Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[taper]

Which parts of Nunhead Cemetery do you wish had been re-used? I think most local people like it as it is.

[Blanche Cameron]

Nunhead Cemetery is an amazing asset to the area. There is no reason why Camberwell Old Cemetery (which is only 15 years younger) and Camberwell New, can't be protected.

The Council and the Friends group have indicated that a lot of Nunhead Cemetery still isn't protected from having the old graves dug up and reused, which would mean also clearing the woods and wildlife to do it.

Nor are the allotments or the playing fields safe from being used for burial, no matter what the original plan was supposed to be for the land. They should all be protected.

When we started on this process we didn't realise there were some people who didn?t value the heritage and wild beauty of the cemeteries, including Nunhead Cemetery. We will work to protect all the woods and old graves and any greenspace the Council wants to take for burial use.

Anyway, here is the video again of what?s happening in Camberwell Old Cemetery, in case you missed it. Please turn on captions/subtitles for the words.

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

I'm afraid I still have pneumonia so I won't post often at the moment - feel free to email me questions, if I can help I will.

Blanche

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Sue]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

feel free to email me

> questions, if I can help I will.

>

> Blanche

> [email protected]

> www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

and also

>When we started on this process we didn't realise there were some people who didn?t value the heritage and wild beauty >of the cemeteries, including Nunhead Cemetery.

1. How can people be sure that it will be you and not somebody else who replies to their emails?

2. Why are you apparently not acknowledging - after pages and pages of threads discussing these cemeteries - that many people can value, and indeed love, "heritage and wild beauty" whilst accepting that in certain circumstances other factors become at least equally valuable?

Such as maintaining a local burial facility so that people can remember their loved ones in peace without having to travel miles from the area?

Particularly when this area already has proper woods and other wild spaces?

3. I am sorry you are ill, but perhaps when you feel better you may wish to address the unanswered questions already put to you on this thread, as outlined by EdAus above? That would help the discussion along.

[JoeLeg]

"

When we started on this process we didn't realise there were some people who didn?t value the heritage and wild beauty of the cemeteries, including Nunhead Cemetery"

This, right here, is why I've lost any vestige of respect for SSW. Nasty, passive-aggressiveness comments designed to make it seem like people are either with them or against them. Absolutely not the way to engage with people.

On a personal note however, I wish you all the best for a speedy recovery. Pneumonia is not to be taken lightly.

[EDAus]

Blanche -

I think you are doing a real disservice to people on the EDF.

Some of us have actually lived on picket/protect lines to defend what we believe in including the environment. This also means that we will not rush in wildly without sound cause backed by a properly run campaign.

The green spaces mentioned are active cemeteries, they are not taking space they are using it for it's designated purpose.

I am sorry that you are ill and wish you a speedy recovery.

It seems unfair that you are not able to delegate this work to other individuals - with over 10,000 supports is some else not able to help out until you feel better?

As mentioned I have put together a summary for you - attached to my post above, when recovered you could start by answering the outstanding questions.

Re: emails, unfortunately due to the action of some of your supporters I am not comfortable sending correspondence to SSW via this method - I suspect others feel the same.

[edhistory]

Does SSW ever correct errors on the SSW web-site and publish apologies?

John K

[dbboy]

EDAus Agreed,

Why is the cemetery protest group;

Inciting racial and religious burial discrimination?

Trying to divide and rule the community?

Attempting to pitch religious groups against each other?

Wanting to deny residents the right to purchase a grave for a burial?

Wanting to deny residents having burials in the three cemeteries in the borough?

Trying to cause distress to those grieving the loss of their deceased loved ones?

Tying to stop all burials in the cemeteries in the borough?

Wanting to deny residents the right to bury their deceased relatives locally?

What gives the cemetery protest group the right to attempt to dictate to the community what they want?

Have the cemetery protest group not heard ?the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?

Why do you consider the level of so called 'debate' on here to be really poor and from some posters just plain rude, whichever 'side' people are on or none?

Why do the cemetery protest group?s posts continually repeat the same information?

Why do you think that relatives will not be willing to extend the lease of their graves to prevent mounding?

How were 48,000 graves calculated that will be mounded over?

