Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[henryb]

The point about the discrimination is that LBS is providing subsidized burial service for some sections of the community but not providing them for a substantial group. As LBS could provide burials outside the borough for everyone as Tower Hamlet Council does, I can?t see how this exclusion is justifiable under the Equality Act - but that would be for a court to decide. It is my understanding from others who have had meetings with local Imams, the Turkish area in Nunhead cemetery isn?t suitable for Orthodox Muslims and they go out of borough.

Regarding the Financing of any potential Wild Life reserve:

LBS are spending 5.1M on this project ? (1.5M for this part for 900 plots). This money will not be recouped and is on top of any subsidy the burials service will need to cover its revenue costs. From a FOIR over the last 4 years burial service has running a deficit of on average ~200k per year. If LBS moved to a cremation only locally and invested the capital budget allocated for burials areas outside the borough they could make substantial savings. They could even provide the plots at a fraction of the current cost they charge and still save money. These saving could be reallocated to other services. Using Tower Hamlets as an example a net subsidy spend of 1.2 million is providing their residents with 3000 plots that residents will be charged ?600 for; whereas Southwark plan is have net subsidy spend of 1.5 million to provide 900 plots that will cost residents ?1,300.

I don?t how much it costs to run a nature reserve but I can?t imagine they spent any money on Area Z or Area D until recently. I certainly don?t think it runs in to the millions. Maybe Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park or One Tree Hill Nature Reserve would be a good benchmarks.

[nxjen]

henryb Wrote:

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

> The point about the discrimination is that LBS is

> providing subsidized burial service for some

> sections of the community but not providing them

> for a substantial group. As LBS could provide

> burials outside the borough for everyone as Tower

> Hamlet Council does, I can?t see how this

> exclusion is justifiable under the Equality Act -

> but that would be for a court to decide. It is my

> understanding from others who have had meetings

> with local Imams, the Turkish area in Nunhead

> cemetery isn?t suitable for Orthodox Muslims and

> they go out of borough.

>

My post at 7.14 this morning includes an excerpt from the Human Rights Risk assessment associated with the Council's cemetery strategy. You will see the strategy addresses the disadvantage that some religious groups may encounter at the present time.

[henryb]

Yes that's their claim. However they don't seem to have taken into account that the burials at Nunhead are not suitable for all Islamic burials.

There are no plans I am aware of to use the virgin area on One Tree Hill as a specific Muslim burial area. If you have details/evidence of that please can you provide it?

[nxjen]

No, I have no evidence but equally its conjecture on your part that they won't. As they are keen to ensure no religious groups are at a disadvantage, I'm sure it's an option they've considered.

For the sake of clarity, I have no problem with an area of land in either of the cemeteries to be set aside that meet the requirements for Muslim burial.

[henryb]

I would of thought it would have been mentioned at one of the stake holders meetings or one of the public council meetings if had been planned at all. But then you never know with this lot. That really would be news. Maybe one of the councillors knows? But yes please let us know what you find out.

[andrewc]

I would be surprised if it 'was found out' that the council had a secret plan to discriminate or the opposite.

What is much more likely is that a protest group will dig up the concept of discrimination to add more weight to their argument.

[Blanche Cameron]

Cllr Renata Hamvas/Helen Hayes,

Perhaps you would answer andrewc's and others' questions regarding actions to be taken on religious discrimination in the existing burial service by Southwark?

Blanche

[JoeLeg]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Cllr Renata Hamvas/Helen Hayes,

>

> Perhaps you would answer andrewc's and others'

> questions regarding actions to be taken on

> religious discrimination in the existing burial

> service by Southwark?

>

> Blanche

Blanche,

I'm sorry but I can't see where AndrewC asked a question regarding actions to be taken on religious discrimination? Can you show me where he did that?

[Loz]

Of course, if there is a problem with certain types of burials, the solution won't be to move all burials out of the borough. That would risk inflaming anti-Muslim sentiment, as they would be seen to be blocking the cemetery redevelopment, even though it's not their fault at all. If the current plans cannot be adapted, then more land would need to be cleared in order to provide such facilities.

I think SSW are shooting themselves in the foot here.

[andrewc]

Blanche

Your misunderstanding of my post is curious.

[EDAus]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Cllr Renata Hamvas/Helen Hayes,

>

> Perhaps you would answer andrewc's and others'

> questions regarding actions to be taken on

> religious discrimination in the existing burial

> service by Southwark?

>

> Blanche

Oh the irony - using the EDF to demand people answer questions all the while quietly ignoring questions asked of you.....................3 days and counting I am yet to receive a reply to my questions.

I really do hope that Cllr Renata Hamvas/Helen Hayes answer in an appropriate manner and timescale or Blanche will call for their sacking just like Rebecca Towers - http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/complaint-rebecca-towers/4591770590

Everyone knows its the council officer's who really make the final decisions, not the full council or members.

