HopOne

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HopOne Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > edborders Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > @HarrietHarman calls on @lb_southwark to > stop > > > > destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries. > > > > https://t.co/vYQfn3oPEe > > > > > > No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for > > > further drainage reports to be completed and > for > > a > > > graphic to be updated. > > > > > > You really have an amazing ability to mound > over > > a > > > molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis. > > > > Though I agree it is a grainy image, I believe > > that the third paragraph says this: > > '...it would be wise to await any further > report, > > including report from an independent expert, > > before clearing any further trees or shrubs' > > Yeah, that's what I wrote. Not quite. You also seem to be implying that Ms Harman had not called for a stop to tree felling. She has, so edborders was correct about that. (Sorry if I have misunderstood you but am sure others could reach the same conclusion). Sadly, in this instance, I think that councillors have no obligation to follow her advice. (Waving a panda boy scarf!)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edborders Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @HarrietHarman calls on @lb_southwark to stop > > destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries. > > https://t.co/vYQfn3oPEe > > No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for > further drainage reports to be completed and for a > graphic to be updated. > > You really have an amazing ability to mound over a > molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis. Though I agree it is a grainy image, I believe that the third paragraph says this: '...it would be wise to await any further [drainage] report, including report from an independent expert, before clearing any further trees or shrubs' [Edited to point to correct paragraph]

Ah yes but before that the were commons rights, or at least the locals thought there were, and revolted. This was the genesis of the nature reserve (subsequently purchased by Camberwell Council in 1901 and dedicated to public use for ever). https://archive.org/stream/storyofonetreehi00nisbrich#page/n0/mode/2up The Rec has been in use for sports since the 60's I think but perhaps someone can confirm that. Though the council wanted to use the whole of the existing Camberwell New Cemetery, Rec and Allotments for burial, they didn't have planning consent and LCC had other ideas. Some reference to that on this forum, see posts from languagelounger: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,645329,645338 So not strictly true that the Rec's use was meant to be temporary.

So why be deflected? It is posts such as these, ad hominem and emotive, which are obscuring the objective discussion.

It is parody as an oft repeated refrain is about emotive responses usually directed at edborders. I, and others, have attempted to point out the folly of the Council's plans objectively but this has been drowned out by this and equally emotive responses by those in support of the plans. The nature of a forum I guess. I don't have a problem with people being emotive BTW but it is galling to have this accusation of being overly so thrown so liberally without justification in my view.

Glad you like it Loz! The delivery is parody but the point is serious.

I think that SSW are saying that Southwark are acting illegally if they do not have permission from the Church to proceed with works. Which they do not (the only things they have permission for are Japanese Knotweed treatment, surface soil sampling, and putting up fencing). If there is any nesting then, for some species at least, it would also be illegal to disturb that (the nest would not necessarily have to be in a tree actually being felled). There have been signs of spring, bizarrely, for weeks so that is not inconceivable. The areas that they have started work on is just part of a bigger strategy so the council are being disingenuous re 12 acres. As they are when counting trees - a different definition depending on felling or planting. Yet more misinformation from the council. To Sue, the loss of mature trees, in a woodland context (which do exist - I care not what you call them), is damaging to existing biodiversity. This all boils down to whether you value local green space and its wildlife over burial space in an urban area.

