Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[Loz]

precious star Wrote:

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

> and also noticed that since they have been doing works lovely old stones of angels have had

> heads and wings knocked off!

Oh, good grief - it's the crap 'Angel of Southwark' gambit all over again.

[Sue]

Loz Wrote:

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

> precious star Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > and also noticed that since they have been doing

> works lovely old stones of angels have had

> > heads and wings knocked off!

>

> Oh, good grief - it's the crap 'Angel of

> Southwark' gambit all over again.

Ah, the "Angel of Southwark", that the council " ripped down" as the start of their destruction.

Which the council had actually removed in order to restore it.

That one?

ETA: For the avoidance of doubt, I don't work for the council either. I'm quite keen on the truth, though.

So I too would like to see some evidence that heads and wings have been knocked off by contractors working in the cemetery.

[Laur]

Having not read the apparent previous LONG threads Sue, it's strange that I have come to the same conclusion then isn't it...I too have lived very near to the cemetery for 30 years plus and have ancestors dating back to the turn of the century buried in there. I don't use the cemetery just as a walk through, but rather as a place to quietly remember my loved ones.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Laur Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > Penguin68 - 2 questions - Do you have any

> > relatives that are actually buried in that

> > cemetery and do you

> > work for Southwark Council?

> >

>

>

> Here we go again.

>

> Didn't take long, did it?

>

> Anybody who disagrees with this group's views must

> have some vested interest.

>

> Can I make a suggestion? Maybe read the previous

> very long thread on this issue which is in the

> lounge. That may give you some useful background

> information, including that Penguin68 does not

> work for the council.

>

> But even if he or she did, would that make their

> points less valid? And if so, why?

[nxjen]

Laur Wrote:

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

> Having not read the apparent previous LONG threads

> Sue, it's strange that I have come to the same

> conclusion then isn't it...

You might find it illuminating to read the previous thread.

> I don't use the cemetery just as

> a walk through, but rather as a place to quietly

> remember my loved ones.

Southwark Council's proposals ensure the future of the cemetery as a place to quietly remember loved ones whereas ssw's ultimate aims are to end burials in both cemeteries. I wonder have you read Southwark Council's proposals or if you are relying on information from others.

[Sue]

Laur Wrote:

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

> Having not read the apparent previous LONG threads

> Sue, it's strange that I have come to the same

> conclusion then isn't it...

As your conclusion is wrong, like so much of the misinformation spread around on this issue, perhaps you'd like to share how you came to it.

If you don't have time to read the previous thread where much of this misinformation was put right, maybe you should hold off making (and posting) such conclusions until you do have time?

[HopOne]

And Sue, while we are at it, perhaps you could consider that just because someone says something you disagree with, does not mean that they are part of any group!

[nxjen]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> And Sue, while we are at it, perhaps you could

> consider that just because someone says something

> you disagree with, does not mean that they are

> part of any group!

No one is suggesting that Laur is part of a group (though of course she may well be!). However, the ssw campaign has been very vocal and has attempted a high media profile for their cause. Many may have been influenced by it, and believed what ssw have said without critically evaluating it, and like Zak Goldsmith, have swallowed it whole.

(Sorry Sue, I know you can speak for yourself, I just couldn't hold it in!)

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> And Sue, while we are at it, perhaps you could

> consider that just because someone says something

> you disagree with, does not mean that they are

> part of any group!

Where have I said that?

Several people posting on here who are opposed to the council's plans have made it clear that they are not part of the Save Southwark Woods organisation.

Including, I believe, yourself, and certainly Panda Boy.

I'm not sure what relevance it has whether they belong to SSW or not, except that alignment with that group could be seen as implicitly agreeing with the group's questionable campaign tactics.

So far as I am concerned, I just want a non emotive, objective discussion about the facts. What do you want?

I am still waiting to see some evidence that heads and wings have recently been knocked off angels by council contractors, for example, as claimed above.

