edhistory

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 10 acres is the wooded part > It is about 3 acres and they are going > to get around 800 plots. Still can't get the numbers to work, even on this sub-set. That runs out at 18 square yards per burial plot. Where is your source? John K

An interesting new charity 1139952 based in TW10 7LG and E8 4YR The 2014 accounts show the orchard tree per buck figure. Perhaps the charity could start with Melbourne Orchard. John K never could spell paarrashewte

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > After the ten acres of woods are cut down and 200 > dead people a year are buried, in 10 to 15 years > there will be no more space in the 10 acres for > more dead bodies and the woods will have been > lost. 10 to 15 years. 10 to 15 years. 10 to 15 > years. 10 to 15 years. 10 acres is 48400 square yards. Let's say each burial plot is 2 square yards. How many burial plots can be placed in 10 acres? How long will the 10 acres last with 200 new unshared burial plots each year? I can't get the numbers to work. John K

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know that Wikipedia (via 'Save Honor Oak > Recreation Park) is claiming 300k burials - and > that just between 1856 and 1984) - but if we > assume 140 burial years to date (and that only > gives 20 years or so when burials stopped before > re-starting, and I think that was actually a > longer hiatus) then this is burying at a rate of > over 2000 a year (in the first 30 years the > run-rate was only 1000 a year, at a time of higher > mortality, again according to Wiki) - or over 5 > burials a day, seven days a week. An initial rate > of 1000 a year for the first 30 years of > operation, when mortality rates were higher, > suggests a huge increase in annual burials after > 1886 when death rates were falling to reach the > claimed 300k. And of course many more than 2000 > burials a year at some point. By 1927 the New > Cemetery was operating - again suggesting that to > get to 300k burials there must have been an awful > lot of dying activity locally, particularly as the > same source suggests that between 1939 and 1984 > 91k cremations had taken place in the New > Cemetery. > > These figures do not stack-up (and neither will > the claimed bodies to make up the numbers). > Paupers graves, out of interest, by the mid 19th > century were not 'mass graves' - they were > unmarked and there might be a number of coffins in > each grave (stacked)- but their positions were > recorded. The number of quite large monuments > don't suggest huge amounts of room for unmarked > paupers graves. Good piece of analysis without access to original data. The Camberwell Borough Council interment returns I have show: 1905 3153 1906 3011 1907 3359 1908 2924 There's a big BUT. Within the above figures are stillborns and children: 1905 1279 40% 1906 1013 33% 1907 1260 37% 1908 1016 34%

Does anyone remember Mrs Reed's massive shiney G-clef brooch? No time for time-wasters at Reed's. All records, apart from a handful in the counter browser, were filed in catalogue number order behind the counter. I bought EKL 4001 from her. John K

tfwsoll Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some great additions to the site. Love the one of > the record store I bought my first record in Follets. Probably 1957. The 78rpm shellacs were in the semi-basement. Probably because they were far too heavy for the ground floor joists. That was a transitional period. I had a choice. I went for the new-fangled 45rpm 7" vinyl. There was also a "higher class" record store at 40 Lordship Lane: R. Mansel Jones. This web-page has a picture of one of the gramophones sold by Jones http://sounds.bl.uk/Sound-recording-history/Equipment/029M-52XFROWX1988-0002V0

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I was refused entry to the Peckhample as I failed > to use 'innit' correctly in a sentence when > challenged. Wasn't my fault - I thought they said > 'Inuit' and I started chatting about Eskimos. Loz needs to read a little about "inuit" and "eskimos".

There was a typo: "you hole" should read "your hole".

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ha! 'Blow-in'? You're just a male Louisa, aren't > you? But without the popularity and sense of > humour. And less interesting to read. Good advice: Stop digging you hole else you might end up in Australia. John Kennedy

Sorry about this JOHNNYBOY. I know the moderators have done this to you several times before. It's just that they don't know East Dulwich very well. I don't think any of them actually live in East Dulwich. John Kennedy

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I had a read of the site. I always like to read > computershorty's stuff. > > There is a lot on non-ED stuff on there. Or > haven't you looked at the site yet? More ignorance compounded. Perhapd Loz is a blow-in who doesn't know East Dulwich very well. These are the main articles on JOHNYBOYS web-site: The Boy From East Dulwich Bicknell's Coal Merchant Everitt Vero Camberwell New Cemetey St Clements East Dulwich Chapel St John's Church Grove Vale Depot Heber Road School Thomas Calton School Honor Oak Nursery Photo Gallery 2 [old photos of East Dulwich] Underhill Road prefabs S.G.Smith [barry Road and East Dulwich Road] Follets Music Shop [Lordship Lane] Crystal Palace Tavern [before it was gutted] Evans Dairy Place Bakeries John K

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edhistory Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The new JOHNNYBOY thread > > > > > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2 > 0,1534523 > > > > was lounged too. > > > > John K > > As it's not specifically about East Dulwich I'm > not surprised. Don't post in ignorance. Have a look at the new material about the Underhill Road area. John K

The new JOHNNYBOY thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1534523 was lounged too. John K

www.camberwellboroughcouncil.co.uk now has some very interesting new material on East Dulwich. John K

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Forest Hill Society says that 300,000 people > are interred in COC. Where is the evidence to support this assertion? John K

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/1405

The decision on planning application 11-Ap-0024 (for the old garden centre site) has some planning requirements. inter alia: 19. To complete three bat surveys before any work is started. 18. To provide 10 bat bricks whether or not bats are found. There is a labyrinth of application variations to 11-AP-0024 (mainly 12-AP-3023) but I have not seen one setting aside the bat survey requirement. Can anyone identify where the bat survey was published. Pretty smart bats that obey Southwark Council and refuse to fly over Railway Rise to Railway Cottages. John K

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this unique bit of listed history Is this the un-weathered lump of stone that was "discovered" in 1922?

The Dulwich Raider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Meant to say, I was unable to find a picture of > the Kings on the Rye anywhere. > > If anyone knows of one I'd love to see it. I'll email you a 1907 photo. There is some interesting history in your piece. John K

Andrew1011 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The new library was agreed by the original > developer under section 106 Where did you get your copy of the S106 requirement? John K

https://web.archive.org/web/20061029023941/http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,11

About 100 square metres.

yeknomyeknom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ive never seen a small flat with double toilets. > A small office? Yes. Not a small flat. I have no > comment on the application itself but let's not > make up stuff so we have more to whinge about. Looks like a two two bog flats to me.

phobic3000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Admin why don't you It it correct that everyone who runs the East Dulwich Forum no longer lives in East Dulwich? John K