nxjen

Not much Art Deco about Domino's Pizza! And it's been renovated and altered so much I'm guessing just the external brickwork and perhaps roof is all that remains of the original. When I first knew it, it consisted of three separate shops - was that how it was originally?

As I said before, now the works are getting closer, Southwark are working co-operatively with CWGC regarding the details of the plans so that tweaks can be made. It's common for building plans to be amended constantly until the project's finished. I doubt that the CWGC has been put in any position they can't handle and would repeat that they have issued a statement that they are happy with the works.

"Why weren't the CWGC consulted in 2011 when Southwark was consulting on their burial strategy?" Because the 2011 consultation was about overall strategy and it would have been premature. Now the works are getting closer, Southwark are working co-operatively with CWGC regarding the details of the plans so that tweaks can be made. Once again, you are trying to make a big deal out of something that really isn't an issue in the hopes of gaining support in your aim of change of use for the cemeteries to become nature reserves.

Oh, the "I was only joking" defence

Well, this may be your meaning of the word confrontation but the Oxford Dictionary of English definition is a "hostile or argumentative situation or meeting between two opposing parties." Doesn't say anything about a smile or "just requesting". Anyway, if you're criticising the OP for ranting on the forum about an occurrence rather than "confronting" the issue in real life, can I quote the following" " ...ignorant self righteous mother on a phone, who you've just stepped out of the way for to let her and her oversized pram pass by on the narrow footpath of Adys RD, refuses to acknowledge your goodwill by saying thankyou, kiss your arse or anything else. Ignorant cow. Bugger off back to Clapham!"

It surprise me Louisa that you haven't yet made the connection that confrontation can lead to counter-confrontation and aggression. Unless of course that's your intention.

And it's despicable the way you're now trying to "reach out" to family members of those who are buried there, soldiers and civilians, to prey upon their emotions in the hopes of forming a pressure group that will prevent the works.

Ssw: "We do not know how 'happy' the CWGC is with Southwark." CWGC: "The Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) has agreed with the London Borough of Southwark that: no war graves will be disturbed during the planned works at Camberwell Old Cemetery, that no burials will take place above the war graves and that we will be able to mark graves which were previously inaccessible. We only have responsibility for the war graves and these have all been identified and will not be affected by the works." They seem pretty happy to me. Don't think they will be when they see your rude and aggressive letter.

"The CWGC were brought in, we believe, in 2016 and development had been going on for years." And FOCC ssw showed no interest or knowledge of the war graves until 2017 when they took the "cause" up for their own opportunistic ends.

As Penguin has said, the onus was not on Southwark Council to locate these graves as it appears that CWGC knew the locations of these "missing" graves and are in agreement with Southwark's proposals. Your attempts to create tabloid hysteria are failing miserably.

Otta - that's exactly what they are doing!

"We've just published the names of the 131 First World War soldiers missing in the old cemetery." No they're not "missing in the old cemetery", the locations of their graves are easily found on https://www.deceasedonline.com/servlet/GSDOSearch. As you're so concerned, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

"There are more than enough arguments to stop this project." Well no there aren't. Arguments, as focc / ssw have demonstrated, are very easy to manufacture but an argument that will sway a court of law is a different matter and it will only be through the legal process that Southwark's plans will be halted. How's the legal challenge going BTW?

Cycling on the pavement is illegal, potentially dangerous, not to mention scarey for pedestrians when they are overtaken at speed with only a couple of inches gap from behind with no warning. And the cyclists are making out they're the victims? Once I remonstrated with someone cycling on the pavement and I was told not to be so rude!!! ETA. Seabag: cataloging thoughtless behaviour by pedestrians is no justification for cycling on the pavement.

S/he went into meltdown and was banned

I wonder what the solicitors' searches found during the conveyancing?

Pecan in Peckham High Street

Kathy Burr - what is your connection to the new website?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > My theory is that they are gathering material for > a future "comedy" event or publication by the > charming Lewis. Or gathering material for a PhD thesis on "Resistance within the Community to Nature Conservation within an Urban Area: How can this be Broken Down?"

There is a different dynamic between Dulwich Village and East Dulwich, not the least the overwhelming presence of the Dulwich Estate in the Village. The history and character of East Dulwich differs considerably to that of Dulwich Village. There have been a few queries on the EDF regarding the East Dulwich Society from those interested in participating but the organisation seemed to lapse some time ago and no information was forthcoming. Now it is has been subsumed into the Dulwich Society when I think there is a case for a newly formed and re-invigorated East Dulwich Society. It's just a thought really, I appreciate it requires people, energy and commitment to make it happen which may not be forthcoming.

Perhaps it might be an idea to start a new thread regarding setting up a New East Dulwich Society so that those who would like to become involved in the setting up of such a society can contribute. For it to be effective it needs to be more than an ad hoc East Dulwich Committee and properly constituted. It has been said a few times on the forum that East Dulwich is in need of such a society.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've always suspected their MO is to over value in > order to get a seller to sign up with them, give > it a few weeks and then drop the price to the > going rate. But in this case 40% over the going > rate is quite a mark-up... I agree and currently there is a shortage of properties coming on to the market. Foxton's are marking up this high to ensure they get the instruction.

I can't decide whether Blanche is A) a troll B) severely lacking in comprehension skills C) just plain ignorant of the way local democracy and the law works D) devoid of any real connection to real life. Her tactics seem little more than Violet Elizabeth Bott's "I'll scream and I'll scream til I make myself sick"

I'm sure this is a worthy project but would be more inclined to offer my support if it was not described as "Growing Football". *shudders*. You grow vegetables.