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

[panda boy]

Hello Loz.

Not quite sure what is you feel you have to 'bite' on, but at least you have the guts to ask a question publicly on the forum and not send childish cowardly nonsense in the form of a PM that I have just received from someone.

In my view, and the direct dealings with the council I have had on this matter, they have lied.

There were promises of more public consultations. Didn't happen.

There were assurances of more up to date studies on the area, (the ones they published were years out of date. These plans have been floating around for a long time.) They didn't deliver on this.

There was also the promise to listen to peoples concerns. With over 3,500 southwark residents signing a petition against, over 10,000 non locals expressing they are against the plans in general, and over 600 individual abjections to the planning committee of southwark, i'd call it a barefaced lie that this strength of public opinion has just been ignored and the plans forced through regardless.

Regardless of the details of this particular situation, the council have behaved appallingly.

[Loz]

But in your first post, you complained they are "wasting valuable funds", yet what you want them to do is waste more funds to repeat the entire exercise simply because the people against the project don't want it to go ahead and are grasping for whatever stalling tactic will work? Do you really think yet another consultation and yet more expensive reports are going to unearth anything new?

I don't know what the council promised/said/intimated to you or how it was said, but SSW haven't entirely been blameless either. There have been a lot of 'mistaken assertions' on here and on twitter (i.e. the 'illegal work' comments that were almost certainly wrong). The main problem I can see is that SSW haven't come up with a suitable alternative. The council knows that they are either going to get grief now, for doing the cemetery work, or grief later when burial spots in Southwark run out. They can't keep everyone happy.

I know there has been a petition, but frankly, you can get 10000 signatures for anything these days. Hell, well over a million people signed a petition to get Jeremy Clarkson reinstated, but that never happened. If SSW do have a high level of support and think the council has erred in law then get the cash together from the supporter base and get a proper injunction. If you are right, you can have the work stopped in 24 hours.

Anyway, back to your original point, I'm not going to apologise for anything I have posted. I find the whole approach of SSW extraordinarily amusing, especially Lewis' wildly emotional writing. Today's two mis-tweetings (snowboarder Jenny Jones and Peter John of New York, who actually replied) have made me laugh out loud. That fellow, in completely bad taste, running around a cemetery dressed as the Grim Reaper is almost pythonesque. It's all ruddy brilliant.

[dbboy]

"Lewis S and SSW are trying to protect an area of woodland within a metropolitan area". - I have to disagree with you, it is rather burial land that was neglected by the council and became overgrown scrubland, the council realised this existed and now wish to clear it and bring it back into use for the purpose it is intended for - burials. I appreciate the amount of effort Lewis and co are putting in to try and defend it, but unfortunately I feel the efforts are mis-guided.

No one has asked Lewis and co to act on behalf of the community.

"They are not personally gaining out of this", - no one has ever inferred that Lewis and Co are gaining personally from this.

"they are doing it for the benefit of the community". - noted

"The council have acted in a wholly dishonest and disingenuous manner about this". - They have consulted, undertaken a study, produced a substantial document detailing the history, findings, conclusions and recommendations on how they intend to proceed, I cannot see why / what is wrong with this. I seems a wholly democratic approach.

"Regardless of your feelings about how the opposition to these plans are conducting themselves, can we assume you are content to have a council who lies to get their own way, and who's plans are so economically illiterate that they are wasting valuable funds to push these plans through then your moral compass is truly broken". - It seems like we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

[edborders]

Funeral for Southwark Woods was today and it was a fantastic event - 40 people - maybe more - coming and going -

If this weren't for something so sad it would have been a lot of fun.

Just horrible to see the large trees cut down, the chainsaws now cutting into the non-trees. Once they clear the hill, the mound of building waste will be "processed" on the site. Mashed up and put back on top of graves to make new clean graves. People will now be buried in ground-up building waste on top of tens of thousands of dead. I don't know if the new renters need to be told that. I don't see anything on the COuncil website that warns them of that

Yesterday, we learned that Harriet Harman wrote a strongly worded letter to Darren Merrill letting him know she had written a strongly worded letter and that she would remind everyone at a later date that she had written a strongly worded letter. It involved flooding on Ryedale.

look at the video.

Lewis Schaffer

Buy tickets to our fundraising event - Sunday, Valentines Day. Or just donate. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/save-southwark-woods-comedy-benefit-tickets-20846697032

[Sue]

dbboy, if you click on "quote this message" under the post you are replying to, it will hopefully be clearer who said what - (or else put the other poster's words in quotes?)

[Sue]

panda boy Wrote:

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

>

> In my view, and the direct dealings with the

> council I have had on this matter, they have

> lied.

