Jump to content

Recommended Posts

And just as soon as people stop dying or stop wanting to bury their dead, or visit the site of their burials without having several hours travel we will follow this advice. And the dead don't think. That's rather the point of being dead.

Sue maybe you could try:


Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Harassment_Act_1997


Malicious Communications Act 1988 - makes it an offence to send a communication with the intention of causing distress or anxiety.

Section 127(2) targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety.

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. This offence is part of the fixed penalty scheme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988


Communications Act 2003 Section 127 - Section 127 makes it an offence to send an electronic message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.


Maybe civil torts of slander, libel and defamation?


Thankfully the British legal system does not recognise the defence of trying to save some scrubs/trees as a good reason to embark on campaign of sustained harassment.


You could also consider contacting anyone who directly supports Lewis i.e. his sponsors http://britishamericantax.com/ and https://www.resonancefm.com/ - alerting them to his behaviour and the actions that you are taking. It could be argued by their association with this individual they are bringing their organisations into disrepute.

mynamehere said


> no legal case to answer, a tempest in a teapot


Let me ask a rhetorical question, what's the fundamental standard for the behaviour of decent people?

You know

a) It does not cause harm or distress to others

b) You don't think the other people are important

c) It's going to get you in trouble with the law


The answer for those who don't know is the first one: a. b and c are how mynamehere has characterised it. Dismissal is a powerful rhetorical device, but it doesn't make the person employing it correct. It really doesn't matter if you can get 60 people to turn up to support a harasser of women or 600, _it's wrong_. Denial is not an answer.


johnie said

> Why?


I'll answer johnie's question here: because what's being said here makes him feel uncomfortable. Some people would rather smash the mirror than look at their reflection.

taper Wrote:

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

> Tonight's Comedy benefit seems to have had them

> rolling in the aisles.


You can fool some of the people some of the time, BUT you can't fool ALL of the people all of the time.

HopOne


The SSW campaign has been filled with exaggeration making it hard for tree-huggers like myself to get on board.


I could list the foolings but they have already been discussed ad nausem on this thread. But some of the keywords are: Grave Juices, One Tree Hill tree line removal, Graves for sale,Picnic space,Acreage,Funeral for the trees, Ancient Woodland, Southwark Woods.

andrewc,


I would agree that there has been excessive use of hyperbole. However, most of those key points are pertinent! That is, flooding from water run-off and inadequate drainage, there are trees on One Tree Hill threatened, Southwark council do intend selling re-used grave space London-wide, the existing LNR (OTH) probably is a remnant of the Great North Wood and Southwark Woods is just part of a campaign name - nothing more.

It's not the hyperbole of this campaign that saddens me so much as the self-indulgent shrill naivety. You need to take the Council with you on issues like this There is clearly a compromise to be reached here; to preserve that which is worth preserving and nurturing in COC, while allowing for burials to continue for a time. But to tee up the whole debate as zero sum, berate anyone who has a different viewpoint, and alienate those who you need to persuade, is just inept and serves no-one.

Mynamehere - why did you remove your post stating that the SSW function last night referred to this thread on the EDF?

Your post clearly states that it has been altered - "Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was today, 09:01am by mynamehere."


To be honest your originally posted comments at 12:03AM were not a not a great surprise but spoke volumes about the SSW campaigns values & ethics.


Re: your constant requests to stop this thread -


Was it the inability to discuss any topic rationally with supporting evidence that scared the SSW people off? I personally found it very hard to get any key evidence or facts through all the emotional dribble.


Or was it the joining up of like minds to fight against harassment & thinly veiled misogyny that is really upsetting the SSW campaigners?


Victims of harassment should not be gagged from seeking support and assistance.


Why should the residents of East Dulwich who are genuinely committed to engagement and discussion on this issue be silenced simple because they don't conform to the behaviors, vales and ethics of the so called SSW group?

IMO, Panada Boy started to have a meaningful discussion on here about the issues, but then ssw destroyed all the good work done with a tirade of spats, including openly bulling a fellow poster on here, so any chance they had of making progress was wasted.


As nxjen mentioned above, they are now making a formal complaint against Southwark's Parks & Open Spaces Manager Rebecca Towers for not providing all the documents they requested.


Is it really any surprise that Southwark are not exactly rushing to be of assistance to ssw following the bile some of their Officers have had to endure through ssw's tweets and because they are in public office they cannot respond (but I bet they wish they could). Additionally they are trying to involve Sadiq Khan, however I feel he has much bigger issues to deal with (like a Mayoral election) rather in comparison a spat between a bunch of activists and a Local Authority).


