Sue

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > To clarify, I doubt if any of those who have > written to challenge the hard line views of the > ssw pressure group, or to (broadly) support > Southwark's plans 'hate' nature. Most of us, > certainly I, actually quite like it. Which is why > we chose to walk, inter alia, in the cemeteries > and not the streets. But there is a balance to be > drawn between a love of nature and the needs of > those who (now,and in the future, not just the > past) want to inter and mourn their dead > reasonably locally to them (or to where their dead > have lived). And I can enjoy nature in the managed > part of the cemetery (which is where the parakeets > appear to have been roosting) as much, if not > more, than gloomy and overgrown scrub. And there > is very little 'natural' about trees sprouting > through open graves and fly-tipped spoil heaps > (particularly where these may, possibly, have been > contaminated by building asbestos). I might just > as well characterise those who support the ssw > campaign as 'people haters'. Indeed. Well said. We are lucky that there are many places locally to enjoy nature other than those which are actually cemeteries. But no, even if we walk in the woods and parks, as I do often, and sometimes the cemeteries too, we must still according to Precious Star "hate nature" if we think cemeteries should be used for their intended purpose of burying the dead.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Joeleg - totally agree, Pandaboy entered into a > meaningful, worthwhile and useful discussion, and > whilst I disagree with Pandaboy's point of view, > he raised solid arguments and was willing to read > through detailed documents to substantiate what he > was saying without ever using any emotive > language. I agree too.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Flamin Mangal > > Opening Hours > > MONDAY > 12:00 - 23:00 > TUESDAY > 12:00 - 23:00 > WEDNESDAY > 12:00 - 23:00 > THURSDAY > 12:00 - 23:00 > FRIDAY > 12:00 - 23:00 > SATURDAY > 12:00 - 23:00 > SUNDAY > 12:00 - 23:00 > > Foxy No use for when you're coming home in the early hours then :( Kebab and Stab it is, then :(

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I have loads of vouchers for 50p of a pint for > Weatherspoons from CAMRA. Never get round to using > them.. > Only 1 per visit. > Do you have to show a CAMRA membership card? If not, I'll have them :)) Wetherspoons do a great range of ales, and they keep them well too. I agree their food is pretty crap, but it's cheap and filling if you haven't got much money.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Excellent! See you Thursday! > > Hurray... > > Foxy I hope you are bringing your card tricks, Fox, that's the main reason I'm coming :)) :)) :))

Laur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am in no way part of SSW. These are my own > individual views and I don't speak as part of any > group. > I have been a Dulwich resident for 30 plus years, > my mother, grandparents & Great grandparents were > also Dulwich residents & I have visited Camberwell > Old Cemetery for many years because that is where > my relatives are laid to "rest". I hear that. So where will the present and future generations of your family be laid to rest, if land presently designated for burials continues to be neglected, with all the implications for future maintenance which that entails, and if there are no more burials there?

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, and you have also implied that i have no > evidence of angels wings and heads being knocked > and damaged. I have got evidence of this on my > camera and it clearly shows it is new damage by > the colour of the stone. Then please post the evidence up here, with the date and evidence that it was done by council contractors carrying out the recent work. I have not said you have no evidence. I have said that you have not provided any. ETA: I hear your passion for nature. I share it. Have you actually read the reasons why Southwark Council are carrying out this work in the cemeteries? Sometimes one has to strike a balance.

Azira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. How did I make that assumption? I certainly never used the words "you lot", for a start!!!

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?

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.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1637832

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?

Excellent! See you Thursday!

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.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You beat me to it Bovine, Wilko's is bloody > amazing, they sell everything! I love Wilkos! Where is it? Is there a carpark?

Great! Will there be a table reserved for the pre meal drinks? What time do people usually turn up?

What time does it close?

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?

Is there room for two more??

FJDGoose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just wasted ten minutes out of my day looking > at this thread.why? And another minute posting on it :)) :)) :)) That's eleven minutes out of your life ....

Don't hold your breath. We've been waiting nearly two years now for ours on Ulverscroft Road, and nearly a year since the consultation. There have been five (yes, FIVE) failed attempts at installation since December, because a car was parked in the allotted space each time. Well - DUH. Don't use an easily moveable barrier with a scrap of paper sellotaped to it to reserve the space then ..... And when it gets moved the first time, think of a more effective solution the second time .....

I'd say not drinking for a month could easily result in losing five pounds fox, but it's good that your GP is being cautious.

I haven't had a leaflet yet, and I'm just round the corner from Silvester Road?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ALL Red Meat is now concidered carcinogenic what > ever the quality.. > > Don't get me wrong.. I do still eat it myself.. > Even as I write I am waiting the results of tests > for the very subject we have discussed here.. > Hence my concern.. > Fingers crossed your results are OK, Foxy.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It is common > management practice to leave dead deciduous wood > for Stag Beetle larvae, as they are endangered, > but this is not a direct substitute to leaving the > woodland to provide a habitat instead. It is a reasonable substitute when circumstances require it, is it not?