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

[mynamehere]

Siduhe question, you want to be buried in consecrated ground and don't mind sharing or even being moved elsewhere over time and your marker being reused. Why then doesn't the more "permanent" even ethereal idea of ashes and trees appeal to you?

Under a tree and you're there for hundreds of years

A bench?

Ashes into the ground?

The reason this or even these posts are "good" is that end of life planning is given short schrift. People aren't prepared no will or plans.

And the money I don't get why people are willing to spend so much on so little really.

And organ donation. Sorry but I really don't get letting stuff you no longer need rot.

All this is real in perpetuity to me

[dbboy]

edborders - here you go again, you just cannot let it rest, banging on about the same thing. As you have already been advised everyone is fed up to the back teeth with you, are not listening nor interested.

AND

If you do quote me, at least use the full quote, again you only read and see what you want to, can I suggest removing the blinkers, you may find it beneficial.

[kiera]

Siduhe. I think you'll find that none of the reclaimed plots currently or recently being sold by the council for new burials are on consecrated ground. Similarly, all the planned new grave spaces in Camberwell Old Cemetery will be on top of public graves and public graves are on unconsecrated land.

[Siduhe]

mynamehere,

Thanks for asking. The Catholic church banned cremation up until fairly recently - many take "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" as a literal instruction. Even though that position has now changed and cremation is permitted, scattering of ashes contravenes the requirement that remains must be placed in a container and then buried in consecrated ground. Organ donation is entirely permitted though and I'm signed up as a donor. I also have made my arrangements so that I can hopefully have what I want without any cost or expense to my family.

Again, I do get that religious burial isn't important to many people these days, and I think it would be useful to debate what the right balance is between woods, recreation, remembrance and burial plots. When there's been a reasoned debate on here or at the meetings, I think it's been pretty helpful. What I'm trying to convey is that burial is really important to some people and (speaking for myself) it's a shame that a lot of the useful debate is getting lost in the hyperbole.

[Siduhe]

kiera Wrote:

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

> Siduhe. I think you'll find that none of the

> reclaimed plots currently or recently being sold

> by the council for new burials are on consecrated

> ground. Similarly, all the planned new grave

> spaces in Camberwell Old Cemetery will be on top

> of public graves and public graves are on

> unconsecrated land.

The priest will bless a grave site which has the same effect - that's what I meant, rather than expecting whole parts of the site to be set aside.

[Penguin68]

In many places on the Continent, burial is always only for a short time, with plots constantly being re-used and bones placed in ossuaries. In this case Southwark is trying to find 'missing' plot owners before re-use. These cemeteries are I believe well documented (unlike older graveyards). All grave sites are recorded although for a few, where bodies have been found and not identified before burial (John Doe-s) this may only be by number. Because of the records, I very much doubt that 'untold numbers' of paupers graves will be re-use, the numbers buried being well documented.

These posts are, as ever, a mixture of unwarranted hyperbole and misinformation. A public (municipal) graveyard is to be used for burials, and old and now uncared for graves will be re-used, for the public benefit. It will be possible to apply for burial if not recently resident (but the chances are there will have been some past or current family connection, I am guessing) although there will be a financial penalty for so doing - i.e. 'resident' dead (their heirs and assigns) will be offered beneficial rates.

There is much I hate about Southwark administration - but the cemetery plans seem orderly and sensible, and help repair previous damage by neglect. There are, clearly, issues going forward e.g. as to what will be the best re-planting strategy - whether native trees or ones now better suited to a changing climate, but these are issues of tactics/ implementation, not strategy, which seems sound. Clearly we still need careful oversight into how what is being planned is delivered, but this is a different order of concern.

[Sue]

It's pointless using facts and logic. The "Save the woods!" (which aren't woods) people are deaf to anything except their own blinkered viewpoint.

Hear this now, O foolish people,

Without understanding,

Who have eyes and see not,

And who have ears and hear not.

Jeremiah 5:21

[HopOne]

Funny that, am having the same feeling about your viewpoint Sue! Let's try and make this simple - there are woods on One Tree Hill, some of which also happen to be in Camberwell New Cemetery. This is a fact and is easily verifiable - just go and have a look.

The part I don't get is, given that the Council have now decided they can now reuse the existing graves after all, why do they need yet more space for new burials? There are plenty of plots more than 75 years old already which can be reused now.

