Sue

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?

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Possibly the most tiresome thread in recent > memory. A few people have shown their true > colours and it isn't pretty. Interesting. As we're now in the lounge, I'm wondering how you define and assess "true colours"? People are quite complex and show different sides of themselves depending on the situation. In fact, mulling this puzzle over this morning, I went back and altered one of my posts to add "judging by his tweets and many of his posts on this forum", as the person in question may well be a cuddly ray of sunshine except when he is posting on here and tweeting :)) A quick google came up with "someone's true colors. ? the ​kind of ​person someone really is ​rather than what the ​person ​seems to be: I ​thought he was a really ​sweet ​guy, but then he got ​mad and ​showed his true ​colors. " The question is, what exactly is the kind of person someone really is? Which are his/her "true colours"? The "really sweet" part, or the "getting mad" part? What if somebody who was usually really bad tempered and grumpy suddenly unexpectedly did something really kind and helpful? Would that be "showing his true colours", or do "true colours" only apply to the bad stuff (however you choose to define "bad")? And apart from that, I'm wondering who these "few people" you refer to are, and how you feel they have "shown their true colours and it isn't pretty".

There is a limited amount of space. In this area, some of that space is required for further burials. If it was the case that the East Dulwich and Nunhead areas were grim built up inner city locations with no other green spaces, then the argument for retaining neglected and overgrown areas within existing cemetries might be stronger (although as Penguin68 has pointed out, if it continues as such it is likely to end up being fenced off and the public excluded, since no plans have been put forward for the expense of maintaining it in a safe condition, removing tipped material, etc). However, one of the beauties of our local area is precisely the woods, parks and other green areas we already have, including Sydenham Hill Wood, Dulwich Wood, nature reserves and various wildlife gardens, which provide a habitat for a diverse range of wildlife including stag beetles, an endangered species. More green areas are of course always nice, but not without considering all the other issues surrounding keeping a neglected area as it is or changing it to fulfil another function necessary to the community. I am a lover of trees and the woods and parks were one of the main reasons, in fact probably the main reason, I moved to this area in 1991. I walk in them frequently. However I do not think that given the above circumstances, this particular aspect of SSW's argument in favour of retaining the trees and graves in their present condition is a strong one.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed. They could utilise the space in just the > same way that the Ivy House does. Exactly. The Ivy House caters for families and kids' events during the day, and puts on live music and other events for adults at night. Making the best use of the space, surely? Putting on gigs in one room at night doesn't mean they can't sell food, or have I missed something?

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue, > I can categorically tell you the video you are > referring to is most certainly of Blanche Cameron. > She is a real (and very decent) person, and in no > way an alter ego / pseudonym / familiar / > disguised version of Lewis Schaffer. As I thought I had made clear, it was BEFORE I saw the video clip that I thought Blanche Cameron might be an alter ego of Lewis Schaffer.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue - > > Much as i'm trying to avoid this thread now and > focus on the cemetery issues on the new thread, I > have to ask, did you mean this to come across as > incredibly offensive? > > > The youtube link on the cemetery thread shows > someone purporting to be Blanche Cameron (but > apparently a woman) > > Unless i've misunderstood, what exactly do you > mean by this? Because Lewis Schaffer appears to have at least one alter ego, it was possible that Blanche Cameron was one of them. As I said, on the clip she was apparently a woman. If your issue is with the word "apparently", I can only say that it is relatively easy for a man to quite credibly imitate a woman, and vice versa.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another tweet from Lewis this morning (an hour > ago) asking Sue (full name) who arranges folk gigs > via Goose is out, why she's at war with SSW. > > That's just taking the piss. Otta, please can you not mention any further such tweets on here. I had seen it and intended to ignore it, as I intend to do in future. Lewis Schaffer, or whoever he is, judging by these tweets and many of his posts on this forum, is clearly a sad aggressive bully. I am only glad that I'm not like that, as it must be an awful thing to be him. In my experience bullies are very unhappy people. And it was interesting that one of his mates (or possibly him, of course) accused me further up the thread of bullying Lewis, as that is another common tactic of bullies. Anybody who knows Nygel and myself will be well aware that we love woods, trees and nature, so frankly he is shooting himself in the foot by these tweets. Edited to add "judging by these tweets and many of his posts on this forum." Maybe he is sweetness and light at all other times.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a double bluff isn't it? The Brian Simpson > character is the fake. Quite possibly, yes. ETA: The youtube link on the cemetery thread shows someone purporting to be Blanche Cameron (but apparently a woman) wearing a tee shirt with a picture of Lewis Schaffer on it and singing (apparently in the street)a song entitled "I'm Lewis Schaffer's stalker". And the caption beneath the video says that this (presumably the singing) is a violation of a court order.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Now stop being cross at me. OK :)) Pax :))

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > According to that Wordpress blog Brian is > Catholic. It's rather hard to disentangle what is true now, isn't it. And as far as "continuing to feed him" is concerned, Otta, I'd suggest it is better that all this - whatever it is - is out in the open, wouldn't you? Given that a lot of people clearly feel deeply about the cemetery/trees issue and may like to know who has been running a campaign which they have signed up to. Lesser of two evils, I would suggest. But if you think it's feeding him, maybe stop posting on the thread? :)

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Save Southwark Woods have posted this on their > website. > > Southwark Woods can't operate a keyboard. > > Who is the responsible person? And does he or she actually exist? Or is s/he a figment of somebody's imagination, a bit like Southwark Woods? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1590943,1639042#msg-1639042