Sue

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

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- That's why I found it > funny when he staryed claiming people on here were > married to councillors and had vested interests, > it just seemed so outrageous it had to be > "comedy". You found that funny? I wonder if the people concerned did? There's one thing being "outrageous" as a comic on stage. Fine. You know what you're letting yourself in for if you go and see the show. It's another thing stating false information about people on a public forum whilst purporting to be somebody else. If he is actually somebody else. ETA: And the people running the Perrier Award - and his agent - clearly didn't find his lies (because that is what they are) funny. ETA: And I didn't - and still don't - find his online behaviour towards me funny in the least.

Otta, you're right and I apologise. Google is indeed a wonderful and worrying thing, as I just found. Unless this is an elaborate double bluff, it appears that not only do Southwark Woods not exist, but Lewis Schaffer doesn't either. https://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/american-comedian-lewis-schaffer-revealed-to-be-english-character-actor-brian-simpson/2013/ https://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/this-conversation-with-two-comedians-really-happened-and-i-dont-even-drink/ So given the youtube clip I posted on the new (cemetery) thread in this section, also thanks to google, where one of the other organisers of SSW has clearly been in cahoots with Lewis's "comedy" since at least 2014, has this all been just "comedy" fodder? Maybe Lewis/Brian could let us know, via one of his alter egos. Because if so, he's got quite a few questions to answer, I would say, given the trouble he has caused the council and others. ETA: And he has form in this kind of thing, if the following (from Wiki) is true - but who knows. "Edinburgh Fringe Stunt In 2009, he announced as a publicity stunt that he would be sponsoring the Edinburgh festival comedy awards that had previously been called the if.comedy or Perrier awards.[3] He claimed he had purchased the naming-rights to the awards for "?99 with his mother as a judge". This was reported as fact in various publications[4] and lead to threat of a lawsuit from the award's rights holder[3] and being fired by his theatrical agents.[5]" ETA: Don't read that second link, which is an interview with him, unless you like extremely offensive remarks about people from a particular racial/religious group burning easier than others.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks to Sue for providing the lead: > > > Lewis Schaffer is a Brit called Brian by Anna > Crockatt of the Relatives. > > Published on 8 Nov 2014 > > Beautiful Anna Crockatt, one-half to one-fifth of > The Relatives (usually with Richard Guard) > questions the authenticity of Lewis Schaffer, Lisa > Moyle, Nunhead and everything that Nunhead > American Radio is and stands for. She repeats the > slur that Lewis Schaffer isn't an American but a > Briton from the Brownhills I don't understand any of that. How did I provide the lead? Where does the quote come from? The Relatives are a local band, I don't get the connection.

I googled her. Admin, I'm assuming as this is in the public domain with the two names on it that it is OK to post here, but if not appropriate please remove it.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > How come my post is "argumentative", but yours > > (also disagreeing with other people?) isnt? > > > Look I am not trying to row with you, but maybe > when you type things like > > > ETA: And Otta, why would anybody "care to go > > looking" on the internet for information about > me, > > unless they had ulterior motives? > > It feels a bit like you're singling people out and > demanding answers from them. When in this case all > I meant is that you'd put your name on a website > which is publicly available, that was all. How do you know I've put my name on a website? The only people whose full names are on the main part of the website are the artists. My name is in tiny tiny letters in faint grey on black at the bottom, for copyright reasons, along with that of the website designer, also for copyright reasons. You must have really gone out of your way to find that. I had to really search to find it myself. Nobody looking at the website would ever notice it, under normal circumstances. I find that quite creepy, to be honest.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Sue - "someone harassing a woman" might have been > acceptable, but Newton didn't say that. He/she > was going way OTT for effect. Remember his/her > first post suggested "for women associating with > Lewis, don't think that because you're not the > target this week you won't be next" and *anyone* > associating with Lewis "deserve to have children > spit in your face on the street". As Otta said, > Lewis is being a complete twunt, but as we've seen > on this thread, Newton wildly overstating a case > loses people who would otherwise be sympathetic. So because in your/Otta's opinion Newton's comments were over the top, it therefore follows that Lewis wasn't harassing me on Twitter? > > And one has to wonder why it is only me (clearly > a woman) he has singled out to focus his > aggression on outside > > of this forum. > > Obviously I can't prove this, but I suspect that > you are the only person on this thread Lewis has > been able to figure out a real-life name for. I > actually don't think your gender entered into his > limited thinking. Lewis had been angling for some > time for people to post enough information for him > to identify them - now we know why. Yes, that is possibly true, but one has to wonder whether, if he found out a man's identity on here and posted it publicly on Twitter, and stated their ED forum name as well, and linked it to a Twitter page which is not their personal page, whether he would then continue to do so - more than once - when asked to stop. Do you think he would have done that? Obviously we can't know. But I suspect not. > I once had an object lesson in why you should > guard on-line identity unless otherwise necessary. > I used to be post with my real name, until one day > about 20 years ago someone actually rang me at my > place of work to shout at me and threaten me about > something I'd said online. Since then I have been > *much* more careful about what I reveal on the > net. > > IIRC I had a similar conversation (though not with > that particular anecdote) with you on here a few > years ago. Quite possibly. I am - I think - careful about identity theft, so there is some information I would not put online. However it never in a million years occurred to me that somebody could use my personal posts on a topic on here to try to discredit my music events, if that is what he is trying to do. Some time ago - after he had started posting on here, but before he was banned - he sent me a friend request on Facebook. Obviously I didn't accept it, but I now wonder whether he was trying to find out more personal information about me. I'll never know that, either. But at that point he must have known my name. It's not so much that my full name is a massive secret. Lots of people know it, obviously. It is that he deliberately used it in order to link it to my posts on here and to the Goose, and continued when asked to stop.

kiera Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would say that the reason Sue was targeted was > because she was openly trying to discredit him/SSW > publicly. > In Sue's own words > ".......My thoughts were more that any of their > supporters > reading the thread would see the lie of the > land,so to speak, and stop being supporters - not > necessarily of the actual cause, but of the > organisation relating to it." Eh? I posted that in relation to a possible reason for not closing down this thread, ie so SWW's supporters could see from his own posts what sort of a person he was and decide of their own accord to dissociate themselves from his organisation. Although they will only be able to see some of it because his worst ones were deleted, and then he was banned. I don't think anybody needs to discredit him publicly - he has done a good enough job himself on here, as you can see if you read the whole thread. But hey, easier to distract attention from that by having a go at me, eh, as we also saw further up the thread by some other SSW supporters. Interesting strategies some people have.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > God Sue sometimes it feels as though you're just > looking for something to argue about. I was replying to your post, which I disagreed with. That's what a forum is for. How come my post is "argumentative", but yours (also disagreeing with other people?) isnt? ETA: And I have had some involvement with harassment, including setting up a harassment and bullying helpline in one job and introducing a harassment and bullying policy in another, and if you don't agree that Lewis's behaviour is harassment then we will have to differ on that point.