henryb

I am not keen on more cameras or surveillance but claiming speed cameras or other traffic monitoring cameras are an Orwellian violation of our rights is stretching it.

> Presumably you'd agree to one installed in your > front room, pointed at you then? As long as you > don't break any rules... That clearly would a violation for your privacy and covered by article 8 of the HRA. Being filmed in public breaking the law for the sole purpose of law enforcement would not I would say.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "A petition can be submitted by any person of any > age who lives, works or studies in Southwark" > > That should rule out most Lewisham residents. > > Who checks? I am not sure. I guess the constitutional officer. The paper petition was handed in before the meeting. They also accept on-line petitions which have the post code.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edhistory Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The ancient woodland on One Tree Hill: > > > > > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2 > > > 0,file=204661 > > > :) > > ETA: Well, that isn't working, is it. > > Sorry, you'll have to click on the link on > edhistory's post on the previous page. > > Or wait! The wonders of modern technology! > > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2 > 0,file=204661 I am not sure what a grainy un-referenced drawing proves but certainly the area concerned it is not an ancient woodland. The oaks are about 40 years old. However there are some much older oaks near by like along boundary with the allotments.

dbboy Wrote: > Using your own words, how have you earned the > constitutional right? It is part of Southwark constitution. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200287/have_your_say/1703/petitions/3 Section 2.4 http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s57720/07%20Council%20assembly%20procedure%20rules%20July%202015.pdf

googlemaps has one now. Right click - measure distance.

That wouldn't work because the council would then spend ?5m chopping them down so they could bury some bodies there.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edborders Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > There needs to be a discussion about burial > policy and cemetery management but every time we > try to > > post here we get abuse from people who don't > know jack about it and don't even know they don't > know jack. > > That's because everyone suspects you are only > interested in the subject in order to try and stop > a few trees being removed. If you stop > intertwining the subjects, you may have more luck. Trust me Lewis very much loves the old graves as well as the trees.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. That is not true. When the plots now reaching the 75 year mark were being sold it was in perpetuity. Re-use was illegal until recently. The Victorians found it so abhorrent they banned it. The fixed terms came in 1977 I think. The power revoke in perpetuity rights only came recently. Hence the sudden interest in re-use across the country. Southwark is the only London borough to try it a large scale though.

Do playgrounds trump subsidizing in-borough burials? Clearly not in the view of this council.

Well we put the 6 closest community schools and didn't get in any. Neither did we do any of those things you describe. A fairly nasty sneer at local parents landsberger, even for you. You work for the council don't you?

No it is not guaranteed. It happened to us. I am not sure of the exact rules in that situation but seems like you get the closest school with available space. If the previous years was anything to go by (which roughly it is) then that is likely to Cabrini or Harris East Dulwich or Dulwich Wood. Have you seen this? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1510029

If they were planning to use the area for a few months of burial space I would be opposed to it.

Not personally but if you write a book about the history of railways in SE london I promise to come into your shop to buy a signed copy. :o)

Most come from other parts of Southark, Lewisham and SE London. There are some from further afield as need for urban greening is a topic that connects people from different cities.

Yes if you think cutting down 22 trees, spending ?100,000s of public money and upsetting a large proportion of the electorate simply to provide 8 months worth of grave space is a sustainable burial strategy. Considering the massive cuts to other services they are going to have to make I simply I can't believe this is a high enough priority for public money to be spent.

Here is the schedule http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!bJFQV4%2fmxotwMf3GS6C%2bcw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d which is this bit

Yes as I understand electric engines should 3 times more efficient than petrol engines. The limiting factor is the battery life and power - once that it sorted then I imagine most new cars will become electric.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr Barber wrote:- So yes, really, I don't believe > in wasting tax payers money to provide more > expensive burials that only some can use > > I wonder how he is unaware that all proper > management of amenity spaces costs money - the > fact that the cost is so high reflects the lack of > investment and maintenance when the areas were > allowed to degrade so badly - oh, when his party > was in power (part of the time, anyway). > > Only commercial woodlands (planting and harvesting > commercial crops of wood, which I am sure would > upset the nature mavens stimulating this > 'protest')) are self-financing - parks and other > amenity areas cost money to maintain - for the > benefit of all those who use them as spaces, not > just the dead. I walk daily in the Old Cemetery, > and enjoy all the local cemeteries as maintained > areas of tranquility.. The only 'cheap' method of > handling the space is as was done in the past, to > neglect and ignore it so it becomes overgrown, > dangerous and impenetrable. Oh - and the target > for indiscriminate fly-tipping, as in the past. The fly tipping was orchestrated by the cemetery manager and happened at CNC as well which was in active use for burials at the time so the argument the fly tipping was the result of neglect doesn't hold up. Yes, using the spaces as nature reserves/memorial parks wouldn't have zero cost but I very much doubt it would be ?650k per year. Tower Hamlets Cemetery or Nunhead Cemetery would be the two most obviously examples for a funding comparison.

You have missed the point - as has been said by other posters - being in the position of being able to create a large artistic hub is an opportunity for Peckham, it is not solving other peoples problem. Community projects should come from the community. I see wide spread support for the Bold proposal - not any for the Pop one.

> > Also, can you please explain how supporting all > local entrepreneurs rather than just those in the > creative industry reduces the economic diversity > in Peckham rather than enhances it? Slightly absurd argument if I am honest as you could apply it to any usage of any space or building. You have look at the picture across all of Southwark if not SE London. There is a short of studios and Bold proposal seemed an great opportunity make a significant difference to that and at the same time create something unique and original. It seemed to come from the community far more than the Pop one did. It is disappoint LBS turned it down. To be fair I don't know the Pop one in detail but like I said a drop from 800 down 50 is a lot.

Yes very sad. I agree with pork chop - artistic hubs are not just for artists - art by it very nature is for everyone and key aspect of a successful urban environment. Nurturing cultural and creative life at the grass root level is incredibly important for the health of cities and will be increasing important in the future. London is not short of retail premises - it is short of the art studios space and increasingly so. 800 studios down to 50 is very big drop simply to provide some free community space. I am not comparing to Detroit as it has been brought up the reason Detroit died was it totally focused on one industry to the detriment of everything else. Maybe if in it's hay-day it had actively encouraged other creative industries maybe it would have not met the same fate. Out of interest was this a Cabinet decision?

Southwark has a annual turnover of 300m which would put it in the medium-sized business category if you were looking for a private sector comparison. So yes 200k for CEO is a bit toppy looking at industry averages. Plus private sector execs have far more scrutiny on performance which is the bigger problem in my view.

No the traditional curb ones and monuments are not allowed any more. You can only have the new lawn burials style like in the new area by Woodvale - plus plantings flowers is banned. It makes it easier for the mowers apparently.

Yes woodland burials would be the most environmental friendly but unfortunately that isn't being proposed for either area.