Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[mynamehere]

All of your opinions are fine. 10 of you? 15 to be hugely generous want a traditional (even the word traditional doesn't really cover much time) cemetery at the end of your road.

But please do not think you speak for a majority who are perfectly open to a conversation old fashioned politicians who run mostly everything cannot imagine having.

We elect people to "think" for us and when they cannot we have a broken political model and that is clear around the world.

So, oddlycurious I do not agree with your back of the envelope. I'd say it's not even a "Brexit" closeness. I think vastly more people get climate change and green space and a densely treed area for remembering and also for a variety of uses from botany to schools and mental health. The funeral services would not suffer a pound of lost revenue and the profit would go on and on literally.

[JoeLeg]

You're completely missing the point, but carry on assigning motives to people that demonstrably do not exist. Seems to be working out well for you so far.

[oddlycurious]

Our views don't count because we're a small number? Really? You want to go down that path?

[Sue]

oddlycurious Wrote:

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

> Our views don't count because we're a small

> number? Really? You want to go down that path?

Logic is not their strong point ......

[HopOne]

oddlycurious Wrote:

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

> 347 people objected to the plans (for the sake of

> the argument let's say they all live in

> Southwark)

>

> 288,283 live in Southwark (census data 2011)

>

> Well over 99 per cent of residents have no

> objections to the plans.

So you are assuming that 287,936 approve just because they didn't object in writing? Oddly curious indeed.

Also, far removed from the issues if you think that this is just about Southwark residents.

[edhistory]

HopOne Wrote:

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

>

> Also, far removed from the issues if you think

> that this is just about Southwark residents.

Are you a Lewisham resident?

[HopOne]

Yes

[oddlycurious]

OK, we can add all the residents for Lewisham to the mix too; how does that make 347 look better?

If you want to argue that people outside of a certain catchment area are not concerned with the issue then 'bingo!'

You're also presuming that even if they didn't object in writing they object in spirit, which is equally as nebulous

[Penguin68]

It is worth noting that people will write-in against a council proposal, but very rarely in favour of one - for the simple reason that if you are in favour you do not desire any change to what is being proposed, so your 'intervention' is pointless. This sort of exercise is NOT a poll with any statistical significance. It is not in any real sense a numbers game.

I should also note that the anti-campaign has been marked by (at best) half-truths and confused arguments. If you believe that ancient woodland is being destroyed; that the council is guilty of discrimination; that areas that aren't under any 'threat' actually are, then you are more likely to object to proposals than not.

The level of information and understanding contained in those 347 objections is moot (as of course are the levels of understanding etc. of those not objecting).

All in all - I think it helps neither side to argue about numbers - there has been no systematic and properly conducted poll - where sampling has been undertaken from relevant populations and where the questions have been agreed as being unbiased and un-distorting. At best we have self selected write-ins. There was no campaign (why should there have been?) to support any of the council's various proposals for work to be done on the cemeteries, although exactly what work has been a matter of debate.

[nxjen]

Worth noting also that a consultation is not a referendum

[Blanche Cameron]

Southwark Council hid 42 soldiers? war graves from public planning application

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/council-hid-42-soldiers-graves

Southwark Council hid the existence of forty-two soldiers? war graves from plans for ?new? burial plots over the dead in Camberwell Old Cemetery.

Southwark applied in 2015 to cut down two acres of woods to sell 700 ?new? burial plots over 48,000 people buried in Area Z.

Southwark?s application stated only six soldiers? war graves were located on the site.

But in fact, an astonishing forty-eight WW1 and possibly WW2 soldiers lay beneath the trees.

And incredibly, Southwark has no intention of marking twenty-three of the soldiers? graves ? as they would get in the way.

These are soldiers who gave their lives for their country, dying either in battle or afterwards from their wounds.

But Southwark hid their existence from the public until they had planning permission.

Southwark did however tell the Church of England, whose permission they also required.

Southwark Diocese?s Chancellor Petchey stated in his Consistory Court ruling:

?I was surprised to discover that there were as many as 48 unmarked war graves in Area Z? (para 45).

So was the public.

Chancellor Petchey disgracefully goes on: ?It might be better for all 48 graves to remain unmarked?. He then admits this is not in fact for him to decide.

Why didn?t Southwark tell the public the truth? That they were developing over forty-eight soldiers? graves not six ? with no intention of marking twenty-three of them?

