nxjen

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

I may have got a bit confused after 73 pages but I was under the impression M&S are not the developers. Also isn't planning permission still outstanding on some aspects?

Perhaps he's referring to the SSW campaigners

Perhaps as a first port of call maybe call 101 to express your concerns, or the safer neighbourhood team? I would have thought they would at least be able to point you in the right direction of who to call. Sounds horrendous.

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't realise the second and third paragraphs were quotes from the report

Sue - spot on!

Sorry, I'm unclear who the "us" and "we" in your post refers to - would this be Centre for London or another organisation?

No mention in list of SE22, EDF core area!

I should like to put on record that despite a rumour that is said to be going around I do not work for Southwark Council and have no vested interest. Has anyone else received a PM suggesting they too work for the council?

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Not to overlook for some "I want my house to > > continue to overlook a wooded area rather than > a > > cemetery with the traffic this entails - so > much > > better for property prices." > > What wooded area? I thought the woods didn't exist > - why would anyone pay more for a house that was > near some "worthless scrub land" or a "toxic dump" > as one Labour Councillor called it? Surely your > whole argument is it is really important for > people to be near a cemetery so they can bury > their loved ones? If that was the case wouldn't > they value that more highly? A "wooded area" is not the same as "woods". Some have wooded areas in their gardens but would not refer to them as woods unless they're deluded.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Though you may recall that the campaign started by > trying to turn the cemeteries (all of them, not > just the untended areas) into parkland, so that > the OP could enjoy picnics and country walks (I > only slightly paraphrase). Hence the bucolic (and > fictional) 'Southwark Woods'. This most recent > sensitivity to the long dead and their memorials > (with a huge lack of care and respect towards the > wishes of the recently and future bereaved) > combined with lurid and disgusting fictions about > corpse contamination of local streets shows some > slight change in tack, but the end-game (I want a > park where I live, can't be bothered to go to the > many real parks around the area) remains. Not to overlook for some "I want my house to continue to overlook a wooded area rather than a cemetery with the traffic this entails - so much better for property prices."

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Edward Alleyn must be spinning in his grave. People keep saying this but he was of a very different age and the provisions he made were for the circumstances of the early 17th century. Whilst being concerned about Edward Alleyn's sensibilities, it might be well to consider that he was a successful businessman whose interests included brothels. He was also the "master of the king's games of bears, bulls and dogs" that is he organised the cruel and barbaric "entertainments" of bear- and bull- baiting.

There is so much that could be said to unpack this latest bullying post from EDBorders but the campaigners are now being deliberately provocative, starting new threads and continuing old threads as a means of keeping the subject 'live' when in fact Southwark Council have dismissed their claims one by one and will be proceeding with the works. A lawyer consulted by SSW has stated they have no basis for a legal challenge. Short of chaining themselves to trees when the work is undertaken and lying down in front of JCBs, which will only delay works not prevent them, there appears little more they can do other than hope to achieve something through being a persistent nuisance. Generally I admire perseverence but not in this case where there has been so much alienating behaviour.

HopOne states the money is for: "It's for very basic campaign costs - things like printing, postage, materials, website, or paying for things like tech support or graphics. Not people's time, none of it goes to campaign organisers." EDBorders states: "the money will be used to help reforest and preserve graves in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries" The latter implies the money raised will be used to directly reforest and preserve graves, not for the running of campaign costs.

This is at variance to what EDBorders posted on 6 January on one of the other threads: "Yes, the Benefit is on Valentine's Day, Feb 14, 2016 and the money will be used to help reforest and preserve graves in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries." http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1619517,page=2

I'm curious what your submission would have been had there been a consultation. "I'm against this because it means me disregarding a sign that clearly says 'No Entry' will be recorded and I will be fined"?

'bout now Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There is an etiquette to life in ED which you > > would do well to > > consider, abide by and adhere to. > > > Just highlighted to give some air to this most > entitled of sentences. Is it possible to get hold of a copy of 'Etiquette to life in ED' anywhere? I'd hate to think I was doing the wrong thing.

Except it's already been posted twice already in the thread in The Lounge!

Explain the violation of trust and the promise that has been broken. As has already been pointed out, burial plots have not been sold in perpetuity but only for a fixed term. Pure spin that doesn't stand up to investigation.

"Yes, the Benefit is on Valentine's Day, Feb 14, 2016 and the money will be used to help reforest and preserve graves in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries. [www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]" How exactly will this work? Will you be acting as guerilla cemetery keepers or be giving any money raised to Southwark Council who are responsible for the cemetery's upkeep?

Walking - so good for lifting the spirits, reducing anger, keeping things in perspective etc

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nxjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Reusing graves is a new(ish) idea." > > > > Again, I'm finding these campaigners' idea of > time > > bizarre. Trees that are 20 years old become > > "ancient woodland", a practice that was > occurring > > in at least the 19th century in London is > > described as "new(ish)" > > > I'm guessing they keep starting new threads > because they don't want people to see all the > posts on the old threads which highlight their > attempts to distort facts. > > JohnL, that's an excellent idea. Yeah, they're really just making it up as they go along

"Reusing graves is a new(ish) idea." Again, I'm finding these campaigners' idea of time bizarre. Trees that are 20 years old become "ancient woodland", a practice that was occurring in at least the 19th century in London is described as "new(ish)"