> There were promises of more public consultations.

> Didn't happen.

Were these public consultations going to be related to the current work being carried out, or related to future work? Where and when did the council make these promises, and who in the council made them?

> There were assurances of more up to date studies

> on the area, (the ones they published were years

> out of date. These plans have been floating

> around for a long time.) They didn't deliver on

> this.

>

When were these assurances given, and who made them?

How much were these more up to date studies going to cost?

What was the time scale, and what were the studies going to study, exactly?

> There was also the promise to listen to peoples

> concerns. With over 3,500 southwark residents

> signing a petition against, over 10,000 non locals

> expressing they are against the plans in general,

> and over 600 individual abjections to the planning

> committee of southwark, i'd call it a barefaced

> lie that this strength of public opinion has just

> been ignored and the plans forced through

> regardless.

This "strength of public opinion" has been due to a sustained campaign by SSW of approaching people personally, via glossy postcards and via social media and (from what I have seen) only giving them one side of the story.

If there had been a similar sustained campaign from people in favour of the council's plans, then you may find opinion is actually quite evenly balanced or weighted in favour.

But nobody is ever going to start a campaign in favour of something which is already going to happen, are they?

> Regardless of the details of this particular

> situation, the council have behaved appallingly.

But isn't your complaint about the council's behaviour specifically about this particular situation?

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

> People will now be buried in ground-up building

> waste on top of tens of thousands of dead.

How is it "ground-up building waste"?

I thought we were talking about trees? Are you suggesting people are going to be buried in brick dust?

[panda boy]

Loz, I don't believe spending money on up to date surveys and studies to be a waste, quite the contrary, as they would no doubt reveal the current environmental state of the area. The council using previous surveys and studies that are out of date is part of the disingenuous way they have acted over this. They can't simply circumvent this step because of expense, or if they do it would suggest their plans have not been costed effectively.

These new plots in Camberwell old cemetery were already going to be the most expensive plots in the borough, and that is based on costs released by the council in 2011/12. They have failed to update their projected costings, or at least have failed to release this to the public.

Are you happy that people have not been made aware of the current costs of these plans?

I'm sorry to say your dismissal of the number of people who have expressed an opinion against these plans is strange, and your comparison with a petition to keep a TV personalty on TV is utterly irrelevant. We're talking about over 3,500 people in the borough who have expressed an opinion. If you wish to discount over 10,000 people outside the borough then fine. Why are you so willing, and quite frankly who are you to ignore the opinions of 3,500 people?

At least it's all giving you a good laugh though eh?

[Loz]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> I'm sorry to say your dismissal of the number of people who have expressed an opinion against these

> plans is strange, and your comparison with a petition to keep a TV personalty on TV is utterly

> irrelevant. We're talking about over 3,500 people in the borough who have expressed an opinion. If

> you wish to discount over 10,000 people outside the borough then fine. Why are you so willing,

> and quite frankly who are you to ignore the opinions of 3,500 people?

You want it both ways. Either petitions mean something or they don't - you can't say a petition of 13,500 must be acted upon just because you believe in the cause, but a petition of a million can be safely ignored because you don't. That's just hypocrisy.

> At least it's all giving you a good laugh though eh?

Absolutely.

[panda boy]

dboy, the intended use of the area in Camberwell old cemetery was indeed for burials. That was when it was designed and built in 1855. I personally don't see this as any justification for the councils plans at all.

What we have right here and now is a significant and valuable area of woodland. I think thats worth keeping personally.

Out of interest have you seen the plans and renders of what they want to achieve here? Are you happy that they seem to want to make Camberwell old cemetery resemble world war one war graves? (I'm not being emotive, that is what the councils renders look like.)

Actually people have asked 'Lewis and co' to act on this, but obviously not the people who are in favour of it. I can cite over 3,500 people in the borough and over 10,000 who are against these plans though.

As to the way the council have acted, I find your attitude to be very trusting of them. The studies they published re out of date. The assurances that new studies would be made have not been fulfilled. Their consultations were cynical at best, arranging them at times that were difficult for people to attend and with very little notice period. Subsequent consultations have not happened.

Like I originally said, I expect more transparent and honest behaviour from the council.

If you do not then thats just fine, strange but fine.

[panda boy]

Er, no, not quite Loz. That's not what hypocrisy means.

I'm struggling to see the connection between an guy on TV who was sacked for punching his producer with a petition signed by people local to an issue that affects them directly. Just saying they're both petitions and thats that is puerile in the extreme.

When you've stopped laughing maybe you can explain a little more?

