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

[dbboy]

this is what they said 8 months ago "Through this petition and paper petitions, Save Southwark Woods has earned the constitutional right to present the petition tot he full Council Assembly on evening of July 8th. There will be more information soon and we will be organising people to come along to help deliver it."

Using your own words, how have you earned the constitutional right?

[Sue]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> The ancient woodland on One Tree Hill:

>

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

> 0,file=204661

:)

ETA: Well, that isn't working, is it.

Sorry, you'll have to click on the link on edhistory's post on the previous page.

Or wait! The wonders of modern technology!

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

[henryb]

dbboy Wrote:

> Using your own words, how have you earned the

> constitutional right?

It is part of Southwark constitution.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200287/have_your_say/1703/petitions/3

Section 2.4

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s57720/07%20Council%20assembly%20procedure%20rules%20July%202015.pdf

[edhistory]

"A petition can be submitted by any person of any age who lives, works or studies in Southwark"

That should rule out most Lewisham residents.

Who checks?

[henryb]

Sue Wrote:

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

> edhistory Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The ancient woodland on One Tree Hill:

> >

> >

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

>

> > 0,file=204661

>

>

> :)

>

> ETA: Well, that isn't working, is it.

>

> Sorry, you'll have to click on the link on

> edhistory's post on the previous page.

>

> Or wait! The wonders of modern technology!

>

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

> 0,file=204661

I am not sure what a grainy un-referenced drawing proves but certainly the area concerned it is not an ancient woodland. The oaks are about 40 years old. However there are some much older oaks near by like along boundary with the allotments.

[henryb]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> "A petition can be submitted by any person of any

> age who lives, works or studies in Southwark"

>

> That should rule out most Lewisham residents.

>

> Who checks?

I am not sure. I guess the constitutional officer. The paper petition was handed in before the meeting. They also accept on-line petitions which have the post code.

[HopOne]

Otta Wrote:

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

> HopOne Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Otta, are you referring to the golf course?

>

>

> No, other side.

So, Otta you must be referring to this:

http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2015/04/honor-oak-road-covered-reservoir.html

Am not aware of any plans by anyone to make this publicly accessible. As it is protected due to presence of rare species I doubt that the Save Southwark Woods campaign would push for this either, even if it was in Southwark borough.

[HopOne]

Sue Wrote:

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

> 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?

Sue, have asked the organisers this question and here is the answer:

"It's for very basic campaign costs - things like printing, postage, materials, website, or paying for things like tech support or graphics. Not people's time, none of it goes to campaign organisers."

HTH

[nxjen]

This is at variance to what EDBorders posted on 6 January on one of the other threads:

"Yes, the Benefit is on Valentine's Day, Feb 14, 2016 and the money will be used to help reforest and preserve graves in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries."

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1619517,page=2

[Otta]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > HopOne Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

>

> > > Otta, are you referring to the golf course?

> >

> >

> > No, other side.

>

> So, Otta you must be referring to this:

> http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2015/04/honor-oak

> -road-covered-reservoir.html

>

> Am not aware of any plans by anyone to make this

> publicly accessible. As it is protected due to

> presence of rare species I doubt that the Save

> Southwark Woods campaign would push for this

> either, even if it was in Southwark borough.

This is the petition I'd seen (which I don't support)

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-nunhead-reservoir?source=facebook-share-button&time=1452737298

[HopOne]

Yet another reservoir and not connected in any way AFAICT.

[HopOne]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> This is at variance to what EDBorders posted on 6

> January on one of the other threads:

>

> "Yes, the Benefit is on Valentine's Day, Feb 14,

> 2016 and the money will be used to help reforest

> and preserve graves in Camberwell Old and New

> Cemeteries."

>

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

> 0,1619517,page=2

You quote the aims of the campaign. Otta asked specifically what the funds would be used for - a reasonable question in my view. Why at odds?

[nxjen]

HopOne states the money is for:

"It's for very basic campaign costs - things like printing, postage, materials, website, or paying for things like tech support or graphics. Not people's time, none of it goes to campaign organisers."

EDBorders states:

"the money will be used to help reforest

and preserve graves in Camberwell Old and New

Cemeteries"

The latter implies the money raised will be used to directly reforest and preserve graves, not for the running of campaign costs.

[edborders]

you "against" people should stick to your basic points:

You don't give a damn about trees, they aren't even trees, they are scrub

you don't think 150 year old graves arn worth saving, they were meant to be dug up or should as they are ugly

you don't go into the woods anyway, not tidy

they are cemeteries! they were always cemeteries! cemeteries! get it? cemeteries!

you don't give a damn about the future (global warming, flooding, rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road)

you liked the way things were in the past before all these these bloody newcomers came in here, embarrassing you by appreciating things about the area that you never noticed.

