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

[Otta]

This is becoming tiresome. It's only fun when Lewis is on form.

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

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

> This is becoming tiresome. It's only fun when

> Lewis is on form.

Yes, well, unfortunately Lewis being "on form" is what is totally losing "Save Southwark Woods" credibility on what should be a serious thread discussing important issues.

You can't have it all ways .....

[henryb]

Well I would say you're in everyone's face endlessly complaining about Lewis's language. There is nothing illegal about emotive language and I would say factually most of what he has said has been true. Certainly more so than the Council output. Many local people feel very strongly about this - ad hominem and emotive attacks one campaigner are not helpful to a reasonable discussion.

[Sue]

henryb Wrote:

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

> Well I would say you're in everyone's face

> endlessly complaining about Lewis's language.

> There is nothing illegal about emotive language

> and I would say factually most of what he has said

> has been true. Certainly more so than the Council

> output. Many local people feel very strongly about

> this - ad hominem and emotive attacks one

> campaigner are not helpful to a reasonable

> discussion.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

There is certainly nothing illegal about emotive language, and in the right place it's fine, but stuff like corpse fluids running down the road is neither true nor helpful.

And please explain how anything I have said about Lewis has been "emotive"?

ETA: And to bring things back to the subject which is supposed to be under discussion, what happened at the 8am demo today?

[Penguin68]

Many local people feel very strongly about this

Well 3 who post regularly on this forum do - as regards supporting the woodfolk, and about the same number on this forum oppose them (maybe more). The 'support' gathered through somewhat(!) misleading petitions is certainly additionally there, but whether it can be deemed informed is a different matter. The council has in it's own briefing answered most of the points made - and effectively refuted most of them - the 'argument' now is that the council is lying (evidence?) and that anyway, at some indeterminate time in the future, all will come to pass as foretold by the prophet Lewis.

Who has (I suspect) somewhat hidden from those whose support he is seeking (i.e. the Diocese) that he wants no more funerals in Southwark and the wilding of existing cemeteries. This sympathy for the long dead which is frequently evinced, whilst having no sympathy for the wishes of those shortly to die or their relics is curiously hypocritical IMO. I doubt whether the Church would really support those who place trees (of any nature, age or lack of beauty) ahead of people, even in this right-on day and age. As I have said before, if he actually got his way the cemeteries would be sealed off as being unsafe - and, without any income to support their maintenance would soon become the haunts of fly-tippers and vermin. As they were before during their years of neglect.

[edborders]

Today Southwark continued to cut down trees and wild undergrowth - this in our backyard. For what? For a few years of burial. Shame on us all for letting this happen.

Http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Lewis Schaffer

Nunhead. Who are you? Really, who are you?

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Today Southwark continued to cut down trees and

> wild undergrowth - this in our backyard.

A "backyard" which is a cemetery.

ETA: A neglected cemetery which is being brought back to its intended use.

[JoeLeg]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Today Southwark continued to cut down trees and

> wild undergrowth - this in our backyard. For what?

> For a few years of burial. Shame on us all for

> letting this happen.

>

> Http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

> Lewis Schaffer

> Nunhead. Who are you? Really, who are you?

Mate, you need help. I honestly, genuinely think you've become too invested in this. Take this level of passion and put it into something that matters - because this doesn't. It's not the thin end of any legislative wedge, it's not the beginning of a facist state. It's a point of local maintenance that only you and a couple of others seem to think important. Move on.

[henryb]

Re Penguin's last post.

What a patronising post. I am sure most local people are capable of making their own minds up about the issue and as the petition linked to Southwark's plans I am sure they did. You are more than welcome to start your own petition if doubt that.

Don't be deluded that most people in the area read, let alone post on this forum. But if as you imply a few regulars on this forum somehow represent widespread public support for these plans why didn't one single person submit a comment saying they approved of the plans to the planning committee.

No one is against burials in Southwark but it can't be at the expense of cutting down trees or the loss of parks or allotments. No one is saying the existing burial rights shouldn't be respected or that the remaining plots shouldn't be used up.

[edcam]

I have to agree that while I'm not sure if Lewis's energies are entirely justified, he has every right to fight for what he believes in. This thread has become rather uncomfortable now, and it feels a little bullying in tone. It's comforting sometimes to remind ourselves that this forum doesn't represent the world at large.

[Otta]

If anyone thinks that anything anyone says on this thread will make the slightest difference in the real world, they're kidding themselves.

[Otta]

Since yesterday afternoon I've become Lewis' biggest fan. The "crazy bastard" comment was meant in respect and awe.

I do think he'd serve himself and his cause better by sticking to absolute facts and being a bit less shout but there you go.

Agree that the tone of the thread has gone a bit uncomfortable. For me it's always just been fun, I couldn't really care less what happens.

[JoeLeg]

edcam Wrote:

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

> I have to agree that while I'm not sure if Lewis's

> energies are entirely justified, he has every

> right to fight for what he believes in. This

> thread has become rather uncomfortable now, and it

> feels a little bullying in tone. It's comforting

> sometimes to remind ourselves that this forum

> doesn't represent the world at large.

Lewis does indeed have that right, which I support. However - and it's just my personal opinion - I think the 'bullying' tone comes mostly from him, as he seems to assert that anyone so disagrees with him is somehow in league with terrible dark forces in the council. I object to his tone and attitude on this subject.

Now I'm sorry to be a dissenter, but I truly feel he's lost perspective. I also don't think his arguments add up - I get the feeling he's so vehemently opposed to the works in the current form that he refuses to see any possibility that he might be wrong. It's all coming over as pretty dogmatic and zealous. If he's willing to chain itself to things then there are better causes he could take up.