EdAus, can you add these questions to the Blanche outstanding answers.

[taper]

This issue isn't about SSW's folly is it though: it's about the future of COC. And that is the purpose of this thread, not a turkey-shoot with Blanche.

COC has become more than a cemetery. I would say the majority of people who use it, use it as a place of recreation or a cut through. This presumably is why it's part of the Green Chain. So arguments from original use really don't hold because it is now used for more than burial and remembrance. The issue then is how can its use as a graveyard be balanced with its use as a rather beautiful place of recreation. The interests of people who use it for the latter must be in the equation. My worry is what they're doing with area z gives us an insight into what might happen to the densely wooded area. And I've not yet seen anything that goes me confidence this won't happen.

[JoeLeg]

taper Wrote:

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

> This issue isn't about SSW's folly is it though:

> it's about the future of COC. And that is the

> purpose of this thread, not a turkey-shoot with

> Blanche.

>

I'm sorry, but SSW set themselves up as an authority on what is really happening on COC, making a lot of allegations about council behaviour and assumptions about how local residents must think and feel of they don't agree with SSW's position. Add to that the other actions online and they put themselves right on the firing line of that turkey shoot. People don't like being spoken too as if they're idiots.

> COC has become more than a cemetery. I would say

> the majority of people who use it, use it as a

> place of recreation or a cut through. This

> presumably is why it's part of the Green Chain. So

> arguments from original use really don't hold

> because it is now used for more than burial and

> remembrance.

This is a good point.

The issue then is how can its use as

> a graveyard be balanced with its use as a rather

> beautiful place of recreation. The interests of

> people who use it for the latter must be in the

> equation.

Without wishing to detract from your central point, which as I say is a good one, in reality how many people are using graveyards for solid recreational purposes that might make it worth examining in detail? We live in a pretty 'green' part of the city (in comparison to other bits), and the local parks are used vastly more than graveyards in that manner. One could argue that money and time is better spent on making sure those parks are maintained.

The issue of wildlife is of course very different; I'm personally still not sure how best to balance that.

My worry is what they're doing with area

> z gives us an insight into what might happen to

> the densely wooded area. And I've not yet seen

> anything that goes me confidence this won't

> happen.

Again I agree with this point. However, the issue of burials isn't going to go away, and I'm starting to wonder if we aren't having the wrong conversation. The debate between residents and indeed with the council should maybe be more about what happens to us when we die. Space is limited - others have pointed out that leases on graves on other cemeteries are still sometimes only 25 years, and this problem will only get worse. Perhaps we need to be discussing how we intend to dispose of our sadly departed on the future, otherwise this issue will continue.

[edhistory]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

>

> When we started on this process we didn't realise

> there were some people who didn?t value the

> heritage and wild beauty of the cemeteries,

> including Nunhead Cemetery.

Perhaps you might have found it helpful to have read some RESET Development material.

John K

[taper]

JoeLeg

Thanks

All good points. Let the turkey shoot continue then! But I hope it doesn't detract from a balanced discussion about the future of COC.

You're right that burial for Southwark residents and London more generally is the nub of the issue. Wiping the slate at COC and starting again is a medium term solution I suppose, but I don't like it. Perhaps CNC is a more reasonable option for significant future use, with some modest re-use at COC. I've never been in CNC so I don't know what if anything there is worth preserving. But there are important elements of COC that should be preserved; I know that as a local and someone who uses it regularly for recreation.

[Penguin68]

I know that as a local and someone who uses it regularly for recreation.

I also use it for recreation (there are only two people memorialised there that I knew well) - but part of my 'recreational' enjoyment is that it's a working cemetery - where there are new burials weekly, flowers, people quietly remembering loved ones (recent deaths, not pre-war or earlier). I am fascinated by what people put on graves, by how they use them as a focus of family ceremony. I walk in other areas for different experiences, but the participation in family feelings is also important to me. Cemeteries which simply become well tended sculpture parks have their place, no doubt, but its a different place to a working facility. It's the raw utility of the space that pleases me, the fact that it's (almost) a working as well as a contemplative space which I enjoy. So - for those who play the 'heritage and value and wild beauty' card (and by the way, cemeteries don't naturally have a wild beauty) there are other beauties - associated with people and what they do, which is of value. I, personally, enjoy the recent memorials more, possibly, than the impenetrable over-grown bits, which I have only viewed from the periphery (and which, to be honest, are pretty dull - once you've seen one overcrowded sapling you've seen them all, whereas every grave is a novelty).

