Sue

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?

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.