As one of ssw was banned from here, this forum is now called by them a "small town forum", clearly part of their way of having a dig at EDF for being banned. If you had been banned and wanted to be allowed back, surely you would not throw out further quips, but I suppose that is looking at it and applying common sense that sadly seems to be lacking.

taper Wrote:

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

> It's not the hyperbole of this campaign that

> saddens me so much as the self-indulgent shrill

> naivety. You need to take the Council with you on

> issues like this There is clearly a compromise to

> be reached here; to preserve that which is worth

> preserving and nurturing in COC, while allowing

> for burials to continue for a time. But to tee up

> the whole debate as zero sum, berate anyone who

> has a different viewpoint, and alienate those who

> you need to persuade, is just inept and serves

> no-one.


You make the rather charming assumption that Southwark Council have a mind to compromise. They do not. However, I do agree that there are other outcomes possible between the SSW and Council positions. Am trying to breathe to life into this - lets be rational and discuss the issues please. I see just as many shrill responses seemingly in favour of the council's actions.

We are discussing the issues, including the way in which a public campaign is being conducted.


If SSW don't want such scrutiny they should not run a public campaign.


Regarding the Rebecca Towers letter - I note it is yet another women being named/shamed in public. Whether you agree with someone or not, you can show respect, dignity and courtesy.


Meaningful engagement is required on this issue not threats and personal attacks.


By the way under the current provisions of the Freedom of Information Act - the council has 20 days to respond to any request for information. They are under no obligation to send it when you want it because you want to launch a legal action. They can also deem certain requests 'vexatious'.


SSW need a professional person with experience of running campaigns against local authorities proposals or their actions are doomed to fail.

It's not charming; it's based on ten years working with Southwark as chair of a local friends group. Sometimes Councils do things or propose to do things that are ill considered or not right. It's the role of local groups to point that out and help come up with alternative solutions. But in doing that, you need to appreciate the Council is often arbitrating between and reconciling different demands and viewpoints.


So in my park, we worked with the council to improve lighting, add play equipment (despite some local people worrying about noise) and enhance biodiversity by planting a wild hedge and altering the way they cut they grass in the park. This process is not always easy, particularly at a time when budgets are under severe pressure. And I'm sure at times the council thought we were a pain in the arse. But if you start from a position of empathy and willingness to compromise, without losing sight of what's core to your case, then you will find that council officers are good and dedicated people who want the best for the local area. Sometimes protest and activism is the only way, or even recourse to legal avenues (eg fighting off proposals to circumscribe dog walking walking in southwark' sparks), but this really is a nuclear option.


SSW will fail because as presently constituted, and with its current mindset, it is incapable of building a broad coalition of support and sitting down to do a deal with the council.

EDAus Wrote:

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

>

> You could also consider contacting anyone who

> directly supports Lewis i.e. his sponsors

> http://britishamericantax.com/ and

> https://www.resonancefm.com/ - alerting them to

> his behaviour and the actions that you are taking.

> It could be argued by their association with this

> individual they are bringing their organisations

> into disrepute.



Thank you EDAus, however I have no wish to be vindictive.


All I want is for Lewis Schaffer to stop publicly distorting my views on this issue, to stop posting my full name on Twitter and linking it to my forum name here, and to stop associating those distorted views with music events I run by linking his posts to the music Twitter page so that they appear on that page.


My personal views on the SSW campaign have no relevance to the music whatsoever, so one has to wonder exactly what his motive is in doing this.


I understand that some people may think all this is unimportant, but my partner and I put a huge amount of work into organising and running these events, including this year a benefit concert for refugees, and to have our Twitter page tainted by this totally irrelevant stuff which is giving our followers a wholly inaccurate version of my views is not unimportant to us.

Sue Wrote:

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

> ... to have our Twitter page tainted by this totally irrelevant stuff which is giving our

> followers a wholly inaccurate version of my views is not unimportant to us.


If it is any consolation Sue, looking at the Goose's twitter feed as a non-follower, you cannot see any of Lewis's crap tweets, as you can only see what you personally tweet/retweet.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ... to have our Twitter page tainted by this

> totally irrelevant stuff which is giving our

> > followers a wholly inaccurate version of my

> views is not unimportant to us.

>

> If it is any consolation Sue, looking at the

> Goose's twitter feed as a non-follower, you cannot

> see any of Lewis's crap tweets, as you can only

> see what you personally tweet/retweet.



Oh, thanks, yes that is a consolation, but I don't really understand Twitter.


Can our followers see them? Because people are unlikely to be looking at our tweets unless they are already following us.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...