taper

Agreed, Stephen Govier shouldn't detract from this thread. I only brought him up because James Barber referred to Tweets from DH fans on Saturday, "antagonising nearby residents," adding that they made it clear "some fans really do not want to have anything to do with the local community." I think he was referring to Tweets inspired by Mr Govier's trolling. And if he was, he should say on here he was mistaken and retract what he said about DH fans.

Indeed. An inversion of the truth. On Saturday there were various examples of Mr Govier jumping in on the back of tweets about the game (not remotely aimed at him or on the subject of Greendale): at best to complain about the impact on the peace and quiet of DKH; at worst attempting to get someone sacked because of an innocent reflection about a terrace chant. All of this utterly unprovoked and pretty aggressive. In between there were various accusations about Chinese property developers, the Welsh, the gentrifiers of Urban 75 (!), drug-dealing in the ground, corruption in the Labour party (sic) and the upper middle classes that frequent this site. He has also targeted people who post about Dulwich Hamlet and made totally unprovoked comments.

It is very unpleasant stuff indeed from Mr Govier. Might James Barber clarify whether it is these Tweets he is refering to? It may be he mistakenly thought Govier was the victim. But he needs to clarify because he made quite an accusation about some Hamlet fans. And can Friends of Greendale clarify what role Govier is playing in their campaign?

I am not talking about the whole of Greendale, I'm referring to the strips around the edge of the AstroTurf. That's what are referred to in these calculations. I don't suppose you have used those today. The land as I assume you know has not been publicly accessible for a long time except recently. The recent history of Dulwich Hamlet has been very troubling and took it to the brink of ruin. The current plans are a golden opportunity to put it on a sustainable and community owened footing. I'd be interested to see the tweets James refers to. The only abusive and decidedly troubling tweets I have seem have come from Stephen Govier, who seems to be energised by this campaign. I'd really like to know how he is involved in the friends of greendale and this campaign.

Examples off the Tweets? I didn't see any. Please tell me you're not talking about Mr Govier.

Virgin land! Come off it. The asset of local cultural importance in that area is Dulwich Hamlet Football club. And if its future can be secured using a derelict piece of AstroTurf and insignificant and seldom used bits of the area bordering it, then so be it. If you were at the game yesterday, you will have seen a club that's the beating heart of its community. Fetishising this land risks all of that. And for what? The irony of course is that part of this plan are about bringing back greendale into proper public access and use; something we haven't seen for decades. Arguing it is some sort of precious wilderness that should be preserved in aspic is against the community interest.

I don't understand why anyone would be disturbed by that. The stadium will improve that area hugely.

Yes, we used a baby gate over the stairs. Gives them a bit of freedom but with parameters

Ticking clock in his bed is in old trick. Radio on low perhaps. And a piece of your clothing. We used a crate. But initially when I put the dog in it, I slept in the same room. Gradually, as the dog got comfortable and secure in the crate, I moved out! Took about a week. We then gave the dog the run of a room with her bed in it, but locked access to upstairs. As they get older and get used to the new environment and this phase will pass.

Or indeed contact them if you support the plans.

Chapter 6 gives the details of the football stadium

Very odd. On the face of it, the new stadium looks pretty mediocre.

Useful document Burbage. I couldn't see the plans for the stadium though. Have they been chopped out of the document you linked to?

Just walked up Underhill, so had a good look at Area Z. There are quite a few trees that have been preserved. Subject to sensitive re-planting and development, and no similar development in the more densely wooded area, I don't think it will detract from the cemetery as a public place.

Abney Park and Nunhead are heavily managed and the graves made safe. That's what I'd like to see in the wooded area. I'm pretty ambivalent about whether burial in Southwark is a reasonable public policy aim in the long run. My view is that if it entails large scale re-use of COC, then that is not likely to be in the public interest as the cemetery provides utility beyond its use as graveyard. As things stand, I am very unclear what Southwark plan for the area I most value, which is the wooded area roughly at the north east of the cemetery.

But a lot of those questions are rhetorical and pointless to the furtherance of the debate here (do you disown Lewis Schaffer, is Blanche Cameron a ghost, how many puppies will die if COC ceases to be a cemetery). The list could do with an edit.

Corking straw man argument there Penguin 68.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Taper, I agree that a balanced solution is what is > needed. > > The problem is that the group making the most > noise, and trouble for the council and the > diocese, don't appear to be willing to move even > slightly from their position that nothing at all > must be touched. > > Unless I have totally misread their statements on > here and elsewhere. Indeed, which is why I don't associate my own views with SSW. In fact, they have been wholly destructive of the case to be sensitive and proportionate in any development of COC. I thought their campaign to have a junior Southwark officer removed from her post was an utter disgrace. As is Lewis's treatment of you and John. One despairs.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are these graves in Area Z? > > John K No.

Fine, that's your view. And I'm sure it could be accommodated in a balanced solution. The wooded area I'm concerned with is pretty diverse though, although it needs properly managing. On a peripheral matter, there are two VC graves in COC. William Stanlake's is in the wooded area. He fought at Inkerman in the Crimean war and died a pauper in Camberwell. His old regiment recently cleared a path to it and put up a memorial stone. Details here: http://www.memorialstovalour.co.uk/vc30.html The other, Albert MacKenzie, recently had a statue erected to him in Bermondsey. Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Edward_McKenzie Details on the other war graves in COC are here: http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead.aspx?cpage=1&sort=name&order=asc Important heritage this. Another reason this corner of the cemetery should be managed not re-used.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Black cab drivers are so polite, kind, honest, > helpful and knowledgeable. There's another long thread in here relating examples of where this hasn't been the case. I got booted out of a cab once on Longacre for suggesting a black cab avoided the Angel in heading towards Stoke Newington. Getting a black cab to go to Peckham from central London is always fun ("Not going there, not safe mate"). The trick was to say "Camberwell Grove" (they think you're a rich barrister) and then get them to turn down Lyndhurst Grove, saying "not far now" every 30 seconds or so. For that you get to pay ?30 or so.

JoeLeg Thanks All good points. Let the turkey shoot continue then! But I hope it doesn't detract from a balanced discussion about the future of COC. You're right that burial for Southwark residents and London more generally is the nub of the issue. Wiping the slate at COC and starting again is a medium term solution I suppose, but I don't like it. Perhaps CNC is a more reasonable option for significant future use, with some modest re-use at COC. I've never been in CNC so I don't know what if anything there is worth preserving. But there are important elements of COC that should be preserved; I know that as a local and someone who uses it regularly for recreation.

This issue isn't about SSW's folly is it though: it's about the future of COC. And that is the purpose of this thread, not a turkey-shoot with Blanche. COC has become more than a cemetery. I would say the majority of people who use it, use it as a place of recreation or a cut through. This presumably is why it's part of the Green Chain. So arguments from original use really don't hold because it is now used for more than burial and remembrance. The issue then is how can its use as a graveyard be balanced with its use as a rather beautiful place of recreation. The interests of people who use it for the latter must be in the equation. My worry is what they're doing with area z gives us an insight into what might happen to the densely wooded area. And I've not yet seen anything that goes me confidence this won't happen.

It's frigging brilliant isn't it? Why are all the Mayoral candidates against it when it's so clearly in the public interest? Vested interests I suppose.

It was listed as a community asset I think, just prior to Hadley buying the site. The site could be used for anything you want it to be used for. The issue really is what's best for the club. I believe Greendale was where the club played until the 1930s.