Sue

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- We seem to > have opposing views on this Sue but I strongly > support your liberty to express your own. Now how > about doing so objectively? In what way am I not being objective? ETA: Thank you Taper, that council FAQ page has changed since I last saw it. The section at the top has been added recently, presumably because of "Save Southwark Woods" claims.

fleur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not on anyones side but it concerns me that I > can hear the sound of chainsaws at this moment > when the position is not clear. This is a huge assumption, but I am assuming that Southwark Council do think the position is clear. Why would they deliberately act illegally?

I'm sure the police have better things to do round here, like catch burglars for example.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some people on this forum bang on that Save > Southwark Woods people are lying. > > What are we saying that is not true? > Well, as I said above, your statement about rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road, for a start.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue, I think it is a little patronising to assume > that people are not capable of making up their own > minds. You clearly feel that you have been able > to do so, as you have written to the diocese, yet > somehow you have been "subjected" to a campaign. > Am curious to know how anything has been forced on > you? > > I recall going to a public meeting about a year > ago organised by the council. I, along with I > suspect most of the people in the room, was only > dimly aware of the "Save Southwark Woods" campaign > at the time and was not there because of them. > There was a balanced range of views put forward - > even if not all the views were balanced :-). Am > sure most people have reached a view point based > on the facts. I have not actually met anyone > locally who supports the council's action, so good > for you for presenting what is probably a minority > view point, you should definitely be heard. I am not assuming that people are not capable of making up their own minds - provided of course that all the facts are put in front of them in an objective, rational, non-emotive way. That has not been the case here, irrespective of whether there was a public meeting "about a year ago". The vast majority of the people now supporting "Save Southwark Woods" cannot have been at that meeting, surely? I was approached in North Cross Road last Autumn and asked to sign a petition to "Save Southwark Woods" without the full facts of the case being put to me. I didn't sign it, but I'm sure many shoppers probably did. I was a member of The Woodland Trust for many years, and have an area of woodland dedicated to me. But I still don't sign petitions to "save woods" without being sure of all sides of the story. Lewis Schaffer on this very thread alone has posted lengthy and repetitive rants including such emotive phrases as "rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road" (page 6, if anybody wants to check). The campaign has also been very active on Facebook and Twitter. I know a number of people who know about this campaign only through Facebook and had no idea there was another side of the story to what "Save Southwark Woods" are putting forward. So yes, I do feel I and others have been "subjected" to a campaign. And I'm sure you haven't met anybody locally who supports the council's action. Because your group hasn't been telling people the full facts. If you have, please point me to where. As for my "presenting what is probably a minority view point", well, neither of us has any idea whether or not it is a minority view point, do we, as there has not been a vote or any kind of similar campaign to "Save Southwark Burial Space in Southwark Cemeteries".

Well, I've written to the Diocese pointing out that those people who have written to the council in support of the "Save Southwark Woods" campaign have only been given one side of the story, and that people who - if they knew about them - would have no problem with Southwark Council's plans have not been subjected to a lengthy and emotive campaign giving the other side of the story and asking them to write in support of the plans.

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > the strains of "Obladee - Obladaa" and > "Octopus's Garden" blasting out Aarrgh that has really put me off going :(

I saw that. My reaction exactly.

Really sorry to hear this. Obviously no use to you at this point, but if it's any help for the future, you can get a policy with a protected no claims discount. May depend on individual cases/quotes as to whether you thought it was worth while. Hope you find out who did it.

That's harassment. Isn't it? And "undercover cops"??? FFS.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it weren't why aren't Victoria Mills or Peter > John or Gavin Edwards or Darren Merrill or someone > coming onto this forum? Or Harriet Harman or Helen > Hayes... Erm, probably because they have seen the nature of your posts on here and don't want to bang their heads against a brick wall over and over again either? And where does your "tens of thousands" come from?

If edborders/Lewis hasn't misrepresented the situation then I apologise for saying that he has.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You find a whole cooked chicken in Peter John's > fridge. He promises that he is going to eat just > one leg (it's not the nice leg, either) and says > he has no plans at this time to eat the rest. > > Sorry, but Peter John is gonna eat the whole > chicken. > > Lewis Schaffer > Nunhead This is absolutely bizarre. Bizarre in the extreme. So basically, you have based your whole campaign not on the council's actual plans for the areas in question, but on what YOU IMAGINE they are going to do? What really concerns me is that all the people who are supporting your campaign must not have done the smallest bit of research for themselves but have just blindly believed your (what appear to be) outright lies, and that you've got them to write to the council, sign petitions and God knows what. I suppose we should be relieved that you haven't persuaded them of something much more serious involving live people. You've really wasted a lot of people's time, haven't you? Not to say made yourself look extremely foolish.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/savings-l > oophole Thanks :)

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I got my usual interest paid today. Not doubting you at all, but there's a faint possibility it might be different for people applying for accounts now, so just in case I'm going to check!

Very interesting, Loz. Edborders, what do you have to say about those figures? Are you suggesting that the council is lying? Because if not, it looks very much as if - well, let's just say you have got your figures wrong.

geneie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm afraid I don't have a clue, Sue - it was just > reading the nonsense from SSW on here this morning > spurred me into action, they even kindly supplied > three email addresses, lol OK thanks, I'm going to do the same, I guess nothing is likely to happen over the weekend.

I guess because only a relatively small part of the hill is a dedicated cemetery?

Do you know what the timescale is for writing, geneie?

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have 2 of these accounts and get, as advertised, > 5% interest on deposits up to ?2k paid every > month. As interest isn't paid on any money over > ?2k I draw out anything in excess of ?2k and put > it into another account so as to get interest on > this amount too. Yes, that's what I'm intending to do. However in view of SallyFran's posts above I am going to double check before I actually transfer any money in, in case the terms and conditions of this account may have changed.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >it means digging up other local people > and reburying their bones and teeth etc under the > newly buried local person. And that local person > will be dug up in 75 years. I've got absolutely no problem with that at all, whether it was me or the bones of somebody I loved. They're bones. And teeth. Of a dead body. They have absolutely nothing to do with the spirit or the memory of who that person was.

LauraW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I think > they can do their anti-woods campaigning though > without being so trollish toward Lewis. How do you feel about the content and nature of Lewis's posts on here? Do you think they are acceptable? ETA: Do you think they are likely to persuade people to come round to his (and presumably your) viewpoint by the use of objective, unemotional, factual logic and reason? Or do you think they are, in your words, trollish?

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please write the Diocese of Southwark expressing > your support for the works to be undertaken by > Southwark Council. > > Dear Mr. Petchy, > > I approve of Southwark's plans for Camberwell Old > and New Cemeteries. > > Their plan to dig up or cover over with dirt the > buried dead of East Dulwich is fine by me. > > I recognize that they were buried in perpetuity > and might even be some of my relatives, or my > neighbours's relatives. It is a tough call but the > living today have the right to buried forever near > our homes with our families. We have that right > even if it means digging up those family members > we want to be buried next to and eventually having > us dug up, too. > > I, in no way, mind being buried above the dead (in > area prone to flooding, made worse by cutting down > the trees). We aren't superstitious and will rest > just as easily in a grave above the newly reburied > remains (ie bones, teeth) of the former occupants, > having replaced their headstones with ours. > > I cannot imagine a time I will go looking for the > remains of my relatives, or others will want to > come looking for me. > > Finally, I prefer to be dug up in a few years. We > need to make space for someone else to be buried. > After all, the Funeral Directors need to work, > too. (And what of the horses who pull the > caskets?) I know I will have spent a lot of money > for the plot and headstone but if that is the > price for local burial for local people, I am > willing to pay it. > > (Insert something about who you are, how you are > just like them, and go to the Church all the > time) > > Oh, I have never been to Nunhead Cemetery so I > don't know what they are on about. These places > are overgrown scrubland. > > Signed > Local Resident > > Richard Hastings, Clerk to the Registry: > [email protected] > > Philip Petchey, Chancellor to the Diocese: > [email protected] > > Paul Morris, Diocesan Registrar > [email protected] > > > Prepared by Lewis Schaffer when i should be > working. edborders/Lewis Schaffer You really don't do yourself or your group any favours, do you? I shall indeed be sending this to Southwark Council and to the Diocese, as you suggest. But the whole post. With your name at the end of it. I expect they have already got the measure of you, though.

Chief Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Should children be spending their time in pubs? They aren't spending all their time in pubs. They are having a family gathering including children in a child friendly pub!

I think you will find that everybody on here is a "real person", whether they "star" in news reports or not. So from what you say above, the church isn't in agreement with the views of your group either but has been placed in a position where they have to act because of the number of objections they have received? Objections instigated by your group? I don't know about anyone else, but I find it quite disturbing that a group which - judging by what has been posted on this forum - has not given people the full and accurate facts or all sides of the argument should be able to hold things up in this way. So can you answer the questions in my previous post concerning the hearing?