Have you thought what it means to re-use a grave?

[edborders]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> I have no problem with graves being re-used.

> Perhaps if this practice was used in Nunhead

> cemetery none of the problems of limited grave

> space would exist in Southwark.

Are you seriously suggesting that our area would be better off if Nunhead Cemetery had been continuously dug up to provide burial space? That would mean no woods and no beautiful monuments.

Who else is for that? No Nunhead Cemetery woods. Come on, speak up!

Yes, we are "tree hugging scrub land lovers" and proud of it.

Lewis Schaffer

Save Southwark Wood Tree Hugging Scrub Land Lover

Nunhead Resident, Two kids at Harris Boys School, East Dulwich.

Come to the Benefit to Save Southwark Woods February 14, 2016 at the Ivy House

[dbboy]

Nunhead cemetery is a vast area that is currently full and unused. If graves that are over a certain age and relatives no longer exist, graves could be re-used, with the headstone being turned so it remains and new inscriptions are added to what was the rear and is now the front. Surely this would help alleviate the problem that exists in the borough of a lack of burial space.

This practice is already undertaken successfully in other boroughs such as City of London, if they can do it, there is no reason why Southwark cannot do this either.

Different countries have different approaches to dealing with death, burial, bereavement and mourning. Some choose burial, others prefer cremation, but here we have choice, democracy, rules, The Law, culture and "this is the way we do things around here".

And finally in Camberwell Old Cemetery there are no woods and there have never been any, it's a tree huggers figment of your imagination, and a nightmare is approaching because very, very soon the Council will clear the overgrown scrub land and use it for the purpose it was intended for, row upon row of new graves. And I'll happily applaud them for doing so.

[HopOne]

Sorry dbboy, am confused by your position on this now. You say there is woodland on One Tree Hill, yet part of that is, for now at least, in Camberwell New Cemetery. You support the reuse of graves but would rather cut down part of that woodland than do so. What happens when all that space is used up too? Whether you include Nunhead or not (non-starter in my view), the same principle applies to all the Council burial space - as it stands, unless graves are reused (or burial elsewhere), they will run out of it. Where is the burial strategy?

Yes, I have been known to hug a tree but am also trying to apply some calm rationale to this. Am sure "tree choppers" can play along too ;-).

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Come to the Benefit to Save Southwark Woods

> February 14, 2016 at the Ivy House

So you're having a benefit to save "Southwark Woods", which don't exist?

What will you use the money for?

The Goose Is Out! is holding a benefit concert to raise money for Help Refugees (a volunteer group providing direct help to refugees in Calais and Lesbos), January 15, 2016 at the Ivy House.

http://thegooseisout.com/benefit-concert-for-refugees/

http://www.wegottickets.com/thegooseisout

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

Come and help live people, not dead people and non-existent "woods".

[Jeremy]

Have to say I feel for Lewis a bit here. He has been treated rudely on a few occasions, which I think is unnecessary. Clearly most of us don't agree with his message/views but he obviously cares about his local area. Snide remarks about his country of origin should, IMO, not be tolerated.

Speaking personally I am anti-burial. It seems like an unenlightened ritual to me - after death the body has no value. But if all these people insist on burying dead bodies in the ground, then they will need to go somewhere. Re-use (either for burial or another purpose) is eventually inevitable given our finite land.

[Sue]

Sorry if I've been rude, but I am quite fed up with the new threads constantly being started on the same subject, the inaccurate and often unnecessarily emotive language used, and on some occasions just plain misinformation being given by Lewis and others.

I love trees and woods, and the amount of green space locally was one of the main reasons I originally came to live in this area, but I just cannot support the views of this group.

[PeckhamRose]

My body's going to be played with / I mean experimented on by medical students. Medical profession has saved my life and kept me going ALL my life. It's the least I can do after I'm done with it. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/lsm/study/departments/anatomy/lao/index.aspx

[HopOne]

Great idea PeckhamRose. Do be aware that your body will get buried at some point anyway. I think by default it is normally cremated first.

[dbboy]

One Tree Hill and Camberwell New Cemetery are separeated by One Tree Hill allotments, what you I think refer too as Camberwell New Cemetery is the land adjoining the banking to the side of Platform 1 of Honor Oak Park Railway station.