Edited to add - and by the way, the mature trees in the managed part of the cemetery, standing uncrowded and able to spread fully, are far more beautiful, to my eyes, both in the winter and when clad in the summer than the 'woodland'. Each tree is able to show its full nature and delight. And a managed cemetery allows for many different species of trees to be planted, tended and enjoyed, rather than a scrub mono-culture.

[Sue]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

the issue

> of burials isn't going to go away, and I'm

> starting to wonder if we aren't having the wrong

> conversation. The debate between residents and

> indeed with the council should maybe be more about

> what happens to us when we die. Space is limited -

> others have pointed out that leases on graves on

> other cemeteries are still sometimes only 25

> years, and this problem will only get worse.

> Perhaps we need to be discussing how we intend to

> dispose of our sadly departed on the future,

> otherwise this issue will continue.

A very good point, but for the longer term?

I doubt the council will hold up their immediate plans in order to debate this. It must extend nationwide surely and involve a great deal of consultation, though I have no idea exactly what would be involved.

Legislation?

[taper]

Fine, that's your view. And I'm sure it could be accommodated in a balanced solution. The wooded area I'm concerned with is pretty diverse though, although it needs properly managing.

On a peripheral matter, there are two VC graves in COC.

William Stanlake's is in the wooded area. He fought at Inkerman in the Crimean war and died a pauper in Camberwell. His old regiment recently cleared a path to it and put up a memorial stone. Details here:

http://www.memorialstovalour.co.uk/vc30.html

The other, Albert MacKenzie, recently had a statue erected to him in Bermondsey. Details here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Edward_McKenzie

Details on the other war graves in COC are here:

http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead.aspx?cpage=1&sort=name&order=asc

Important heritage this. Another reason this corner of the cemetery should be managed not re-used.

[edhistory]

Are these graves in Area Z?

John K

[Sue]

Taper, I agree that a balanced solution is what is needed.

The problem is that the group making the most noise, and trouble for the council and the diocese, don't appear to be willing to move even slightly from their position that nothing at all must be touched.

Unless I have totally misread their statements on here and elsewhere.

[Penguin68]

Details on the other war graves in COC are here:

There are specific rules about Commonwealth War Graves and War memorials - I cannot think that Southwark has any attention (Renata - you are much more aware than I of agreed plans, can you confirm?) to extend re-use to these. The lone VC grave not with the other war memorial graves is another matter, but, again, I suspect that preservation of this (taking into account the Regiment's interest) would be entirely possible.

Many of the graves in the wooded area are badly damaged - by the very trees that are being lauded by ssw - who also talk about preservation of old memorials - these two aims are not actually compatible.

[taper]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Are these graves in Area Z?

>

> John K

No.

[taper]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Taper, I agree that a balanced solution is what is

> needed.

>

> The problem is that the group making the most

> noise, and trouble for the council and the

> diocese, don't appear to be willing to move even

> slightly from their position that nothing at all

> must be touched.

>

> Unless I have totally misread their statements on

> here and elsewhere.

Indeed, which is why I don't associate my own views with SSW. In fact, they have been wholly destructive of the case to be sensitive and proportionate in any development of COC. I thought their campaign to have a junior Southwark officer removed from her post was an utter disgrace. As is Lewis's treatment of you and John. One despairs.

[Blanche Cameron]

Sorry I won't be able to answer every question on here, I'm just one person and still ill. ​You can call or email me though as said and I will respond. ​You can also have a look on our FAQs page, maybe the answer is already on there:

http://savesouthwarkwoods.moonfruit.com/faqs/4591807665

To answer one question​ here​, people who have relatives buried in the areas which are to be cleared of trees and memorials and mounded over will not be able to extend the lease on the graves.

