Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[Blanche Cameron]

"Show me one post where someone - anyone - has explicitly encouraged the unrestrained destruction of nature." But some of you seem to support some destruction of nature for new burial plots, and that is where we respectfully differ.

We just got some FOI info. Southwark didn't check for First World War soldiers' graves before starting the cemetery redevelopment. And they only first went to the CWGC late last year. They were told of 48 CGWC graves in Area Z - not the six that Southwark had put on their planning application.

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/southwark-dishonours-war-dead/4593850197

Attached is new photo of Camberwell Old Cemetery. Go there this weekend.

Blanche Cameron, fool

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods

O7731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Penguin68]

Southwark didn't check for First World War soldiers' graves before starting the cemetery redevelopment. And they only first went to the CWGC late last year. They were told of 48 CGWC graves in Area Z - not the six that Southwark had put on their planning application.

I don't think this is strictly true. There were, certainly, 48 graves of soldiers (and possibly sailors and airmen) who died as the results of wounds, in the UK, almost certainly before 1917 (when the War Graves Commission came into being). Those who died overseas would always have been interred there - as was common practice until the Falklands war. They were not buried in Commonwealth War Graves (by the Commission) and would not necessarily have been recorded originally as anything but the deaths of parishioners, in hospital. There may also have been those buried after 1917 whose mourners chose for them not to be buried by the CWGC. The area, as we know, is terribly over-grown (a sin of neglect which the Council is responsible for). Some of those buried may have been in public (unmarked) graves.

There is a clear confusion between war dead and those classed as being in Commonwealth War Graves. These are always fully documented and cared for by the War Graves Commission (directly or via agents). They are also normally buried (as in COC) together, where additionally those who have no other resting place may be memorialised.

It does not surprise me that Southwark was originally unaware of most of the war dead burials in Area Z. The hearing expressed surprise that they were there at all as well. Most people believe that all the war dead of WW1 (and subsequently) form part of the CWGC remit. But deaths in the UK pre 1917 would have been buried outside this remit (as they occurred before the Commission was formed). The CWGC took over all cemeteries on the Front in 1917 (most were ad hoc at best, even by then). But pre 1917 home-front burials were a different issue.

[JoeLeg]

"

"Show me one post where someone - anyone - has explicitly encouraged the unrestrained destruction of nature." But some of you seem to support some destruction of nature for new burial plots, and that is where we respectfully differ."

No Blanche, there's no respect at all on your part. To you this is a zero-sum game; either people agree with you, or you tell them that they are totally wrong. You won't conceive of debate, compromise, other people's points of view.

And you still can't show me a post that backs up your assertion that if someone thinks Southwark might have a case for continued maintenance of the cemetery and keeping it in use as a cemetery, that means they support the general destruction of nature.

What about people who want to be buried there? You plainly don't give a hoot for them. You claim religious discrimination but your own meetings at the Herne have been witness to some fairly unpleasant comments about religion in general. You claim abuse of soldiers graves but CWGC directly contradicts your assertions.

Just because someone doesn't wholesale toe the line with your views, doesn't mean any other views they have should be ridiculed and abused. This is why people don't like you; you're arrogant, offensive and demeaning to others.

[dbboy]

"Show me one post where someone - anyone - has explicitly encouraged the unrestrained destruction of nature." But some of you seem to support some destruction of nature for new burial plots, and that is where we respectfully differ."

Totally agree with Joeleg above.

I do not support the unwarranted destruction of nature BUT the use of cemeteries IS to bury the deceased (and which is what the land was intended to be used for) and it is how this society has and continues to (apart from cremation) the internment of the deceased into their final resting place. In the cemetery I saw a beautiful robin on a headstone and then further down a pair of ducks actually a duck and a drake just sitting on teh grass in front of a row of graves enjoying the peacefulness and solitude in the cemetery, till they decided to take flight, it was lovely to see.

And before I get jumped on with the moulding over or digging up remains after 75 years argument, part of the problem is the vast number of graves that are no longer attended by families, because they themselves may have passed away and no one is their in the family to tend the graves, or they have become to infirm to get to the grave to maintain it. I saw that myself, in a cemetery at the other end of the borough.

