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

[Loz]

Well, Panda Boy, we can argue about numbers all day. I think we can agree to disagree on that one.

> 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.

But they have. Over on their FAQ page they have stated: "Burial space in Southwark will run out sometime in early to mid-2017 if the council takes no action."

> 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.

Actually, I kind of agree with you on this - and it's something that I think SSW have exacerbated as they seem to have a 'no compromise' stance as well. Two sides with no intention of budging from their positions.

Maybe, just maybe, if you had been leading the charge instead of Lewis there would be more sympathy generated around here. You certainly have a better grasp of the issues and a better manner of communication. But, frankly, as you see from his last posts, Lewis hasn't exactly won the hearts and minds around here with his endless stream of quarter-truths and outright fiction. If there ever was a exemplar on how not to conduct a campaign, this would be it.

[Administrator]

edborders, consider this a warning, stop the personal attacks on people or you will be permanently banned.

edborders Wrote:

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

...

>

> 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

[edborders]

Penguin68 is not a person. It could be a bot for all I know. The person, who writes under Penguin68 doesn't sign his real name to his or her posts. I just know the sign in name.

Lewis James Schaffer

Nunhead

[edborders]

Sorry, I fear i was misunderstood. I was being silly to make a point.

I don't know anything about the people who are posting in favour of cutting down trees to make grave space. I was making it all up.

I think people would be nicer if we all used our real names.

Thanks.

Lewis Schaffer

[Loz]

Well, that went well.

[dbboy]

Just when a grown up discussion on this subject was under way, ssw wade in, in size 13's and take everything back to the gutter, there's a joke in there somewhere I think!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy to see ADMIN finally step in.

[Otta]

To be fair, I thought it was pretty obvious Lewis was joking.

[panda boy]

Loz Wrote:

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

> But they have. Over on their FAQ page they have

> stated: "Burial space in Southwark will run out

> sometime in early to mid-2017 if the council takes

> no action."

This is exactly my point. The date has changed and been brought forward from the original date of 2022 with no explanation as to why. The change just happened in the documentation with no context or reason. The council quite rightly got a bloody nose after trying to turn Honor Oak Rec ground into burial ground, so presumably this is why they brought the date forward for COC, but without any information from the council we can only guess. I'm not satisfied with having to second guess people who are supposed to be working for us. It is simply not good enough.

Also, why the rush? Planning permission was expedited last year and they have started work without the correct Church permissions. (Yes, this is currently being debated, but the church has reacted with surprise about the work the council have already done.)

Once those trees are cut down then thats it. Maybe that's their ploy, I wouldn't put it pas them based on their previous conduct. Surely it would be more prudent, democratic and more respectful to the people opposing this to delay the works until the valid points have been answered?

> Maybe, just maybe, if you had been leading the

> charge instead of Lewis there would be more

> sympathy generated around here. You certainly

> have a better grasp of the issues and a better

> manner of communication. But, frankly, as you see

> from his last posts, Lewis hasn't exactly won the

> hearts and minds around here with his endless

> stream of quarter-truths and outright fiction. If

> there ever was a exemplar on how not to conduct a

> campaign, this would be it.

Quite, and thank you. Unfortunately I have limited time to engage in such a thing. I have been in direct communication with a variety of council officials about his for a number of years now, hence my complete lack of respect and trust from any of them and their plans. In two years they have not conducted themselves in any way approaching acceptable in my book. If a council acts in such deceitful ways as these members of southwark have, you have to ask yourself why?

The broader context of fast reducing burial space in London should have given Southwark an opportunity to suggest and attempt to find different solutions to burial. Of course some peoples faith requires burial, but like i've mentioned 77% of people who responded to Southwarks own consultation, a document they tried and failed to use as justification for their plans suggests there is not great appetite for increasing burial spaces.

The way I see it is that this is primarily about revenue generation. I'm not saying this is not a valid reason, I just wish they could be honest about it.

If there is one aspect that should rise above the 'trees' vs dead people' debate, is the very real risk of increased flooding due to the removal of the trees. I don't need to use emotive words to the people who live on Ryedale who will face an increased flood risk. This alone should require the council to stop work immediately and investigate this further. I said it before but the competence of the councils contractors to manage the flooding at the landscaped end of COC, and the mess it becomes in heavy rain does not instil any confidence they will manage this competently, or within the ever expanding budget.

Coming from the point of view that area Z was contaminated by a corrupt council official, I would have hoped the council would have, like they assured, be running this process correctly to try and restore some public faith. In my experience the exact opposite has happened.

[Penguin68]

I don't know anything about the people who are posting in favour of cutting down trees to make grave space. I was making it all up.

It may be that Lewis doesn't know that, although almost everyone (Councilors apart) posts anonymously many are in fact known to each other through various social meet-ups etc. So making accusatory statements about 'anonymous' individuals may be, to some readers, making accusations against people they actually know.