Southwark Council has still not given the whereabouts of the unknown forty-two soldiers despite repeated requests, yet claims no burial plots will be sold over soldiers? graves.

How can the public believe anything Southwark says now?

Who is responsible for the cover-up? Harrison landscape consultants for leaving the soldiers? graves off plans?

Southwark Council for feeding the public false planning information?

And when did Southwark first contact the War Graves Commission? Also after planning permission?

And how many soldiers are buried ? unmarked ? under hundreds of ?new? burial plots being sold right now in Area F Camberwell Old Cemetery developed in 2013? Tens of thousands of people are buried here too.

How many soldiers are laid to rest across the ten acres of beautiful, inner city woods that Southwark intends to cut down next?

When will the soldiers ? and everyone buried in the Camberwell Cemeteries ? be left to rest in peace among the trees?

This is just another reason why Southwark Council is unfit to run a burial service.

The Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries, the Save Southwark Woods campaign, are fighting to save the cemeteries as nature reserves with respect for the dead and woods and nature for the living.

[Burbage]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

>

> Who is responsible for the cover-up? Harrison

> landscape consultants for leaving the soldiers?

> graves off plans?

The trees, obviously. Though, by allowing the cemetery to become so scandalously overgrown, and turning a blind eye to the shifting of memorials and remains by malicious vegetation, the council must bear some of the blame.

That said, not all graves were marked in the first place, so it's hardly surprising if people can't find them now, especially if they have no family connection to the site.

[taper]

Utterly disingenuous. Here's the CWGC's statement

http://www.cwgc.org/news-events/news/2017/3/commonwealth-war-graves-commission-statement-regarding-planned-works-at-camberwell-old-cemetery.aspx

[Penguin68]

The CWGC was formed in 1917 - before that war dead would have been buried in private (or public) graves - where they died in the UK - otherwise they would have been buried broadly where they fell. There are many former soldiers (and sailors and airmen) buried in our local cemeteries, most of whom did not die during or as a consequence of the war(s). The graves in the area of the cemetery being recovered are not, in the sense that it is normally used 'war graves'. There may well be graves of soldiers who died in the UK following injury pre 1917 - as ssw notes in its propaganda, these were 'unmarked' - and indeed no record would be available for them above ground - only in the cemetery records giving a broad indication of where they are buried. These are (again) not war graves.

The propaganda says 'These are soldiers who gave their lives for their country, dying either in battle or afterwards from their wounds. ' Actually it is the UK practice always to bury those who died in battle in graveyards associated with that battle area - so it is most unlikely that any soldier who 'died in battle' would be buried in our local cemeteries.

And I'm afraid that the cemeteries are full of worthy people, certainly worthy of our respect, who weren't soldiers - but ssw hopes that yet another foray into the land of near fantasy will gain them some extra support. If the CWGC is happy about Southwark's plans (and these are people with a real mission) I certainly am too.

[dbboy]

taper - thanks for providing the link

Penguin68, agree with what you say.

[taper]

I see Lewis via Twitter is still trying to encourage his followers to identitify people posting on this thread. Do you have a view on this Blanche? Is it something SSW supports?

[JoeLeg]

Edited because Blanche and Lewis are just so not worth it.

I mean really, getting so wound up by people saying mean things about you that you go on Twitter and try to track them down? So you can what, Lewis? Beat them up? Be a big man by exposing their real names? Think you've won some kind of victory by intimidating them?

Wow, you're such a child. I'm going back to laughing at you both now. But I'd be careful with threatening people online - you never know who you're dealing with...

[dbboy]

So Lewis wants to know who I am, oh how that does NOT surprise me, or all the others he is trying on.

Read the thread titled Freedom of Speech and Expression (you'll find it in The Lounge) It was put there because I knew someone (actually thank you JoeLeg for kindly highlighting Lewis's twitter behaviour) would eventually expose your behaviour. Now everyone tuning in can see why I started that thread.

Just to remind you and and all the good folks taking the time to read this thread, weren't you banned from here exactly for what you are currently doing on twitter now.

To make it abundantly clear you can never ever stop people's freedom of speech or expression in whatever form that takes, through any intimidating tactics you use.

ps. Lessons in literacy wouldn't go a miss either, would they!!!! hahaha.

