Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[Blanche Cameron]

John K

On the plan of consecrated areas and plot overlays I sent you, the consecrated area is hard to see as the landscape architect decided to use a light mustard yellow to define it - almost invisible. It incorporates the whole of Area Z and a bit more to the east and does not follow plot sections.

The unconsecrated area as mentioned inside, plot sections 105-107, is hatched in blue and more easily visible.

[fruityloops]

That video... The new graves just look tragic. Who would want to be buried in a place like that, knowing what was there before, both the woods, and the poor (literally) people's graves.

It is deeply upsetting to see.

[EDAus]

I agree with other reasonable posters here, it is sad to lose any green space/woods and the best possible outcome would have been for a compromise to be found.

The council should be held to account and questions asked especially around removing contamination, potential flooding, fiscal responsibility, replanting and reuse of the land. The problem is any voices of reason are being drowned out.

Sadly SSW have run an extremely unprofessional campaign, founded on a lack of facts/evidence/credibility coupled with a directed campaign of intimidation/harassment against anyone who does not agree with them or seeks to test the validity of their facts/arguments. Rather then address these issues they continue to re-post the same old material and discredited arguments, losing valuable support along the way.

I have participated in a number of successful campaigns against Local Government Council proposals and even campaigned to save old growth rainforests/sites of historical importance, so feel qualified to judge this campaign. By the way SSW, I have no intention of assisting or helping out in any way due to the behaviour of key SSW leaders/spokespeople.

What I see in the video is:

1) a massive lost opportunity - a properly run and evidenced campaign could have reduced the impact these changes

2) dangerous overgrowth and insecure memorials/stones that could topple and injure human beings - which could of course be fixed with proper planning

3) insecure pathways that are inaccessible to all members of the community - again this could be fixed with proper planning

4) the council attempting to clean up contamination on the site to protect the public - while it does look terrible now the community could have positive input on how this could be improved in the future, including the layout of graves, replanting etc.

5) a cemetery being used for it's original purpose - burials

6) loved ones respecting their family and friends by leaving flowers and keep sakes, some on freshly dug graves. I wonder how they feel about SSW supporters criticizing their highly personal decisions at such an emotional/personal time plus using their loved ones in this self serving manipulative manner. Did SSW ask for their permission prior to videoing their fresh memorials/burials?

SSW need to start providing evidenced and factual responses to the questions raised by members of this forum, not emotional sound bites or they risk losing further credibility with the community.

My own below which is still outstanding:

'as it breaks both Human Rights Law and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010.'

What about the right to a 'private life' under the Human Rights Act e.g. mourning the loss of a family member or loved one within a reasonable commuting distance of your home?

The council offer a burial service to cover all faiths, SSW openly acknowledge Nunhead Cemetery is open and suitable for people of the Muslim faith. The council is not required to support each equality strand/group from each council building, facility or resource. Splitting the burial service provision between two cemeteries would be seen as a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' i.e. providing a burial service to the all members of the public within Southwark.

What evidence does SSW have to support the statement 'They claim the 6-8 Turkish Muslim burials a year in Nunhead Cemetery are all that is required - yet they now this is not true.' Does SSW have evidence that Southwark Council have ignored complaints from the Muslim community? Do SSW have evidence of complaints from the local Turkish Muslim community in writing, are they formally supporting SSW claim of discrimination?

What about the behaviour of certain SSW supporters - this contravened specific provisions of the Equality Acts Harassment sections, so what do you propose to do on that front?

Like others I would ask why are only some questions being selected for a response?

SSW are proposing that Southwark Council close the cemeteries and create nature reserves but still fund their maintenance and care - where will the money come from? Council's are facing further budgets cuts between now and 2020. Funds are limited and priorities have to be determined. Are SSW proposing that older people or disabled people or children in care go without support to fund their proposal for this site? What services should the council cease providing to the wider community to fund creation of the 'Nature Reserves'?

Are SSW prepared to take over management of the 'Nature Reserves' in the future - does SSW have a sound management structure and funding stream proposed? If so, how do you propose to fund the cleaning of contamination on the site or address the issues of flooding, plus ensure disability access as per the Equality Act provisions SSW have championed?

