Sue

I saw East Dulwich described as East Dulwich Village years ago, before gentrification started. I think the agent was hoping people would think it was like Dulwich Village, which at the time was definitely more desirable. It made me laugh. A lot.

Just wondering on what grounds? Asking people to send him names?

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am going to propose having a debate of some sort > and need someone to represent the pro camp > > Would someone on this Forum give me the name of a > group or a person who supports the Council's > cemetery strategy > > I.e. cutting down trees, removing headstones, and > digging up and mounding over graves to provide > burial spaces in crushed construction waste on top > of the buried dead or to provide space in a > confiscated grave above the remains of the > previous occupants? > > Lewis Schaffer > Email me I can't imagine that anybody who has read the whole of this thread would want to take part in a face to face debate with you, on either side.

Time is on my side - Stones

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally i'd rather be part of a community than > can boast the benefits of a small wild area in > metropolitan London (very rare and something I > think we should be proud of) rather than earning > an accolade for being one of the most expensive > places in London to be buried in. How would you define "very rare"? We already have a number of wild areas locally, of which Dulwich Wood and Sydenham Hill Wood must be the largest. Thank you for not being Lewis Schaffer. Wild horses wouldn't drag me to his "comedy" show.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "well, one of those posters works for the > council, > > one is married to a Councillor, a couple work > for > > the cemetery, one is an undertaker or funeral > > director, one main poster works for a major > > Council contractor" > > > > Can you prove any of that? > > I know you are bitter old woman who's husband left > her for her best friend and now you spend your > days and nights in your drafty council flat (you > lost the house to gambling and booze) in front of > the computer. > > Lewis Schaffer > Had planters fascitis in 2015 WTF??? What a charming person you sound Lewis Schaffer. So now you are resorting to lying about and insulting anybody who disagrees with you?

There are a number of folk musicians locally who go to sessions and/or a South East London folk orchestra. If you contact me via http://www.thegooseisout.com I can send you details. On my phone at the moment and don't have them to hand. ETA: You are also welcome to come down any time and do an unbooked floorspot at any of our club nights, or a song at our Singaround. We have booked some people for "proper" gigs this way. See our website for more details. ETA (again!): A number of people have got together to sing and play after meeting at our Singarounds and some have gone on to make albums which have been well reviewed in the mainstream press :)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > panda boy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I'm struggling to see the connection between an > guy on TV who was sacked for punching his > producer > > with a petition signed by people local to an > issue that affects them directly. Just saying > they're > > both petitions and thats that is puerile in the > extreme. > > I thought that would be obvious - numbers. Why > should a 1M person petition be ignored, but a 10k > petition be immediately taken notice of? You're > the one that made a big song and dance about the > number of people that have signed the SSW petition > - either numbers matter or they don't. Your > call. > > Besides, petition are notoriously poor at > conveying what people actually think on an issue. > It's been proved time and time again: it's all in > how you phrase the question. Go around with two > petitions, one saying "Do you support saving the > trees from being cut down" and the other, "Do you > support the provision of burial spaces in > Southwark for Southwark residents", then you will > get a significant number of people happily sign > both petitions, even though they actually > represent diametrically opposite opinions as far > as this issue goes. It's notable that, for all > these thousands of 'supporters' they claim, SSW > can barely get 50 people out on a weekend. > > Do you really want the council to comply with > every single petition that they get sent? That's a > recipe for chaos. Or is it, as I suspect, you want > the council to comply with every petition that you > sign? > > As I said, if you really think the council has > transgressed the rules, then get together an > injunction. > > > Without wanting to get bogged down in semantics > of what the definition of a valid petition is, > have > > you actually seen the plans and renders of what > the council want to achieve? Are you happy with > them? > > If you read the post the other day where I pointed > out the technicalities of the report that showed > where Lewis made a mistake in assuming all the > cemetery was consecrated ground, you might have > twigged I have actually read through the report. > The council plans to upgrade cemeteries - they > started as cemeteries, they will end up as a > cemeteries. No great surprise or issue there. I > have no problem with re-using graves or mounding > over - in fact I think that given the lack of > burial space it is a very practical idea. > > Now if the plan was to dig up, say. Dulwich Park > or Peckham Rye then I'd be in complete agreement > with you. But working on a cemetery to make it > usable as a cemetery for the foreseeable future is > hardly an outrageous idea. Excellent points, Loz.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Crikey! I've been critical of these threads in the > past but even I've been woken by the planes now. > Woke at 4am this morning and I haven't been able > to go back to sleep because of the constant > aircraft noise. They've been really loud this > morning. Same here on Tuesday. Really loud even through my supposedly acoustic glass. Had about four hours sleep. Really pissed off.