(Not intended for the majority of the people who were raised here who appreciate the natural beauty of East Dulwich area and are disgusted that the Council is digging up thousands of graves and sell off the plots to people out of the Borough. I meet very few people who are against saving the woods and the graves, which is why there is no group supporting the council plans and no one to speak for destroying these places of beauty and memories.)

Aerial view of Camberwell Cemetery. I just saw this myself.

This added: for NXJen, the money will go to the campaign to stop the council from cutting down over 10 acres of woods in Camberwell Cemeteries, stop the council from digging up graves and selling off the plots, and to promote the cemeteries being preserved and maintained as Cemetery Nature Reserves.

Lewis Schaffer

Nunhead Tree Lover and Grave Saver

Come to the Benefit and meet other members of our group.

http://wwww.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[BrandNewGuy]

edborders Wrote:

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

> you don't give a damn about the future (global

> warming, flooding, rotting dead juices flowing

> down Forest Hill Road)

You see it's comments like this that remove your credibility. I'm involved in a local 'green' friends' group and we've deliberately avoided backing the "Save Southwark Woods" campaign because of the amount of hysteria, disinformation and fiction involved. Which is a shame, because I think there's a strong argument to be made for opposing Southwark's plans.

[edborders]

Well, that is sad.

You won't help save the woods and graves - something you value - because you don't like the people who are supporting it or the how those people present the case?

You are proud to admit that? Whoa...

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> You see it's comments like this that remove your

> credibility. I'm involved in a local 'green'

> friends' group and we've deliberately avoided

> backing the "Save Southwark Woods" campaign

> because of the amount of hysteria, disinformation

> and fiction involved. Which is a shame, because I

> think there's a strong argument to be made for

> opposing Southwark's plans.

Lewis Schaffer,

Nunheader, comedian (usually), father of two boys in East Dulwich schools.

Who are you?

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

>

> Sue, have asked the organisers this question and

> here is the answer:

>

> "It's for very basic campaign costs - things like

> printing, postage, materials, website, or paying

> for things like tech support or graphics. Not

> people's time, none of it goes to campaign

> organisers."

Well I'd bloody well hope none of it was going to pay for people's time or to campaign organisers! Though surely "tech support" and "graphics" involves people's time???

So it's to pay your costs of publicising the campaign.

(The poster for our benefit was designed for free. And we paid for all the printing costs ourselves. Just saying.)

So why did edborders originally say "the money will be used to help reforest and preserve graves in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries" ? Though I see this has been changed in his post above.

I'm guessing it has been changed because somebody on another thread pointed out to edborders that the money could not actually be used for that purpose unless he and his group were intending to use something along the lines of guerilla gardening tactics in the cemeteries, for which the council are responsible ......

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

> you "against" people should stick to your basic

> points:

>

> You don't give a damn about trees, they aren't

> even trees, they are scrub

> you don't think 150 year old graves arn worth

> saving, they were meant to be dug up or should as

> they are ugly

> you don't go into the woods anyway, not tidy

> they are cemeteries! they were always cemeteries!

> cemeteries! get it? cemeteries!

> you don't give a damn about the future (global

> warming, flooding, rotting dead juices flowing

> down Forest Hill Road)

> you liked the way things were in the past before

> all these these bloody newcomers came in here,

> embarrassing you by appreciating things about the

> area that you never noticed.

>

Well, yes, that and the rest of your lengthy rant was certainly embarrassing.

[HopOne]

Literalists of the world unite! It is a shame that the same approach doesn't extend to defining a wood :-)

As already mentioned, edborders is stating the campaign aims. I sourced the specifics for you but the "printing, postage, materials" costs etc are in support of the campaign. Is that clear enough now?

[BrandNewGuy]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Well, that is sad.

>

> You won't help save the woods and graves -

> something you value - because you don't like the

> people who are supporting it or the how those

> people present the case?

>

> You are proud to admit that? Whoa...

>

> BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > You see it's comments like this that remove

> your

> > credibility. I'm involved in a local 'green'

> > friends' group and we've deliberately avoided

> > backing the "Save Southwark Woods" campaign

> > because of the amount of hysteria,

> disinformation

> > and fiction involved. Which is a shame, because

> I

> > think there's a strong argument to be made for

> > opposing Southwark's plans.

