Loz

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The tree they cut down is only a few feet from the edge of Area Z which means it is on consecrated > ground. They don't have permission to cut down trees on consecrated ground. That is why i > mentioned it. Not necessarily. The map from the report (below) shows there is an area there that is not consecrated. Although most of that area was consecrated, squares 105, 106 and 107 (i.e. inside the dashed box) are not, so it really depends on exactly where the trees are. Also, a 4m strip along the Underhill Rd boundary and a 12.5m strip along the northern boundary is not consecrated, either.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There have been numerous attempts to present facts objectively on this and other threads. These seem > to have been drowned out by highly emotive responses from people who support the council's plans. I missed this little gem from earlier. Satire, shurely?

One of your tweets, Lewis, showed the tree stump and the words 'feet from boundary'. What boundary?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes yes yes, but more importantly, did Lewis chain > himself to anything today? Oh, yes. There's a picture on the SSW twitter feed. Judging by the look on Lewis' face, I think the digger just gave him an almighty wedgie.

When there is nothing on the TV, I often nip over to Vintage TV (Freesat 505, Sky 369, Freeview 242, V*rgin 343). Great for hearing (and seeing) old stuff you had forgotten about.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, the Dulwich Estate's only aim is to maximise > income in order to subsidise a number of elite > schools. Charity eh? Christ?s Chapel and the Dulwich Almshouse Charity aren't schools. Central Foundation School and St Saviour?s & St Olave?s Schools aren't, AFAIK, elite.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Weirdly, the foundation is St Olave?s & St > > Saviour?s but the school is St Olave?s & St > > Saviour?s. > > Shome mishtake here, shurely Oops! Yes. Now fixed.

Based on the twitter feed, Lewis chained himself to a digger. the police were called (not sure by whom) and at least one tree was felled.

Weirdly, the foundation is St Olave?s & St Saviour?s but the school is St Saviour?s and St Olave?s. Obviously, Olave and Saviour had a bitter feud about who got first billing and this was the solution. These saintly types let their halos slip every now and again.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blimey, it is easy to wind up Guardian readers. I think you proved that to us a long time ago.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is not just SSW. The Diocese have said they don't have permission to do what the say there are > going to do. It is not up to the Council to to decide what is legal and what is not. It is up the > Police and Courts. If you read the report, the council has gone quite deeply into the legalities of the works. But yes, the courts (not the police) are the ultimate arbiter, but they won't consider the matter until someone puts the case in front of them. SSW seems to be hoping that the Diocese will go to the time and expense of this, but Lewis' posts seem to suggest they don't seem keen on this idea. So, unless SSW stump up the dough (see what I did there, Otta?) and engage a lawyer, the courts will not intervene. Therefore the council will proceed (quite rightly) under the legal advice they have been given.

DadOf4 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just signed this. > > This story makes my blood boil. The Dulwich estate > has two primary functions: > > (1) to educate "12 poor scholars? > > (2) to conserve and protect the heritage of this > area Actually, if you go to the Charities Commission and search for Dulwich Estates, you will see that DE has ONE function which it must, by law, fulfil: "To manage the endowment assets of the charity in the long term interests of all the beneficiaries of the charity. This is measured by the increase in the annual income distribution to the beneficiaries and the maintenance of the value of net assets." The beneficiaries of the charity are:

Anyway, I don't 'trawl' the Guardian - as has been noted here many times, I read the Guardian. For all its faults, it still has the best news coverage for a UK newspaper. Unfortunately (though often amusingly), it also has the most bats**t-crazy and reality challenged columnists and opinion writers for a UK newspaper. And, yes, they do print things that deserve to be highlighted and mocked on a semi-regular basis. Besides, I think any sane person would think Alanis Morrisette's advice was dangerous and should not have been printed.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you hate the Guardian, yet you trawl it for examples of infuriating articles, which you then link to on here? A better question would be why someone would read a thread call 'God I hate the Guardian' and then express surprise at the content of the thread.

