Of course Southwark are also cutting down every tree in the cemeteries they use that are owned by the Diocese of Southwark - who don't care, incidentally.
That is simply put, a complete lie. The cemeteries are municipally owned - they contain consecrated areas which are part administered by the Diocese (because of the consecration) but they form NO PART of Church land. Neither is 'every' tree being cut down. Some scrub trees (and trees growing through graves) have been removed to allow full utilisation of the graveyards for interments - equally, numbers of new trees have been planted. And the the Diocese has considered applications from pressure groups and have dismissed them - that is not the same as saying they don't care, as they undertook due process.
Southwark undertakes no work on graveyards associated with churches, which are owned by the Church.
This is a revival of an old (and I would have hoped now exploded) set of tropes by a pressure group.
Amended to say, apologies for my harshness if you are repeating something you have read/ heard elsewhere, rather than propagating this myth afresh (but it's still not true!).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was august 20, 11:41am by Penguin68.
Actually you are not totally factually correct but as you are so high handed and a bit too aggressive for me, I would just tell people to look for themselves, and try and find some photos of what these cemeteries looked like before Southwark cleared them. Additionally, as the new burial plots are mostly for Jewish and Muslim burials, they have ignored the fact that those religions do not allow for a burial to take place in such old plots. If you love the way Nunhead Cemetery has been conserved, then you should mourn what Southwark Council have done. Incidentally, they failed to get permission from the Diocese, who should have been consulted before, not during, clearance. And you may want to ask just how that worker got away with selling space for toxic waste to be dumped at the end of Ryedale gardens.
Principally the trees in our Borough help fight the pollution we all breathe, and provide an ecological oasis for species of plants, animals and insects. What is wrong with that?
Just for information - the Diocese has no rights over tree clearance in non Church graveyards at all. It's rights concern how land which has been consecrated (much of the cemeteries are not consecrated ground) may be re-used (either mounding up or disinterring) for further burials and regarding the disposal or re-use of grave markers, and over the creation of new paths within consecrated areas - that because it is use of previously consecrated ground for non burial (i.e. pathway) purposes.
Tree preservation (or not) within municipal cemeteries is the purview of the local council. What Southwark council has done is to clear some areas where the graves are old, uncared for and in some cases inaccessible so that additional burials can be made - the numbers of new burials in the cemeteries are a clear indication of how welcome this in fact is. If you do visit these cemeteries (I live within 2 minutes walk of one of them) you will still find a huge and extended planting of trees still extant.
The 'protesters' mistook church rules about trees in church cemeteries/ graveyards (on church land) as applying also to consecrated areas in municipal cemeteries. They don't.
> Of course Southwark are also cutting down every
> tree in the cemeteries they use that are owned by
> the Diocese of Southwark - who don't care,
Oh please don't start all this again.
Or if you must a) Do it on another thread (preferably on another forum) and b) Provide evidence for your statements.
Keep up Metallic! My post asked for clarification how Penguiun’s post regarding ownership of the cemeteries and church involvement was “not factually correct” and your sources for any response. But I think you know that.
You’re just trying to divert attention! You still haven’t answered my question, neither does the BBC film. I am aware this is off topic which is regarding the felling of oak trees in Sydenham Hill Wood so will not be posting again.
In near to Peckham A Tree has been cut to half now a stump
You do need to find out why this happened. Trees, particularly in parkland, will be removed if they are diseased/ damaged such that they pose a risk to park users. Equally tree management means that trees can be pollarded - which looks brutal but where certain trees (suitable for this treatment) will come back invigorated but with a much smaller spread of branches, which can often be necessary in streets/ where there are power lines etc. Removing trees is expensive, so councils will not normally do so without good reason. You say 'near to Peckham' - is this on public land? If not the removal may be nothing to do with the council. Sometimes a tree are removed where it can be shown, or believed, to be damaging buildings.