I have not suggested cutting down trees on One Tree Hill and believe the Council should start investigating the potential of reusing graves in Nunhead cemetery which is designated burial space. This in my view could provide years of burial space if done in a sympathetic manner.

Tree huggers, choppers or whatever they wish to call themselves I don't mind, but burial and cremation are part of our culture, until you experience bereavement, I doubt people appreciate the importance of having somewhere to mourn your dead relatives if you choose burial as a final resting place for them.

[HopOne]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> One Tree Hill and Camberwell New Cemetery are

> separeated by One Tree Hill allotments,

Sorry, this is plain wrong. Parts of CNC are on One Tree Hill and this is where the wooded area that is threatended is located.

[edborders]

Sorry, posted this twice.

[edborders]

Is there anyone else who agrees that Southwark would be a better place if Nunhead Cemetery were cleared for new graves? Please, speak up. Join Sue and dhboy (whoever these people are).

Practically every inch of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries is filled with graves.

The only way the council can make room for new burial is by

1) cutting down trees and digging up graves and tossing the monuments,

or 2) cutting down trees and mounding over graves and tossing the monuments

or 3) digging up graves where there are no trees and tossing the monuments

or 4) cutting down trees, digging up graves or mounding over graves where there are no monuments because the people were buried without monuments because they were too poor to have their own plot and monument.

It is all "re-use". Or re-cycling.

Lewis Schaffer

Nunhead Heights resident, tree-hugging shrub lover

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.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[nxjen]

"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. [www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]"

How exactly will this work? Will you be acting as guerilla cemetery keepers or be giving any money raised to Southwark Council who are responsible for the cemetery's upkeep?

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Is there anyone else who agrees that Southwark

> would be a better place if Nunhead Cemetery were

> cleared for new graves? Please, speak up. Join

> Sue and dhboy (whoever these people are).

>

>

But you know perfectly well who I am! That's just more misinformation.

Not only am I "out" on this forum but you know who I am on Facebook and in real life, since you have informed me on Facebook that we have several local friends in common!

ETA: "tossing the monuments"? Is this along the same lines as your posts about the council "ripping up the Angel of Southwark", or words to that effect, when it turned out that actually the monument/statue on a grave which you chose to call by a non-existent name was being removed in order to be restored?

[dbboy]

"tossing the monuments" that is such a disrespectful and inappropriate usage of language in the context of memorials.

I have never said clearing Nunhead cemetery for new graves but rather suggested the possibility of reusing the graves that meet a set criteria. I suggest that you cease mis-representing what I have said, but that appears how you operate calling black white, yellow red and blue green.

I am a realist and recognise that the Council although were negligent in not maintaining that section of over grown scrub in Camberwell Old Cemetery, are planning to rectify the issue and bring this land back into use for its original purpose, to offer burial space to those who wish to bury their deceased relatives. Is that something that cannot be understood?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[edborders]

Oh, I get it dhboy. you think they should have cut down the trees in Nunhead Cemetery and kept on burying. That is what you are proposing for Camberwell Old Cemetery. Cut down the trees, dig up the graves.

You want the Cem to go back to its original use? well once it was covered by ice, once it was meadows, once it was forest, once it was fields, then it was a cemetery and then it was closed to new burial and became woods again...

How disrespectful is it to dig up the graves? I am not tossing the headstones, the council is. You support the removal of headstones and digging up graves. Yuck.

Notice of Extinguishing Exclusive Rights of Burial under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 CAMBERWELL

Grave No 11272 Family name ? Allison Grave No 28016 Family name ? Haynes

Grave No 13363 Family name ? Bryant Grave No 28055 Family name ? Snell

Grave No 14379 Family name ? White Grave No 28075 Family name ? Webb

Grave No 15772 Family name ? Bradshaw Square 107

Grave No 14934 Family name ? Macdonald Grave No 28274 Family name ? Perry

Grave No 10512 Family name ? Stone Grave No 28285 Family name ? Harris

Grave No 10524 Family name ? Butler Grave No 28290 Family name ? Taylor

Grave No 15786 Family name ? Roe Grave No 28804 Family name ? Poncett

Grave No 16828 Family name ? Bird Grave No 29408 Family name ? Hall

Grave No 16836 Family name ? Scott Grave No 29941 Family name ? Collins

Grave No 16807 Family name ? Greig Grave No 30326 Family name ? Hossack

Square 106 Square 108

Grave No 27893 Family name ? Baker Grave No 30293 Family name ? Minahan

If you are the current owner of one of the above graves or believe know the whereabouts of these families, please contact the Cemeteries and Crematorium Office, Brenchley Gardens, SE23 3RD.

