Sue

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 .....

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Similar concept has been up and running for some > time now called Deliverance.....although health > and safety issues are managed by the chefs using > their kitchen > > https://www.deliverance.co.uk/ But the local Deliverance food was prepared in just one kitchen in Herne Hill, wasn't it? They now seem to be called InJoy, according to a flyer through my door recently.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So why be deflected? It is posts such as these, > ad hominem and emotive, which are obscuring the > objective discussion. Emotive? How is my post emotive? Or did you mean edborders' posts? You said your post was a "parody". So wasn't your post "obscuring the objective discussion", then?! And where are these "equally emotive" responses by those in support of the council's plans which you mention? If I was a member of Save Southwark Woods, I would have a strong word with Lewis Schaffer. He is the front face of your group, the self-styled media star, and to say he is not helping your cause would be putting it mildly. It's a bit difficult to ignore his posts when he's in your face on this thread all the time.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is parody as an oft repeated refrain is about > emotive responses usually directed at edborders. > I, and others, have attempted to point out the > folly of the Council's plans objectively but this > has been drowned out by this and equally emotive > responses by those in support of the plans. > > The nature of a forum I guess. I don't have a > problem with people being emotive BTW but it is > galling to have this accusation of being overly so > thrown so liberally without justification in my > view. I don't think anybody has accused anybody but edborders of being overly emotive, HopOne. Unfortunately most of his (many, many) posts are so over-the-top ridiculous that they deflect attention from any other "Save Southwark Woods" supporters' posts which may be attempting to inject some accuracy and common sense. But what are the "equally emotive" responses by those in support of the council's plans? I haven't seen any?

In case anybody else is interested, I've just spoken to TSB and - as seems obvious - if your balance is over ?2000 you still get interest on the first ?2000, you just don't get interest on the rest. So sallyfran, I think there has been some confusion in your case and if you haven't got interest you should have got maybe you need to speak to TSB again, as it seems it has nothing to do with having gone over ?2000.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There have been numerous attempts to present facts objectively on this and other threads. These seem > to have been drowned out by highly emotive responses from people who support the council's plans. >Loz Wrote: I missed this little gem from earlier. Satire, shurely? >HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Glad you like it Loz! The delivery is parody but > the point is serious. But what is your point exactly? The actual fact is that your "parody" would become true if your words "people who support the council's plans" were replaced by the words "people who support 'Save Southwark Woods', in particular edborders/Lewis Schaffer" !! So I can't see what point you are trying to make?

Oh dear :(

The letter does apparently also mention restrictions on cutting trees not in a conservation area though (not over 75mm apparently)

I'm sorry to hear this. How did they get in?

Oh dear :(

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damn Skippy he did. > Damn Skippy? What's a kangaroo got to do with it? Have I missed something here?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes yes yes, but more importantly, did Lewis chain > himself to anything today? If he didn't, no doubt he will tomorrow as according to SSW on Twitter, "media coming": DEMO tomo morning 8am Camberwell Old Cem. Stop illegal tree cutting. Media coming

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hope they show more sense with these chefs than > they did at Exhibition. There's a reason the food > went downhill there. Oh? What was the reason?

I think we should just raze the whole of London to the ground and let the woods take over :)) Indeed, let's encourage the whole of the country to revert to, er, the country :))

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > To Sue, the loss of mature trees, in a woodland > context (which do exist - I care not what you call > them), is damaging to existing biodiversity. This > all boils down to whether you value local green > space and its wildlife over burial space in an > urban area. This has already been debated on here ad nauseam. We are very lucky to be blessed with a great deal of green space in this area, including proper woods. As I have said before on this thread, it was one of the reasons - indeed probably the main reason - I moved here. Burial space is needed. The "woods" in question are situated within existing cemeteries, and if memory serves the land has long been earmarked for said burials. If it had been properly maintained by the council in the past, there would not be fifteen pages of this thread now. "Save Southwark Woods" has changed its arguments over the course of the thread from saving trees via not having corpse juices running down Forest Hill Road via not mounding over existing graves via not disturbing bones and teeth via many other things I have probably forgotten via not disturbing nesting birds (who the council has ascertained are not actually nesting) to, now, damaging existing biodiversity. People all over Southwark are paving over/decking their front and back gardens and arguably causing a great deal more damage to existing biodiversity (among other things) than the council are in belatedly sorting out ground in a cemetery which they should not have left to go wild in the first place. Have the people involved in the SSW campaign ever spoken up about that?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Based on the twitter feed, Lewis chained himself > to a digger. the police were called (not sure by > whom) and at least one tree was felled. Just looked at the twitter feed, and Southwark Council say that all works are in line with the planning permission granted. And Save Southwark Woods are claiming that Southwark Council are acting illegally because "the nesting season is coming". Well, yes, it is COMING, SSW, but the birds probably do not have long-term plans to nest in those particular trees :)) The council have said in their FAQ that the trees in question were specifically examined to ensure there were no nests. Yet more misinformation from SSW.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Interestingly the > council say the area is just over 3 acres and > nowhere near the 12 Lewis quotes. To be fair, these figures are referring to two different things. ETA: Although admittedly Lewis has not made that clear.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Weirdly, the foundation is St Olave?s & St > Saviour?s but the school is St Olave?s & St > Saviour?s. > Shome mishtake here, shurely

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So, unless SSW stump up the dough (see what I did > there, Otta?) I have grave concerns about all this ......

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Those writing to the Diocese might wish > to male it clear that they support (if they do) > burial in Southwark whereas the 'wood' mavens > don't and wish it stopped. In case they are heaving heavy sighs at the sight of their inboxes, the subject of my email to them was "Plans for Camberwell Old Cemetery and Camberwell New Cemetery - I agree with the plans" in case they thought the email was from another SSW supporter ...... ETA: So does anybody know what has happened re Lewis and the chainsaw mob??

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are putting forward that you oppose a view. > How is it that you oppose it? It is not clear. How is it not clear? I am in favour of the council's plans even although they involve some existing trees being cut down. I understand that the people supporting "Save Southwark Woods" (which don't actually exist) are not in favour of the council's plans even though they involve a number of new trees being planted. I also have no problem at all with new burials taking place above existing graves, and I have no problem at all with old bones being moved. I understand from Lewis Schaffer's posts on here that he - and by extension "Save Southwark Woods" - has problems with both of those things. Is that sufficiently clear for you? ETA: I would have thought if you had read all of this thread that my previous posts would have made my position quite clear already.