The councils responsibility is to maintain the environment within the cemetery which I see as generally cutting the grass, wholescale laying of weed killer and digging and filling in graves following the internment plus anything mourners ask them to do post burial. In this respect the council have been negligent but are now correcting the error of their ways and in so doing are finding graves that had been covered by scrub. Surely this is a good thing to be happening so they can hopefully be cross checked with the cemetery records.

[nxjen]

Sue Wrote:

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

>

>

> My theory is that they are gathering material for

> a future "comedy" event or publication by the

> charming Lewis.

Or gathering material for a PhD thesis on "Resistance within the Community to Nature Conservation within an Urban Area: How can this be Broken Down?"

[Blanche Cameron]

Southwark Council doesn?t care about their WW1 and WW2 war graves. All it took to check was a two minute phone call or email to the CWGC.

Instead, they have spent years planning and implementing a massive multi-million pound redevelopment over tens of thousands of graves, consulting all kinds of bodies - but not the CWGC?

These are the graves of hundreds of local people who died from fighting in two horrific wars and are supposed to receive special recognition for their sacrifice.

But Southwark just didn?t even check - they wanted to sell new burial plots more than they wanted to respect CWGC graves. They only got caught out because they finally contacted the CWGC but not til late 2016, and already well into developing Areas Z and D1.

And what about Area F/F1 along Woodvale, developed in 2013 over tens of thousands more graves?

If this is how Southwark treats CWGC graves, they will do anything to sell burial plots.

The woods and glades are beautiful and a perfect memorial to everyone buried here. Visit this weekend and see the beauty. The photo of the woods attached is from Thursday.

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[JoeLeg]

I ask again Blanche, if you're so concerned about the war graves, which is not exactly what they are, why haven't you tried to enlist the assistance of serving and former personnel?

Head on over to ARRSE. See how it works out for you.

[dbboy]

Forgot to ask, have you taken out an injunction or judicial review against Southwark Council or when is this going to happen?

[Penguin68]

These are the graves of hundreds of local people who died from fighting in two horrific wars and are supposed to receive special recognition for their sacrifice.

No, this is simply not true. There were 48 graves of military personnel (not hundreds) who died of wounds in 1917 or before and who were buried 'normally' with others in the cemetery. The remainder of the War Dead, in actual, real, Commonweath War Graves (and those not buried but memorialised there) are in no way under threat. Civilians who died during the second world war as a result of military actions (mainly bombs) are also buried in the cemetery.

Nobody is 'supposed' to receive special recognition for their sacrifices - there are special days (Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day) when we choose, specifically, to set side a time for remembrance of those who have made such a sacrifice.

I absolutely hate the way that you try to use the long-dead to deprive those who are losing their lives now, and their relatives and mourners the options to bury their loved ones close - when there will be nobody, now, who has a personal memory of those WW1 dead - given memory reorganisation at about 3 they would now have to be 103 years old to have any chance of such a memory.

I recognise that this is about blowing right-wing dog-whistles in the hope you can clasp the militarists around your sad cause, but really... Those who have actually lost relatives in a War (as I have) may respond differently from what you hope.

[taper]

It is so disgustingly cynical. Because you know it's all about the tactics.

[JoeLeg]

Trust me Penguin, I guarantee you if Blanche ran all this past actual service personnel, she would be given short shrift, to put it mildly.

They have a much better understanding of the issues than she does. In acting this way she betrays he inability to comprehend certain views of the military.

But then she's never let reality stand in the way of her personal crusade.

I really, really wish she'd try this nonsense on ARRSE. They understand the CWGC and how it works. She doesn't.

[dbboy]

And I can't wait till she and co try it on the supposed injunction on Southwark Council and finally get totally lambasted, booted and laughed out of court.

[Blanche Cameron]

The fact that Southwark didn?t contact the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to find the soldiers? graves and include them in their plans before they started their project is just another clear reason why Southwark is unfit to run a burial service and why this project must stop.

There are still acres of woods and old headstones and graves left undisturbed. Attached is a photo - it?s a lovely day for a visit.

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Penguin68]

The fact that Southwark didn?t contact the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to find the soldiers? graves and include them in their plans before they started their project is just another clear reason why Southwark is unfit to run a burial service and why this project must stop.

They didn't because they weren't Commonwealth War Graves (they knew exactly where those were) but were private burials of soldiers who died of wounds in London pre 1917. Southwark's own records were the ones that later uncovered these non CWGC burials.

