Loz

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But there is some hope it appears. Harriet Harman and Zac Goldsmith are now publicly > demanding the work to be stopped until more answers have been provided by the council and > further independent studies made. Harman made a couple of quite reasonable suggestions, whereas Goldsmith has come over as a complete gullible fool who has believed just about all of SSW's propaganda. I was quite undecided between Goldsmith and Khan for mayor - he's made it quite a simple choice for Khan for me now.

I remember reading somewhere that the cricketer, Chris Jordan, went to Dulwich College under either a scholarship or a bursary.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @HarrietHarman calls on @lb_southwark to stop > destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries. > https://t.co/vYQfn3oPEe No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for further drainage reports to be completed and for a graphic to be updated. You really have an amazing ability to mound over a molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis.

DadOf4 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree that ED is not "in the Dulwich estate" - but if anybody here usees any sports facilities or > shops on their patch - you're indirectly funding these schools. > > I find that hard to swallow Well, stop doing it then.

Well, that went well.

Strange - I'd only ever known the Alice Cooper version.

Well, Panda Boy, we can argue about numbers all day. I think we can agree to disagree on that one. > So you would have noticed that these plans were initially intended to be implemented in 2022, and > have been pushed forward to now. Silence from the council as to why. I would have thought even a > simple explanation would have been offered, but they are incapable of answering this relatively > simple question. But they have. Over on their FAQ page they have stated: "Burial space in Southwark will run out sometime in early to mid-2017 if the council takes no action." > Also describing the issue in such a myopic way tends to shut down any kind of compromise that > could be available. You see Loz this is one of my main bugbears with this. At no time have the > council offered to discuss any compromise whatsoever that could actually suit all, or at > least most parties involved. Actually, I kind of agree with you on this - and it's something that I think SSW have exacerbated as they seem to have a 'no compromise' stance as well. Two sides with no intention of budging from their positions. Maybe, just maybe, if you had been leading the charge instead of Lewis there would be more sympathy generated around here. You certainly have a better grasp of the issues and a better manner of communication. But, frankly, as you see from his last posts, Lewis hasn't exactly won the hearts and minds around here with his endless stream of quarter-truths and outright fiction. If there ever was a exemplar on how not to conduct a campaign, this would be it.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, for instance, is an undertaker (or is it called a funeral director?). Shewill benefit > directly from cutting down trees to make more plots available in the cemeteries. She should say > that upfront and in every post so new people can see that. Ha ha. You are not exactly Sherlock Holmes, are you Lewis? :)) I am not (and never have been) in the undertaker or funeral direction business. In any way. At all. Nor anything remotely connected. Unless 'IT Consultant' actually meant 'In-Terred' Consultant and no one told me. But if you really, really want I can add "Not in the funeral business and never have been" to my posts. But you have to say "please" first. Oh, and 'she' is actually a 'he'. Your serious in-depth investigation - sorry, "wild guess" - didn't even get that right. I think we can safely assume that the rest of your great expos? earlier - "one of those posters works for the council, one is married to a Councillor, a couple work for the cemetery, one is an undertaker or funeral director, one main poster works for a major Council contractor" is just all one big lie that you made up on the spot. A bit like "Southwark Woods", in fact. For someone with such a deep love of trees, Lewis, you always seem to be barking up the wrong one.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I thought that would be obvious - numbers. Why should a 1M person petition be ignored, but a 10k > > petition be immediately taken notice of? > > They are measures of public opinion. Yes, both use numbers to count people who have signed, that > is pretty much the only similarity. If you seriously cannot see the difference between these > two issues then I cannot help you understand this any more. OK, so therefore can we conclude that numbers - whatever they may be - are not the point here, but you complaint is that the council is refusing to consider this particular issue? See, that's just not objective. You are clouded by the issue. You don't want the council to take petitions in general seriously - you just want the council to take THIS petition seriously. > Now i'm starting to laugh at someone who thinks a petition to reinstate a tv personality assaulting > his boss and a petition to stop the council developing a contentious area are in any way > similar because they both use numbers as a counting system. Really? It was a useful and effective tool in pointing out that you are seeking special treatment for this one petition. Simply that. > > It's notable that, for all these thousands of 'supporters' they claim, SSW can barely get 50 > > people out on a weekend. > > What exactly are you suggesting here? That there is some fraud involved now? Why be so coy? Just > come out and say what you mean. Not at all - I am merely saying that support for the SSW cause is not as strong as the number of petition signatories would initially suggest. > I'm glad you have read the reports. So do you think the current plans to fit rows of > graves, as tightly packed as they can be, in keeping with the rest of the cemetery? > Do