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

[Otta]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> 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.

I know what you're saying, but for the sake of argument, couldn't these cultures be changed by simply saying "we're not doing burials in this country anymore"? Some might not like it, some would no doubt claim it was removing their human rights (although the removal of being alive would rather negate that IMO). But in time (probably quite a short amount of time) it would be accepted as the norm and we'd stop wasting land.

[DaveR]

"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?"

This is exactly the sort of blatant misrepresentation that is giving the already misleadingly named "Save Southwark Woods" campaign a bad name. There is no evidence that the specific actions planned will lead to species loss. It's also significant that you feel the need to denigrate the Friends of One Tree Hill, who have a long-standing and committed relationship with the area and, in all likelihood, a much more developed understanding of the actual likely impact of the planned works on the overall habitat. You're trying your hardest to dress this up as a reasoned and reasonable cause, but it's not - it's a bunch of ill-informed single issue fanatics.

[HopOne]

DaveR,

Re species loss, there is a wealth of evidence for this. It is the guiding mathematical principle of biogeography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species-area_curve

It is true that no one can predict which, or how many species, could be affected in this instance. I have an otherwise high regard for the work of FrOTH but am not going to sugar coat what I believe to be a flawed assessment - they admit themselves that they are *not* considering the overall habitat impact. At the very least this warrants an independent study.

No dressing or fanaticism in this - just science. Please explain how you think I have misrepresented anything.

[DaveR]

"It is true that no one can predict which, or how many species, could be affected in this instance."

It's not true at all - it can be done, by real science, using real data, rather than pretend science with no data wheeled out to provide dubious support for your dubious cause.

[HopOne]

"It's not true at all - it can be done, by real science, using real data, rather than pretend science with no data wheeled out to provide dubious support for your dubious cause."

We can't make predictions because we do not have the data. A big enough study could make that assessment which is what I suggested. Am pleased at least that you seem to agree with the principle. Which I think is enough to question the merits of loss of woodland. How is that dubious?

[edborders]

Here is a video of the area we are trying to save. Please keep in mind that under the trees and meadows are tens of thousands (if not more) of London's dead. The council will be digging up or mounding over all graves over 75 years old and selling off the plots.

If you want "local graves for local people" it will involve digging up other local people's graves and cutting down our children's trees. ITV NEWS report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eklxkk30bQ

MORE STUFF FOR THE INTERESTED:

AND Valentine's Comedy Benefit at @Save_Ivy_House for Save @SouthwarkWoods ?10 or ?12 on door: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/save-southwark-woods-comedy-benefit-tickets-20846697032 ?

[Otta]

Haha, like the emotive use of "our children's trees".

[Sue]

With the help of a great many people all giving their time for free, http://www.thegooseisout.com made well over ?2500 on Friday at a benefit concert, also at The Ivy House.

This money is being used for a very clear cause, to help provide refugees arriving in Calais and Lesvos with vital things like shelters and heaters.

http://www.helprefugees.org.uk/

Please can you tell us exactly what the money from your comedy benefit will be used for? For example, how will it help to protect "our children's trees"? And I believe you also had a previous benefit - how was that money used?

This question has been asked of you before, and as far as I can see has not been answered. Forgive me if it has, and I've missed it.

ETA: I see that your publicity material still refers to the non-existent "Southwark Woods" which you have invented.

ETA: I am not in any way intending to denigrate your performance, which I am sure will be excellent. It is what the money will be used for that concerns me.

[Penguin68]

Here is a video of the area we are trying to save. Please keep in mind that under the trees and meadows are tens of thousands (if not more) of London's dead. The council will be digging up or mounding over all graves over 75 years old and selling off the plots.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe there are 'tens of thousands (if not more)' of burials in the area that is to be reclaimed for use. Even if there were, reusing the site (presumably for tens of thousands more burials, if that is what is being 'recovered' although other posts have suggested that far fewer are actually planned) is not a bad thing, where those who are buried here have been forgotten or lost by relatives. In what way are self-seeded trees in scrubland 'our children's' trees - you might as well say that every time a park is mown then 'our children's' grass is being 'lost'. Who, by the way, is 'our' in this context? My children will all move away from ED (they can't afford to buy here) - so I assume will care very little if ED scrubland is reclaimed.

