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

[dbboy]

Lewis - you appear to now be going down a different avenue, but that is fair enough. Maybe worth contacting the council and asking for clarification on the matter, I think it depends on what is defined as the "2003 stockpile made ground"

"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"

[woodvale.res]

Not only is this disrespectful but the general use of the cemetery as some sort of recreation area where dogs and children are allowed to run freely over graves.

[Loz]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> 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.

I thought that would be obvious - numbers. Why should a 1M person petition be ignored, but a 10k petition be immediately taken notice of? You're the one that made a big song and dance about the number of people that have signed the SSW petition - either numbers matter or they don't. Your call.

Besides, petition are notoriously poor at conveying what people actually think on an issue. It's been proved time and time again: it's all in how you phrase the question. Go around with two petitions, one saying "Do you support saving the trees from being cut down" and the other, "Do you support the provision of burial spaces in Southwark for Southwark residents", then you will get a significant number of people happily sign both petitions, even though they actually represent diametrically opposite opinions as far as this issue goes. It's notable that, for all these thousands of 'supporters' they claim, SSW can barely get 50 people out on a weekend.

Do you really want the council to comply with every single petition that they get sent? That's a recipe for chaos. Or is it, as I suspect, you want the council to comply with every petition that you sign?

As I said, if you really think the council has transgressed the rules, then get together an injunction.

> 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?

If you read the post the other day where I pointed out the technicalities of the report that showed where Lewis made a mistake in assuming all the cemetery was consecrated ground, you might have twigged I have actually read through the report. The council plans to upgrade cemeteries - they started as cemeteries, they will end up as a cemeteries. No great surprise or issue there. I have no problem with re-using graves or mounding over - in fact I think that given the lack of burial space it is a very practical idea.

Now if the plan was to dig up, say. Dulwich Park or Peckham Rye then I'd be in complete agreement with you. But working on a cemetery to make it usable as a cemetery for the foreseeable future is hardly an outrageous idea.

[edhistory]

I suspect some people would now like to un-sign the petition.

Can't be did.

[Sue]

Loz Wrote:

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

> panda boy Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > 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.

>

> I thought that would be obvious - numbers. Why

> should a 1M person petition be ignored, but a 10k

> petition be immediately taken notice of? You're

> the one that made a big song and dance about the

> number of people that have signed the SSW petition

> - either numbers matter or they don't. Your

> call.

>

> Besides, petition are notoriously poor at

> conveying what people actually think on an issue.

> It's been proved time and time again: it's all in

> how you phrase the question. Go around with two

> petitions, one saying "Do you support saving the

> trees from being cut down" and the other, "Do you

> support the provision of burial spaces in

> Southwark for Southwark residents", then you will

> get a significant number of people happily sign

> both petitions, even though they actually

> represent diametrically opposite opinions as far

> as this issue goes. It's notable that, for all

> these thousands of 'supporters' they claim, SSW

> can barely get 50 people out on a weekend.

>

> Do you really want the council to comply with

> every single petition that they get sent? That's a

> recipe for chaos. Or is it, as I suspect, you want

> the council to comply with every petition that you

> sign?

>

> As I said, if you really think the council has

> transgressed the rules, then get together an

> injunction.

>

> > 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?

>

> If you read the post the other day where I pointed

> out the technicalities of the report that showed

> where Lewis made a mistake in assuming all the

> cemetery was consecrated ground, you might have

> twigged I have actually read through the report.

> The council plans to upgrade cemeteries - they

> started as cemeteries, they will end up as a

> cemeteries. No great surprise or issue there. I

> have no problem with re-using graves or mounding

> over - in fact I think that given the lack of

> burial space it is a very practical idea.

>

> Now if the plan was to dig up, say. Dulwich Park

> or Peckham Rye then I'd be in complete agreement

> with you. But working on a cemetery to make it

> usable as a cemetery for the foreseeable future is

> hardly an outrageous idea.

Excellent points, Loz.

[panda boy]

Loz, you are creating a entirely false dichotomy here;

> I thought that would be obvious - numbers. Why should a 1M person petition be ignored, but a 10k petition be immediately taken notice of?