And the earliest accusations were certainly clear in suggesting bias etc. in those who opposed the SSW crowd. It was only when these were called-out that the 'only joking' riff appeared.

[dbboy]

Otta Wrote:

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

> To be fair, I thought it was pretty obvious Lewis

> was joking.

Really? Suggest taking a look at some of his video's as a comedian - the material IMO is quite gut churning in places, well most of it, well all of it.

I also wonder why the Councillors have remained so silent on this matter - maybe those concerned about losing the trees and flooding need to direct their concerns in their direction. (now that is a major concern and it is not just the water that can be seen, but the water table as well) and I do hope the Council have suitable plans in place to mitigate any risk of flooding (Ask those in Herne Hill who got flooded a couple of years ago how devastating it is) Because if flooding happens the Council will have huge claims to payout on.

[panda boy]

> I also wonder why the Councillors have remained so

> silent on this matter - maybe those concerned

> about losing the trees and flooding need to direct

> their concerns in their direction. (now that is a

> major concern and it is not just the water that

> can be seen, but the water table as well) and I do

> hope the Council have suitable plans in place to

> mitigate any risk of flooding (Ask those in Herne

> Hill who got flooded a couple of years ago how

> devastating it is)

Yes dbboy, the flooding issue, and ongoing silence from the council alone should ring alarm bells. As i've pointed out to Loz, the landscaped area in COC gets flooded in heavy rains. It appears from this example alone that flooding is not one of the councils priorities.

I would be concerned if I lived on Ryedale.

[Penguin68]

Yes dbboy, the flooding issue, and ongoing silence from the council alone should ring alarm bells. As i've pointed out to Loz, the landscaped area in COC gets flooded in heavy rains. It appears from this example alone that flooding is not one of the councils priorities.

Actually, the flooding was worst around the Langton Rise boundary, until the work was carried out to raise the ground levels there, since when that part hasn't flooded. It has been a very wet winter, and much of the underlying ground is clay, so I was not surprised to see some pooling. However I noted that a couple or more of dry days allowed a lot of water to dissipate - and I never saw any flowing towards Forest Hill Road (except from the tap in the middle of the cemetery which is often not properly turned off by users drawing water for flowers - and that never got very far). It is likely that the proposed mounding, if it goes ahead, will address more of this problem. A case could be made for vegetation being good at taking up water - so the planned tree replanting is important. As I have said, focusing on doing the job properly, rather than on not doing it at all, would have been a far better use of the vigour of the protesters.

[panda boy]

> Actually, the flooding was worst around the

> Langton Rise boundary, until the work was carried

> out to raise the ground levels there, since when

> that part hasn't flooded.

Out of interest Penguin68, do you know when this work was completed? I believe there was substantial flooding in Feb 2015. I'm not aware of this part of the cemetery being 'fixed', but I could be wrong, that why i'm asking.

> It has been a very wet

> winter, and much of the underlying ground is clay,

> so I was not surprised to see some pooling.

It has been a very wet winter for the UK as a whole, but records suggest London has not been particularly wet at all compared to previous seasons or years.

> However I noted that a couple or more of dry days

> allowed a lot of water to dissipate - and I never

> saw any flowing towards Forest Hill Road

Again, water from the cemetery has previously run onto Forest Hill Road. What time period are you referring to?

> from the tap in the middle of the cemetery which

> is often not properly turned off by users drawing

> water for flowers - and that never got very far).

> It is likely that the proposed mounding, if it

> goes ahead, will address more of this problem.

Something being 'likely' is encouraging, but is not the kind of assurance that is required for an area that has had flooding issues in the past.

> A case could be made for vegetation being good at

> taking up water - so the planned tree replanting

> is important.

Hmmm, so we agree that trees and vegetation are a very effective way of combatting flooding. In an area that already has a good amount of trees, what kind of money wasting sense does it make to cut down existing trees and plant fewer ones, thereby reducing the existing effectiveness, to replace them?

That seems, apart from being expensive, just a little bit insane.

> As I have said, focusing on doing

> the job properly, rather than on not doing it at

> all, would have been a far better use of the

> vigour of the protesters.

Well quite. Although to be fair the council have not once lived up to their promises of listening to concerns, alternatives or compromises. They are and seems always have intended to push these plans through regardless. When faced with such a wall of silence and disingenuousness, from councillors who are supposed to represent and serve us, and on the back of past corruption and mistrust, I can understand their frustration.

One pertinent point is the cost of this project, and the proposed revenue generated. The last costing i'm aware of was put at ?30m. In the case of area Z, the costs of a burial plot was projected at being over ?1,200, making them some of the most expensive in London. That was when they wanted to squeeze over 1,000 graves in. Now they are proposing 700 graves, the price goes up. These costings are now 4/5 years old. I'd be quite keen to know what the current costs are. I'm not trusting of public servants with public funds being spent effectively, especially on a project like this that has included subterfuge and unanswered questions.