What this campaign is lacking is well evidenced arguments and credibility.

[Loz]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> or with residents who would choose to be buried there if it was an option but who may

> not want their loved ones buried in crushed building waste over other families' remains, to be

> dug up again in 75 years time.

Blanche,

You seem take issue with Southwark proposing 75 year leases, yet your alternative, Kemnal Park, only offers leases as well, some for as little as 25 years.

And, in fact, burial law in the United Kingdom now mandates that graves can no longer be sold in perpetuity. You can only buy a lease, and such leases cannot be for more than 100 years.

[Azira]

EDAus Wrote:

-

>

> What about the right to a 'private life' under the

> Human Rights Act e.g. mourning the loss of a

> family member or loved one within a reasonable

> commuting distance of your home?

>

Again, is there any authority that Article 8 covers this? I've never seen a decision that suggests this and it strikes me as a pretty broad interpretation of the ECHR, but happy to stand corrected.

[EDAus]

Azira - I note that you do request SSW to justify their assertion that Southwark's current burial offering breaches the Human Rights Act 'We have tried to discuss this many times with Councillors, as it breaks both Human Rights Law and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010'.

Not the first time SSW and their supports have used the logic of Alberto Brandolini asimmetry, based on their past behaviour neither will it be the last.

By the way it is the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 a UK piece of legislation, the aim of which was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Article 8 covers:

* your sexuality

* your body

* personal identity and how you look and dress

* forming and maintaining relationships with other people

* how you personal information is held and protected.

'your body' - people have the right to determine what happens to their body upon death, many people make provisions to have a burial to stay close to family and friends to allow loved ones to visit them during the bereavement period. While some people may argue these provisions are extinguished at the death of an individual, the views of the deceased have been held instrumental in other area's of law i.e. transfer of assets under wills, burial wishes and organ donation.

'forming and maintaining relationships with other people' customs and practices exist within community groups in relation to burial and the celebration of a person life. The council are providing all sections and religions their local community with the space in which to practice these customs and practices.

'The courts have interpreted the concept of ?private life? in a very broad way.'

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/respect-your-private-and-family-life

The HRA has been widely used previously to ensure that local authorities provide appropriate services to key groups within the community. These provisions could be extended to local council tax paying residents requesting the right for council owned assets i.e. land, being used to provide for public burial spaces within the borough.

Feel free to supply a case that supports the SSW views, in particular that out of borough burials do not contravene the HRA Article 8 provisions.

[Azira]

You'll break your knees leaping to those conclusions.

I am not connected with SSW, nor did I make any claim about the HRA at all in their favour, so before you start lecturing me about logic try actually reading what I've said on this thread. I was asking out of genuine interest in the scope of the Article.

I am very well aware of what Article 8 covers. What I asked for was whether you are aware of any authority (i.e. a judicial decision) that extends to your interpretation of it. Your failure to do so suggests that you are just theorising about a possible interpretation, which in my experience of the HRA appears to be utter bollocks.

Looks like both sides are entirely capable of making things up to suit their POV.

[EDAus]

Azira Wrote:

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

> You'll break your knees leaping to those

> conclusions.

As you demanded, I took the time to respond to your comments and provide a reasoned set out response, more than can said of you and other participants in this debate.

Care to set our your reasoning why my 'utter bollocks' interpretation/arguments/conclusions conflict with your own, or is it easier to make emotional and provocative dismissals to scare people off commenting on this thread?

> I am not connected with SSW, nor did I make any

> claim about the HRA at all in their favour, so

> before you start lecturing me about logic try

> actually reading what I've said on this thread. I

> was asking out of genuine interest in the scope of

> the Article.

Clearly you have read none of my posts on the EDF, I am on no-ones side.

You requested a response, I provided it - how is this lecturing you?

For a second time care to explain why you have chosen to raised this issue again & again and attack my interpretation/conclusions/arguments on the HRA but allow SSW views to stand unchallenged?

Are you seeking to derail the thread onto this single issue to remove attention from other relevant issues raised?

