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

[Loz]

Can't say, as a) I'm not a follower and b) I don't fully understand twitter either!

[HopOne]

Sue, your followers will only see your tweets, re-tweets and your replies in their timeline.

[EDAus]

Sue completely understand your wish not to seem vindictive, the approach you wish to take shows maturity and restraint which is more than can be said for the harasser.

Providing feedback to employers and sponsors is often a quicker and more effective method than legal action which can be both costly and time consuming.

Most organisations now have codes of conduct, social media policies and/or standards of professional behaviour documents for employees, volunteers, sponsee's etc.

Employers and/or sponsors are concerned about damage to their corporate brand/reputation by people using social media inappropriately and so will take action.

[panda boy]

In the interests of keeping this thread focussed on the original issue, I'd like to share my ongoing frustration with the councils wall of silence over this.

(nb, using the phrase 'wall of silence' to describe the communication skills of Southwark Councils representatives and not meant as an emotive phrase.)

Without dragging up over 2 years of 'communications' with them, on 8th Feb I asked some simple questions;

(I am paraphrasing the questions here in an effort to keep things concise.)

- PERMISSIONS AND PREPARATORY WORK

I stated that I believed that the 'preparatory' work they were currently undertaking over reached their remit and, considering the recent letters from Harriet Harman and Zac Goldsmith, shouldn't they halt work until they can provide the answers and details that many have been calling for. Also, their preparatory work details the removal of 10 trees, with no detail of which 10 trees these were to be. Can they point me to the document that details this.

- FLOODING RISK

I asked if they can provide risk assessments or links to any studies concerning the potential for increased flooding that could result from their plans.

- COSTINGS

Can they please provide information on costings that are more current than the estimates form 2011/12. These estimates are now out of date considering the timescale and changes to the proposals and plans. I believe we are entitled to know how our public money is being spent.

- PUBLIC OPPOSITION

Can Southwark explain how they have dealt with the amount of public opposition to these plans. I know this has been discussed already, and some have tried to dismiss the numbers, but over 3,500 local people and over 10,000 signed against these plans. Over 800 people personally wrote in to the Church to oppose these plans. This is a significant amount of public opinion, yet, in my view, Southwark have ignored them and decided to continue regardless.

I received a response the next day on 9th Feb, so full marks for actually responding.

Unfortunately the response simply stated that the Council were acting in accordance with all agreements and laws, and in fact their plans 'have been designed in conjunction with London Wildlife Trust.' This was particularly interesting as I can find nothing to back this up on either Southwarks or The London Wildlife Trusts website.

They also included a link to their website, how useful.

I challenge anyone to defend this as an appropriate response.

I have emailed back asking if my questions could please be answered, and for some more information on the London Wildlife Trusts involvement in the design of these plans.

I am still awaiting a response.

This is just one example of how frustrating communicating with the council has been, and I feel they are falling way below the standards we should expect.

I personally don't accept that whatever SSW have said or done should allow the council to close down the debate from all sides. In fact I find that notion paints the Council in an even worse light than before. It is also worth mentioning that I have been trying to engage the council for more than 2 years over this issue, before SSW were formed, and the councils attitude and conduct has been consistently unacceptable.

[Sue]

panda boy Wrote:

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

Over 800 people personally wrote in to the

> Church to oppose these plans.

When you say they "personally wrote", how many of these 800 just sent off one of the glossy postcards produced by SSW which were already addressed and were all identical save for the space for the person's name and address?

I hear your frustration with what you perceive as the council's lack of response to your queries, however I can also understand someone who already has a very demanding and time-consuming job not finding the time to reply to queries from members of the public on top of everything else they are doing, particularly if as they say they are "acting in accordance with all agreements and laws".

I can't think that they would say that their plans "have been designed in conjunction with London Wildlife Trust" if they haven't, as that would be a really easy thing to check out. The fact that nothing to that effect is on their or the London Wildlife Trust's website I don't find odd, as why would it be?

ETA: Lewis Schaffer has responded to this post on Twitter, again giving my full name and linking it to the Goose. This is childish and tedious.

ETA: And no you won't stop me posting on here, regardless of your bullying tactics.

[panda boy]

Hi Sue,

> When you say they "personally wrote", how many of

> these 800 just sent off one of the glossy

> postcards produced by SSW which were already

> addressed and were all identical save for the

> space for the person's name and address?

As far as i'm aware the Church only accepts letters from individuals, i'm not sure a 'glossy postcard' would qualify. I will of course check, but i've stated to the best of my understanding. So to answer your question, I don't know. Do you? Even if they were 800 pre-prepared postcards sent in, does this somehow diminish this as measure of public opinion?

> I hear your frustration with what you perceive as

> the council's lack of response to your queries,

> however I can also understand someone who already

> has a very demanding and time-consuming job not

> finding the time to reply to queries from members

> of the public on top of everything else they are

> doing, particularly if as they say they are

> "acting in accordance with all agreements and

> laws".

As i've already explained, I have tried for over 2 years to find answers to what I believe to be reasonable questions. I have not been impatient and don't believe I am being impatient. The point I was trying to make is that they are very quick to respond with either generic 'cut and paste' replies which do not adequately address the questions asked. Or in this latest example i've provided, very quick to respond with what I see as empty PR statements and once again failing to answer direct questions, or even acknowledge the questions.

The four points I am trying to focus on are;

Flooding

Public opinion

Costs

Timescale (I omitted this from my original post, but i'm still keen to know why these pans have been moved forward by 6 years and are being pushed through at some pace.)

Are these reasonable things to expect answers to, or do you think I am being unreasonable by asking?

Even if we just look at the cost angle alone, why are we not allowed to know how much this is costing us? In spite of repeatedly asking them over a period of 18 months isn't it fair to say they are now refusing to answer?

Being 'busy' for so long is not an acceptable reason.

EDIT - To be fair I have just received a holding email to say they have received my questions and they aim to respond in more detail in the next few days. So, while I still feel the same way about the last 2 years of communication, I am holding my judgement, for the next few days at least.

> I can't think that they would say that their

> plans "have been designed in conjunction with

> London Wildlife Trust" if they haven't, as that

> would be a really easy thing to check out. The

> fact that nothing to that effect is on their or

> the London Wildlife Trust's website I don't find

> odd, as why would it be?

I find it odd because I am a member of the London Wildlife Trust and it is the first I have heard about it. It is also the first time Southwark have mentioned them, and indeed in the context of the plans being designed in conjunction with them.

As for being a 'really easy' thing to check, I have, and (as I originally said) have found nothing on the Southwark or LWT websites to support this. This is why i'm asking for more information to back up this statement.

That's fair enough isn't it?

I am clearly more suspicious about Southwark than you are and am doing my best to explain why, given my personal experience with them over the last few years.

Why are you so trusting of them in the context of the examples I have given?

> ETA: Lewis Schaffer has responded to this post on Twitter, again giving my full name and linking it to the Goose.

> This is childish and tedious.

> ETA: And no you won't stop me posting on here, regardless of your bullying tactics.

I am sorry you're going through what you are going through on twitter. Once again I am not SSW or Lewis Schaffer, and do not speak for them or represent them.

UPDATE 17:15: In the interests of fairness and accuracy, I have just received a personal reply from a representative of Southwark council acknowledging my questions and saying they will get back to me soon.

Which is appreciated.

[BrandNewGuy]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> I find it odd because I am a member of the London

> Wildlife Trust and it is the first I have heard

> about it. It is also the first time Southwark

> have mentioned them, and indeed in the context of

> the plans being designed in conjunction with

> them.

There's a reference here to repesentatives of the council meeting with LWT about the council's plans a year ago:

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/dont-build-graves-on-our-woods-says-group/public-meeting-over-grave-plans-for-woods/

And the LWT is involved in many planning matters in Southwark, but in an advisory capacity only. If the council feel as though it's acting with the planning laws and regulations, there's not much the LWT can do. But I think it's valuable that they're there putting the case for wildlife.

I'd be fairly sure that the council's replanting plans will have been done 'in conjunction' with LWT too. Why would they not be?

[panda boy]

Thanks for the link BrandNewGuy.

> There's a reference here to repesentatives of the council meeting with LWT about the council's plans a year ago:

I was at this exact meeting. I'm not sure if it qualifies as the plans "being designed in conjunction with LWT" though.

> And the LWT is involved in many planning matters in Southwark, but in an advisory capacity only. If the council feel

> as though it's acting with the planning laws and regulations, there's not much the LWT can do. But I think it's

> valuable that they're there putting the case for wildlife.

I completely agree. Like I said, i'm just asking for some more detail behind this.

> Why would they not be?

I would hope so. I'm not trying to make any suggestions or insinuations about this. I'm just trying to add some flesh to the bone of this phrase;

"have been designed in conjunction with London Wildlife Trust"

[Newton]

> In the interests of keeping this thread focussed on the original issue

Nice way of sounding high minded whilst supporting a known, unrepentant harasser of women.

You can't have a civilised debate when one side is going beyond the bounds of civil society. I mean, if Sue is big enough to engage with you politely, that's extremely big of her, but she frankly doesn't owe you anything.

You want the issue of harassment to go away? How about this for an approach: make the harassment go away or eject and condemn the perpetrator. Otherwise, frankly, I find your use of the word "reasonable" to be laughable.

[Loz]

Newton Wrote:

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

> > In the interests of keeping this thread focussed on the original issue

>

> Nice way of sounding high minded whilst supporting a known, unrepentant harasser of women.

Honestly, Newton, you are starting to sound as over-emotional and over-exaggerating as Lewis and the SSW. And if we've learnt anything from this thread it is that we know that shrill level of argument turns people right off.

[panda boy]

Thanks Newton.

Your post really helps things along.

I'm here to discuss Southwarks cemetery plans, and think i've been fairly consistent in my posts. What is it that I have said that has you so upset?

Do you have actually have anything meaningful to add to the debate or do you just want to randomly (and somewhat ironically) have a go at me for the actions of someone else?

[Sue]

I think panda boy has made it very clear that he is not part of SSW.

On the other hand I do think that the way SSW and in particular their leader choose to conduct their campaign is a legitimate topic of discussion on this thread.

[Otta]

The group that people are now largely referring to as Daesh would rather the world continued to call them ISIS, the reason being that it adds some validation to their claimed caliphate. By calling them Islamic State we somehow acknowledge the existence of said state.

Let's stop calling this ridiculous group "SSW" because it only makes them feel validated.

I am NOT comparing the actions of this group to those of Daesh obviously. Lewis has not beheaded anyone (yet). But his mad dash to chain himself to a digger and get his photo in a local rag just screamed "look at me look at me".

Let's just stop all this and starve them of the attention they so desperately crave.

[Otta]

And yeah, not lumping panda boy in with them, he's been perfectly reasonable in his posts.

[nxjen]

"Let's just stop all this and starve them of the attention they so desperately crave."

Agree, and the way Twitter is being used by the banned member has been a very clever tactic in keeping this thread alive.

[Loz]

I'm a bit torn on this one - on one hand, people are correct in that this thread is keeping a rather dead topic (badum-tish) breathing.

On the other hand, Lewis's tweets show that the thread annoys the hell out of him.

[dbboy]

nxjen, Agreed, getting him, to get himself banned from here was the first stage, which he fell into, a bit like stepping in a turd.

[panda boy]

Hi Loz,

> people are correct in that this thread is keeping a rather dead topic (badum-tish) breathing.

I utterly disagree. Why do you say 'dead topic'? This is very far from being a dead topic. This is happening right now. The council are still awaiting Church permissions for their plans. I am awaiting answers to what I think are reasonable questions. Mystified as to why you would label this as a 'dead topic'.

Much as i've tried to stick to the original point of the thread and have raised several points, (some of which others have agreed with,) i've been met with mostly silence on here on some of the other points, so far, not trying to be impatient. Just keen to hear from people who are expressing an opinion on this, but not engaging on some of the details.

nzjen

> and the way Twitter is being used by the banned member has been a very clever tactic in keeping this thread alive.

I'm not on twitter, so it has zero influence on keeping this thread alive for me. I'm trying to keep it alive on the basis of the original point, Southwarks cemetery plans and their conduct in implementing them. Fancy having a chat about that?

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Let's just stop all this and starve them of the

> attention they so desperately crave.

My thoughts were more that any of their supporters reading the thread would see the lie of the land, so to speak, and stop being supporters - not necessarily of the actual cause, but of the organisation relating to it.

I think there are valid arguments to be put forward on both sides and it is a pity that things developed in the way they did.

It was suggested further up the thread that a new thread be started. Would it not be possible to do that, and start again with sensible people like panda boy putting their case sensibly?

Nobody who has been banned would be able to post on it. I'm not volunteering to start it, for obvious reasons :(

[EDAus]

'Over-emotional', 'over-exaggerating', 'shrill' - all words commonly used to denigrate the views of women. Language matters.

Southwark is a public body who should be held accountable, protections are in place to ensure this happens.

However, people who have experience in campaigning or working with Southwark/local government are unlikely to be willing to help due to the behaviours and attitudes of certain individuals connected with or indirectly supporting this this campaign.

[Penguin68]

It was suggested further up the thread that a new thread be started. Would it not be possible to do that, and start again with sensible people like panda boy putting their case sensibly?

I did, nobody wanted to use it, it is still here:- http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1637832

[panda boy]

Hi Penguin, I missed you starting this new thread.

Thank you doing so.

I will be moving onto this thread to discuss this subject, probably starting with the promised impending reply from Southwark council.

Hope to see you all over there.

[panda boy]

Hi EDAus

> Southwark is a public body who should be held

> accountable, protections are in place to ensure

> this happens.

This, a thousand times this.

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> It was suggested further up the thread that a new

> thread be started. Would it not be possible to do

> that, and start again with sensible people like

> panda boy putting their case sensibly?

>

> I did, nobody wanted to use it, it is still here:-

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5

> ,1637832

I didn't see that either, Penguin68, thanks for starting it.

[Otta]

So can this nonsense be locked now, whilst sensible discussion happens elsewhere?