These mounded areas (Woodvale side, Underhill Road side and between the lanes/rides through the woods, and more in the New Cemetery too) are above public graves and the families have no rights over them at all. Even in death, the poor have fewer rights than the rich.

There are also six areas of Commonwealth War Graves that the Council are about to mound over on Area Z. It's all in their documents.

Sue​,​ of course you are completely within your rights to place as much ​(or even more)​ ​importance​ on new burial for local people in Camberwell Old Cemetery as on preserving its beautiful natural heritage and families' history. ​That's the choice available.

But SSW is working to protect and preserve the glory of the woods and graves as rare and beautiful places for everyone and hope they will still be here this year, next year and beyond. Here is a video of the Old Cemetery last summer to bring it all back:

Blanche

[HopOne]

There is a lounged thread for having a go at SSW. Please can we focus on the issues here? It is not constructive to harangue specific SSW members for answers. They have been more forthcoming when challenged than the council in my view.

Blanche, I am still recovering from pneumonia myself. Please take it very easy as recurrence can occur otherwise as I can testify. Hope you improve soon.

I agree with taper that there is a wider issue with burial which we need to grasp as a society. Certainly in urban areas it is not sustainable, as currently practised, long term. Have tried to make this point before and it has been drowned out by other noise.

penguin68, you continue to say this: "And a managed cemetery allows for many different species of trees to be planted, tended and enjoyed, rather than a scrub mono-culture." I have refuted this multiple times as I think this is inaccurate. Preservation of native woodland, which includes scrub, is good for biodiversity. Care to discuss this time?

[Sue]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Sorry I won't be able to answer every question on

> here, I'm just one person and still ill.

You can call or email me though as said and

> I will respond.

People have emailed the email address you give and have not received a response from you, but from somebody else.

So I ask again, how can people be sure that the response will come from you, as clearly more than one person has access to this email account.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> There is a lounged thread for having a go at SSW.

> Please can we focus on the issues here? It is not

> constructive to harangue specific SSW members for

> answers.

I sent a private message by mistake. Please ignore it.

I cannot see that anybody is "haranguing" anybody for answers.

Following the banning on here of one of the SSW organisers, another "specific SSW member" joined the forum in order to continue to promote/represent SSW's views on here and to post on this thread.

I cannot see how requesting answers from that person to perfectly legitimate questions relating to the relevant issues is not being constructive.

In fact I would have thought that failing to answer such questions was not constructive, and was not helping a rational debate.

Do you agree?

[Blanche Cameron]

Sue is this really about the Council's plans for the cemeteries?

I offered to answer by email because you and others demanded replies to questions buried in the backlog.

I send and receive most SSW emails but sometimes they are passed on to other members to answer - yes of course, that's very common practice for a community campaign group, or even a Council.

I'm not on here all the time so as I've said I'm happy to answer questions do send them over. But do check they aren't on the FAQs first, thanks.

Blanche

[Sue]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Sue is this really about the Council's plans for

> the cemeteries?

>

> I offered to answer by email because you and

> others demanded replies to questions buried in the

> backlog.

>

> I send and receive most SSW emails but sometimes

> they are passed on to other members to answer -

> yes of course, that's very common practice for a

> community campaign group, or even a Council.

>

> I'm not on here all the time so as I've said I'm

> happy to answer questions do send them over. But

> do check they aren't on the FAQs first, thanks.

>

I have no quarrel with you, Blanche, so please don't try to pick one.

I was trying to avoid being explicit, but since you ask, it's about offensive emails which at least one person posting on this thread has apparently received when they have emailed SSW at the address you give.

Therefore I think people would like to be sure that it would be you who responded to their emails, particularly as you are ill.

And though I can't speak for others, I suspect that most people posting on this thread would rather your answers to questions they have put be also posted on here, rather than given in a private email, otherwise they would not have asked the questions on a public forum.

It is hard to have a proper discussion if certain relevant issues are taken away from the main place of discussion.

ETA: And I am interested in your saying that people have "demanded" answers to questions. At what point does "requesting" become "demanding"?

Also, questions were only "buried in the backlog", as you describe it, because they weren't answered at the time, in some cases after several requests.

And now I have other things to do.