> I am very well aware of what Article 8 covers.

> What I asked for was whether you are aware of any

> authority (i.e. a judicial decision) that extends

> to your interpretation of it. Your failure to do

> so suggests that you are just theorising about a

> possible interpretation, which in my experience of

> the HRA appears to be utter bollocks.

> Looks like both sides are entirely capable of

> making things up to suit their POV.

Then I suggest as good practice you quote the legislation in the correct way, Article 8 is contained in the HRA not the ECHR as you originally quoted.

I provided quotes and links to legal cases from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

'The courts have interpreted the concept of ?private life? in a very broad way.'

[www.equalityhumanrights.com].

Legal cases which review local government services and the way in which they are provided or delivered.

One could theorize that no such cases have come before the courts because local authorities, including Southwark already provide non-discriminatory burial to members of the community therefore it has not been necessary to waste money or time on test cases.

I have over 20 years experience working in the equalities field, including within local government which is why I am happy to set out my interpretations/conclusions/arguments rather resort to telling people that their views are 'utter bullocks'.

I challenge you for a second time, feel free to supply an interpretation/argument/conclusion/cases that supports your views that Article 8 does not cover the issues raised.

[edhistory]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> For me the most pressing issue for COC (the

> cemetery I know best) is not the re-use (that

> seems a sensible use of a resource) or the removal

> of the scrub growth to allow those areas to be

> re-used (that seems necessary, as does the removal

> of the fly tipped rubbish) but (1) that the public

> burial area memorials which are still (broadly)

> viable - that is not too badly damaged by root

> growth and toppling - should be preserved, not,

> obviously, in situ but (I suppose ideally) ranged

> round the cemetery perimeters - this is quite a

> common practice and that (2) the replanting

> intentions (type and justification for choosing

> those types) be part of an open discussion.

> Thirdly, I suppose, considering the issues have

> been raised, I would like to see the drainage

> plans for the revisited areas made public, and

> particularly a review of the use of field drains

> (porous clay pipes to allow area drainage etc.).

Appendix A Topographical Survey

Of the bsp Consulting [sic]

Area Z

Camberwell Old Cemetery

Drainage Strategy

For Southwark Council

30 June 2015

Has a 0.5m resolution contour survey of the cemetery.

It's easy to see the drainage run-off pattern.

You could do a 3D landscape model like we used to do in primary school. It might help SSW people understand the topography.

The right hand panels have the tree survey schedule which does not agree with the uncompleted SSW tree count.

The schedule also has tree measurements.

John K

[EDAus]

Azira Wrote:

> Your failure to do

> so suggests that you are just theorising about a

> possible interpretation, which in my experience of

> the HRA appears to be utter bollocks.

Burials, the wishes of the deceased / family have been covered by case law in relation to Article 8 and 9 of the Human Rights Act.

http://www.goodfuneralguide.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Your-legal-rights-and-responsibilities-att-doc-41.pdf

"Funeral wishes are still not, as a matter of course, legally binding but, in certain circumstances, a court of law may order that they are carried out. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been invoked by one judge when pronouncing that funeral wishes are binding on personal representatives (Borrows v HM Coroner for Preston [2008]), but dismissed by another judge on the grounds that dead people do not have human rights (Ibuna v Arroyo [2012]). Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1988 may or may not uphold the funeral wishes of those with strong religious beliefs who expect to be disposed of in accordance with those beliefs. The law has yet to be tested in this matter."

or

[PDF]Legal Control of Burial Rights - CJICL joomla.cjicl.org.uk/journal/article/pdf/109

'Cranston J began his judgement by considering the common law principle stated in Williams in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); he observed that the impact of the ECHR had not been `considered by the domestic authorities' in relation to burial conflicts.130 Cranston J observed that while Articles 8 and 9 of the ECHR might be relevant to burial conflicts, Article 8 was the more relevant for the decision in Burrows.