Is this what the poster above is referring to?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1544552,1547768#msg-1547768

Oh, and I'm also waiting to see how somebody comes to the conclusion that a poster "works for the council" because they are in broad agreement with the reasons for a decision the council have made.

By that logic, they would probably conclude that most of the population have "worked for the council" at some time :))

ETA: And this isn't a black and white issue, although many people on here would like you to believe that it is.

Considering everything involved and concluding that the council's plans are on balance the best way forward does not make one a "tree hater", for example.

And now I'm stepping away from my laptop and off to do other things.

[HopOne]

Sue, this is where:

"Here we go again.

Didn't take long, did it?

Anybody who disagrees with this group's views must have some vested interest. "

Please don't start this again - we are attempting a rational discussion and there is no need to take sides. Yes, you are right it is not a black and white issue so please take some of your own medicine, by jumping on posts like this it is just inflammatory. There is nothing wrong with what the SSW campaign are doing, and as I thought I had made clear before, I am thankful to them for putting the issue in the public domain. I have only marginal disagreements with their proposals but utterly reject what Southwark council are trying to do.

[fruityloops]

I don't use it as a place to quietly remember my loved ones, but I am sure that if I did, then I would much sooner have visited the overgrown tree part of the cemetery than the sterile and clinical designs being put forward by the council, and as a local resident (I can see the former woods from my bedroom window) it deeply saddens me to see what devastation has already taken place. It looks terrible, as it is, and terrible as it is planned.

[taper]

Fruityloops

Agree entirely.

[Laur]

As someone who actually uses the cemetery to mourn loved ones, I agree entirely Fruityloops.

fruityloops Wrote:

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

> I don't use it as a place to quietly remember my

> loved ones, but I am sure that if I did, then I

> would much sooner have visited the overgrown tree

> part of the cemetery than the sterile and clinical

> designs being put forward by the council.

[dbboy]

People may not like it but change is inevitable and actual is for the better. Previous posts have moaned about "sterile car park like cemeteries" they may look sterile when new but give it 30+ years and row upon row of lawned graves look neat and tidy. It also means that maintaining the lawns are much easier for the cemetery staff and you don't get or encourage any part to become overgrown scrub, unusable and eventually access being denied.

If you really want to see what unkept, untidy and overgrown looks like in late summer, go and have a look at the old parts of Ladywell or Hither Green Cemeteries when they look an absolute disgrace, embarrassment, and disrespectful to those whose graves they are.

[nxjen]

The plans are to accommodate future requirements, that those who are bereaved in the future are able to bury and visit their loved ones locally. I don't understand why those who are able to do this now wish to deny this to those who will suffer loss in the future.

[HopOne]

dbboy, do you think that Nunhead cemetery looks disgraceful? Or even disrespectful? I think the old graves being gradually absorbed by nature is rather distinguished.

The reference to "sterile car park like cemeteries" is apt, not just aesthetically, but because such environments have very little biodiversity. "Untidy" scrub beats that hands down in this respect.

[nxjen]

The comparison with Nunhead Cemetery is inappropriate as there are very few burials taking place there now. Southwark's plans for Camberwell New and Old Cemeteries is to keep them as operational cemeteries.

[dbboy]

Yes

"Untidy" scrub beats that hands down in this respect."

biodiversity?? we are surrounded with green space, scrub is overgrowth that should be cut back just as the Council are rectifying yeas of their neglect. I do not really want to be walking over peoples graves to enjoy greenery, give me parks, playing fields, One Tree Hill or The Great North Wood. But then protesters love scrub.

[HopOne]

Not all environments have the same biodiversity value. Natural woodland, which in this case includes scrub too, is very rich in this regard. We should be preserving what woodland we have, it is a precious resource.

[taper]

"The comparison with Nunhead Cemetery is inappropriate as there are very few burials taking place there now. Southwark's plans for Camberwell New and Old Cemeteries is to keep them as operational cemeteries."