[Sue]

There are multiple threads already on the forum, all started by the Save The Woods (sic) people, from the contents of which it is clear that many other people share my viewpoint.

There is absolutely no point in rehashing the same stuff over and over and over again, and I have no wish to repeat myself either.

Banging one's head against a brick wall springs to mind.

[HopOne]

But it is also evident that many people share at least some of the concerns raised by Save Southwark Woods.

So, in the interest of having intelligent debate, rather than "I'm right, you are wrong", fancy telling me what your view point has to say about my last post?

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> So, in the interest of having intelligent debate,

> rather than "I'm right, you are wrong", fancy

> telling me what your view point has to say about

> my last post?

No, because I don't have time to look back over everything from all the many previous long threads, and I don't just type out any old emotive stuff without making absolutely sure of my facts.

I have a sold out benefit gig for refugees to run on Friday with a lot of work to do relating to it beforehand, and am snowed under with work relating to losing a venue. On top of many other things.

I'm sure somebody will be able to respond, though given the amount of energy your group seems to be putting into this, it's hard to understand why you haven't just put your question to the council.

[HopOne]

What a strange response, am not being emotive at all, in fact trying to bring some rigour into this. Why do you think I haven't asked the council? Sadly, the only point at which I have been able to discuss this with a council representative was at a public meeting as am a Lewisham resident. Their stance has changed since then but still leaves questions unanswered.

I was hoping to establish a simple fact which some on here would seem to deny - there are woods on One Tree Hill. It is not unreasonable to want to try and save them.

Hope your gig goes well.

[Otta]

Really don't get why people are so wound up about old graves. When you're dead, you're dead. Why do people feel they should have a right to take up precious land by being buried. Once you're dead, your body is a worthless sack of bones, get over it.

[Penguin68]

As I understand it, Southwark's plans are to use only ground which was originally planned and designated for cemetery use - even if it has not been used recently (or at all) for burials. This will include clearing scrub growth - although all the cemeteries have well planned tree plantings within them as part of the cemetery landscaping. There are a plethora of actual, managed, woodlands and 'wild' places around the borough which are not designated for burials - we are actually peculiarly blessed with such public spaces. I find walking in the managed cemetery areas very satisfying - and appreciate the new memorials as I do the old. Curiously cemeteries are a fascinating living use of landscape - as funerals are the expressions of the living, only notionally on behalf of the dead.

I keep posting here (and on similar threads) not because I expect to change the minds of those who have created the myth of Southwark Woods (which these have never been) but in case those new to the thread(s) should consider that an unchallengeable case is being made by those who keep these issues open.

Edited to add - Otta - funerals have always been about what is necessary for the living to cope with their loss etc. - never really about the dead or the remains. Many people (I'm not one) find huge comfort in visiting the graves of their loved ones. And many people (quite wrongly in my view, but I'm not a dictator) believe that the dying wishes of their loved ones (or their beliefs) should be pandered to in their corpse disposal. By not doing so, real emotional and psychological distress can be felt by the living, and this I am sympathetic to.

[HopOne]

So, Penguin68, as I understand it you do not believe that there are woods on One Tree Hill?

[dbboy]

Penguin68 - an excellent post.

I lost a very, very close relative in the last twelve months. Going to their grave is both a way of trying to cope with their death whilst also showing respect. Only when you have lost someone so so close do you realise how important visiting their final resting place is.

[Penguin68]

So, Penguin68, as I understand it you do not believe that there are woods on One Tree Hill?

Not in the sense you would like readers to believe. There are trees and scrub growth (yes) - as there is at the back of my garden, which I also do not designate as 'woods'. If you want (real) woods try Sydenham/ Dulwich woods (which actually are woods, are managed as woods, are named 'woods' on maps etc.) Is there (mainly) secondary growth on One Tree Hill? - yes, is it (all) to be used for burials? (as I understand it) - no. And, if 'woods' is meant to be something other than, 'a place where trees have happened to self seed' - then, no, I do not believe there are woods on One Tree Hill.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> What a strange response, am not being emotive at

> all,

No, I wasn't referring to your post, I was referring to unnecessarily emotive language used in other posts which have been made by members of your group - one person in particular.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[HopOne]

Ok Sue, no worries. I am finding some of the "wood choppers" to be using emotive language too but I would rather cut through this and discuss the issues.