Southwark have an Frequently Asked Questions page which can be found here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/2231/the_future_of_southwarks_cemeteries/6,

this extract may be of use:

Q. Your burial plans are discriminatory. They don?t allow for Muslim or Jewish burial?

A. Southwark currently has a segregated space for Muslim burial in Nunhead Cemetery. There are around 60 spaces remaining and based on current provision of the last 3 years we expect the current provision to last for another 8 years. Even if demand were to increase, this would still amount to between 4-6 years of burial space. As such current provision does not discriminate against Southwark?s Muslim Community.

Southwark does not have a segregated space for Jewish burial. However, any residents, irrespective of any religious preferences, are welcome to use our cemeteries. In addition to dedicated areas for Muslim burial we also have plots located on un-consecrated land for multi-faith burial. As such Jewish residents are welcome to use our cemeteries and Southwark has already had 2 Jewish burials in the last 3 years.

The burial strategy is likely to offer benefits to some religious or faith groups for whom burial is required. This will support equality of choice and the freedom to practice religion.

Q. Why don?t you bury people outside the borough?

A. The option to bury residents outside of the borough received very little support in the 2011 public consultation. Not only would it be expensive, it would also be unfair to expect residents to travel outside the borough to visit the graves of their loved ones.

Furthermore, the Mayor of London?s ?London Plan? urges councils to ensure that provision is made for London?s burial needs, including the needs of groups for whom burial is the only option and that such provision should be based on the principle of proximity to local communities and reflect the different requirements for types of provision.

[taper]

This is all so much not the point. Mere tactics from SSW; utterly irrelevant to most of us.

[Blanche Cameron]

Sorry, I thought it would be obvious that forcing Orthodox Muslims and Jews to bury outside the borough while subsidising Christian and Atheist burials inside the borough is discriminatory.

The reason I suggested Renata Hamvas could respond better to andrewc's point is because she and Helen Hayes have both only recently acknowledged Southwark has an issue with religious discrimination in their burial provision and they are looking at how to rectify it.

Discrimination aside, we anyway feel it is wrong to cut down a living tree to bury a dead person.

For a fuller explanation, you can read our answers to FAQs, where we also reprint Southwark Council's ​answers in full:

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/faqs

We also made a video last week documenting what is happening at Camberwell Old Cemetery for everyone to see:

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/new-video-shows-destruction/4591950425

And we are having our weekly meeting tonight at The Herne Tavern of Forest Hill Road, East Dulwich. 7.30pm, do come and introduce yourself.

Blanche Cameron

[email protected]

[Penguin68]

I thought it would be obvious that forcing Orthodox Muslims and Jews to bury outside the borough while subsidising Christian and Atheist burials inside the borough is discriminatory.

There is a facility for 'devout' Muslim burial in Nunhead cemetery - see many posts passim. There have been devout Jewish burials in the cemeteries. Any Muslim or Jew can be buried in any of the cemeteries - but if they choose only to be buried in areas where there are only Jews or Muslims (i.e. chose to self-segregate) then a municipal cemetery may not be for them - where all are welcome. Many consider that a select area within a wider cemetery is acceptable (as do some Christians wanting to be buried in consecrated plots). They key issue as regards devout Muslim burial is that it should be undertaken within 24 hours of death - this may be a problem for a particular cemetery in terms of completing arrangements - for instance where a Sunday burial may be required. Southwark does discriminate against devout Hindus wishing to be cremated on an open-air pile and devout Parsees wishing to be exposed and predated on by the birds of the air. Thank goodness. And as for any practicing Aztecs - well, don't get me started.

[andrewc]

Blanche

I do hope that when you say that the council are "looking into" the issue of discrimination, you are not referring to the same ( off the cuff) comment that was offered to you from the councillor you mentioned in a previous post.

If it is then you are clutching at straws in the same way as you tried to use my post as evidence of something 'to be investigated'.

Your new strap line "we feel it is wrong to cut down a living tree to bury a dead person" is a more honest argument.

[Penguin68]

Your new strap line "we feel it is wrong to cut down a living tree to bury a dead person" is a more honest argument.

Although, in fact, in so far as living trees are being cut down and not replaced, the 'benefit' is going not to a 'dead person' but to the relatives and friends who mourn that person, and for whom burial may form an important part of their world-view - just because you (ssw people) don't share it (actually I don't either) doesn't invalidate its importance, or the psychological benefit such obsequies and a focus of mourning and grief can give. The deal is a living tree plays other living entities, with whom you have a greater share of DNA and heritage than otherwise.

[amak]

Le vrai tombeau des morts, c'est le coeur des vivants.

[amak]

Just to remind ourselves that the entire huge area of Nunhead Cemetery - 55 acres if I recall rightly - has already been taken out of use as a cemetery and left as a largely wild space to which there is only public access at the edges.

55 acres is a lot of space. And it went that way as a result of exactly the same sort of fervid lobbying from the wilderness advocates as we are now hearing re the other cemeteries.

Southwark Council's original plan considered the use of all three cemeteries together, and was balanced and sustainable. It catered for continuting burials in all three cemeteries. It involved reusing part of Nunhead, but leaving part as wilderness, and part as publicly available park space - which would have been brilliant for space-deprived families living south of the cemetery.