[dbboy]

Did you happen to tell ITV London News that "southwark woods" do not in fact exist nor have they ever existed . No, I did't think you did, because that would expose the myth, lies and mis information that you expound. They are made up and nothing less than a figment of your imagination.

Secondly, what you call woods is ground that became over grown though council neglect and now want to use for the purpose it was intended for, burials.

Thirdly, the ground a grave goes in is leased to the family for 50 years after which time it reverts to the council, unless the family extend the lease.

Fourthly, more emotive language is used in the news report, after 75 years, there will be no coffin to dig up, the only possible thing remaining will be the dead person's skeleton The Council will not be "digging up any coffins or skeletons", what they will do is add a new internment above any existing remains. This is what happens when you die http://www.memorialpages.co.uk/articles/decomposition.php

Fively, Are you really sure your video is in Camberwell Old Cemetery, I think NOT, It looks much more like One Tree Hill.

As has been explained on numerous occasions, people are fed up to the back teeth with this quest and the mis information does you no favours.

[taper]

There is a significant area of Camberwell Old Cemetery that looks and feels like a wood to me. So it probably is a wood, whatever you want to call it. Coc Wood probably inadvisable.

Not sure I'd welcome it being cut down.

[HopOne]

Well said taper. The woods that exist in CNC are continuation of the existing nature reserve which were previously known as Oak of Honor wood.

To dbboy,

Here we go again. There are many who are fed up with constantly rebuffing the same erroneous accusations, such as lack of woods. In a seemingly rather emotive way I might add. Your points in turn:

1. (ETA: Save) Southwark Woods is a name of a campaign. "Woods that exist in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries" might be more geographically accurate but does not trip off the tongue so well. This does not alter the fact that woods exist at both sites in question;

2. Woods always grow through "neglect" as, by definition, they are only lightly managed if at all - whether this is appropriate space for burial is the nub of the issue;

3. The graves in question do not have this lease AIUI. The 2007 act does not apply and these plots were leased in perpetuity - someone with a better handle on this can expand further I am sure;

4. 75 years is often cited as a minimum best practice period before which reuse should be considered - this depends a great deal on local conditions though and the clay soil type means that decomposition tends to be slower than elsewhere;

5. It is One Tree Hill and yes the woods there (that border the nature reserve) are under imminent threat.

Hope that clarifies.

[DaveR]

1. Southwark Woods is a name of a campaign. "Woods that exist in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries" might be more geographically accurate but does not trip off the tongue so well. This does not alter the fact that woods exist at both sites in question;

Southwark Woods (capitalised) is a misleading name deliberately chosen to add 'heft' to the campaign to save them.

2. Woods always grow through "neglect" as, by definition, they are only lightly managed if at all - whether this is appropriate space for burial is the nub of the issue;

It's not true that woods always (or even usually) grow through neglect - the majority of English woodland is actively managed and has been for centuries.

3. The graves in question do not have this lease AIUI. The 2007 act does not apply and these plots were leased in perpetuity - someone with a better handle on this can expand further I am sure;

I don't know whether this is accurate as a matter of fact, but it is striking that the voices of those who appear to have an interest in visiting current graves appear resolutely opposed to your campaign.

4. 75 years is often cited as a minimum best practice period before which reuse should be considered - this depends a great deal on local conditions though and the clay soil type means that decomposition tends to be slower than elsewhere;

No citation for the 'often cited' best practice, and in any event see 3 above.

5. It is One Tree Hill and yes the woods there (that border the nature reserve) are under imminent threat.

Unless I'm missing something, the only 'woods under threat' are those within the boundaries of existing cemeteries.

[Penguin68]

5. It is One Tree Hill and yes the woods there (that border the nature reserve) are under imminent threat.

Unless I'm missing something, the only 'woods under threat' are those within the boundaries of existing cemeteries.

Indeed, if you look at a map of 'One Tree Hill' you will see that the 7 hectare site is shown entirely separate from (but bordering) Camberwell New Cemetery. If the film is actually of One Tree Hill (as stated) then it absolutely isn't part of this reclamation. http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?startTopic=Designations&activelayer=lnrIndex&query=REF_CODE%3D%271421661%27

And yes, most woods are actively managed - indeed in order for them to qualify for the government's IHT exemptions they have to be. [Obviously local authorities aren't impacted by IHT issues].

