nxjen

You may be confused with a post I made seeking clarification from Admin about the area that could be included in the Main section. As for Camberwell Old Cemetery, it may not be within East Dulwich Ward but with an SE22 postcode it is clearly in East Dulwich. Where do you think it is?

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well said Penguin68 I agree. I was thinking exactly the same thing but Penguin has expressed it a lot more articulately than I could!

The Officers Report which can be found from following the link on ianr's post makes for interesting reading and calmly counters the objections. The area is referred to as "recent ruderal shrub" that's 12 years old, and more trees will be planted than destroyed.

"Open Space left for common land and cemetery space in the 1800's was land that flooded and was useless otherwise." Not so. In the case of Peckham Rye Common this was highly desirable land for building upon and it is only because of the foresight of Camberwell Vestry who purchased the Rye in 1868 to prevent this happening that we have the wonderful open space now. Their successors the Camberwell Borough Council compulsorily purchased One Tree Hill to maintain it as a public space at the beginning of the 20th century.

The link in the first post invites objectors to write a letter protesting about the plans to the Church, the Diocese of Southwark. Seems a bizarre course of action but I may be missing something.

"The Crown & Greyhound (Once two pubs) Could possible survive as a Pub.. I'm not too sure who would stay there if it became a hotel. Too far from central London ?? ..and a bit isolated with poor transport links." It will be popular with those visiting from outside London, come to see their grown up children and grand-children. I think it's a lovely spot for a hotel, North Dulwich station just up the road.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I noticed today rather large square bollard type > things (hard to describe) at the junction of > Melbourne Grove and ED Grove on both sides. They > have also appeared on the junction of Glengarry Rd > into ED Grove. What are these for??? I've seen these too. I think they serve the same function as the metal bell shaped things on other corners which I have always assumed were to prevent cars cutting corners over the pavement. Would be interested to learn if this is correct.

I've got very confused what area constitutes East Dulwich for matters to be included in the General ED issues section of EDF. It used to be for matters strictly within East Dulwich and matters concerning other areas were quickly transferred to The Lounge. Now there is a thread concerning a Sainsburys in Dulwich Village and not so long ago there was the thread regarding the development of the SG Smith site, again in Dulwich Village. No complaints really about this but the thread regarding the possible cycle way in Adys Road has been moved to The Lounge when Adys Road falls within East Dulwich more than Dulwich Village does. It seems that East Dulwich is creeping to the west. Any comments from Admin or guidance regarding the boundaries of East Dulwich?

Are you rabbit ears or rabbi tears or even rab bit ears?

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isaiah14 you are as much a teacher as Jeremy > Corbyn is likely to be the next Prime Minister. I said something like this about Margaret Thatcher ...

Is there a Deceros as well?

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You're going to start an argument with that > map. > > > That's the map Google displays when you search for > East Dulwich - isn't it correct? I have to say > that from a boundary point of view I've always > considered Goose Green to be in Peckham. There is > the church parish area of East Dulwich which I > think may permit a wider interpretation of the > boundaries of East Dulwich, as I think > traditionally church parish boundaries are older > than those of more modern maps, such as Google's > or A-Z (based on my limited knowledge of > cartography). I think the boundaries Google Maps displays are for East Dulwich ward rather than the larger East Dulwich locality.

Population of East Dulwich plummets. Research is conducted to discover any similarities between the East Dulwich triangle and the Bermuda Triangle.

Goose Green isn't part of East Dulwich?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It doesn't intimidate me - it sort of makes me > give them a nice smile :) "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me"

I'd be interested to learn how old woodland has to be to be defined as historic. Here is a picture of One Tree Hill taken in 1905 - no woodland there.

That Southwark Council have mismanaged the cemetery in the past is no argument that they should not take appropriate, proper action now. No, "Southwark Woods" is not merely a campaign name, it is a rebranding exercise that in a stroke attempts to misleadingly transform a cemetery into a historic area of woodland.

Thanks Renata for clarification regarding Muslim and Jewish burials and also for advising where the mythical cemetery is "a couple of miles away"! I agree Siduhe that this particular argument from S"SW" is at odds with the main thrust of their objections and, again, disingenuous. As for James' point that "Effectively the council will be grossly subsidising every burial there", when so much is paid for through one tax or another,I really don't have a problem with burials being subsidised.

I have had a quick scan through the page linked above and notice you assert: "This application supports unfair burial provision, as none of the burial provision would be accessible to Southwark residents of Orthodox Jewish or Muslim faiths, who also require burial" Can you advise me where in Southwark's proposals it states this, or how you reach this conclusion?

Any guesses what the site is worth today?

Choice of Sadiq Khan and now Corbyn overwhelming rejection of Blairites and Blairite policies. Perhaps we can now have an opposition with some teeth.

Edited as may have jumped to wrong conclusion.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have less materials been used in the delivered > changes and hence a reduction in contract price? Conway would have procured materials as per client specification. Any surplus materials would now be the property of the client. Of course, these materials can then be used for future jobs but I've a feeling it won't work that way.

Whilst not wishing to detract in the slightest from any initiatives to help those in Calais, as we have seen on the news over the past week, there are by far much greater numbers of refugees requiring help further east in Europe on the trail from Turkey to Germany and beyond. The Red Cross has launched an appeal to help what is estimated to be the hundreds of thousands affected. Donations can be made at http://www.redcross.org.uk/About-us/News/2015/September/British-Red-Cross-launches-urgent-appeal-for-Europe-refugee-crisis

If your TV has an HDMI socket, would recommend a ROKU stick which streams TV from the internet. Able to chose apps for many channels (mostly obscure!) but includes ones for the main catch up channels BBC iplayer, ITV player, 4OD, Five and the Google one which downloads paid for films and TV programmes. Also Netflix and NOW-tv which require subscriptions. I've found that since I've been using ROKU I'm recording far fewer programmes.