>

> Lewis Schaffer,

> Nunheader, comedian (usually), father of two boys

> in East Dulwich schools.

> Who are you?

I didn't say I don't like the people who are supporting the case ? I suggested that your methods are dreadful and counterproductive. My love of trees goes back to the time when I was a kid and my mother was a leading light in the wonderfully named "Birmingham Tree Lovers' League". But I don't really feel I have to justify myself to you.

[Otta]

Agree with Brandnewguy. On a personal note I would rather see the cemetary just left as it is (well maybe tidied up a bit in areas). But this campaign is being driven (at least on this forum) in a laughable manner with language you'd expect from a teenager (and not a very bright one).

Someone diagrees with you so you say things like

"You don't give a damn about trees, they aren't even trees, they are scrub

you don't give a damn about the future (global warming, flooding, rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road)

you liked the way things were in the past before all these bloody newcomers came in here, embarrassing you by appreciating things about the area that you never noticed."

I mean seriously, have a word with yourself. It's embarrassing.

[Penguin68]

Otta has it spot on.

I am on record (in this forum) as saying that I am uneasy when it comes to destroying memorials, which on both historic and aesthetic grounds I would like to see preserved.

Too many trees, randomly growing in an area which should have been, but wasn't, properly curated, and untended are scrub growth - which is by no means the same as saying that I don't like trees. I have used the term 'scrub growth' and 'scrubland' as a counter to the wholly fictitious nomenclature of 'Southwark Woods'.

Actually, had you started up saying - 'save the newly wooded areas of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries' and made a cogent and unbiased case I and others would have listened to you more closely. As it is you started a hyped and less than honest campaign under false colours.

You appear now desperately keen to 'save' the burial sites of the long dead - and yet are on record as suggesting that any new funerals should be stopped and the cemeteries turned over to untended park land. Why do you clasp the old dead of Southwark to your bosom whilst apparently despising the wishes of relatives of the newly dead? And by the way your reference to 'rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road' is (once again and completely in character) both inaccurate and using lies to get coverage. Oh, and offensive.

[HopOne]

I think that edborders uses some forthright language, for sure, but that does not make it lies. The reference is to both cemeteries having water-logged graves on a regular basis (which is illegal AIUI). If this same water runs down the hill and ends up in your house, how would you feel about it?

But these are yet more ad hominem responses. I have tried hard to present a cogent case but am not getting any likewise responses back, rather replies which are fixated on issues that have been rebuffed repeatedly to a tiresome degree. I can only assume that some here prefer the sport of baiting to rational argument. Or perhaps cannot see the woods for the trees?

[DaveR]

"replies which are fixated on issues that have been rebuffed repeatedly to a tiresome degree...."

Pot. Kettle. etc.

"you "against" people should stick to your basic points:

You don't give a damn about trees, they aren't even trees, they are scrub

you don't think 150 year old graves arn worth saving, they were meant to be dug up or should as they are ugly

you don't go into the woods anyway, not tidy

they are cemeteries! they were always cemeteries! cemeteries! get it? cemeteries!

you don't give a damn about the future (global warming, flooding, rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road)

you liked the way things were in the past before all these these bloody newcomers came in here, embarrassing you by appreciating things about the area that you never noticed.

(Not intended for the majority of the people who were raised here who appreciate the natural beauty of East Dulwich area and are disgusted that the Council is digging up thousands of graves and sell off the plots to people out of the Borough. I meet very few people who are against saving the woods and the graves, which is why there is no group supporting the council plans and no one to speak for destroying these places of beauty and memories.)"

This is not forthright language - it's deliberately provocative, misleading bullshit. That's not an ad hominem attack, save to the extent it identifies edborders as (yet again) a producer and distributor of the aforesaid bullshit.

[Penguin68]

The reference is to both cemeteries having water-logged graves on a regular basis (which is illegal AIUI). If this same water runs down the hill and ends up in your house, how would you feel about it?

Yes, many of the graves are waterlogged in some parts of Camberwell Old Cemetery. This is surface water and reflects the fact that the ground is, indeed, waterlogged. However, graves are dug 6ft down, fresh bodies are in coffins - which whilst not hermetically sealed are broadly water-tight for some significant period, and bodies are embalmed. The new burials are mainly on/ in raised areas, which are not waterlogged. Water flows down, not up. Any water run-off out of the cemetery (I have seen none, save for surface run during actual rain storms) will not be contaminated. Earlier myth-making was about ground-water contamination (I think reasonably well refuted) - this calumny rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road is just Katie Hopkins wrong.