They are measures of public opinion. Yes, both use numbers to count people who have signed, that is pretty much the only similarity. If you seriously cannot see the difference between these two issues then I cannot help you understand this any more.

Now i'm starting to laugh at someone who thinks a petition to reinstate a tv personality assaulting his boss and a petition to stop the council developing a contentious area are in any way similar because they both use numbers as a counting system. Really?

> You're the one that made a big song and dance about the number of people that have signed the SSW petition -

Now who's using hyperbole? I have not made a song and dance about anything, maybe you can point out my 'song and dance'? I pointed out these facts to highlight the measure of popular opinion about this.

> Do you really want the council to comply with every single petition that they get sent? That's a recipe for chaos. Or is it, as I suspect, you want the council to comply with every petition that you sign?

Sigh, no, I don't think this. You are now setting up your own conditional argument that has nothing to do with what I have said. I would however expect a council to behave in an honest way and do what they have said they would do, as in listen to local concerns, which I don;t believe they have done.

> It's notable that, for all these thousands of 'supporters' they claim, SSW can barely get 50 people out on a weekend.

What exactly are you suggesting here? That there is some fraud involved now? Why be so coy? Just come out and say what you mean.

Either way Loz, I feel we are moving away from the actual debate here. I'm not here to defend SSW, to promote them, or to help define what a valid petition is or isn't.

I'm glad you have read the reports.

So do you think the current plans to fit rows of graves, as tightly packed as they can be, in keeping with the rest of the cemetery?

Do you think the contaminated ground should be cleaned on site or off site?

How do you feel about the drainage issue? The council are being oddly quiet about this.

Do you think costings done on this in 2011/12 are still relevant now?

> The council plans to upgrade cemeteries - they started as cemeteries, they will end up as a cemeteries. No great surprise or issue there. I have no problem with re-using graves or mounding over - in fact I think that given the lack of burial space it is a very practical idea.

Yes indeed. When you reduce the issue to such simplistic terms then who could possibly disagree?

Unfortunately things are sometimes more complicated than this.

[panda boy]

Sue,

> 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?

They were to relate to the current cemetery plans, part of the Southwark 'cemetery strategy'. A number of councillors were signed on various emails; Darren Merrill, Rebecca Towers, Avril Kirby to name a few for you.

> When were these assurances given, and who made them?

2014. See above.

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

I don't know Sue, the council have failed to release up to date figures for this project. The last budget for this project was, I believe ?30m. The plots in Camberwell Old cemetery were looking to cost residents over ?1,200, and that was with the proposed 1,000 graves. And these were projected 2012 costings. Now they are suggesting 700 plots, the cost of each plot has increased, although to what amount is unknown sue to the councils failure to release any revised costings. This is an expensive project and i?m struggling to see how producing the most expensive burial plots in London can be described as a ?benefit? to local residents.

Regardless of the cost of the studies I don't think they are something that is negotiable. Data collected in 2011/12 is hardly current. Would you buy a house and save money by not doing a survey? (A simplistic comparison I know, but hopefully you get my point.)

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

Time scales seem to be pretty flexible from the council on this issue. For example it took 10 months for the council to release existing public information about this area, yet they were able to organise their planning application in double quick time.

The surveys were to look at the flora and fauna in the area. Comprehensive soil surveys were performed in the past which revealed some particularly contaminated ground after the illegal dumping (by a corrupt councillor) in the past.

One of the main questions about these plans is the effect of, once the trees have been removed and the ground scrub cleared, the potential for this contaminated ground to run down to the houses on Ryedale. Originally the contaminated soil was to be cleaned on site. Then the soil was going to be removed and cleaned off site. Now the appears to be a proposal to use some of this ground (cleaned or uncleaned?) to top graves off.

This is just one detail that causes concern, as the contamination levels in areas of the soil is significant.

> 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.

I'm sorry Sue but I don't agree with this one bit. As i've stated I'm not SSW and am not here to defend them, but i've not been approached directly, received a glossy postcard and i'm not on social media.

> 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.

Again I don't agree with you. At the few public meetings that the council allowed the people who were against these plans far outweighed the few who expressed they were in favour.

In 2012 the council had a public consultation asking if people would prefer burial over cremation. 77% said they would opt for cremation, while 22% opted for burial. I know this isn't as direct a question as 'would you like trees or more graves', but as a measure of local public opinion, there appeared to be no majority appetite for burials.

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

Yes. At the same time I am against these plans. I am trying to give this discussion a broader context and move away from the slanging match it has become.

[edborders]

Panda, Thank you for defending me but I don't mind.

The people who defend the council's plans, which are:

cut down 12 acres of woods,

grind up dumped building waste

scrape clean the monuments of the dead (few in public areas)

cover the ground with that building waste

bury 100s of people in that building waste,

burying people on top of other dead,

in an area at risk of flooding

(and then when they have used up the 12 acres,

dig up the dead in the rest of the cemetery

rebury their bones deeper in the holes

and then lease off the plots...

then 75 years later dig up those bodies.

in rows upon rows of NCP style burials.

well, one of those posters works for the council, one is married to a Councillor, a couple work for the cemetery, one is an undertaker or funeral director, one main poster works for a major Council contractor, three are bitter with age and loneliness. Four just love ganging up on people, hidden in anonymity. A few don't like some incomer, newcomer, telling them what to do. There are other reasons why some people take such glee in seeing something others think is beautiful be destroyed.

I am Lewis Schaffer

http://www.lewisschaffer.co.uk or google "Lewis Schaffer"

[Otta]

And some just want you to be straight and stop changing tack every time one falsehood is disproven.

[panda boy]

Dbboy

> 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??

Yes, I kind of agree, although it?s worth pointing out one of the reasons for area Z in COC being neglected was due to a corrupt councillor taking backhanders and allow illegal dumping.

> 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,

Curious. So you?re satisfied that according to the councils own documentation there is no majority appetite for burials in the area? (22% for burials, 77% intend cremation.) That the council have organised public consultations with less than 10 days notice? Have not followed through with further consultations. Have not performed up to date surveys of the area. Have not updated their costings for this project, what it will cost and what the end cost of the burial plots will be to residents. Have failed to adequately answer what they intend to do with he contaminated soil, or what the effect of groundwater running down to Ryedale could have once the trees are removed.

You are far more trusting and accepting than myself then.

> 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.

Fair enough, you like the aesthetic. Personally I disagree and certainly don?t think the new scheme fits in any way with the rest of the cemetery.

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

Again fair enough you think this. Although why are you so willing to dismiss 3,500 signatories and reduce this figure to 800? 30-40 people able to physically attend at sort notice is actually quite impressive considering the relatively small local issue this is.

> 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.

So you think it acceptable for the council to give less than 10 days notice to announce a 3 day window of public consultations, open for only 2 hours each day and 2 weeks before Christmas is cynical in the extreme. They have failed to provide further consultations despite assurances they would. Again you appear to be far too trusting of the council.

> 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.

Yes indeed. My main objections stem from the council forcing these plans through and ignoring any and all public opinion about them. Yes, some people want to area left alone. I agree this isn?t going to happen. I am however not remotely satisfied with the current plans trying to squeeze as many plots as possible into such a small space. The council appears incapable of compromise. This is unacceptable in my view, especially considering the councils own research suggesting there is no majority appetite for local burial. In my view the council are trying to maximise their revenue with these plans. Again, as has been pointed out previously, local authorities are strapped for funds and need to raise revenue. Destroying (not being emotive) this area is not in my view the correct approach. I am highly suspicious of their actions as they seem incapable of behaving in an open and honest manner.

> 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.

Like i?ve said, i?m not SSW, and would agree their approach has created some animosity with others. I have repeatedly asked questions of the councillors responsible for this and they appear incapable of honesty or transparency. What to do next?

> 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.

Thank you. Clearly I have a view on this issue, and have not been involved on this forum about it. I snapped yesterday though at some of the disgusting posts aimed towards Lewis. I?m happy that you, and a couple of others are able to discuss this in a grown up and mature way.