Without wanting to get bogged down in semantics of what the definition of a valid petition is, have you actually seen the plans and renders of what the council want to achieve? Are you happy with them?

[JoeLeg]

"Like I originally said, I expect more transparent and honest behaviour from the council.

If you do not then thats just fine, strange but fine."

That's a nice strawman you've built there. All your own idea?

[fruityloops]

Loz Wrote:

>

> Absolutely.

what a tragic piece of work you are Loz

[Otta]

Clearly the SSW gang decided to jump on to this thread today.

Panda boy I would respectfully suggest that you have absolutely no grasp on just how little money local authorities have to spend right now. And with actual important stuff to worry about, the state of a few trees really isn't going to be a priority.

I'm really sorry that you all enjoy walking in the cemetery and feel this will be ruined, but there are lots of wooded areas you can go to.

[panda boy]

Otta, I am not part of the SSW gang.

I originally posted about the cowardly behaviour towards Lewis personally on here, and attracted some cowardly ire of my own. Some very classy people on here nowadays.

I find it common that people who have nothing of substance to say often 'play the player and not the ball', if thats the right way of expressing that phrase?

Your assumptions are staggering.

I'm more than aware of how little money local authorities have at the moment. This is precisely part of the reason I am against these plans. The costs provided a few years ago were increasing. Who knows what the current costs are as the council have not made these figures publicly available. And at the end of it locals will be left with a choice of some of the most expensive burial plots in London, so hardly a bonus for the local community.

I'm genuinely curious and increasingly suspicious about how southwark have conducted themselves over this.

"but there are lots of wooded areas you can go to."

Indeed, by the same token there are lots of places and methods people can get buried, so where does that leave us?

[JoeLeg]

"Some very classy people on here nowadays."

Yeah, you're one of them. Your passive-aggressive attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you is unpleasant, and your conviction that others are fully in support of what you see as a corrupt council if they don't see it your way is even more so. You're just as guilty of playing the player, you just dress it up nicely to make it look otherwise.

And there aren't lots of places and methods where people can get buried, at least not in London. Suitable land for that purpose is at a premium; I'd be interested to read your solutions - so far I can't see any from you.

[dbboy]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> dboy, the intended use of the area in Camberwell

> old cemetery was indeed for burials. That was

> when it was designed and built in 1855. I

> personally don't see this as any justification for

> the councils plans at all.

> What we have right here and now is a significant

> and valuable area of woodland. I think thats

> worth keeping personally.

Well that is were we have to disagree, what you define as woodland is actually as I have already said, I see as overgrown burial land that the council was NEGLIGENT in maintaining, I think we can agree on that??

> Out of interest have you seen the plans and

> renders of what they want to achieve here?

Yes, I have looked through the report and overall it makes sense from the background information provided, reasoning

consultation, the studies, findings, conclusions and recommendations on how they intend to proceed,

Are

> you happy that they seem to want to make

> Camberwell old cemetery resemble world war one war

> graves? (I'm not being emotive, that is what the

> councils renders look like.)

Again, YES, I am more than happy to see graves laid out in a clear and coherent manner, rather than the way some of the Old Cemetery is, and if you look where the knotweed work is being done you'll see where very old graves are laid out in rows. This layout maximises the use of land for graves to be prepared and presented in.

Go look at somewhere like Hither Green and you'll see how it looks after 30+ years of this approach to laying graves in an orderly format. It works for me.

> Actually people have asked 'Lewis and co' to act

> on this, but obviously not the people who are in

> favour of it.

Noted, but you have to admit it must provide him with great material for his role as a comedian.

I can cite over 3,500 people in the

> borough and over 10,000 who are against these

> plans though.

>

I think it's more like 800 of which probably 30 - 40 are active as was evidenced from today's turn out.

> As to the way the council have acted, I find your

> attitude to be very trusting of them. The studies

> they published re out of date. The assurances

> that new studies would be made have not been

> fulfilled. Their consultations were cynical at

> best, arranging them at times that were difficult

> for people to attend and with very little notice

> period. Subsequent consultations have not

> happened.

>

Have to disagree with you on that, the report they produced was prepared in a structured manner and what I would expect from them, anything less would have not justified the works that are being done now and future plans.

You have to remember that it is a cemetery, it's purpose is for the living to bury, mourn and remember their dead, you can argue that burial is out dated, but for some faiths and some believers, that is what they want, I'm sorry, I cannot see that their wishes can be denied to be buried locally. And furthermore, it is not the first time that graves have been re-used, Where old graves are to be re-used I would prefer the new internment goes on top of the original internment and the old grave stone being turned round with the new inscription being added. This is how they proceed in City of London for burials.

