edhistory

For the three financial years I gave data the average reuse of common graves was 128 (excluding stillborns).

I can't remember this picture being included in the large number of documents published by Southwark Council. But with the limitations of using engravings as historical evidence it does illustrate the extent of ancient woodland.

> Southwark's own records say this:- Not evidence backed by data, but probably where Save Southwark Woods sourced the 300k.

I'd like to see the 300k calculation. Attached is a three year internment return. Last time the number of bodies was discussed here I checked the survival of internment records with the Local Studies Library. I was told they have a complete set. If anyone fancies a wet day in the library.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is indeed a cemetery - a full one, an historic > one - with 300,000 people buried here. So let the > dead and the woods rest in peace. 300,000? Here's a certificate from 1952.

I've been told that the Art Deco building in Crystal Palace Road has been demolished to make way for slave-box flats. Is this correct? Did anyone take photographs?

Brulysses Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [...] which is exactly what this forum > is for...idiot. This forum is whatever Mark says it is for, and he's not an idiot.

> to help us provide better facilities for our postmen and women Just for the record: Silvester Road Mess / staff room 84.0 sqm Highshore Road Restaurant 88.0 sqm Kitchen 30.5 sqm

I don't remember "pick and destroy" being part of the deal when we made our contribution. I remember "visit and enjoy". John K

Does Sydenham have a cemetery?

The Tree Management Strategy (2013) does not designate either Camberwell Old Cemetery or Camberwell New Cemetery as "woodland". The writer of the footnote(2) to paragraph 3.1, C.Cook, seems to be confused. There may be another document that designates either or both of the cemeteries as "woodlsnd".

Garrick Alder, "journalist", has been suckered.

Which of Ms Cameron's misrepresentations is your favourite?

> You have a lot of support from many people. I thought this number was a secret. Do you have inside information? And just to clarify your post, what is this "good work" you support?

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although financial authorities, such as HMRC and > DWP, may only want to inspect receipts from the > last seven years or so, that's because there are > limits to how far into the past they can be > bothered to peer. I thought this arrangement (and possibly law) had now been revoked.

> Looking at singing as a healing tool. Healing?

> Celebrate life after death amongst the beautiful, living woods and old graves of the Camberwell Cemeteries that so inspired William Blake and others. ROTFLMAO

Large site, many slave boxes, big profit.

> By reducing its 'saleability' this may encourage Royal Mail to re-think its plans Destroy the building and take the miniscule fine on conviction as a small business cost.

There's normally not much chance of getting an 1891 brick built non-domestic building listed. Our sorting office is different. It was designed by Henry Tanner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tanner_(architect) The architectural plans have been lodged in the National Archives. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=east+dulwich+sorting+tanner As far as I know, none of his Post Office work has been given listed status. If one representative example should be saved it might as well be Silvester Road. We have not been able to establish if the friezes are made of pulhamite. If so this would be an extra bonus for listing. There are very few in situ examples in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulhamite We have been assured that the war memorial will not be destroyed. John K

We have already put in an application for listed status. This is now just parked pending a formal planning application that puts the building at risk. Another application from someone else might help. John K DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do not know if the Building has any 'Listed > Status' if that is the correct terminology. > > If the Building were to have a 'Listed Status' or > 'Listed Status' were to be applied for, > it would be difficult to get a change of use and > make the building difficult to sell. > > Just a thought.. > > DulwchFox

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The OP says "please help yourself to the herbs"... Not sure that Monica has this right.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Also, far removed from the issues if you think > that this is just about Southwark residents. Are you a Lewisham resident?

Does anyone remember Southwark's previous experience with self-raising bollards?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would guess some of that cost is to pay the > contractor to install the hangar. It's a lovely > round number. Will this be a F.M.Conway contract?