[Penguin68]

I clicked on the link:-

I am Lewis Schaffer

[wwww.lewisschaffer.co.uk] or google "Lewis Schaffer"

and got Sorry, the website wwww.lewisschaffer.co.uk cannot be found.

[JoeLeg]

"well, one of those posters works for the council, one is married to a Councillor, a couple work for the cemetery, one is an undertaker or funeral director, one main poster works for a major Council contractor"

Can you prove any of that?

[dbboy]

edborders Wrote:

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

, three are bitter with age and

> loneliness. Four just love ganging up on people,

> hidden in anonymity. A few don't like some

> incomer, newcomer, telling them what to do. There

> are other reasons why some people take such glee

> in seeing something others think is beautiful be

> destroyed.

>

> I am Lewis Schaffer

> http://www.lewisschaffer.co.uk or google "Lewis

> Schaffer"

reminded me of "I am Inspector James McLevy of the Scottish POlice"

Lewis, you made me chuckle, ta.

[Loz]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> > I thought that would be obvious - numbers. Why should a 1M person petition be ignored, but a 10k

> > petition be immediately taken notice of?

>

> They are measures of public opinion. Yes, both use numbers to count people who have signed, that

> is pretty much the only similarity. If you seriously cannot see the difference between these

> two issues then I cannot help you understand this any more.

OK, so therefore can we conclude that numbers - whatever they may be - are not the point here, but you complaint is that the council is refusing to consider this particular issue?

See, that's just not objective. You are clouded by the issue. You don't want the council to take petitions in general seriously - you just want the council to take THIS petition seriously.

> Now i'm starting to laugh at someone who thinks a petition to reinstate a tv personality assaulting

> his boss and a petition to stop the council developing a contentious area are in any way

> similar because they both use numbers as a counting system. Really?

It was a useful and effective tool in pointing out that you are seeking special treatment for this one petition. Simply that.

> > It's notable that, for all these thousands of 'supporters' they claim, SSW can barely get 50

> > people out on a weekend.

>

> What exactly are you suggesting here? That there is some fraud involved now? Why be so coy? Just

> come out and say what you mean.

Not at all - I am merely saying that support for the SSW cause is not as strong as the number of petition signatories would initially suggest.

> I'm glad you have read the reports. So do you think the current plans to fit rows of

> graves, as tightly packed as they can be, in keeping with the rest of the cemetery?

> Do you think the contaminated ground should be cleaned on site or off site?

> How do you feel about the drainage issue? The council are being oddly quiet about this.

> Do you think costings done on this in 2011/12 are still relevant now?

The report is really quite detailed, covering in depth the environmental issues and the legal issues. The work they have done in establishing just what lies buried in there is really quite impressive. Yes, the plans were done a few years ago, but that's not unusual in a long term project like this. Unless parameters significantly change, most costs will rise in line with a quite predictable factor, and I can't see that those parameters have changed. What would change them is a significant delay, which SSW are trying to force on them, which is why I think the council is keen to push on.

Councils are duty bound to consider the impact of all the things you mention, by law. Again, if people think that the council is not upholding the law in this regard then they have a solution - get an injunction. All the shouting at the council, tweeting of rude messages to council leaders and staging inadvertently comical parades and stunts in the world will not change the councils mind. Only an injunction will do that.

> > The council plans to upgrade cemeteries - they started as cemeteries, they will end up as a

> > cemeteries. No great surprise or issue there. I have no problem with re-using graves or mounding

> > over - in fact I think that given the lack of burial space it is a very practical idea.

>

> Yes indeed. When you reduce the issue to such simplistic terms then who could possibly disagree?

>

> Unfortunately things are sometimes more complicated than this.

I don't think they are. When you pare down the habit of SSW to wildly grasp any possible issue that might help them (today: building rubble), it comes down to a council that want to renew a cemetery vs a group of people who want to keep an area they like walking in. Reburial, mounding over of graves, grave leases, drainage, using building rubble, non-existent birds who build their nests in January are all issues that would not normally concern the protesters, but they see as a convenient tool to save their trees.