It is very appropriate. My view is that COC should be wound down as an active cemetery. CNC I'm less concerned about, subject to the border with OTH being dealt with sympathetically.

And this does not mean letting COC become overgrown. The older areas, where woods are becoming established, should be managed in the same way Nunhead or Abney Park cemetery in Stoke Newington are.

The local burial issue is fair enough to a point. But that point isn't where it means destroying old elements of a cemetery that have become of value beyond their original purpose.

Sooner or later, the solution will be to develop large cemeteries where land is cheaper and more plentiful.

In my home town, I don't think any of my relatives are buried within ten miles of where they lived. And land is far cheaper there.

[nxjen]

I guess we'll just have to disagree. Glad to see an unemotive, coherent and logical argument.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Sue, this is where:

>

> "Here we go again.

>

> Didn't take long, did it?

>

> Anybody who disagrees with this group's views must

> have some vested interest. "

> Please don't start this again

I didn't "start it again".

The people who "started it again" were those who, for example:

1. Suggested that a poster who disagreed with their viewpoint must be a councillor

and

2. Said that heads and wings have been knocked off statues by recent workers in the cemetery.

Neither of those posters have come back to explain those statements or provide any evidence for them.

If the people opposed to the council's plans want their views to have some credibility, then they should publicly disassociate themselves with such posters, wouldn't you say?

Because unfortunately this kind of misinformation has a way of being repeated, for example on forums like this, and then lots of people start to believe it is true.

And sign petitions, for example, based on those beliefs, without having any inkling of the true facts (person isn't a councillor. Heads and wings have not been knocked off) or realising that there is a strong case to be made for the council proceeding with their plans.

Or do you disagree?

[Azira]

Sue, I read HOPone as objecting to you making the assumption that anyone doing the "you lot must have a vested interest" line was part of the "group" i.e. SSW.

[Azira]

As an ambivalent observer, it looks like some members both the pro- and con- sides of this argument are apt to throw about blanket statements, set up straw men, make unhelpfully emotive statements and/or make uncorrelated inferences (not pointing the finger at anyone in particular). Even some of those who seem to think they are sticking to the facts.

As those who oppose this project don't appear to be likely to ever be swayed by the arguments of those against and vice versa, and the factual forest is once again getting lost in the trees for those of us who are undecided, just wondering what the point of this discussion is now?

[Penguin68]

Sadly I think there might have been a media via which would have upset fewer people even if it satisfied (wholly) none.

Campaigning to keep at least some of the wild area in COC (perhaps over the hillock now exposed) whilst allowing the planned re-use elsewhere, but with clear oversight of, and participation with the council in terms of the planned landscaping and replanting might have led to a better (and less bitter) outcome.

Opposing, in its entirety, the council plan for re- and continued use of the cemeteries, despite the past research and consultation which resulted in this being determined to be at least the least worse option ? together with the concomitant furore which has not been a close friend to truth at times ? attempting, indeed, at the last minute to entirely re-set the agenda, has led to this being a, frankly, pointless and sterile confrontation ? not helped by a suspicion that it is being used to fuel material in someone?s performing career.

Most of us, I suspect, who broadly support (with reservations and concerns about delivery) our elected council?s decisions have only come in to the debate to attempt to refute clear misinformation and exaggeration, which might lead others to support a cause for the wrong (i.e. not true) reasons. At a time when polls and petitions are trumping informed debate, ensuring that these are not being conducted through hyperbole and untruth is important to some.

[kiera]

There is a lot of point. The council are clearing and reusing areas on a rolling programme agreed by cabinet in 2012 and based on a consultation of mostly Lewisham residents. They did not consult residents around Camberwell Old Cemetery and it didn't occur to them that anyone living nearby might care about the woodland or wildlife. A lot of local residents DO care and want to have a say in how the cemeteries are managed for trees and wildlife. The council have amended their plans several times due to public objections, so the strategy will have to be reviewed by cabinet, probably this year. I would hope that the opinions of local residents will be