nxjen

The answer is in your own post of yesterday morning. Should like to add that we all find this thread and what has led to it very upsetting. Perhaps all posters could show sensitivity like most who have posted already have.

It is a very useful link. For the sake of balance, I am reproducing what they say about the proposed work in Camberwell New Cemetery: "On Camberwell New, it does seem that some people involved in the campaign group have reached the point of not accepting we should ever cut down any tree ever, for any reason. The main new site at Camberwell New is a concrete slab that can't currently be accessed by the public. The smaller additional site would mean the loss of a few poor quality trees on the edge of grass/lawn area on a slope that hasn't been used - 13 trees is the number given. This spot is right on the edge of the wooded boundary of the cemetery (all protected) and One Tree Hill (a stunning wooded background and all protected obviously). The feeling of the wooded edge of the cemetery will still be retained and this piece of lawn can be brought into use. Again I visited yesterday and felt no concern that the character of the cemetery or the neighbouring nature reserve would be affected"

One of SSW stated aims is for burials in the cemeteries to be halted and for both to become nature conservation areas for recreation similar to Nunhead Cemetery. I would be interested to learn from those who share some of the aims of SSW but state they are independent of the organisation how they feel about this. It seems that by concentrating on the issue of flooding, which everyone seems to agree needs to be addressed, and transparency of the Council or otherwise the ultimate aim is being obscured.

Double bluff or not this is hurting my head. There was another mention of Lewis / Brian about the same time as Lewis was revealed as Brian (2013) which says the Brian character was the hoax. http://www.beyondthejoke.co.uk/content/opinion-worlds-slowest-ever-slow-burn-gag Go to the end of the article. Until this thread, I don't think the world has given a s*** about the real identity, if in fact either are.

Agree totally Penguin. This Lewis / Brian character is really a bit of a saddo

"Let's just stop all this and starve them of the attention they so desperately crave." Agree, and the way Twitter is being used by the banned member has been a very clever tactic in keeping this thread alive.

I saw the SSW letter. Wrong on so many levels. They really know how to win friends and influence people.

"they see themselves in your photograph and think of you sneaking in their faces." Photo is from SSW twitter feed

There's ALD Life in Peckham. http://www.aldlife.org/shop/charity-shops/peckham/ Very friendly people and very appreciative. ETA They will arrange to collect by appointment

Whittler Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This has been discussed a lot here > https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= > 13543&p=129217&hilit=quad+bikes&sid=1c80f80e5a16b8 > 908cb399a08f18754f#p129217 and here http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1594874,page=1

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So sorry, these are conservation sites. That > include woodland. > > It is very interesting that the council felt the > need to find out what works they could do without > faculty. They seem to think they needed > permission. Even if they are acting without it. The attached link provides another link to a map of Southwark that shows conservation areas shaded in brown. If you follow the links through to the map, you will see that neither cemetery is shaded. I agree they are an SINC but as BNG says these do not have statutory protection. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/511/conservation_areas

In their letter to Southwark Council of 11 January, the Diocese do a very good job of sitting on the fence regarding tree felling and scrub clearance. They list what is permissable within a secular conservation area and go on to state they don't know if the cemetery falls within a conservation area. Though categorised as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, it is not within a conservation area. There is a lot of confusion in the minds of SSW regarding these two categories which has led to a lot of misinformation.

So East Dulwich is just a state of mind :)

You may be jumping to the wrong conclusions by only seeing the appointments that are available. You need to bear in mind that 1) I believe some doctors in the practice work part-time 2) Some doctors spend sessions attending the baby clinic and other special patients sessions 3) Some of the doctor hours would be spent on telephone triage, dealing with emergency appointments and home visits which would not show on the appointments available. 4) They have correspondence to deal with, referring patients to hospital, checking test results etc etc 4) And while I'm sure the doctors would prefer to spend time on patient care, they have to spend a certain amount of time on admin. So while they're not available for face to face appointments, they are certainly kept busy in other ways.

I'm not sure if there's one in East Dulwich but there's one on Peckham High Street next to the Post Office. It's called Pecan. http://www.pecan.org.uk/what-we-do/community-services/southwark-foodbank Sainsburys made a huge blunder with my delivery just before Christmas - I got a refund and PECAN got the food I couldn't use. Win/Win!

Jennys Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am surprised given another long-running thread > that this area is not already known as the > Southwark Meadows or some such emotive title. Interesting to compare the numbers that have signed the respective petitions. SSW have struggled to achieve just over 8000 today, a year since the petition was put online. The Open Nunhead Reservoir campaign on the other is now approaching 5,500 signatures only 16 days after being put online. The message is to keep it simple, keep it sincere and don't insult your would-be supporters' intelligence.

Lewis - you have told us this repeatedly ad nauseum, saying it over and over again isn't going to gain you any support, in fact the opposite. Your language has been a problem, certainly as far as I'm concerned. And so much of this is just dramatic conjecture on your part e.g. "rows of graves sold to people who may think they are going to be there forever and probably haven't been told they are above the bodies of the dead." How can you say this with any degree of certainty, as has already been pointed out, the "length of tenure" is clearly stated in the paperwork Southwark Council provides. Those who have responded regarding these claims aren't in fact bothered by what you are trying to persuade us is so horrifying as we have to be practical and the situation is the same through out London. You remind me of a petulant kid stamping their foot and repeating what they want over and over again in the hope they'll get it.

They've got so caught up in their own spin and hyperbole they've lost sight of their original aim.

Laura: The Collins dictionary defines a troll as someone who posts "deliberately inflammatory articles on an internet discussion board". There is only one person on this thread who has done that.

There's a joke somewhere about edborders digging his own grave but it's probably in bad taste so will refrain.

"I thought SE21's Dulwich Park was viewed as a key benefit of living in ED." Peckham Rye Common and Peckham Rye Park partially in SE22 are more of a key benefit of living in ED though I guess it depends on which side of Lordship Lane you live.

?One of the reasons the council is planning on doing illegal work right now is that they didnt expect the church to get THAT many objections - over 800 people spoke out against cutting down trees and mounding over and digging up graves. - That caused additional delay. The church has had to schedule a hearing. I got the feeling they didn't want that.? I have today written to the Diocese of Southwark expressing my support for the works to be undertaken by Southwark Council. It would be helpful to the Diocese to receive a more balanced view of the community?s wishes about these works, works that have gone through the democratic consultation process. Contact details gleaned from the SSW website are: Richard Hastings, Clerk to the Registry: [email protected] Philip Petchey, Chancellor to the Diocese: [email protected] Paul Morris, Diocesan Registrar [email protected] It is odd that the campaigners are seeking and expecting the support of the Church of England to turn a space used for Christian burial, which the Council are seeking to extend, into an area to be used for secular pursuits that deny any ongoing Christian involvement.

I know ... I know :)

I was highly offended when he suggested I worked for Southwark Council.

I don't understand what you're telling Miss TV not to do