Sue

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.

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?