nxjen

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.

If you're referring to their judgment about the Camberwell Cemeteries, it annihilated SSW's arguments. "If that's your argument, there's no point in discussing this anymore" You're echoing what many, many people have already said. ETA I would also suggest that when posting links to documents / articles that you claim give weight to your campaign, you read the document in full rather than just cherry pick the odd sentence or two that appear to support your case.

Or take itself off to the nearest collection point!

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 - fab posting, totally sinks foccssw > posting/statement. I see what you did there :)

Except unlikely though it may be both Tories and LibDems could make inroads in that majority and nothing can be taken for granted these days. The more you're trying to persuade me otherwise, the more stubborn I'm becoming!

It's the general election, it is the number of seats. 48% of us have already sent a message. I want to do more with my vote than to send a message that won't be heeded in the slightest, I prefer to use it to elect an MP I can respect.

I know what you're saying Loz and as I said earlier I'm finding it a dilemma. The Lib Dems might pick up some seats in Remain areas but not in those areas that voted Brexit. Even with an alliance with the SNPs, they will not be in a position to be able to reverse the legislation.

" ... the relatives have never been asked about Southwark?s plans." As someone who has a relative buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery, the Southwark Cemeteries consultation documents were available for me and other relatives to respond to so I consider I have been asked about Southwark's Plans.

So as the GE gets closer, the dilemma becomes greater for me to know who to vote for as a labour supporter who does not want to see Corbyn as Prime Minister. No way do I vote Tory. I did initially consider voting LibDem but as time goes on both party and Farron become less inspiring. The only thing that makes them attractive is their pledge to reverse Brexit but they'll have to get a large majority (unlikely) to reverse the legislation passed a few months ago. Which brings me back to Labour. We have in Helen Hayes a very capable MP who in a short time has proved her worth. By all accounts Labour don't stand a chance of forming the next government but in the aftermath Labour will need good people like Helen in Parliament. This is not a marginal constituency so it's unlikely voting for Helen will tip the result in Corbyn's favour but it may form a basis for the GE in 2022. I shall also be joining the Labour Party so I can influence the next Labour leadership contest.

There is a post in the main section that describes a tragic event involving a cat being run over at night-time. This sadly demonstrates the wisdom of keeping cats in at night, a practice recommended by vets and animal rehoming centres.

Let's have a vote on which is the cutest kitten and why we voted that way to see if there is any tactical voting.

I've just seen two of these being trialled with minders on Herne Hill. So funny! I think a tortoise might beat them. They dutifully turned 90 degrees to cross at a zebra crossing and cars stopped for them only to be waved on by their minders. They look cute but vulnerable and would not stand a chance without an accompanying human.

I don't understand how you arrive at that figure, the numbers given for burials in common graves are much higher in both consecrated and unconsecrated land. There are numbers given under the heading of 'Re-openings' which are much lower and I would suggest these are the numbers of burials within private graves of additional family members. ETA. Those buried within a single common grave were buried within the course of a few days of each other, there would be no need for these graves to be 're-opened'.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Whilst I am loathe to say anything which appears > to support ssw I believe that the grave number > (31007) may refer to private graves - the unmarked > public (paupers) graves held a substantial number > additionally, by all account. Indeed, common / public graves were used for multiple burials. Many of these were paid for by the poor who were unable to afford private graves and some were paid for by the parish and would be classed as pauper's burials. So ssw emotive complaint that new burials will be taking place over already interred remains is established practice and can account for the figure of 300,000. I came across an interesting discussion on the types of graves http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/forum/common-graves-t5325.html See in particular the third post down.

In response to the claims, Councillor Ian Wingfield, Southwark's cabinet member for environment and public realm, said: ?The council is trying to create new burial space in the borough so that people can rest in peace close to their home and loved ones. "Without this work we would have run out of space by the end of the year and our plans are largely supported by local people. There is however a small group who are against new burials on this site and will stop at nothing to try and hinder the process. "Despite repeated attempts over the last 12 months to engage with this group they have consistently blocked any attempts at constructive discussion and drowned out other local groups who do want to have a genuine conversation with us. ?The campaigners have also made increasingly outrageous claims to try and discredit the work the council is doing, most of which are inaccurate or outright fantasy. "The council has worked closely with the diocese, wildlife experts and historical and war grave experts in order to preserve and protect areas of the cemetery and we have been sensitive and respectful of those buried here. ?To suggest that our council is riding roughshod over the memories of people buried here, whoever they are, is offensive. Our sole aim is to create the additional burial space local people want and need the best way we can and any suggestions otherwise are simply wrong.?

Just wanted to add to my previous post, that this is a Southwark wide survey, not just confined to Peckham Rye and Dulwich Park. Southwark have a lot of (excellent) open spaces, if dogs are banned that's going to be an awful lot of residents they are going to p*ssed off and the potential for an awful lot more dog poo on the streets. Again, perhaps I'm being naive, and I know councils do an awful lot of stupid things, but I don't think they'd want to do that.

Well no I don't agree. For each question, there are responses Agree Strongly / Agree / Disagree / Disagree Srongly. The questions raised may be alarming to dog owners but I really suspect they have come about because people who are anti dog have made complaints to the Council. People who are happy with current access are unlikely to get in touch with the council specifically to say this. So this is a chance for those who are pro dogs, including myself though not an owner, to have their views taken into account.

It's possible that a "few people who hate dogs" have got in touch with the Council and here the Council is giving an opportunity for dog lovers and owners to have their say. I really don't think a total ban is envisaged.

This survey seems to focus on more specific issues and areas than the previous survey which, from memory which may be faulty, was much more general. The current survey focuses on specific categories within Southwark's open spaces e.g. Cemeteries, designated nature areas, children's areas and the number of dogs to be walked per individual. There are a couple of questions regarding open spaces in general such as the question about dog poo and the authority of a warden to ask dogs to be put on lead. This seems to be more a fine tuning of the previous survey. Call me naive but if enough people respond to the survey saying that dogs should be allowed off lead in nature areas and cemeteries I don't think any restrictions will happen. And if they do, what chance is there of them being enforced?

"Mutton-headed mugwump". Is this why Teresa May has kept Boris close? He adds a bit of colour during a very dull process and can win elections.

Here's a link to Southwark Council's website where the nature reserves are listed. There are seven in total http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/apr/two-new-nature-reserves-for-rotherhithe

With every proposal announced by Labour, I just think yeah whatever.

Yes, I really must go and dry my hair