And once again, the Commission is on record (so don't put words in their mouth) as entirely satisfied with what Southwark plans. It is they who have noted that only 25 graves sites (of 48 recorded burials) can be sufficiently identified for markers to be placed. The others were either unmarked private burials or public burials in a common grave. Everyone on the enquiry was surprised by the number of burials.

[Blanche Cameron]

Penguin, you don't seem to have read the CWGC FOI emails.

You claim the CWGC are "entirely satisfied with what Southwark plans".

The CWGC is even now trying to get an access road moved that Southwark plans over two war graves. They are also hoping to get more headstones put up for WW1/WW2 soldiers currently denied them under Southwark's plans.

Even as recently as April, mid-development, Southwark has been trying to delay meeting with CWGC to discuss these changes.

CWGC's emails and Southwark's replies are on the link button here:

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/southwark-dishonours-war-dead/4593850197

The woods and graves are a great memorial to all the dead here - photo attached is from this weekend.

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods campaign

07731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Penguin68]

I should only note that as these graves (which were not CWG) took some finding, and were (mainly) not anticipated in these areas by anyone it is not entirely surprising that plans may have to be amended to ensure that paths are not put in which compromise these. You show no evidence that Southwark is not working with others to sort this out. I am not sure that Southwark is 'denying' them anything - have you evidence of any such thing? The passage you quote, from a March 2017 exchange says:-

note from conversation that plans for the site are beginning to progress, however suggested a meeting in the late Summer / Autumn to discuss the layout of the new area.

note that grave 25680 lies directly under a new pathway on the plans which sent to dated 14.11.16, as does 25626. Would it be possible to adjust this layout so that these two burials are not built upon and made inaccessible?

would welcome a meeting, sooner rather than later, with and Harrison Design Development to discuss this and to confirm which war graves will be marked in the new layout, before plans are finalised.

Or, 'can we have a meeting in late summer or autumn of 2017 - or perhaps earlier? - You have interpreted this as being late summer or autumn of 2016, I assume, but it is not clear this is what was said. Certainly what you have quoted shows no evidence of 'trying to delay'.

In total the note refers to 3 graves, out of 48 in the areas to be developed, where path work is of concern, or where the wrong grave number may have been cited.

Oh, and no, I haven't hacked somebody else's e-mails - I wonder how you have got access to these? Were you one of the CCs?

The remainder of the article quoted by you is a complete disgrace, full of lies and unpleasant innuendo. As was pointed out in the hearing, the reason Southwark did not contact the CWGC initially was that it had no idea that there were so many pre 1917 burials of soldiers in the cemetery - it knew of only a handful - the number was remarked on by all as surprising. Most people believed that it was the Commission who was responsible for all war burials (as it was for those overseas, albeit retrospectively). And those (the CWG) were all thought to be known about in the Cemetery (and are not, and were never, under threat). But pre 1917, as I have said, burial was a local and often private decision, for those soldiers dying in hospitals locally.

For a group that hates the thought of modern burials (at least anywhere near you) you do seem to make a fetish of the (probably long disappeared) mortal remains of people unknown to you. Remember that, certainly for WW1 - many marked graves have unknown soldiers in them ('Known unto God'), and very many soldiers have no marked graves - their remains disappeared into the mud of Flanders and Ypres. We remember them all, and we don't need individual graves to do that.

Burial is for the living (those who remain) - the dead are long past caring. And it is for the living that keeping burial available in Southwark is so important.

Amended to add - but I'm really pleased that there is now some form of debate emerging, ssw (via Blanche) accepting the concept of listening and responding rather than just being in broadcast mode. Advice from Admin being listened to!

[oddlycurious]

The Friends Of Camberwell Cemeteries had no idea about war graves until they turned up in council documents, and this faux outrage at the treatment of 'our boys' is fooling no-one - it's another desperate dog whistle attempt to engage the less pleasant elements of the political spectrum.

[Blanche Cameron]

Penguin68

How do you know what was said in the Church directions hearing?

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods campaign

07731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Penguin68]

How do you know what was said in the Church directions hearing?