That plan was derailed by the fervid wilderness lobbiers, who managed to get the Council to abandon its sensible future-proofed plan.

Instead, the Council dropped its plans to reuse part of Nunhead, and took away a huge chunk of Honor Oak, a massively well used public parkland serving a council estate, and turned it into a terrible swampy grave yard. (This also meant huge unneccesary expense of public money in creating new cemetery infrastructure instead of reusing the existing cemetery space).

At the time, your wilderness lobbiers swore that they were only after Nunhead and that if they got Nunhead, and a great chunk taken out of Honor Oak Rec, they understood that the other two cemeteries would continue in use.

Enough, people, you won the first time, and did enough damage then.

Le vrai tombeau des morts, c'est le coeur des vivants.

Jean Cocteau

[taper]

Fervid is a lovely word.

Perhaps you could set up a pressure group: Screw Wilderness At Nunhead Cemetery? Or SWANC.

[EDAus]

Blanche -

Lovely to see SSW pitting the Orthodox Muslim and Jewish residents against the Christians and Atheists residents. What a way to promote harmony and good relations between religions/community groups.

Cllr's agreeing to investigate an issue on behalf local residents, is not the same as them agreeing that LBS has inherent religious discrimination in their burial provision.

Has this issue been raised at the Southwark Multi-Faith Forum? If so, what was the response?

Please provide evidence i.e. a policy, letter or a complaint, that clearly states Orthodox Muslim or Jewish residents are denied that right to apply for burial plots in LBS cemeteries.

Due to specific religious requirements some burial plots offered by LBS may be considered unsuitable, thereby potentially creating what could be perceived as indirect discrimination.

Indirection discrimination, is justifiable under certain circumstances/provisions within the Equality Act.

People may not like it, people may not agree with it but it's the current legislation.

Mmmmmm sit in the same room as people who engage in trolling, bullying and harassment, thanks but no thanks.

Disclaimer: no 'old textbooks' where harmed, used or even referenced in the construction of this post.

[EDAus]

Blanche since you took the time to pop by the EDF again today, ready to answer any questions yet?

By the way, have SSW given a donation to the EDF, I mean you keep using it to promote SSW views and events?

I really do like to be helpful so, attached is quick summary of all the questions that have been put to SSW to date, oh and the ones that have been answered. It only covers post/questions put directly to SSW on this tread - it does not include questions forum posters have proposed to each other or issues from the previous thread.

Of course people may questions why bother, my response:

1) if you say you are going to do something, do it, don't talk about it, do it, live your values.

Blanche Cameron 'I hope we can have a respectful and productive discussion and look forward to sharing information as it occurs, and in relation to this topic.'

2) the Alberto Brandolini asimmetry - the amount of energy it takes to refute rubbish is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

Most people simply give up and leave the conversation/debate.

A minority of posters demand other posters justify their opinions but do not bother to explain their own. Holding a mirror up does not always produce a pretty reflection does it?

3) Rather then work with the community to build good will, consensus or even some understanding SSW have sort to divide.

Praise anyone who agrees with you - Blanche Cameron 'Thank you both for your comments about the beauty and importance of the wildlife of the cemetery wood'.

Ignore any searching questions or better yet start a harassment/trolling campaign against any specific individual/s who disagree with you.

4) I really, really dislike bully's and harasser's - they drive good people away from the conversation/debate and participating on EDF.

There is no justification for this behaviour, not the 'trees' or 'butterfly's or 'stag beatles', nothing, how hard is that to understand?

Disclaimer: no 'old textbooks' where harmed, used or even referenced in the construction of this post.

[Sue]

EDAus, I can't open docx files (ancient laptop). If possible could you attach it as a doc? Thanks.

[EDAus]

Hi Sue - is this version any better?

If not, let me know and I will enlist greater technical assistance.

[Sue]

Great, thanks.

[amak]

Hello Taper

If you read my post you will see that way back in the 1980s the Council proposed

"reusing part of Nunhead, but leaving part as wilderness". So there would have been wilderness at Nunhead, just not the entire cemetery.

Your response doesn't reply in any way to the points I made, it is just aggressive. Although I usually have full support for wildlife and wild spaces campaigners, and have been part of such campaigns myself since, actually, childhood, I sadly have to say that the behaviour of the "Wilderness cemetery" campaigners hereabouts, has always been so extreme that it gives wildlife causes a bad name.

The Council's originally balanced plans were only dropped in 1991 due to behind the scenes lobbying. There was nil public consultation (one notice was stuck on the back of a telegraph pole four days before Christmas), nil debate, and locals knew nothing about what was happening until after the Council decision had been taken to close Nunhead and destroy a huge chunk of Honor Oak Rec.

It offers some hope for Southwark I think that there seem to be some sensible and independent minded people now on the Council, who take a broader and more appropriate view of "green" issues than just giving in to bullying from the "only man is vile" camp.