you think the contaminated ground should be cleaned on site or off site? > How do you feel about the drainage issue? The council are being oddly quiet about this. > Do you think costings done on this in 2011/12 are still relevant now? The report is really quite detailed, covering in depth the environmental issues and the legal issues. The work they have done in establishing just what lies buried in there is really quite impressive. Yes, the plans were done a few years ago, but that's not unusual in a long term project like this. Unless parameters significantly change, most costs will rise in line with a quite predictable factor, and I can't see that those parameters have changed. What would change them is a significant delay, which SSW are trying to force on them, which is why I think the council is keen to push on. Councils are duty bound to consider the impact of all the things you mention, by law. Again, if people think that the council is not upholding the law in this regard then they have a solution - get an injunction. All the shouting at the council, tweeting of rude messages to council leaders and staging inadvertently comical parades and stunts in the world will not change the councils mind. Only an injunction will do that. > > The council plans to upgrade cemeteries - they started as cemeteries, they will end up as a > > cemeteries. No great surprise or issue there. I have no problem with re-using graves or mounding > > over - in fact I think that given the lack of burial space it is a very practical idea. > > Yes indeed. When you reduce the issue to such simplistic terms then who could possibly disagree? > > Unfortunately things are sometimes more complicated than this. I don't think they are. When you pare down the habit of SSW to wildly grasp any possible issue that might help them (today: building rubble), it comes down to a council that want to renew a cemetery vs a group of people who want to keep an area they like walking in. Reburial, mounding over of graves, grave leases, drainage, using building rubble, non-existent birds who build their nests in January are all issues that would not normally concern the protesters, but they see as a convenient tool to save their trees. So it really just comes down to old trees vs new graves. And at some point someone - in this case the council - had to make a decision. Some people won't like that decision, some people will, most actually won't care either way. Those that don't like it can try and change the council's mind, but it is pretty clear they're not getting very far on this. So, they can either carry on protesting fruitlessly until the work is complete or, if they do have the strong legal argument they claim they have, go out and legally stop the work via an injunction.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm struggling to see the connection between an guy on TV who was sacked for punching his producer > with a petition signed by people local to an issue that affects them directly. Just saying they're > both petitions and thats that is puerile in the extreme. I thought that would be obvious - numbers. Why should a 1M person petition be ignored, but a 10k petition be immediately taken notice of? You're the one that made a big song and dance about the number of people that have signed the SSW petition - either numbers matter or they don't. Your call. Besides, petition are notoriously poor at conveying what people actually think on an issue. It's been proved time and time again: it's all in how you phrase the question. Go around with two petitions, one saying "Do you support saving the trees from being cut down" and the other, "Do you support the provision of burial spaces in Southwark for Southwark residents", then you will get a significant number of people happily sign both petitions, even though they actually represent diametrically opposite opinions as far as this issue goes. It's notable that, for all these thousands of 'supporters' they claim, SSW can barely get 50 people out on a weekend. Do you really want the council to comply with every single petition that they get sent? That's a recipe for chaos. Or is it, as I suspect, you want the council to comply with every petition that you sign? As I said, if you really think the council has transgressed the rules, then get together an injunction. > Without wanting to get bogged down in semantics of what the definition of a valid petition is, have > you actually seen the plans and renders of what the council want to achieve? Are you happy with them? If you read the post the other day where I pointed out the technicalities of the report that showed where Lewis made a mistake in assuming all the cemetery was consecrated ground, you might have twigged I have actually read through the report. The council plans to upgrade cemeteries - they started as cemeteries, they will end up as a cemeteries. No great surprise or issue there. I have no problem with re-using graves or mounding over - in fact I think that given the lack of burial space it is a very practical idea. Now if the plan was to dig up, say. Dulwich Park or Peckham Rye then I'd be in complete agreement with you. But working on a cemetery to make it usable as a cemetery for the foreseeable future is hardly an outrageous idea.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sorry to say your dismissal of the number of people who have expressed an opinion against these > plans is strange, and your comparison with a petition to keep a TV personalty on TV is utterly > irrelevant. We're talking about over 3,500 people in the borough who have expressed an opinion. If > you wish to discount over 10,000 people outside the borough then fine. Why are you so willing, > and quite frankly who are you to ignore the opinions of 3,500 people? You want it both ways. Either petitions mean something or they don't - you can't say a petition of 13,500 must be acted upon just because you believe in the cause, but a petition of a million can be safely ignored because you don't. That's just hypocrisy. > At least it's all giving you a good laugh though eh? Absolutely.