After a review of some of the relevant jurisprudence on Article 8, which attached importance to the wishes of the deceased in relation to their disposal, Cranston J observed: `[o]ne thing is clear, that in as much as our domestic law says that the views of a deceased person can be ignored it is no longer good law. That rule of common law can be traced back to Williams v Williams, where it was said that directions given by a deceased as to the disposal of his body

were not enforceable as a matter of law'. Cranston J observed that this change of legal policy was dictated by the ECHR and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, under which the `views of a deceased person as to

funeral arrangements and the disposal of his or her body must be taken into account'.131 However, Cranston J observed that the Strasbourg jurisprudence,which demands that the views of the deceased should be taken into account in relation to burial conflicts, is `easily accommodated within domestic law: in this type of case a person's wishes can be regarded as a special circumstance in terms of s 116 of the Act'.132 The earlier analysis of Buchanan, under which the burial wishes of the deceased were regarded as a relevant consideration for the purpose of section 116 of the (then) Supreme Court Act, justifies Cranston J's observation that domestic law has incorporated Strasbourg's jurisprudence according respect to burial directions.

Furthermore, Cranston J observed that apart from the wishes of the deceased, the claims of other family members in relation to the disposal of the deceased might be engaged by Article 8(1) of the Convention: [t]here may be, for example, as there was in this case, the family life that Liam [the deceased] enjoyed with the Burrows family on the one hand and his family life with his mother, Mrs McManus on the other hand'.133 Thus, he observed that `there is no doubt that those in Mr Burrow's position can invoke art 8.1'.134 Such a conflict of rights under Article 8 would require the court to consider the `comparative importance of the different rights being claimed, and to balance those competing rights so as to minimise the interference with each to the least possible extent'.135"

Azira, I await your responses quoting relevant quote case law.

[Sue]

EDAus, thank you for your sensible and logical posts on here.

[Blanche Cameron]

Good heavens! It is like arguing over the number of deck chairs about to be lost on the Titanic. The level of so called 'debate' on here is really poor and from some posters just plain rude, whichever 'side' people are on or none.

Over two acres have been scraped clean of trees and wildlife. The graves of thousands will be mounded over with crushed building demolition waste, historic memorials destroyed, to be replaced with rows of graves sold to anyone who can afford them inside or outside the borough as Southwark's Cemetery Strategy identified an opportunity as inner London burial gets scarce.

We did a video this week showing what the Council is doing. Tell me what you think.

It's a lovely day. You might want to go and visit the remaining 10 or so acres of woods in Camberwell Old Cemetery or the half an acre they are going to cut down on One Tree Hill in the New Cemetery. Or maybe visit the old graves that people will be visiting today on Mothers Day of their mums, nans, aunties, sisters.

Or perhaps you just want to spend it on here, claiming that everyone in inner London must have the absolue right to be buried within the inner city boundary? Even some people on here must recognise how irrational that would be.

Appalling air quality is resulting in childhood respiratory and kidney diseases, poor physical development and lower life expectancy. Almost 10,000 people die early every year in London from air pollution related illness. How ironic it would be of an inner city council to cut down trees to bury people, just because they demand the right to be buried in the inner city. I'm not so sure it's what they would have wanted.

Blanche

[Azira]

I requested whether you could cite an authority. You couldn't - and still haven't, as the cases you've cited explicitly state that the decision hasn't been tested in case law.

I can see you've got a keen interest in the topic but, with all due respect, if you knew what you were talking about you would realise that obiter statements aren't binding and what you've cited doesn't constitute authority. If you are genuinely interested in human rights law, I'd be very happy to send you some of my old textbooks (which are getting a bit out of date now but would give you a good idea of how it all works) as it is a very complex and fascinating area.

My reference to lecturing was to this statement "Not the first time SSW and their supports have used the logic of Alberto Brandolini asimmetry, based on their past behaviour neither will it be the last." and I think that was a mild characterisation of your response.

I made a civilised request for further information, having clearly stated I am ambivalent on the topic, which request based on professional and personal interest in Article 8 and the HRA/ECHR unrelated to this farce of a debate. You instead chose to make false inferences as to my "allegiance", effectively accused me of talking bullsh*t" based on the Alberto Brandolini quote and generally been unnecessarily hostile and rude.

