Sue

Azira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- For the sake of your sanity, > it's best to focus on those things you can > control. Well, I completely agree with that :)

Unfortunately in this area, where most of the housing stock is terraces or semis, it's inevitable that there will be noise of some sort from adjoining houses because soundproofing is never going to be great and also sound travels in weird ways. I once lived in a house with teenage learner drummers on both sides :)) But noise, disruption and finally lack of light due to major building work for months on end is a completely different kettle of fish, surely.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Sue, > > There are many reasons for fighting this > campaign. > > SSW is not anti-burial, as some have suggested, in > fact quite the contrary. We support the right of > ALL residents to a fair and equal Council burial > service. > > As you probably know, the Council itself thought > burial outside the borough could be an option, and > Cabinet in June 2012 agreed to explore it. But > this was dropped in favour f felling trees and > mounding over public graves. > > When asked why out of borough options had not been > explored, Cllr Darren Merrill claimed it was > because the Council didn?t want to give money to > private companies. Yet they are spending ?5M on > private contractors felling trees, excavating > land, building roads and on private consultants? > fees? > > He also said it would be unfair on local people to > have to travel and that local people 'deserved' > local burial as many on here have also said - even > it seems if this is at the cost of digging up > someone else's local grave to provide it... > > For Southwark Councillors to say they want to > provide local burial for local people is anyway > absurd on several levels, and disingenuous in > fact. Firstly, burial is - or should be - a > borough wide service available to all residents > equally, not just for people local to the > Cemeteries. > > Secondly, it should cater for residents of ALL > faiths who require and seek burial not just those > it suits the Council to bury. > > Orthodox Muslim residents are only around 10% of > Southwark residents, but since 77% of residents > choose to be cremated, Orthodox Muslims residents > are over 40% of the remaining 23% who choose or > require burial. They are one of Southwark > Council?s largest burial groups - and are not > catered for. > > This heavily subsidised new burial will not change > this. Few people are prepared to discuss the fact > that burial does not and will not provide burial > for Southwark's Orthodox Muslim residents and they > will continue to be discriminated against. > > We have tried to discuss this many times with > Councillors, as it breaks both Human Rights Law > and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty > under the Equality Act 2010. > > To have to highlight to a Council such obvious > discrimination on grounds of religion in London in > 2016 is actually shameful to me. > > The issue has been ignored and even actively > denied both by Councillors Mills and Parks Manager > Rebecca Towers. They claim the 6-8 Turkish Muslim > burials a year in Nunhead Cemetery are all that is > required - yet they now this is not true. > > They know these residents already have to travel > and pay privately for burial out of borough at > three times the price of other residents. When we > met MP Helen Hayes to discuss this and other > matters, she said she was unaware it was a problem > ? despite us sending information on it all last > year when she was still a Councillor. > > Cllr Renata Hamvas has said she will look into it, > but it will take more than that to turf out > discrimination. > > So, a solution, a genuine compromise exists that > makes sense for ALL residents, for those who want > to be buried and for those who love trees and > nature and want to keep the wild places and the > history and for families who want to preserve > their relatives graves. > > Southwark intend to write off the ?5M it is > spending on contractors to destroy woods and mound > over graves. ?5M would buy burial land for ALL > faiths at Kemnal Park Cemetery 6 miles down the > road ? 5 acres, for 4,000 burial plots, 8,000 > interments, 20 years provision. And these plots > will actually recoup revenue and the revenue could > be ploughed back into more burial land - or put > into essential Council services. > > And Southwark could lay on a free twice-weekly bus > service to Kemnal Park and STILL save money, > removing any barrier of cost or distance. > > Continuing with the current burial project will > only embed racism and religious discrimination > deeper in Southwark Council. I am not clear why all this is being addressed to me. Which of my posts are you responding to? Also, where did you get your figure of 10% in your statement: "Orthodox Muslim residents are only around 10% of Southwark residents"?

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Many people when they say they love nature > actually mean they like managed parks and green > space such as the more managed parts of Camberwell > Old Cemetery. What is your evidence for making that statement, exactly?

fruityloops Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > a compromise.... this is so far from a compromise > it's untrue.. What would a compromise mean to you, fruityloops? For example, how would you suggest the contaminated ground is dealt with? What plans would you suggest be put in place to maintain areas of scrubland which have already been neglected for years, presumably (though I don't know) at least partly because of a lack of funds? What compromise would SSW accept in moving away from what appears to be their present position (correct me if I'm wrong) which is leaving everything as it is for ever?

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It can only be used for a > significant number of future burials if what is > there now is very significantly altered. The > question is whether this in the public interest. > Southwark have concluded it is. I don't agree, on > the scale currently intended. As Renata has said above, whatever is done there will never please everybody. There are many factors to be considered, and a compromise has to be reached. It seems to me that the council has done their best to take issues relating to wildlife into consideration, for example, but for some people nothing short of leaving everything as it is - with all the maintenance issues that entails for the future, quite apart from the lack of burial space - will do. There is also the issue of the contaminated ground.

The party wall surveyor I had was acting for both parties, was well in with the building firm, and so far as I could see was lacking in competence. The fact that he got very basic things wrong on his initial survey did not fill me with confidence, let's say. I understand they are no longer using him, but too late for me.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- You can > decide whether or not you wish to use their > moninated surveyor, or you can get your own > independent surveyor. I really strongly advise you to find your own surveyor who has no connection at all and never has had with the building firm concerned. But it's a good idea to start looking now, as the reason I used a nominated surveyor was lack of time by the time the Party Wall notice was submitted, as I was really busy. As red devil says, you should not have to pay any costs relating to the surveyor.

Those sharp pointy bits at one end of kiwi fruits. Inside them :( Fruits of the devil.

Having had a bad experience (through no fault of my neighbours) I would advise you to take some trouble to find a good and fully independent party wall surveyor. If you need one in this case, not sure.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ----------------------------------------, > > Regarding the number of trees now felled at Area > Z, it is easily many hundreds. At the Overview & > Scrutiny Committee of 17th September, when asked > why all the trees were not shown on plans, Tree > Officer Gary Meadowcroft said because 'there were > too many to count'. > How is a tree being defined in this context, please

Thanks, looking forward to it, haven't been to the Curry Cabin for years!

Including drinks?!

OK thanks, will try to resist the temptation to go for the most expensive things on the menu then :)

Just wondering re payment, presumably we all pay individually according to what we've had?? If not, it may affect my choices :))

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why dont you trust the council ??? Answer please > ??? And to sue, yes you really love nature > dont you when you wrote you was responsible for > the decline of the stag beetle by treading on > them! Dont you know the song all creatures great > and small. Sounds to me you was not "brought" up > to respect nature! Get your facts right and re-read my post. ETA: Oh, and you appear to be doing a good job in causing this thread to go the same way as the other one. If you want people to support your viewpoint then get your facts right, provide the photographic evidence you say you have, and stop attacking other people instead of putting forward a logical case.

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?