Loz

Missjojo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We're having trouble with BT too - how can I run > these tests you're talk about? Try http://www.speedtest.net/

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You find a whole cooked chicken in Peter John's fridge. He promises that he is going to eat just > one leg (it's not the nice leg, either) and says he has no plans at this time to eat the rest. > > Sorry, but Peter John is gonna eat the whole chicken. So, in other words, all the stuff you've claimed the council is going to do with the cemetery is based on absolutely nothing but your own fevered imagination? If I was someone who bought into your campaign, I'd be feeling VERY pissed off right now. You've lied to them all, haven't you?

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also I don' really recognise your characterisation that pedestrian fatalities involving > motor-vehicles are resultant of doing something 'dumb/illegal' Of course you don't - you are one of 'those' sorts of cyclists to whom all motor vehicles are inherently evil and at-fault for everything. Some are motorists fault, some are pedestrians' fault, but you couldn't possibly widen your horizons to that sort of thinking, could you?

BrockleyRising Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If they need more land why do they need to remove trees completely from some areas. Why not clear lost of > small areas within the woods rather than whole swathes? That way, when you look up the hill from > HOP, you would still mainly see trees and the headstones would be mostly hidden. Ah, you've believed the SSW people's hype there. The council's FAQ page on the changes explains better: Rather significantly different to the vastly overbloated claims being made, no?

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Four times as many pedestrians are killed (than > cyclists) in road traffic accidents, so does that > make walking a dangerous activity? It makes walking in the vicinity of traffic dangerous, yes, of course. Who on earth would think otherwise? That's why we have loads and loads of safety education for people doing things like crossing the road, etc. It's why we teach pedestrians to take personal responsibility for their safety in this situations. If a pedestrian does something dumb/illegal and gets hit by a car or can or bike, we don't try to automatically shift blame to the other party (unlike, ahem, cyclists). > Surely there's a huge difference between being killed by and being killed whilst? I refer you back to the dancing on the M25 example.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cutting down 12 acres of woods, including trees on One Tree Hill 12 acres? That does not match the council documents. Prove it. > mounding over or digging up 1000s of graves Thousands? That does not match the council documents. Prove it. > removing the headstones and monuments of 1000s of graves Thousands? That does not match the council documents. Prove it.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No - over a hundred people are killed on bicycles a year, but it's not the cycling that does for > most of them, it's more commonly the motor-vehicle that ploughs into them doing the damage. Irrelevant argument. The number of deaths while cycling by definition makes cycling dangerous. Your argument would also mean dancing blindfolded in the middle of the M25 during peak hour is a perfectly safe thing to do.

It's not benign at all. Cycling kills over a hundred people a year, mostly the cycle riders themselves.

Over here in W London, I called Virgin last month. They are aware of our contention issues and even had a group call reference for the area, which has a *review* date of mid-March. Not a 'solution' date, but a 'review' date - i.e. they will have more information then. Totally unacceptable.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We asked the Church for an "injunction" to stop the works - their word. We wrote one out on the > spot and gave it to them, which I think surprised them. Whether it has the intended result, we will > see. My guess they didn't expect to get it and didn't want it! Is *that* what the tweet was about yesterday?? I was actually worried that you had gone through the expense of putting a proper injunction together. Instead, you wrote some rubbish on a bit of paper and called it an 'injunction'. Hilarious! Really, there is a very amusing comedy play or film bubbling away here. A sort of 'Spinal Tap' for the online petition generation.

I would say that if you claimed for the 7.45, yet your Oyster registered you entering the station at 8.30 you might just get a fraud charge thrown at you.

Sue, Don't know about TSB, but I jumped to First Direct a few years ago and have been very happy since. Also, I have an account with MetroBank and they are very friendly and open until late. Unfortunately, their nearest branch to ED is central London.

When, in years time, they look back at the 2010's decade, I really hope someone notes that, at the time, it was generally considered that there was no problem in the world, big or small, that could not be solved with an online petition.