Thank you for unwittingly proving my earlier point that both sides of this debate are capable of behaving badly and leaping to conclusions about anyone they perceive as "the other side".

[andrewc]

Blanche

Your latest post is a bit contradictory.

You seem to value the fact that people can visit their loved ones on Mother's Day in a local graveyard but at the same time are very opposed to the council making extra provision for the very same thing.

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello andrewc, thanks for your comment.

It's not the fact that these graves are 'local' that I was valuing, but the fact that they already exist and should be preserved, for families with relatives buried in them, and for our history.

They were buried to rest in peace. The Council wants to excavate them or mound them over.

Ample burial provision is available at cemeteries like Kemnal Park without the need to obliterate or excavate other families' existing graves.

Hope that explains the position.

Blanche

[EDAus]

Azira thank you for your personal view on what constitutes an 'authority'. Always great to see individuals self pro-claiming what they believe is an authority.

Of course no judge in the history of English law has ever read the statements or 'obiter statements' of any other judge and found merit in their arguments/points or found what they said persuasive in future deliberations/cases.

Judges must really spend all their time writing statements so that academics and members of the public can tell them that they they not binding and therefore bear no merit under any circumstances.

Thank you for your kind offer of an 'old textbook', but I personally chose to value the opinions and up to date expertise of leading professionals working on current leading edge HRA cases and issues.

To be clear, it is ok for you to publicly test people on the HRA and to 'lecture' them but I am not entitled to my opinion on the way in which SSW conduct their campaign? Thanks for providing that clarity.

You demanded a response not once but twice.

As I have previously stated, that you have yet again deliberately ignored I am not on anyone's side.

I did not accuse you of being part of SSW, you have chosen to infer this to continue your ongoing campaign.

Such eloquent responses of 'You'll break your knees leaping to those conclusions.', 'Utter Bollocks' and 'making stuff up'. Text for your new book or attempts to prompt an over emotional response to distract from the real issues?

I have taken the time once again, to respond to your post, you have failed once again to answer my question - For a third time, care to explain why you have chosen to raise this issue again & again and attack my interpretation/conclusions/arguments on the HRA / case law but allow the SSW views to stand unchallenged?

[EDAus]

I was bought up to believe that not responding to questions directly asked of me was rude.

Then again I was also taught harassment and intimidation was unacceptable behaviour no matter the justification.

I have provided feedback on the video - it is in the same message as the questions I asked that have been ignored on an ongoing basis? I would repeat the request here but it would be attempt number 3........................

I would be very concerned taking my family to any locations that contain industrial contamination and have been deemed unsafe to the public - to quote the Southwark report 'thresholds in respect of contaminants including benzo(a)pyrene are potentially exceeded'.

As it is mothers day, I personally believe that people should be free to engage in their own private reflection, these are still active cemeteries, they have not yet been designated as 'recreational nature reserves'. I would hope that anyone visiting today is respectful of this.

People have the right to hold views about being buried close to their loved ones, family and friends. The local community has the right to request burial services from their local authority, especially where the local authorities hold assets designated specifically for this purpose. You may not like it or agree with such views, but such views and opinions should be heard and not dismissed.

[Loz]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> They were buried to rest in peace. The Council wants to excavate them or mound them over.

>

> Ample burial provision is available at cemeteries like Kemnal Park without the need to obliterate or

> excavate other families' existing graves.

Again, Blanche - you do realise that Kemnal Park only provide leases as well, for as little as 25 years? What do you think will happen after that lease has expired?

[Penguin68]

Ample burial provision is available at cemeteries like Kemnal Park without the need to obliterate or

> excavate other families' existing graves

The 75 year rule means that, in most cases, there will be no living relatives within the first degree (children, siblings, parents) still living when the grave may become available for re-use. Kemnal Park only offers a 25 year 'guarantee' of continued use. Where family graves are being used, then it is 75 years since the last burial (not since the grave started in use) that is the trigger. In the case of infant burials, when 75 years might not be long enough, I would guess that most cemetery managers would be sensitive to this.