Penguin68, you seem to have an unusual definition of a wood. It is 'a place where trees have happened to self seed' - exactly that, only more expansive than found at the bottom of most people's gardens! On One Tree Hill some of the woods are very mature, especially on the south and east sides. Whether they are ancient or not am not sure, but they have been there since at least mid 19th century (see Nisbet) so are no less woods than those at Sydenham Hill in my view.

Whether one classes these as woods or not, it is true that the environment there supports many interesting species. Can we agree on this point?

[Sue]

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, because I really don't have time to check back, but I thought the Friends of One Tree Hill were in favour of the council's plans.

Have I confused this with something else?

[HopOne]

No, you haven't. I have been in touch with FrOTH about this - basically they are only concerned with their patch of One Tree Hill (which is only the delineated nature reserve part of it) and sadly, have used the Council's environmental assessment to guide their own thinking. A bit of a shot in the foot in my view, and many others I have spoken to about this (not associated with Save Southwark Woods BTW).

[Penguin68]

but they have been there since at least mid 19th century (see Nisbet) so are no less woods than those at Sydenham Hill in my view.

I find it most unlikely that trees of that age, unless they are unstable/ weakened by disease would be cleared - on purely practical grounds the costs associated with clearing the root ball/ roots of such well established trees - necessary if the ground is to be used for burials, would probably be, if not prohibitive, at least not cost effective. Nor do I believe (happy to be corrected) that the entire area generally known as One Tree Hill is to be cleared for burials.

it is true that the environment there supports many interesting species

Whilst this is so (indeed suburban and urban gardens are notorious for the range of species, often new to science, found in them) it is also, I believe, true that there are no unique or protected species associated with this scrub area. Any area of uncared for land will support 'many interesting species' except, in the main, in non-native monocultures. I note that Camberwell Old Cemetery has its resident population of parakeets to accompany the crows. Indeed, there is a wide range of habitats in the 'maintained' areas of the cemetery which I am sure has a rich and varied wild-life. As there will be in an new areas of burial, once 'established'. Including, I would suspect, many of the 'interesting species' now resident in the scrub land.

[Otta]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 - an excellent post.

>

> I lost a very, very close relative in the last

> twelve months. Going to their grave is both a way

> of trying to cope with their death whilst also

> showing respect. Only when you have lost someone

> so so close do you realise how important visiting

> their final resting place is.

Sorry for your loss.

I'd argue that the final "resting place" doesn't need to be a grave though. For example, many people are cremated then the ashes are burrid in a particular place, marked with a plant or something.

[Penguin68]

I'd argue that the final "resting place" doesn't need to be a grave though. For example, many people are cremated then the ashes are burrid in a particular place, marked with a plant or something.

That's exactly right, for those for whom such an action would meet their needs - for others, however, the formality of a grave (and the burial of the 'whole' body, not ashes) provides greater levels of comfort. It's of course a personal (and cultural) thing - but it is 'our' (people in the UK) culture - even though your alternative also works for some. Forcing people to bury their loved ones whole in a grave is as wrong as forcing them to cremate. We now allow multiple approaches to death, disposal and mourning - that is a wholly good thing, to my mind. Sometimes there are issues which may over-ride such choices - how you dispose of people in times of dangerous infections, for instance (such as Ebola) where local customs have to be ignored for the greater good. This, to be frank, isn't of them.

[HopOne]

[edit: to Penguin68 re trees and species] You are correct in that only the trees on One Tree Hill, that also happen to be in Camberwell New Cemetery, are to be cleared. Unlikely as it may seem, these do include mature trees as described. It is indeed a very costly exercise that is coming out of capital expenditure.

Re species: there are some interesting ones actually, e.g. the blotched emerald moth, originally known as the Maid of Honor as it was first named from a sighting in Oak of Honor wood (Donovan 1797):

http://www.ukmoths.org.uk/species/comibaena-bajularia/

Note that this lives in woodland and feeds on oak. And this is the point: native woodland including oaks support a wide range of species. However, the number of species an area can support is proportional to the habitat area (Species Area relationship). Ergo, significant loss of habitat will cause species loss. Do you think that is important?