So it really just comes down to old trees vs new graves. And at some point someone - in this case the council - had to make a decision. Some people won't like that decision, some people will, most actually won't care either way. Those that don't like it can try and change the council's mind, but it is pretty clear they're not getting very far on this. So, they can either carry on protesting fruitlessly until the work is complete or, if they do have the strong legal argument they claim they have, go out and legally stop the work via an injunction.

[edborders]

Loz, for instance, is an undertaker (or is it called a funeral director?). Shewill benefit directly from cutting down trees to make more plots available in the cemeteries. She should say that upfront and in every post so new people can see that. And state her name and business, and where she lives.

Lewis Schaffer

Barely working stand uo, probably going to be cremated (like 73% of Southwark's dead.) Save Southwark Woods

[Penguin68]

This campaign started with a lie - there are not now, never have there been anything called, or identifiable, as Southwark Woods.

Had the campaign been started as 'save the wild parts of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries' this would have both been honest (so that anyone signing a petition would have had a reasonable basis of understanding of what the petition was about) - and might have laid the groundwork for an honest discussion.

This didn't happen - instead wild exaggerations (12 acres) - inaccuracies (implying all of One Tree Hill was at risk) - grotesque assertions (corpse juices running down Forest Hill Road) just continue to pour forth.

The objective seems to be constantly shifting - although it is clear, I believe, that the intent is to stop all local burial, for ever, and to allow the cemetery areas to become wildernesses - without any thought as to the consequences or impacts of this.

And the fact that the leader of the campaign (happy to vilify others for not being disinterested, or just vile and old - 'three are bitter with age and loneliness') has a public persona to maintain and tickets to sell - so publicity, for him, is actually good business is (mainly) carefully glossed over by us all. Until now. I have been prepared to assume that some at least of the voluble SSW crowd are at least honest (if misguided) in what they think - not a courtesy Lewis is prepared to offer his opponents. Well, shame on him.

So it goes.

[Penguin68]

Loz, for instance, is an undertaker (or is it called a funeral director?). Shewill benefit directly from cutting down trees to make more plots available in the cemeteries.

Actually, undertakers prepare and store bodies for burial or cremation (or other disposal) and arrange obsequies as required - they do not need (and many do not have) local burial grounds to use. Most families of deceased persons choose a local (to them, or where their loved one had died) undertaker (for convenience) rather than one local to a burial ground, so I suspect the existence or not of additional burial spaces in ED will have little impact on the work load of local undertakers. It makes their life easier, I suppose, but will not be a specific revenue generator. However, I would expect someone in the funeral business to know about, and be sensitive to, the needs of bereaved families - so being able to offer a site which can be easily visited will be understood to be a boon, to some.

As undertakers do not own, or sell, plots in municipal cemeteries - that is the council's purview - I believe your assertion that contribution to this discussion is selfish and 'interested' (rather than informed) is, well, par for the course, I suppose, given your past postings.

[edborders]

Penguin68 you don't even live in Southwark. You are married to someone who owns the construction equipment to be used in grinding up waste on Area Z.

Lewis Schaffer

Nunhead Resident

[Loz]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Loz, for instance, is an undertaker (or is it called a funeral director?). Shewill benefit

> directly from cutting down trees to make more plots available in the cemeteries. She should say

> that upfront and in every post so new people can see that.

Ha ha. You are not exactly Sherlock Holmes, are you Lewis? :))

I am not (and never have been) in the undertaker or funeral direction business. In any way. At all. Nor anything remotely connected. Unless 'IT Consultant' actually meant 'In-Terred' Consultant and no one told me. But if you really, really want I can add "Not in the funeral business and never have been" to my posts. But you have to say "please" first.

Oh, and 'she' is actually a 'he'. Your serious in-depth investigation - sorry, "wild guess" - didn't even get that right.

I think we can safely assume that the rest of your great expos? earlier - "one of those posters works for the council, one is married to a Councillor, a couple work for the cemetery, one is an undertaker or funeral director, one main poster works for a major Council contractor" is just all one big lie that you made up on the spot. A bit like "Southwark Woods", in fact.