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's mixed scrap, so leave it out and it'll go. > Chuck the glass rotating plate in the recycling bin. AFAIK toughened glass isn't welcome in the recycling - only jars and bottles.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Lewis can't respond right now. He's currently > > chained to a tree in a cemetary, singing Bob Dylan > > songs. > > And he's changed the title of "Blowing in the > Wind" to "Whistling in the Wind" :)) More likely he he's changed it to "Pissing in the Wind". >:D<

Not only that, but his website claims he is a 'local plumber', but doesn't actually say where he's based. A bit of digging shows he's not East Dulwich at all.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > You have proposed Kemnal Park cemetery in Bexley > > as an alternative. It's about a 90 min trip each > > way by public transport from ED. Add in the time > > spent in the cemetery, that would be about a four > > hour trip just to put flowers on a grave. > > I think that the fact it takes 90 min to travel > 5/6 miles on public transport maybe more of the > issue there. The solution to bad public transport > is better public transport - not chopping down > trees. > > It is a 20 min train from Peckham Rye to Eltham > and the Cemetery Manager at Kemnal Park said he > would be willing to put on a free shuttle service > to the station if there was demand. and > I think you said earlier that is it about choice. Well why not give people the choice? > Subsidize the out of borough burial at the same rate they are subsidizing in borough > burials. Let people decide themselves. I think for many in the borough the distance > would not be prohibitive and they might appreciate the lower cost. So your solutions to the travel problem don't actually exist. That's a bit like saying if all the pensioners had jetpacks it would be 10 minutes at the most. ED to Kemnal Park is a nightmare journey - all the wishes and hopes in the world won't change that. And talking about 'choice' is all well and good, but the SSW campaign is all about removing that choice. I'd be all for renewing the cemeteries AND cross subsidising out-of-borough burials. That seems quite a good solution. But that's not what the SSW people are proposing, is it? They want to stop people having that choice.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

Lewis, You are still avoiding my question. You have proposed Kemnal Park cemetery in Bexley as an alternative. It's about a 90 min trip each way by public transport from ED. Add in the time spent in the cemetery, that would be about a four hour trip just to put flowers on a grave. Do you really think it is acceptable to make old people to travel for four hours to put flowers on the graves of their loved ones? Isn't *that* thoroughly immoral?

I think this is what you are looking for, quids...

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...Fay Wray > > Don't dream it - be it ... Saturday night? When you dressed up sharp and you felt all right? Hmm. Mr O'Brien got a bit repetitive there.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you are buried in there now you will be dug up after 75 years. And your body will be in a > cemetery that every year gets uglier as trees are cut down and old graves are excavated. I really won't notice. As I don't have kids, they can probably safely re-inter me in another area, or chuck someone else in with me in about 40-50 years and probably no one - especially me - will be terribly bothered. Burying and headstones aren't for the dead - they are for the living. It's just part of the grieving process. I suspect more people will be more upset that their loved ones are buried too far away for them to visit in the emotionally vulnerable decade or so following their passing. A frail old lady realising that she will never be able to do the four-hour round trip to put flowers on her beloved life-long partner's grave would be devastating. Saying, "but hey! look at the tree we saved" will be no consolation to people like her whatsoever.

The SWW people have proposed Kemnal Park cemetery in Bexley as an alternative. It's about a 90 min trip each way by public transport from ED. Add in the time spent in the cemetery, that would be about a four hour trip just to put flowers on a grave. I think this is unacceptable. Would the pro-SSW people on here like to comment?

blimeyoreilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They have been rather silent on all of these points with the exception of publishing personal > correspondence re rent with them and Just Williams on this forum, something I consider to be deeply > unprofessional That's not correct, unless there is more than the single letter on the other thread. They went out of their way to NOT published personal correspondence - they just showed the parameters under which the rental rates are determined and confirmed these were kept to.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John Major works for Dulwich Estates! Is that what he's doing now. > I bet he doesn't raise the rent on local Currie houses. But they'll still probably get completely shafted!