Lewis wants the cemetery to become overgrown, that won't be happening, as Penguin68 has previously said, if that did happen, the cemetery would be closed and no one could use it for what ever purpose.

If you go to the cemetery in Ladywell, you'll see what the results of neglect look like, at times it is so overgrown it is a disgrace. It's because their is not the money for the council to do what they should. That is a whole other argument for a different day on a different thread.

> Like I originally said, I expect more transparent

> and honest behaviour from the council.

You can expect more transparency, I think you need to request this, but the way ssw have conducted themselves to date, in particular some of the tweets to councillors and MP's, does not surprise me that they are not engaging with ssw and in fact are ignoring ssw.

> If you do not then thats just fine, strange but

> fine.

I think you have tried to bring the case back to the table and in removing the emotive language from the argument that Lewis used, you may find your case reaches more ears. In ending, I must say it was a very amusing few hours seeing the events of today unfold.

[Sue]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> I originally posted about the cowardly behaviour

> towards Lewis personally on here

Would you like to give some examples of the "cowardly behaviour towards Lewis personally" which you posted about?

Have you read all (now) nineteen pages of this thread?

Have you actually read all Lewis' posts? Do you agree with all he says and the way he says it? Is it true that people are going to be buried in "building waste", for example, which is his latest assertion?

Oh, and are you intending responding to my previous questions? I'm not picking a fight, I would genuinely like to know the answers.

[panda boy]

Sue, yes i will answer your questions in due course.

I'm a little busy right now.

[panda boy]

dbboy, thank you for your reasoned and detailed reply.

I will respond and get back to you as soon as I can.

[fruityloops]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> "Some very classy people on here nowadays."

>

> Yeah, you're one of them. Your passive-aggressive

> attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you is

> unpleasant, and your conviction that others are

> fully in support of what you see as a corrupt

> council if they don't see it your way is even more

> so. You're just as guilty of playing the player,

> you just dress it up nicely to make it look

> otherwise.

>

> And there aren't lots of places and methods where

> people can get buried, at least not in London.

> Suitable land for that purpose is at a premium;

> I'd be interested to read your solutions - so far

> I can't see any from you.

Burn people. Can scatter the ashes in the woods then. No rental, and can just keep piling them up.

[Otta]

panda boy Wrote:

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

>.

>

> "but there are lots of wooded areas you can go

> to."

> Indeed, by the same token there are lots of places

> and methods people can get buried, so where does

> that leave us?

Not locally. That's the big difference as far ad I can tell.

[woodvale.res]

There seems to be very little respect from ssw towards cemetery users (by this I mean families tending graves)

I know if I had been tending a grave and someone walked passed dressed as the grim reaper I know were that sickle would have ended up.

[edborders]

This is only a "draft" so maybe they are going to cart the building waste away and bring in topsoil.

I believe the Council is going to reuse two thirds of the illegally dumped building waste as cover for the 700 "new" grave plots.

Not only will local people have their families' graves covered over with other dead people, the newly buried dead people will be on top of other dead people and buried in building waste.

Perhaps the Council can come in here and tell me I'm wrong.

Lewis Schaffer

Benefit 14 Feb 2016 https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/save-southwark-woods-comedy-benefit-tickets-20846697032

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/3185&system=DC

Document - REMEDIATION STRATEGY REPORT - DRAFT

3.2 PROPOSED REMEDIAL STRATEGY ? CL:AIRE DEFINITION OF WASTE CODE OF PRACTICE

Based on the findings of the various previous site investigation reports there appears to be the potential to

reuse a substantial volume of the 2003 Stockpile Made Ground to help facilitate the proposed re-profiling of

the site to provide additional burial space. SEC understands that SKM have previously estimated that

2,500m3

of material requires off site disposal which would leave ~4,500m3 for potential re-use on site. In

order to realise the reuse of what is currently considered to be unlicensed ?waste?, employment of the

CL:AIRE Code of Practice (CoP) is proposed as an appropriate remedial strategy. The CoP provides a clear,

consistent and efficient process which enables the reuse of excavated materials (both contaminated and noncontaminated)

on-site or their movement between sites. Use of the CoP supports the sustainable and cost

effective development of land and it can provide an alternative to Environmental Permits or Waste

Exemptions.

The CoP allows determination on a site specific basis, when treated excavated waste can cease to be waste

for a particular use.

[Otta]

woodvale.res Wrote:

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

> There seems to be very little respect from ssw

> towards cemetery users (by this I mean families

> tending graves)

> I know if I had been tending a grave and someone

> walked passed dressed as the grim reaper I know

> were that sickle would have ended up.

I had a similar thought.