[HopOne]

To DaveR,

1. You may find it misleading to use Southwark Woods but I think that is because you are putting to much meaning into it. Campaigns need a snappy title. You might have chosen a different one, as would I as it happens, but that is not the point. Am happy to run with it as it already has traction and is highlighting an issue of concern to everyone I have spoken to about it. You are at liberty to not share those concerns.

2. If nature has planted trees then it is a wood - I did not choose the word "neglect". If planted by hand then I would call it a forest. I did not say that most woodland in England is not managed - I agree it is, just lightly so in comparison to park or forest;

3. Then check the facts! Am not at all convinced that people with an interest in visiting graves are also anti-woodland;

4. I sourced this from a conversation I had with the (former) Southwark Council Head of Realm;

5. You have got that right. This is the part that we would most helpfully be discussing!

[HopOne]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

>

> Indeed, if you look at a map of 'One Tree Hill'

> you will see that the 7 hectare site is shown

> entirely separate from (but bordering) Camberwell

> New Cemetery. If the film is actually of One Tree

> Hill (as stated) then it absolutely isn't part of

> this reclamation.

> http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?startTopic

> =Designations&activelayer=lnrIndex&query=REF_CODE%

> 3D%271421661%27

>

One Tree Hill is a hill. What this refers to is the One Tree Hill Nature Reserve.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> 5. You have got that right. This is the part

> that we would most helpfully be discussing!

But why does it need to be discussed again here?

It's already been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere. Although I must admit, there have been so many threads started by members of your group, I am losing track completely of who has said what where.

And please will somebody tell me what exactly your benefit night is raising money FOR? Are you all going to build tree houses, and live in them so nobody can cut the trees down? That should get you some publicity :)

[HopOne]

"But why does it need to be discussed again here?

It's already been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere. Although I must admit, there have been so many threads started by members of your group, I am losing track completely of who has said what where."

I think you answer your own question. There have been too many threads so for those without memory of all of them, this would be the place. I also think there has been a lot of noise about really basic stuff like where the woods are or even disputing that there are any. This has distracted from the real issue woods vs graves. There is no simple answer and people should make their own mind up, ideally based on facts.

I don't know the exact use of the funds raised as I do not manage the group. Am sure there are costs to cover but I doubt these include tree house construction. :-)

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> I don't know the exact use of the funds raised as

> I do not manage the group. Am sure there are

> costs to cover but I doubt these include tree

> house construction. :-)

But surely if you have a benefit concert, people need to know in advance where their ticket money and other donations are going?

[kiera]

dbboy said "Are you really sure your video is in Camberwell Old Cemetery, I think NOT, It looks much more like One Tree Hill."

Yes, the video IS of Camberwell Old Cemetery and clearly shows the woodland there. It does look like the One Tree Hill nature reserve, which has got something to do with why people want it to be treated similarly - as the nature reserve it has become.

[Otta]

I bet members of this group are also pushing for Thames Water to make the reservoir public.

[HopOne]

Sorry Kiera, you are right the first video posted by edborders is of Old cemetery. I was referring to 2nd which is news report from New cemetery.

Otta, are you referring to the golf course?

[edhistory]

The ancient woodland on One Tree Hill:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?20,file=204661

[Otta]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Sorry Kiera, you are right the first video posted

> by edborders is of Old cemetery. I was referring

> to 2nd which is news report from New cemetery.

>

> Otta, are you referring to the golf course?

No, other side.

[olly]

kiera Wrote:

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

> dbboy said "Are you really sure your video is in

> Camberwell Old Cemetery, I think NOT, It looks

> much more like One Tree Hill."

>

> Yes, the video IS of Camberwell Old Cemetery and

> clearly shows the woodland there. It does look

> like the One Tree Hill nature reserve, which has

> got something to do with why people want it to be

> treated similarly - as the nature reserve it has

> become.

As Kiera states, it is indeed Camberwell Old Cemetery, as is this clip: