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

[Sue]

edcam Wrote:

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

> Possibly the most tiresome thread in recent

> memory. A few people have shown their true

> colours and it isn't pretty.

Interesting. As we're now in the lounge, I'm wondering how you define and assess "true colours"?

People are quite complex and show different sides of themselves depending on the situation.

In fact, mulling this puzzle over this morning, I went back and altered one of my posts to add "judging by his tweets and many of his posts on this forum", as the person in question may well be a cuddly ray of sunshine except when he is posting on here and tweeting :))

A quick google came up with

"someone's true colors. ? the ​kind of ​person someone really is ​rather than what the ​person ​seems to be: I ​thought he was a really ​sweet ​guy, but then he got ​mad and ​showed his true ​colors. "

The question is, what exactly is the kind of person someone really is? Which are his/her "true colours"? The "really sweet" part, or the "getting mad" part?

What if somebody who was usually really bad tempered and grumpy suddenly unexpectedly did something really kind and helpful? Would that be "showing his true colours", or do "true colours" only apply to the bad stuff (however you choose to define "bad")?

And apart from that, I'm wondering who these "few people" you refer to are, and how you feel they have "shown their true colours and it isn't pretty".

[Sue]

Me! Me! Me! Wrote:

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

> And, to imagine ALL this could have been avoided

> years ago had Southwark Council properly

> re-appropriated for the purpose acres of unused

> designated Southward owned burial ground that is

> the adjacent land to Camberwell New Cemetery that

> has been to all intents and purposes GIVEN gratis

> to the LB of Lewisham as a play field. How dare

> Southwark Council give away land belonging to the

> people of Southwark to another borough.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought from what had been previously posted on here somewhere that this was always intended to be a temporary measure, and the land has not been permanently given away?

[HopOne]

Check out languagelounger's post here (23/02/11 13:42), it is rather enlightening:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,645329,645338

[Me! Me! Me!]

Like Squatters Rights where squatters can (or, used to be able to) own a property after so many years of squatting residency sees "Temporary" for the LB Southwark re said Camberwell New Cemetery land (Recreation ground) probably means Southwark has forever 'queered its pitch' (pardon the pun) as Lewisham being the land-grabbing squatter has pretty much been allowed to appropriate said unused Southwark burial patch for so long. 'Temporary' as applied to that particular piece of Southwark people's designated burial land appears to imply Lewisham gamesters and dog-poo people can have the land 'Forever'.

[Loz]

Between Honor Oak and the Judith Kerr school "playing fields", organisations will soon be learning NOT to let anything be used for a 'temporary' purpose. It just causes later anguish.

[edhistory]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Check out languagelounger's post here (23/02/11

> 13:42), it is rather enlightening:

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 0,645329,645338

In what sense is this enlightening?

John K

[panda boy]

Hi John K,

I find it illuminating as it provides some long term context into Southwarks 'cemetery strategy'.

The Honor Oak Rec Ground issue provoked public opinion against the plans, and Southwark backed down.

It is worth nothing that the current plans for Camberwell Old and New cemeteries have gained significantly more public reaction against them, yet Southwark are pretty much ignoring it this time and pushing the plans through regardless.

One example is the planning permissions, which they applied to themselves for and were unsurprisingly granted. This process took a matter of weeks, which is highly unusual (and I think suspicious) for a planning application with a significant amount of public opinion against to be granted so quickly.

This is just one aspect of this issue which results in me being less than satisfied with Southwarks conduct in handling this.

[edhistory]

Panda Boy,

The long term context was set at the end of the nineteenth century.

Was it Lewisham residents who provided public opinion against the plans for Southwark to use the burial ground provided with foresight by Camberwell Vestry/Council?

Any sense that the SSW petition was an honest and informed is now in doubt.

John K

[Me! Me! Me!]

Given present urgent need for Southwark burial space which was always readily available within Camberwell New Cemetery's ample 'over-the-cemetery-fence-spill-over-space-recreation-ground' and not utilised for its purpose for decades - there has to be suspicions (does there not?) of possible dirty dealings that may be dug up from Southwark/Lewisham data files that reference the two councils understanding about plans for that 'shared' Southwark burial acreage. Southwark, despite urgent space needed for interring, would seem to be deterred from using Rec space for easily available interments. And, another question - Has the Rec ground been historically or latterly listed as Holy Ground? I.e. sanctified as burial land as any cemetery space is? If so, why are dogs pooing and ruffians running amok on that 'last resting place land'? Meantime, Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries thought to be overfilled many times over are now unnecessarily being poked, prodded and dug about for evermore 'reusable-refusable-disusable-six-food-under-nook-&-cranny-last-homes-for-the-dead'.

Disgraceful!

[panda boy]

> The long term context was set at the end of the

> nineteenth century.

Eh? How so? How does the 19th century relate to what's happening now?

> Was it Lewisham residents who provided public

> opinion against the plans for Southwark to use the

> burial ground provided with foresight by

> Camberwell Vestry/Council?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question or it's relevance.

> Any sense that the SSW petition was an honest and

> informed is now in doubt.

I could say exactly the same thing about Southwark councils conduct.

To make such a broad and sweeping statement, you really should add some detail.

[Sue]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1637832

[farfisamania]

> Fair point, my mistake. I also believe it was a

> council officer and not an elected councillor.

Although somewhat ironically, given the above confusion, the ex-employee Southwark took to court is currently a UKIP councillor in Thanet.

[Buxton Spring]

thats Labour for you