Thanks ianr, that's a shame, I won't be able to make it, would have liked to go. I saw a wren in my garden yesterday - only the third time I have seen one here since 1991! That's not to say they're not around of course, probably hiding :) This one was quite boldly walking/hopping along the top of my fence before going into the ivy :)

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I originally posted about the cowardly behaviour > towards Lewis personally on here Would you like to give some examples of the "cowardly behaviour towards Lewis personally" which you posted about? Have you read all (now) nineteen pages of this thread? Have you actually read all Lewis' posts? Do you agree with all he says and the way he says it? Is it true that people are going to be buried in "building waste", for example, which is his latest assertion? Oh, and are you intending responding to my previous questions? I'm not picking a fight, I would genuinely like to know the answers.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People will now be buried in ground-up building > waste on top of tens of thousands of dead. How is it "ground-up building waste"? I thought we were talking about trees? Are you suggesting people are going to be buried in brick dust?

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > In my view, and the direct dealings with the > council I have had on this matter, they have > lied. > There were promises of more public consultations. > Didn't happen. Were these public consultations going to be related to the current work being carried out, or related to future work? Where and when did the council make these promises, and who in the council made them? > There were assurances of more up to date studies > on the area, (the ones they published were years > out of date. These plans have been floating > around for a long time.) They didn't deliver on > this. > When were these assurances given, and who made them? How much were these more up to date studies going to cost? What was the time scale, and what were the studies going to study, exactly? > There was also the promise to listen to peoples > concerns. With over 3,500 southwark residents > signing a petition against, over 10,000 non locals > expressing they are against the plans in general, > and over 600 individual abjections to the planning > committee of southwark, i'd call it a barefaced > lie that this strength of public opinion has just > been ignored and the plans forced through > regardless. This "strength of public opinion" has been due to a sustained campaign by SSW of approaching people personally, via glossy postcards and via social media and (from what I have seen) only giving them one side of the story. If there had been a similar sustained campaign from people in favour of the council's plans, then you may find opinion is actually quite evenly balanced or weighted in favour. But nobody is ever going to start a campaign in favour of something which is already going to happen, are they? > Regardless of the details of this particular > situation, the council have behaved appallingly. But isn't your complaint about the council's behaviour specifically about this particular situation?

dbboy, if you click on "quote this message" under the post you are replying to, it will hopefully be clearer who said what - (or else put the other poster's words in quotes?)

No problems here. I'm in North Cross Road area.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hate this trend for concreting front gardens. It > really does change the character of a street / > neighbourhood. I hate it too. One of the minor pleasures in my life is walking down the road and watching the front gardens change with the seasons. Which they don't do with concrete and - worse - astroturf. Plus it can contribute to flooding because the water has nowhere to go (unless proper drainage is installed), and as somebody says above it is really detrimental to wildlife, including bees. Maybe I'll start a Save Southwark Front Gardens group .....

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lewis will the trees be buried above the rotting > remains of our loved ones? > > I'm a bit concerned about dead tree juice flowing > down the road in to my fish pond. Ah, don't mock, the man's grieving. Though that was very funny. Does this mean it's all over?

jacks09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I managed to pee in the > garden last year and i think it helped. You don't actually have to pee in the garden. You can pee in a container (or get somebody else to) and then take it out to the garden. May avoid trouble from the neighbours :))

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who put smileys on just about every fecking > post they post. Sometimes there isn't even any > text, just a blinking smiley face! Grrr! (smiley > face). I like smileys! :)) :)) :)) People who don't like smileys are miserable ***** :( :( :(

Put down a pile of something prickly such as holly, and see if the fox goes (sic) elsewhere? Maybe combined with the disinfectant as suggested above?

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, it starts to make sense... Does it??!

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, using the rec is still on the table. Isn't that because it was originally bought with the intention of using it for burials? And its present use was always intended to be temporary? Or have I got that wrong?

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today Southwark continued to cut down trees and > wild undergrowth - this in our backyard. A "backyard" which is a cemetery. ETA: A neglected cemetery which is being brought back to its intended use.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I would say you're in everyone's face > endlessly complaining about Lewis's language. > There is nothing illegal about emotive language > and I would say factually most of what he has said > has been true. Certainly more so than the Council > output. Many local people feel very strongly about > this - ad hominem and emotive attacks one > campaigner are not helpful to a reasonable > discussion. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. There is certainly nothing illegal about emotive language, and in the right place it's fine, but stuff like corpse fluids running down the road is neither true nor helpful. And please explain how anything I have said about Lewis has been "emotive"? ETA: And to bring things back to the subject which is supposed to be under discussion, what happened at the 8am demo today?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is becoming tiresome. It's only fun when > Lewis is on form. Yes, well, unfortunately Lewis being "on form" is what is totally losing "Save Southwark Woods" credibility on what should be a serious thread discussing important issues. You can't have it all ways .....