For someone with such a deep love of trees, Lewis, you always seem to be barking up the wrong one.

[panda boy]

Loz Wrote:

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

> OK, so therefore can we conclude that numbers -

> whatever they may be - are not the point here, but

> you complaint is that the council is refusing to

> consider this particular issue?

>

> See, that's just not objective. You are clouded

> by the issue. You don't want the council to take

> petitions in general seriously - you just want the

> council to take THIS petition seriously.

No, not even remotely Loz. And who is trying to cloud the issue by brining up an entirely irrelevant example of a top gear presenter? 3,500 people local to this issue have expressed they don't agree with these current plans. You do not have the right to dismiss this.

There are councils that publish terms and conditions about how they respond to public feedback. Southwark don't do this and don?t intend to do this. Presumably it makes peoples feelings easier to ignore.

Southwark invited feedback to these plans and said they would listen to local concerns. 3,500 people signed a petition. Southwark have ignored them. I don't think thats acceptable.

> It was a useful and effective tool in pointing out

> that you are seeking special treatment for this

> one petition. Simply that.

Simple yes, effective no.

I am not asking for special treatment. How on earth have you come to that conclusion? I am asking for the council to live up to their assurances, something they have not done.

Despite your attempts, you cannot deny or diminish there are a large number of local people against these plans.

> Not at all - I am merely saying that support for

> the SSW cause is not as strong as the number of

> petition signatories would initially suggest.

Based on what exactly? 30-40 people attending a demo at very short notice for such a local issue is actually quite impressive. Or do you expect every single person who signed to make themselves available to attend a demonstration organised in a matter of days?

> The report is really quite detailed, covering in

> depth the environmental issues and the legal

> issues. The work they have done in establishing

> just what lies buried in there is really quite

> impressive. Yes, the plans were done a few years

> ago, but that's not unusual in a long term project

> like this. Unless parameters significantly

> change, most costs will rise in line with a quite

> predictable factor, and I can't see that those

> parameters have changed. What would change them

> is a significant delay, which SSW are trying to

> force on them, which is why I think the council is

> keen to push on.

Hmmm, interesting. You can't see how the parameters have changed, yet you've read all the documentation?

So you would have noticed that these plans were initially intended to be implemented in 2022, and have been pushed forward to now. Silence from the council as to why. I would have thought even a simple explanation would have been offered, but they are incapable of answering this relatively simple question.

You've obviously noticed the proposed plots reducing from 1,000 to 700 then? (A good thing in my view.) So a changed parameter then?

I notice you've completely ignored my drainage question. The council are ignoring it too. COC has drainage issues already with many plots being underwater during heavy spells of rain. With this level of competence on the work they have already performed here, and their silence on the issue, I do not have much faith right now they are taking this problem seriously.

You seem satisfied with the councils conduct on this issue. Fair enough, although I baffled as to exactly why. I am not satisfied and believe our public servants should behave in a more accountable way than they are now.

>

> Councils are duty bound to consider the impact of

> all the things you mention, by law. Again, if

> people think that the council is not upholding the

> law in this regard then they have a solution - get

> an injunction. All the shouting at the council,

> tweeting of rude messages to council leaders and

> staging inadvertently comical parades and stunts

> in the world will not change the councils mind.

> Only an injunction will do that.

Once again i'm not here to defend or represent SSW so I can't comment on shouting at the council (when was this?) tweeting rude messages (again, what messages? Just curious.) I originally had more faith in the councils assurances and promises to listen to people about this. Seeing as they have no intention of listening to anyone apart form those who support them, then an injunction may be the only way forward. Shame it's got to this state thought, where a council will lie to people to get their own way. Once councillor even said, to my face, that they are trying to rebuild trust with the community after the corruption of the past, specifically the illegal dumping.

All just meaningless empty words.

