the newly deepened grave. Not exactly what I'd call an exhumation. For public graves (where bodies are already buried together) the 'out of soil' experience will be longer, but with no other intent than reburial. 'Exhumation', whilst technically correct for the first part of the action, gives quite a different meaning to what is actually intended by Southwark.

[henryb]

I think I will stick with the technically correct words and the ones Southwark use rather ones that make it sound better than it is if you don't mind.