Personally i'd rather be part of a community than can boast the benefits of a small wild area in metropolitan London (very rare and something I think we should be proud of) rather than earning an accolade for being one of the most expensive places in London to be buried in.

[edhistory]

Don't forget to buy tickets for Mr Lewis' comedy show on 14th February.

[edborders]

Yes. 14 February Valentine's Day. Everyone come. Everyone welcome. Worth more!

tickets:

Http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.ok

[edcam]

Time this thread was locked and consigned to comedy forum history? I defended Lewis earlier but now I think you're all mad.

[Sue]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> Personally i'd rather be part of a community than

> can boast the benefits of a small wild area in

> metropolitan London (very rare and something I

> think we should be proud of) rather than earning

> an accolade for being one of the most expensive

> places in London to be buried in.

How would you define "very rare"?

We already have a number of wild areas locally, of which Dulwich Wood and Sydenham Hill Wood must be the largest.

Thank you for not being Lewis Schaffer. Wild horses wouldn't drag me to his "comedy" show.

[edborders]

@HarrietHarman calls on @lb_southwark to stop destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries. https://t.co/vYQfn3oPEe

[edhistory]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3e/Arthur_Askey.jpg/220px-Arthur_Askey.jpg

[panda boy]

Sue,

Vary rare, as in unusual, uncommon.

I'm happy to remove the use of the phrase 'very rare' and replace it with unusual or uncommon if that helps? I suppose I feel the area is very rare due to it's particular nature and the fact it has been left untouched for such a long period of time.

We can each call it what we like, what we can't really dispute is the haven for nature it provides. Just looking at the bird life there, for such a small area it provides habitat for a wide range of species. I believe this to be a rarity in London and something worth preserving. I feel the plans to remove existing trees and plant fewer news ones is bordering on insanity and a massive waste of money.

Yes indeed, there are other wild local areas. We are fortunate to have such natural beauty so close to us. I'm afraid that this provides zero justification for the plans in COC though.

How about the other points raised?

The strength of public opinion against this being ignored by the council?

The potential for increased flooding risk that is being ignored by the council?

The costs? Who knows what they are now?

The way the council have conducted themselves so far?

But there is some hope it appears.

Harriet Harman and Zac Goldsmith are now publicly demanding the work to be stopped until more answers have been provided by the council and further independent studies made.

Good.

[dbboy]

The very people ssw were being "impolite" about, in their tirade of rweets last week, I think that is double standards. If ssw consider a case exists they need to get an injunction, Unless that happens the works will rightly continue and what was mis managed overgrown graves by the council, will be brought back into its intended use, for BURIALS.

[panda boy]

dbboy,

Once again, i'm personally unaware of SSWs tweets. I do not and cannot speak for them.

From my point of view, being a concerned independent resident I welcome the intervention from Harriet Harman and Zac Goldsmith calling for the council to stop work immediately until they answer important questions they are ignoring.

And I simply don't agree with you the and injunction is the only way forward. Sure it is an option, a last resort when both sides reach and impasse. My feelings on the council should be pretty clear by now, but if you believe an injunction is the only way forward at this stage doesn't it suggest that council have failed in their duty of care to their residents?

I'm baffled that you're satisfied with their conduct.

Southwark cannot claim to have been open and honest in this process, they have withheld important public information, and they have failed to deliver on a number of valid points raised to them.

> what was mis managed

Absolutely it was mis-managed, and desecrated by a corrupt council official.

What give you the confidence that these plans aren't being similarly mis-managed? The previous recent works in COC were not particularly successful and led to flooding over graves, leading to more works to remedy this, all costing valuable public funds.

Based on their previous track record, and the way they have conducted themselves I have zero confidence in their honesty or competence, and I'm not sure we can afford much more of Southwarks competence in implementing their 'cemetery strategy' until they come clean on these plans.

[edborders]

Save Southwark Woods street stall at Coop on Forest Hill Road. Almost total local support to save trees and graves. Til 5pm.

Save Southwark Woods are fighting to stop Southwark from continuing to cut down trees and digging up or covering over the dead. We are for preserving their memorials.

Lewis Schaffer

Kind of person who misses trains on advanced tickets.

Http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[steveo]

I think Lewis is gathering material and a ban would be playing into his comedic hands.

So do it Admin!

[Loz]

edborders Wrote:

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

> @HarrietHarman calls on @lb_southwark to stop

> destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries.

> https://t.co/vYQfn3oPEe

No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for further drainage reports to be completed and for a graphic to be updated.

You really have an amazing ability to mound over a molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis.