nxjen

goosey-goosey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One comment on the non-viability of a direct ED/PR > connection to the West End - I'm sure someone in > the know once told me a branchline could be > reopened somewhere between the Elephant & > Castle/Blackfriars and Charing Cross at relatively > low cost. Perhaps capacity problems at CX prevent > this. Interesting. Of course this would be the Thameslink line into Blackfriars and beyond so not applicable to trains from ED but for trains from PR or DH. Have had a quick whizz around the internet and this site http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/borough_road/ seems to indicate that a spur at Union Street took trains from the Elephant into Charing Cross. I think you're right though when you say existing capacity problems at CX would make the reopening of the branch line a non-starter.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have the protesters or Church taken out an > injunction against Southwark? > Are the Church then only interested in the matter > of the consecrated ground? > If that is the case, my understanding of what > Penguin68 said in his initial post here, was that > the ground clearance does not effect the > consecrated ground. I don't think either have, it's something Loz picked up from their Twitter feed - see his post above. tbh, now that a certain poster has been banned, it's clearer to see that ssw are coming across as all talk and no trousers.

It's not full if more burial space can be created. What are your parameters for describing it as full?

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Intended purpose isn't a strong argument is it? > London is full of graveyards that have become full > and are no longer used for burials. Well yes, intended and current purpose is a very strong argument, especially when there is a need for burial space locally. It's like closing a school arbitrarily and saying right let's turn this into a cinema, or council offices, or a shopping mall.

dbboy Wrote: > > Blanche - Can you explain what you mean by "and > became a formal party in the Church proceedings". > Are you actually saying that the protest group is > working in partnership with the Diocese, because I > can't see what else you are saying unless I have > missed something. I think what Blanche means, and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that her group will be heard when the matter is before the Consistory Court in the same way that Southwark Council will be heard. Neither group will be acting in partnership with the Diocese who will be taking evidence to help their decision as to whether or not to grant permission for the works to be undertaken by Southwark Council.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Loz, > > > We are looking at every single option available to > stop Southwark felling even more trees, especially > when they don't have permission from the relevant > authorities. > Isn't it for the "relevant authorities" to take out an injunction which they declined to do earlier?

Sometimes it's just so hard to resist making a sarcastic post

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1644065

Being able to use a cemetery as a public space is a fortunate side effect but its prime function is still that of a cemetery, a final resting place.

Dopamine1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I got one of those stickers too. Our neighbours > didn't. > > I felt disproportionately smug. Yes, I did too. Little things, eh? As for people only putting paper and bags on the top to hide non-recylcable items to fool the refuse collectors ... really?

Unfortunately not! I made the wrong decision about going onto a fixed tariff and did not benefit from the reduced energy costs. Win some, lose some.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. Glad to see an unemotive, coherent and logical argument.

The comparison with Nunhead Cemetery is inappropriate as there are very few burials taking place there now. Southwark's plans for Camberwell New and Old Cemeteries is to keep them as operational cemeteries.

The plans are to accommodate future requirements, that those who are bereaved in the future are able to bury and visit their loved ones locally. I don't understand why those who are able to do this now wish to deny this to those who will suffer loss in the future.

For those seeking a direct train line from ED to Charing Cross, I'm no engineer but there would be huge logistical problems. The line from ED joins the lines from Kent and other places in SE London at Southwark Park Road. ED trains get in at London Bridge at platform 14/15, the line that carries trains to Charing Cross from London Bridge commences at platform 6. So tracks would have to be built with points changes to bring trains from platform 14 to platform 6 on the length of track from Southwark Bridge Road to London Bridge. Possible I guess but it would affect the running of all trains from Kent, rest of SE London and ED line. Could only result in fewer trains all round and more delays.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And Sue, while we are at it, perhaps you could > consider that just because someone says something > you disagree with, does not mean that they are > part of any group! No one is suggesting that Laur is part of a group (though of course she may well be!). However, the ssw campaign has been very vocal and has attempted a high media profile for their cause. Many may have been influenced by it, and believed what ssw have said without critically evaluating it, and like Zak Goldsmith, have swallowed it whole. (Sorry Sue, I know you can speak for yourself, I just couldn't hold it in!)

My quarterly gas bill at end of February much lower than last year and lowest it's been for years

Laur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having not read the apparent previous LONG threads > Sue, it's strange that I have come to the same > conclusion then isn't it... You might find it illuminating to read the previous thread. > I don't use the cemetery just as > a walk through, but rather as a place to quietly > remember my loved ones. Southwark Council's proposals ensure the future of the cemetery as a place to quietly remember loved ones whereas ssw's ultimate aims are to end burials in both cemeteries. I wonder have you read Southwark Council's proposals or if you are relying on information from others.

I think there are instances where Southwark Council do sell, not just as RTB, but in non estate locations where the properties are below current standards required and would cost a fortune to bring up to that standard. For instance, there was that large house in Bankside, the one with the Courage logo on the side, that was sold amidst huge outcry but made economic sense to the Council. Have you been in touch with the Council, or maybe your local councillor to clarify the situation? I think though it's unlikely the Council will sell, at least I hope so, with an existing tenant whether they're a sitting tenant or not. Should like to add I'm very much against RTB, don't get me started.

BB's post 5.14 am this morning clarifies ownership

It may be a private road but there may be all sorts of covenants attached regarding access. Is there a sign displayed stating the road is private and access for station drop offs is not allowed? Without such a notice a civil matter would not get very far as the law makes allowances that most people are not telepathic

"No, the dead of today can be buried, just not (for much longer) in a Victorian cemetery coming to the end of its life as a working cemetery." Except it's not coming to the end of its life as a working cemetery as Southwark Council's proposals will be making more burials possible.

"Many more trees are being removed than are being replaced. The council are claiming otherwise but only by changing the definition of a tree depending on whether it is removed (> 150mm girth) vs planted (any sapling will do)." Saplings grow into fully mature trees. The council are planning for the future, indeed, giant oak trees from acorns grow.

"Modern graveyards look bloody awful" Perhaps, but we should not overlook the fact their purpose is to enable a fundamental human rite of passage.

kiera Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Many > local residents believe that these cemeteries can > continue to be used as working cemeteries without > destroying the nature which has become established > in them. Perhaps this is an outcome that many who are in favour of the council plans would agree with and, as far as I can see, is included for in the council plans. However, the extreme viewpoint of SSW, who want to see the cemeteries wilded and have made a lot of self-righteous, outraged (not to forget outrageous) emotive and exaggerated noise, has put the backs up of many who would be sympathetic to your viewpoint. I think as Penguin has said in other posts, the effort should be put into ensuring the Council plans are carried out sympathetically and sensitively as the plans will go ahead.