> When you pare down the

> habit of SSW to wildly grasp any possible issue

> that might help them (today: building rubble), it

> comes down to a council that want to renew a

> cemetery vs a group of people who want to keep an

> area they like walking in. Reburial, mounding

> over of graves, grave leases, drainage, using

> building rubble, non-existent birds who build

> their nests in January are all issues that would

> not normally concern the protesters, but they see

> as a convenient tool to save their trees.

And once again I can not and will not speak on behalf of SSW. Kind of pointless to keep bringing them up to me.

The fact you say this;

> it comes down to a council that want to renew a

> cemetery vs a group of people who want to keep an

> area they like walking in.

suggests you really haven't got a handle on what is going on. The main area in COC to be affected, area Z has had no public access for a long time so not a lot of walking going on there. I'm against these plans and i'm not against them for the reason you have stated. If you want to carry on having a go at SSW then go ahead. I'd be more interested in discussing the details of the plans and the councils behaviour.

Also describing the issue in such a myopic way tends to shut down any kind of compromise that could be available. You see Loz this is one of my main bugbears with this. At no time have the council offered to discuss any compromise whatsoever that could actually suit all, or at least most parties involved.

> So it really just comes down to old trees vs new

> graves. And at some point someone - in this case

> the council - had to make a decision. Some people

> won't like that decision, some people will, most

> actually won't care either way. Those that don't

> like it can try and change the council's mind, but

> it is pretty clear they're not getting very far on

> this. So, they can either carry on protesting

> fruitlessly until the work is complete or, if they

> do have the strong legal argument they claim they

> have, go out and legally stop the work via an

> injunction.

Well to be accurate if we really must simplify this argument it actually comes down to relatively new trees vs re-using old graves. Yes they're new plots, but they're on top of many layers of previous burials.

The broader argument is the current and rapidly decreasing space available for burials in London generally. I personally think the area of untamed growth that has flourished over decades provides more benefit to the local community than adding a handful of graves for a short term gain.

[edborders]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> "well, one of those posters works for the council,

> one is married to a Councillor, a couple work for

> the cemetery, one is an undertaker or funeral

> director, one main poster works for a major

> Council contractor"

>

> Can you prove any of that?

I know you are bitter old woman who's husband left her for her best friend and now you spend your days and nights in your drafty council flat (you lost the house to gambling and booze) in front of the computer.

Lewis Schaffer

Had planters fascitis in 2015

[ruffers]

edborders Wrote:

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

> JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "well, one of those posters works for the

> council,

> > one is married to a Councillor, a couple work

> for

> > the cemetery, one is an undertaker or funeral

> > director, one main poster works for a major

> > Council contractor"

> >

> > Can you prove any of that?

>

> I know you are bitter old woman who's husband left

> her for her best friend and now you spend your

> days and nights in your drafty council flat (you

> lost the house to gambling and booze) in front of

> the computer.

>

> Lewis Schaffer

> Had planters fascitis in 2015

Nice

[Penguin68]

Penguin68 you don't even live in Southwark. You are married to someone who owns the construction equipment to be used in grinding up waste on Area Z

I don't know who you think I am, you lying B**** - but I (1) have lived 3 minutes walk from Camberwell Old Cemetery (in College Ward) for the last 28 years and (2) am married to a retired company director who has never worked in construction, construction equipment or anything else related. Your wholly untrue assertions about me are part-and-parcel of your complete disregard for truth or honesty. At this stage, you disgust me. You PM'd me accusing me (wrongly) of partiality - you now make a public assertion impugning my contributions as being partial. If that is the best your campaign can offer...

[steveo]

I'm quite glad I've stayed out of this one

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

> JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "well, one of those posters works for the

> council,

> > one is married to a Councillor, a couple work

> for

> > the cemetery, one is an undertaker or funeral

> > director, one main poster works for a major

> > Council contractor"

> >

> > Can you prove any of that?

>

> I know you are bitter old woman who's husband left

> her for her best friend and now you spend your

> days and nights in your drafty council flat (you

> lost the house to gambling and booze) in front of

> the computer.

>

> Lewis Schaffer

> Had planters fascitis in 2015

WTF???

What a charming person you sound Lewis Schaffer.

So now you are resorting to lying about and insulting anybody who disagrees with you?