[Loz]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Today Southwark continued to cut down trees and wild undergrowth - this in our backyard. For what?

> For a few years of burial. Shame on us all for letting this happen.

Anyone notice that yesterday's buzzword - 'illegal' - has disappeared? I think Lewis has worked out that Southwark is currently working on unconsecrated ground.

[Penguin68]

Otta is of course completely right - but: No one is against burials in Southwark but it can't be at the expense of cutting down trees or the loss of parks or allotments....

...actually there have been specific points made about ceasing burial in Southwark and moving such burials to outer boroughs. And what current cemetery plans, agreed by the council, put in jeopardy any existing allotments or parks? All current agreed plans refer to existing cemetery areas. This again is prophet of doom, 'worst case scenario' stuff and is significantly hypothecated on no or reduced re-use in existing cemeteries. [Allotments all over London are threatened, of course, but not, I believe, by Southwark's agreed cemetery plan currently being implemented].

Oh, and I think cutting down (some) trees, mainly unplanned scrub growth, is acceptable to meet the borough's burial needs, particularly where this sits with a programme of re-planting.

[bluecanary]

Having read through this and bits of the other threads my head is spinning with the effort of trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. Have no wish to add to the thread or discussion save to post the link to the protesters original objectives.

henryb Wrote:

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

> Update from Save Southwark Woods for those not

> following on Facebook/Twitter.

>

> At the Public Meeting, the council gave residents

> until Friday 20th February, a typically short

> period to make comments on their brutal,

> destructive and short-term proposals. Here are the

> people to write to, it can be in one email/letter

> and you can be as specific or as general as you

> wish, but has to be with them by Friday 20th.

>

> The people to write to are:

>

> Officers:

> [email protected] Simon Bevan, Head of

> Planning

> [email protected] Rebecca Towers,

> Parks & Open Spaces Manager

> [email protected] Des Waters, Head of

> Public Realm

>

> Copy in Councillors:

> [email protected] Cllr Darren

> Merrill

> [email protected] Clly Victoria

> Mills

> [email protected] Cllr Renata Hamvas

>

> And please copy us in too!

> [email protected]

>

> The main points Save Southwark Woods is calling

> for are:

> ? For these woodlands, wooded areas and

> greenspaces to be protected and managed for nature

> and people - no new burials

> ? For both cemeteries to be declared the Local

> Nature Reserves they really are, and managed as

> Nunhead Cemetery is

> ? That years of illegal fly tipping under the

> council?s watch should not be the excuse used for

> a massive redevelopment not just of Area Z but

> across the whole of these magical woods, with

> sanitised landscaping and THOUSANDS of burial

> plots instead of woodland at the end of it

> ? A full Public Consultation 2015/2016 on these

> brutal and destructive proposals, denied to the

> public with a toothless public information

> exercise instead

> If you wish to express support for the SSW

> campaign too, that would be great but the main

> thing is to make your comments known. The council

> has tried to get this through without anyone

> realising what was happening. Tell them they can't

> pull the wool over residents' eyes like this.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1464510,1474909,

[edborders]

Photo attached is of Woodvale side of Camberwell Old Cemetery built on dirt mounded over public graves, and leased off for 50 years, with a maximum extension to 100 years.

"Oh, and I think cutting down (some) trees, mainly unplanned scrub growth, is acceptable to meet the borough's burial needs, particularly where this sits with a programme of re-planting."

The goal of Save Southwark Woods is to preserve the nature and heritage of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries, with respect for the dead. No to mounding over graves. No to digging up graves. No to removal of headstones. Yes to woods and undergrowth.

Lewis Schaffer

Two sons who walk through the cemetery to go to their piano lessons.

[henryb]

Bad writing and a lack of clarity there but it was never the intention stop burials in the existing active areas in CNC or stop existing burial rights. The point has always been to protect the wooded areas and open grassland areas from being re-developed and to stop the re-use of graves.

[henryb]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Otta is of course completely right - but: No one

> is against burials in Southwark but it can't be at

> the expense of cutting down trees or the loss of

> parks or allotments....

>

> ...actually there have been specific points made

> about ceasing burial in Southwark and moving such

> burials to outer boroughs. And what current

> cemetery plans, agreed by the council, put in

> jeopardy any existing allotments or parks? All

> current agreed plans refer to existing cemetery

> areas. This again is prophet of doom, 'worst case

> scenario' stuff and is significantly hypothecated

> on no or reduced re-use in existing cemeteries. .

No, using the rec is still on the table. And yes moving most if not all burials out of the borough when the cemeteries are full is a totally sensible thing to do and they should start now so people who are really do need a local one can still get one.

[Sue]

henryb Wrote:

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

> No, using the rec is still on the table.

Isn't that because it was originally bought with the intention of using it for burials? And its present use was always intended to be temporary?

Or have I got that wrong?

[Otta]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Schaffer

[JoeLeg]

Ah, it starts to make sense...

[Sue]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> Ah, it starts to make sense...

Does it??!

[edhistory]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8226733.stm

Does he have a work permit?

[henryb]

Sue Wrote:

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

> henryb Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > No, using the rec is still on the table.

>

>

> Isn't that because it was originally bought with

> the intention of using it for burials? And its

> present use was always intended to be temporary?

>

> Or have I got that wrong?

Yes along with the allotments. One tree hill nature reserve was originally purchased as a golf course.