But in your first post, you complained they are "wasting valuable funds", yet what you want them to do is waste more funds to repeat the entire exercise simply because the people against the project don't want it to go ahead and are grasping for whatever stalling tactic will work? Do you really think yet another consultation and yet more expensive reports are going to unearth anything new? I don't know what the council promised/said/intimated to you or how it was said, but SSW haven't entirely been blameless either. There have been a lot of 'mistaken assertions' on here and on twitter (i.e. the 'illegal work' comments that were almost certainly wrong). The main problem I can see is that SSW haven't come up with a suitable alternative. The council knows that they are either going to get grief now, for doing the cemetery work, or grief later when burial spots in Southwark run out. They can't keep everyone happy. I know there has been a petition, but frankly, you can get 10000 signatures for anything these days. Hell, well over a million people signed a petition to get Jeremy Clarkson reinstated, but that never happened. If SSW do have a high level of support and think the council has erred in law then get the cash together from the supporter base and get a proper injunction. If you are right, you can have the work stopped in 24 hours. Anyway, back to your original point, I'm not going to apologise for anything I have posted. I find the whole approach of SSW extraordinarily amusing, especially Lewis' wildly emotional writing. Today's two mis-tweetings (snowboarder Jenny Jones and Peter John of New York, who actually replied) have made me laugh out loud. That fellow, in completely bad taste, running around a cemetery dressed as the Grim Reaper is almost pythonesque. It's all ruddy brilliant.

Most supermarkets offer 'price checks' of various sorts, which are mostly smoke and mirrors, since they miss so much stuff under the guise of "no equivalent product". I had an online delivery yesterday where the price check seemed suggest that no other supermarket sells a kilo bag of carrots. Even so, Sainsbury's used to do their price match against a range of supermarkets. They recently changed this to check against ASDA only. That probably tells you all you need to know about their competitiveness.

OK, I'll bite - exactly how did the council "lie to get their own way"

It's like a Ealing comedy via twitter! SSW turn up at main gate, mystery man blocks entrance with large vehicle, all run around to side entrance instead. Meanwhile, Jon/Dan Snow's brother manages to get himself arrested. For some reason, original plan then reinstated and all the SSWers run back to main entrance. 25-30 people (at least one dressed as the Grim Reaper) plus three dogs, all running around trying to get into a cemetery. You can almost hear 'Yakkity Sax' being played in the background...

Try taking your SIM out, give it a quick wipe with a soft cloth and replacing.

Most amusing tweet to SSW for today: "Sorry I can't make it. BTW, you might want to contact @GreenJennyJones not snowboarding Jenny [Jones]."

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Announcement > > Funeral for the Trees and Bushes (and flowers and grasses, too) If you decide to go for cremation, can we bring sausages and marshmallows? I do love a good BBQ.

Some things are beyond satire.

It sounds like the time issue won't be a valid grounds of appeal for you, given your statutory declaration. You may have more luck with lack of evidence given the pictures you describe, though you need to check the re-issued PCN to see if you are still allowed to appeal. It may be that this is not an option given what has gone on before. AFAIK, you have to appeal to TFL first, get turned down (as you will), then take it to the London Tribunals. I understand you can ask to view all the pictures, but you have to go into TFL offices in person.

I thought you didn't want any more funerals there? :))

Is the date of issue/reissue of the PCN more than 28 days after them date the incident occurred? If so, you will almost certainly win an appeal. ETA: Actually, since it is over six months after the incident before they got the PCN to you, you're a dead cert to win an appeal.

I think I read somewhere it was a bit of creative accounting, where not only the child was counted, but their parents, brothers, sisters, other family members etc, on account they were also 'helped' by them working with a single child.

Where did you move from? If it was outside London you'll probably need to do a retune. (In fact, that won't hurt anyway as the channels are constantly changing.)

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today Southwark continued to cut down trees and wild undergrowth - this in our backyard. For what? > For a few years of burial. Shame on us all for letting this happen. Anyone notice that yesterday's buzzword - 'illegal' - has disappeared? I think Lewis has worked out that Southwark is currently working on unconsecrated ground.