Sue

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?

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you keira, you understand what im trying to > say saying. Only people who have a love and > respect for nature can understand that we share > this planet with so many creatures, that each and > every creature no matter how small has a purpose. I don't understand why you think anybody posting here is disagreeing with you? > And as for the stag beetles , well their larvae > depend on dead rotted wood and old trees, that is > why replanting new trees and cutting down old ones > is completely stupid!! This is the whole point of > preserving "old" woodland areas as many creatures > prefer this type of environment! Southwark Council are apparently putting the trees which are cut down into nearby nature reserves, where they will rot and provide a habitat for creatures such as stag beetles. Stag beetles lay their eggs in rotting wood, not living trees. And it's hardly as if the council are planning to cut down every tree in the borough. The people involved have to balance a range of factors when making their decisions. They have an impossible task as whatever they do will be wrong for somebody or some people. I really don't envy them.

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Every bit helps, no matter how small the land is, > every inch of green matters in london! Yes, but other factors have to be considered as well, surely? It's a matter of balance. >We all have a part to play! If everyone thought that every bit of overgrown cemetary space or green space did not >matter, where does this lead us. To a loss of many creatures in nature that cant be replaced.! Nobody is saying green space does not matter, are they? In this particular case, they are saying that there are other considerations which need to be brought into the equation. Given the amount of green space locally, I don't think bringing a couple of relatively small areas of cemetery back to the purpose for which they were intended is going to lead to "a loss of many creatures in nature that can't be replaced". >I > believe many of these cemetries have deliberately > been left to become derelict land especially in > areas that are up-and-coming areas. Can you expand on this statement? I don't understand what you mean, either "deliberately been left to become derelict land" or "especially in areas that are up-and-coming areas." >And to be fair, if you asked any school child if they have > ever seen a stag beetle, i bet all of them would > say "no, what is that"!... I was brought up in South London in the fifties/sixties. I only ever saw one stag beetle in the whole of my childhood. My mother trod on it. She was probably single-handedly/footedly responsible for the decline of the stag beetle. Many London schoolchildren have never seen cows. Or lily beetles (for example). I'm not quite sure what point you are making?

Of course trees and nature matter, but we are discussing relatively small areas of land here, originally earmarked for burials but neglected. It is not as if huge swathes of countryside are being built on, vast quantities of chemicals are being used, or the whole area is being paved over. Those have been/still are much greater issues than this in the destruction of habitats. And actually South London is one of the areas where stag beetles are more prevalent.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John K > > > Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his > false > > statements? > > > > John K > > Considering this thread was started to focus on > the cemetery issues and move away from the > previous one that somewhat degenerated away from > the point and was subsequently moved to the > lounge, how do you think your comment, and it's > repetition adds to the debate? > > Welcome to the forum Blanche, and good luck. Surely it is a fair question since he is a prominent figure in the same organisation and until recently was posting on here on behalf of that organisation? And was the cause of the other thread's derailment from what should have been its focus of discussion?

Joo16 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Reading mrsilencio's description of a chap with > dearstalker type hat has reminded me of someone > who approached my cat whilst he was sat on our > doorstep. A deerstalker hat is fairly unusual. Somebody must recognise this person from mrsilencio's description, let's hope :(

Sorry, deleted, had intended to send private message.

se22cat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First World problems eh? > :))

I appear to have passwords for 241 different purposes (I just had an urge to count them). Some of which clearly are not in frequent use. And some of them I can't remember what the hell they are, they are so obscurely coded in my records. :)) Surely soon somebody will come up with some better way?? Voice and/or fingerprint recognition straight into your phone or whatever?? ETA: Just to make it clear, in case you think I'm completely stupid (as if) they are not 241 different passwords, although obviously they are not all the same either :))

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jah Lush Wrote: > > we could happily suck > > > on our smokes to our hearts content. > > > > > > > > > :( > > Yeah, I'm back on the fags. I smoke therefore I > am. Oh dear. Oh well, enjoy then :) ETA: Are you sure it's not I am, therefore I smoke? :)) ETA: Oooops sorry admin, forgot I wasn't in the lounge.

Minitoots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And here is the link to the petition to get the > police to take the matter seriously - > http://www.thepetitionsite.com/889/712/106/urge-th > e-south-london-police-to-take-urgent-action-to-sto > p-a-cat-killer/?taf_id=17792598&cid=fb_na I don't know when the petition was started, but according to the other thread on this, the police already have a dedicated unit. Other than asking people to inform them of incidents and trying to put together a pattern, it's quite hard to see what the police can do. They clearly can't put CCTV everywhere or patrol every street in South London hoping to catch this person in action, particularly as he (it appears to be a he) is apparently removing the bodies once he has killed them in order to work on them elsewhere and bring them back, so presumably does not stay long at the site of the initial killing. And forensic evidence apparently shows that the person wears gloves, so can't be traced by fingerprints or DNA. The whole thing is quite horrible. I'm so sorry for any cat owners whose cats have been involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35598232 "Animals lured with raw chicken, vet says". The article is rather inconsistent in stating the number of animals involved.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Personally I'd > usually rather pay more and have something nicer, > regardless of where I'm having it. > Same here, within reason. Paying East Dulwich type prices for a mediocre meal always really annoys me. Looking forward to trying this place, haven't been yet. It always felt cold and empty to me in its previous incarnation, so any improvement has to be good :)

Jah Lush Wrote: we could happily suck > on our smokes to our hearts content. > :(

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue, this is the nub of the issue isn't it? I do > not regard a seemingly systemic need to allocate > yet more burial space to be sufficient > justification for removal of species rich habitat > in an urban environment, especially given that > there are other options. This is regardless of > other local green space, as it is exactly the sum > total of these green corridors that creates the > valuable habitats in the first place. The London > Plan is on message with this as, seemingly, are > the majority of other councils. > > Bear in mind the other benefits that accrue from > this - flood protection, air quality, climate > change mitigation, amenity value. These are all > important issues that should be considered > adequately and I am yet to be convinced that this > has been done. How would you respond to Penguin68's point regarding how these areas would be maintained safely in the future should they be left as they are?

Me! Me! Me! Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And, to imagine ALL this could have been avoided > years ago had Southwark Council properly > re-appropriated for the purpose acres of unused > designated Southward owned burial ground that is > the adjacent land to Camberwell New Cemetery that > has been to all intents and purposes GIVEN gratis > to the LB of Lewisham as a play field. How dare > Southwark Council give away land belonging to the > people of Southwark to another borough. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought from what had been previously posted on here somewhere that this was always intended to be a temporary measure, and the land has not been permanently given away?