You have reported the findings yourself. Para 45 (Page 9) of the Petchey Consistory Court Ruling Camberwell Cemeteries to which you have made links indicates the general surprise evidenced that there were so many burials of war dead in Area Z. In this paragraph is also noted the broad approval to Southwark's proposals by the CWGC and the note (page 10) that 'the proposals..are respectful of those who died in the World Wars and who are buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery'.

[oddlycurious]

oh Penguin! He who shall not be named will have to start again with his game of Tinfoil Hat Guess Who? now.

[andrewc]

that's gotta hurt!

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> How do you know what was said in the Church

> directions hearing?

>

> You have reported the findings yourself. Para 45

> (Page 9) of the Petchey Consistory Court Ruling

> Camberwell Cemeteries to which you have made links

> indicates the general surprise evidenced that

> there were so many burials of war dead in Area Z.

> In this paragraph is also noted the broad approval

> to Southwark's proposals by the CWGC and the note

> (page 10) that 'the proposals..are respectful of

> those who died in the World Wars and who are

> buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery'.

[Blanche Cameron]

Penguin68:

No, that's the written ruling, not the hearing.

Even by the Church directions hearing in May 2016, Southwark Council still hadn't contacted the CWGC.

That was the only hearing - Chancellor Petchey threatened us with Southwark's legal costs if we continued to defend the trees and graves through the Consistory Court, forcing us to withdraw:

http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/church-wont-mention-the-trees/4592463596

This meant a full public hearing September 2016 could be cancelled - at which Southwark would have had to disclose 48 WW1/WW2 war graves on Area Z not the 6 they had listed, plus the WW1 soldier's grave on One Tree Hill Area D1.

Chancellor Petchey?s Feb 2017 ruling - the first announcement to anyone about 48 WW1/WW2 war graves in Area Z ? said it would be fine not to erect CWGC headstones to any of them:

http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/soldiers-headstones-not-needed/4593855997

Here's a photo of woods over thousands of graves that Southwark Council intends to dig up for 'new' burial plots over the dead next.

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemetreies / Save Southwark Woods campaign

07731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Penguin68]

No, that's the written ruling, not the hearing.

The findings are normally the written record of the hearing, with its results, as it clearly is in this case. I suppose there may be a verbatim record of the hearing, but, unless you are challenging the findings as not being relevant to the hearing the one is generally a good substitute for the other.

The burial of bodies in stacks (often 6 deep) is a tradition of London cemeteries - the way that Southwark plans to do it, with 75 years between one set (layer) of burials and the next is entirely acceptable to most.

And, for the record, much (not all) of the mounding around Langton Rise and Wood Vale was to counter regular water logging in that corner, rather than being over existing graves. Some of that mounding has been landscaped with planting (dogwood, inter alia) as a precaution against future water logging.

When you talk about 'having to disclose' burials you are hinting at conspiracy - nobody realised the burials were there (they were recorded but were not known to current officials) - remember most of the graves weren't marked, and were in an area entirely overgrown. Southwark officials would have assumed that war graves in the cemetery would be mainly those known and marked by the CWGC - who had clearly failed in their duty to discover all the pre 1917 burials in the UK. This was a much more difficult task, as these were in local cemeteries, whereas the war dead on the front had tended to be inhumed in dedicated burial grounds where only war dead were located.

And war graves are just one of your many red herrings. Had you stuck to your arguments about ceasing burial of anyone in inner London boroughs and wilding existing graveyards I wouldn't have agreed with you, but I would at least have respected a consistent argument which could be put forward as honestly held. But the fact that you are prepared to try to force your way with any specious, spurious (and entirely intellectually dishonest) argument makes it impossible to respect your group or its views - and especially not its tactics.

[andrewc]

Blanche, I suggest you give up and ask penguin what changes he/she would suggest in the way Southwark are handling this thing and go with that. Everything else is just fluff.

I like looking at the picture though.

[oddlycurious]

Blanche, it's this sort of thing that doesn't help your cause:

That was the only hearing - Chancellor Petchey threatened us with Southwark's legal costs if we continued to defend the trees and graves through the Consistory Court, forcing us to withdraw

So the chancellor said if you continued to defend the trees you would have to pay Southwark's legal costs? or, and I'm guessing this is more likely, you were told that if you wished to continue your challenge you would be liable for costs if you were unsuccessful? That's not a threat, that's standard practice.