The graves of thousands will be mounded over with crushed building demolition waste

I suspect that crushed building demolition waste (presumable crushed stone, clay bricks and concrete, most of which as constituent elements will have been taken out of the ground anyway - particularly the bricks from London Brick Clay - will offer a better drainage solution to standing water than the local untreated clays. And if 'crushed building waste' is used, that's surely a good example of effective recycling which should be applauded.

And to suggest that the (net) few trees which will disappear (in this leafy neighbourhood) will contribute to respiratory deaths is laughable. Reducing the number of diesel cars, lorries and buses on the roads by even 10% would have a far greater (and more immediate) impact. Trees are mainly responsible for CO2 uptake - CO2 is NOT a gas involved with respiratory problems - although they may also I think uptake some NOX (maybe a biochemist could confirm this?)

[Sue]

Thank you too, Penguin68, for your sensible and logical posts on this thread.

[edhistory]

The Southwark Council Human Rights Impact Assessment is at Appendix H (near the end) here:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=3125

[nxjen]

Interesting. Of note it states:

"The strategy has been formulated to ensure that the cemetery

and crematorium service continues to meet the needs of all

sections of the community, by addressing the shortfall in burial

space.

Initial scoping and evidence from the borough-wide public

consultation shows that if the council were to cease providing

burial in its cemeteries, some BME communities, religious and

faith groups would be disadvantaged."

Whilst COC may not be suitable for Muslim burials, I understand the Council's proposals for CNC will bring virgin land into use, hence meeting Muslim requirements for burial.

[Penguin68]

Whilst COC may not be suitable for Muslim burials

The Muslim Funeral Service lists both Camberwell Old and Camberwell New as well as Nunhead as suitable for Muslim Burial. http://www.mfs.org.uk/default.asp?ID=62 - although it notes that spaces may not always be available. I assume that if there were problems (other than availability) with these cemeteries they would not be listed. Other than having land not consecrated for Christian Burial available, grave orientation is a key issue for devout Muslim burial - as would any requirement for e.g. embalming. Also key for devout Muslims is immediate availability, Islamic traditions require very quick burial following death.

[nxjen]

Sorry to be picky but this is a list of ALL council owned cemeteries within the London area. As you say, it states that not all the listed cemeteries may have space for ?new? burials, but it goes on to say that cemeteries with confirmed Muslim burial facilities have their names in italics - couldn't see an italic in sight for the whole list. The first entry is for a private, exclusively Muslim cemetery.

[Penguin68]

You are right, but if (all) these cemeteries really weren't suitable it seems strange to list any of them them - I agree that all are without italics. There are certainly (based on names and inscriptions) people of Turkish origin buried in COC, who are most likely to be of Muslim origin, even if not (given the past secular nature of Turkey and the fact that the graves are marked out in any way) devout Muslims.

There is a requirement of Islam that devout Muslims be buried only with other devout Muslims - so I suspect a specific section of any municipal graveyard would need to be so dedicated - these types of restrictions have led e.g. to specific graveyards for observant people of the Jewish faith.

There is an argument that those who wish to exclude themselves from the company (even in death) of certain others are not then being discriminated against by a secular society happy to offer them a facility (which is offered to all others equally) which they are not prepared to accept. There are significant areas in the cemeteries which are not the cynosure of any faith (the unconsecrated areas). I suppose it is a matter of interpretation whether devout Muslims are being excluded, or are excluding themselves, if they require a cemetery (rather than e.g. a part of a cemetery) where only devout Muslims are buried.

There are limits to the levels to which municipal cemeteries should be required to offer religious compatible facilities - we do not allow open air cremation (for instance) - a Hindu tradition - nor do we have Towers of Silence where bodies can be laid out for vultures to dispose of (a Parsee (Parsi) - Zoroastrian tradition). Not offering these I do not think would trigger Human Rights complaints. But we do have a tradition of burial, and an understanding that this should be 'conveniently' located, where possible for mourners/ families. Across Europe re-use of local cemeteries (often combined with ossuaries where disinterred bones can latterly be stored) is very common.