Telephone No 020 7525 5600 Email [email protected]

Lewis Schaffer

58 years old, persistent athletes feet, and with a nose for hypocrisy.

[HopOne]

dbboy, how about clarifying what you *have* said. Are you in favour of clearing part of the woodland to make space for graves on One Tree Hill? Check where this is if you are not sure. Note that only able bodied people will be able to visit there anyway due to steep access.

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

with a nose for hypocrisy.

Do tell us more

[dbboy]

I have never ever suggested digging up graves or the removal of headstones, yet again you mis represent my words. You can't find anywhere that I have said that because I have not

And to put the record straight, I have suggested the possibility of reusing the graves that meet a set criteria set by the cemetery authorities and turning headstones and insribing teh rear that once turned becomes the front. As I have also stated this practice is done successfully in other boroughs so perhaps Southwark may want to look into this.

[HopOne]

Dbboy, if this is in response to me then I Have suggested no such thing. Fancy answering my question?

[edborders]

dhboy

You have never suggested digging up graves? What do think "re-using" graves is?

Grave reuse (or recycling) means taking the headstone away, digging up the dirt and clay and sifting through the dirt and clay to remove the bones and other bodily remnants (teeth, hair?), either placing the bones deeper in the ground or removing them to another (group) grave in a corner of the cemetery. And moving the gravestone somewhere else.

As for turning the headstone around? this can be done, and has been done (rarely), but do you think the type of person who wants to be buried would want someone else's headstone. People who want a headstone want their own new headstone.

You haven't thought "reuse" out. Very few people have thought this out. Reuse is a euphemism. It sound lovely.

But "reuse" is digging up graves and dumping what is left of people somewhere else.

There needs to be a discussion about burial policy and cemetery management but every time we try to post here we get abuse from people who don't know jack about it and don't even know they don't know jack.

this is what you wrote.

dbboy Wrote:

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

> I have never ever suggested digging up graves or

> the removal of headstones, yet again you mis

> represent my words. You can't find anywhere that I

> have said that because I have not

>

> And to put the record straight, I have suggested

> the possibility of reusing the graves that meet a

> set criteria set by the cemetery authorities and

> turning headstones and insribing teh rear that

> once turned becomes the front.

[edhistory]

edborders Wrote:

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

> There needs to be a discussion about burial policy

> and cemetery management but every time we try to

> post here we get abuse from people who don't know

> jack about it and don't even know they don't know

> jack.

Who is "we"?

Who is jack?

Check out tilth in English churchyards.

John K

[dbboy]

Just keep on twisting words and mis using and interpreting the English language.

You seem to think that everybody else is wrong and the louder you shout you'll eventually get your way. The Council have dismissed you and the works will proceed, in my view the sooner the better.

Finally go and see how they successfully do it in the City of London, you might learn something, then you won't argue points that do not exist or try to invent things that don't exist.

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

> But "reuse" is digging up graves and dumping what

> is left of people somewhere else.

>

Oh FFS.

"Dumping". Yet more emotive language.

So what if bones etc are moved? They're bits of DEAD people. It's like scattering the ashes of somebody who has been cremated. The ashes are bits of DEAD people.

And you say "People who want a headstone want their own new headstone."

How do you know? How many of these people have you asked? I think you are making things up to suit your case.

Unfortunately you seem obvlivious to the fact that - whilst claiming that nobody is listening to you - you don't seem to be able to see anybody else's point of view, however logically it is put to you.

[edborders]

The Undertakers is who - they told the "stakeholders" group that there was no demand for burial with flat headstones and for using other people's headstones.

Put nice words on it and it is still what it is. A violation of trust. A broken promise.

Lewis Schaffer

Nunheader, father of two English boys.