So, now to lighten the mood somewhat, enjoy the following two clips that sort of sum up my points here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhY-Y0I8DkY

[Penguin68]

I mean really, getting so wound up by people saying mean things about you

Actually, most of the 'mean' things that are being said are in fact contrary arguments to those put forward by ssw - there is very little ad hominem attack from those who don't share ssw's views. There has always been some suggestion that those arguments put forward by ssw are not always close acquaintances with the truth - and sometimes some harsh calls for answers to questions - but very little than can be judged as personally mean. Some, but not that much.

[Blanche Cameron]

SOUTHWARK CLAIMS NO TREES BETWEEN 75MM and 150MM CUT DOWN IN CEMETERIES.

Southwark Council has just claimed in a Freedom of Information response that not one single medium-sized tree was cut down across two acres of cemetery woods. Southwark?s planning applications stated only 18 trees were to be cut down ? all of which were over 150mm diameter. No trees were listed under 150mm.

This was clearly untrue.

Photographs and videos before felling show hundreds of medium-sized trees across the two acres ? all now cut down. And Tree Officer Gary Meadowcroft told Southwark?s Scrutiny Committee all the medium-sized trees were not shown on plans because there were 'too many to count'.

But Southwark Council has just claimed: ?There were no trees felled between 75mm ? 150mm diameter on consecrated land? (Southwark Council Freedom of Information request response).

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/no-medium-trees-in-southwark/4593799629

In addition, we have learned that tree cutting will start soon in the other Lanes in Camberwel Old Cemetery. We do not know which trees are to be cut.

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods Facebook: Save Southwark Woods

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries was founded as Save Southwark Woods in January 2015 to stop the destruction of the woods and graves of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

We are for maintaining recreational activities already taking place on cemetery grounds, such as the Recreation Ground and the Allotments.

We are for preserving the cemeteries as Memorial Park Nature Reserves, like Nunhead or Highgate Cemeteries.

[taper]

Oh Blanche, this thread had died such a lovely peaceful death. And now you've jolted it back to life. That means people will disagree with you and Lewis will try to find out who we are via Twitter so he can try to undermine our livelihoods.

Can't we bury this thread and mound it over?

[Penguin68]

?There were no trees felled between 75mm ? 150mm diameter on consecrated land?

The consecrated area only forms part of the area which is being gardened. It may well be that in that area no trees between 75mm and 150mm were felled - whilst trees of that size may have been felled in other areas. I doubt whether photos actually do show '100s' of medium sized trees (75mm-150mm diameter) in that area - 10s posibly - but many of the trees are saplings and will not be of that size. A diameter of 75mm is a circumference of 235.7mm (about 9.3 inches). 150mm equates to a tree of 18.6 inches circumference. Those are both quite big. I would be hard pressed to get my hands (delicate but not Trump-ish) around the larger size of trunk.

[taper]

Blanche - I see Lewis via Twitter is trying again to track down the real identities of people on this Forum who choose to remain anonymous; me among them. Presumably this is so he can seek to intimidate and harrass them as he did with two posters a year or so ago.

I've invited you to disassociate these actions from SSW before and you've chosen not to, despite Lewis's prominence in the campaign. Can we assume therefore that these tactics have SSW's approval? If so, your campaign is entirely unethical and deserves no-one's support.

For the record, I have no personal or professional association with LB Southwark.

[Burbage]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The consecrated area only forms part of the area

> which is being gardened.

Quite. But, on the upside, they seem happy enough with the answers to their seven questions, and are really only grousing about the details of an answer they didn't get to a question they didn't ask.

Having reviewed the document, I'm intrigued that they're asking these questions, with impressive braggadocio, for "the purposes of the ecosystems services assessments", especially as at least four of their questions are on procedural matters that aren't likely to bother the hedgehogs. I suppose it's a free market, and any underemployed chucklemonger can have a go if they fancy it, but I'd have thought any competent practitioner would be able to count a tree when they saw one, without having to bother the council.

[mynamehere]

I went to dinner in one of the new high buildings from which I saw a sea of concrete to the horizon 360degrees. The arguments here in favour of business as usual for a veolia recycling lot of dead earth to dig in and out dead bodies often encased in heavy wood and metal. Wow what a bunch of flat earthers a minority of you are.

This is my opinion to which like you I am entitled.

How nice or not nice Lewis is is not what the conversation is about. 20 / 20 hindsight proving me or possibly you right will arrive.

See you here in 20 possibly far fewer years.