Bastie007 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Extrapolate that out and a wealthier person with no connection to the area moves in, and the social > mix of the area begins to change. With the current governments intention of allowing Housing > Association tenants the right to buy the social mix changes completely - the people who run the > local shops and bars can no longer live in the local area because it's untenable for them to buy > there and the sense of cohesion goes - leaving us with any other anonymous collection of shops and > streets - which is quite the opposite of what that community wanted in the first place. Except that the current set of shops (mostly) came after the influx of wealthier homeowners that happened in the early to mid 90s.

Out of interest, how many people on the protest, Gadder?

Get an ageing pop star with no qualifications whatsoever to dish out advice to vulnerable people... what could possibly go wrong? First up: here's a 14 year old pupil developing an obsession for her teacher. Alanis' advice: "try and arrange some one-on-one tutorials with this teacher". Holy crap. How irresponsible was it publishing this? http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/29/ask-alanis-obsessed-with-my-teacher-what-can-i-do

or N.O.R.W.I.C.H.

Lewis, You are avoiding the point - that just about every cemetery in the UK (including your preferred alternative at Kemnal Park) will have the same conditions. There is nothing special about Southwark's plans. But you don't care about other cemeteries, do you? This sudden 'concern' about graves is just desperately grasping for something - anything - to beat Southwark up with. It's rather disingenuous, to say the least.

Ok, here's where you have it wrong: > The plan is to cut down the woods in the 12 acres and mound over the public graves. Wrong - the plan is to cut some of the trees and plant some more. Not to 'cut down the woods'. Mounding over the public graves is not in the plan up to 2022. > And probably won't understand that they don't have the grave in perpetuity. Only 50 years (or 100 for only another ?1350 You don't know that they won't be told - that's just speculation. And besides, current burial law in the United Kingdom stipulates that graves of all types cannot be sold for more than 100 years anywhere. This also applies in your chosen 'alternative', Kemnal Park Cemetery. They offer leases for as little as 25 years and a maximum of 100. > And then the council digs the person out of the ground, digs the hole deeper, then gentle and respectfully > dump the remains back in the hole, and place a new body on top. A very over-emotional way of describing what will happen from now on in most cemeteries in any part of the UK. > Sold off - sorry, leased off - to some unsuspecting family - - probably an immigrant family, which > Southwark Labour says it cares so deeply about - an immigrant family unfamiliar with 50 year leases > and being buried on top of the dead. OK, this is just racist. > What am not getting here? Southwark Council is reusing Cemetery Land and selling it off a new. What you aren't getting is that this is happening across the UK. It is now standard procedure. Southwark will be no different to anywhere else. Any of your burial alternatives will be just the same. You are railing against Southwark for doing what just about every council has to do now that burial spaces are almost all full.

Maybe, but we can stop talking about 're-use' and 'mounding over' in terms of the current work as it is utterly irrelevant.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have been told that 48,000 of working people's > graves on the Area Z site alone. 220,000 to > 300,000 in entire Old Cemetery. > > The Council is digging up or mounding over the > poor because they don't need permission from > families to go ahead. Having just skimmed through the report, reuse of grave sites is not in the short term plan (i.e. up to 2022). So all this talk of reuse and mounding over is not applicable for about a decade.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Statistically, it is about 75:25 motorist:cyclist > at fault so yes, you can see where that arises. > Source: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study As a general rule of thumb, if a Guardian article does not link directly to to a report that it is analysing, it's probably hiding something. Here's a good analysis of that report from a reliable, unbiased website. https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^this. But also, let's do stop having these threads - it's clear that some people have a > pathological dislike of cyclists and are convinced against all evidence to the contrary, that cycling > poses a huge danger to other road users. We get it. there are plenty of threads on it. Let's stop now. It's also clear that some people have a pathological dislike of motorists. And actually, as pointed out above, I think cycling's biggest danger is to the cyclists themselves. It's just that too many of them refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and safety. It's always someone else's fault. But, yes, stopping these threads would be a good idea.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "you are one of 'those' sorts of cyclists to whom all motor vehicles are inherently evil and > at-fault for everything." > > Not sure how you'd think you know me well enough to conclude that. Well, you are right, sort of - I can only judge you on the silly things you've written. You might actually be sensible and reasonable in real life - someone who doesn't blame motor vehicles for each and every accident. But I doubt it.