You are putting forward that you oppose a view. How is it that you oppose it? It is not clear.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HopOne Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sue, I think it is a little patronising to > assume > > that people are not capable of making up their > own > > minds. You clearly feel that you have been > able > > to do so, as you have written to the diocese, > yet > > somehow you have been "subjected" to a campaign. > > > Am curious to know how anything has been forced > on > > you? > > > > I recall going to a public meeting about a year > > ago organised by the council. I, along with I > > suspect most of the people in the room, was > only > > dimly aware of the "Save Southwark Woods" > campaign > > at the time and was not there because of them. > > There was a balanced range of views put forward > - > > even if not all the views were balanced :-). > Am > > sure most people have reached a view point > based > > on the facts. I have not actually met anyone > > locally who supports the council's action, so > good > > for you for presenting what is probably a > minority > > view point, you should definitely be heard. > > > > I am not assuming that people are not capable of > making up their own minds - provided of course > that all the facts are put in front of them in an > objective, rational, non-emotive way. That has not > been the case here, irrespective of whether there > was a public meeting "about a year ago". There have been numerous attempts to present facts objectively on this and other threads. These seem to have been drowned out by highly emotive responses from people who support the council's plans. > > The vast majority of the people now supporting > "Save Southwark Woods" cannot have been at that > meeting, surely? I mentioned the meeting to counter your suggestion that people who happen to be against Southwark's burial strategy are only getting their info from a campaign. This is not true. > > I was approached in North Cross Road last Autumn > and asked to sign a petition to "Save Southwark > Woods" without the full facts of the case being > put to me. I didn't sign it, but I'm sure many > shoppers probably did. I think you need to present what you think are the pertinent full facts that would persuade others to change their minds. Nobody is forcing an opinion on you. > > I was a member of The Woodland Trust for many > years, and have an area of woodland dedicated to > me. But I still don't sign petitions to "save > woods" without being sure of all sides of the > story. Good for you. See my comment above. > > Lewis Schaffer on this very thread alone has > posted lengthy and repetitive rants including such > emotive phrases as "rotting dead juices flowing > down Forest Hill Road" (page 6, if anybody wants > to check). As mentioned before, Lewis is emotive (and nothing wrong with that). He refers to water logged graves, which are illegal for good reasons obviously. > > The campaign has also been very active on Facebook > and Twitter. I know a number of people who know > about this campaign only through Facebook and had > no idea there was another side of the story to > what "Save Southwark Woods" are putting forward. > > So yes, I do feel I and others have been > "subjected" to a campaign. This is the nature of social media which includes a forum such as this. You engage with it to the extent that you want to. There is no force involved as you opt to contribute or ignore. Your choice. > > And I'm sure you haven't met anybody locally who > supports the council's action. Because your group > hasn't been telling people the full facts. If you > have, please point me to where. Once again you assume that someone is only sourcing info from a group just because they have reached similar conclusions. I have met the group but only did so very recently as I was seeking further facts. And it was very informative. > > As for my "presenting what is probably a minority > view point", well, neither of us has any idea > whether or not it is a minority view point, do we, > as there has not been a vote or any kind of > similar campaign to "Save Southwark Burial Space > in Southwark Cemeteries". My own gut feel, true, but ironically I can only assume that anyone who supports the cemetery plans are not armed with all the facts! I can only suggest that you start your own campaign and see. In fact, I encourage you to do so. We seem to have opposing views on this Sue but I strongly support your liberty to express your own. Now how about doing so objectively?

Sue, I think it is a little patronising to assume that people are not capable of making up their own minds. You clearly feel that you have been able to do so, as you have written to the diocese, yet somehow you have been "subjected" to a campaign. Am curious to know how anything has been forced on you? I recall going to a public meeting about a year ago organised by the council. I, along with I suspect most of the people in the room, was only dimly aware of the "Save Southwark Woods" campaign at the time and was not there because of them. There was a balanced range of views put forward - even if not all the views were balanced :-). Am sure most people have reached a view point based on the facts. I have not actually met anyone locally who supports the council's action, so good for you for presenting what is probably a minority view point, you should definitely be heard.

Hey dbboy, that is offensive and makes me wonder if you have any "comprehension or understanding of culture in the UK". If you said that straight to someone's face, think how others in this country would think of you. Rather than criticise how another phrases things, why not focus on the issue and explain what you think is inaccurate about what edborders has said? Southwark council's plans may not bother you and you are at liberty to say so. You can be emotive or not as you like, just be nice please.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why wouldn't you support a campaign that wants to > preserves the graves of the dead in a protective > coating of nature. Families can visit their loved > ones in beautiful > > I may be misunderstanding, but isn't your group > against any new burials in the borough? So yes, > families can visit their loved ones who have > already died, but not any new loved ones who die > in future - they'll have to travel outside the > borough to do that? Which is normal for an inner city borough so not an outlandish proposal. It is worth noting that Southwark, having cleared the current burials, wish to offer, as a service, to bury anyone from other boroughs too. By implication, all those visitors will have travelled outside their boroughs.

How about Camberwell New Cemetery? No we are not talking about ground-water contamination. Sorry, do not know who Katie Hopkins is.

I think that edborders uses some forthright language, for sure, but that does not make it lies. The reference is to both cemeteries having water-logged graves on a regular basis (which is illegal AIUI). If this same water runs down the hill and ends up in your house, how would you feel about it? But these are yet more ad hominem responses. I have tried hard to present a cogent case but am not getting any likewise responses back, rather replies which are fixated on issues that have been rebuffed repeatedly to a tiresome degree. I can only assume that some here prefer the sport of baiting to rational argument. Or perhaps cannot see the woods for the trees?

Literalists of the world unite! It is a shame that the same approach doesn't extend to defining a wood :-) As already mentioned, edborders is stating the campaign aims. I sourced the specifics for you but the "printing, postage, materials" costs etc are in support of the campaign. Is that clear enough now?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is at variance to what EDBorders posted on 6 > January on one of the other threads: > > "Yes, the Benefit is on Valentine's Day, Feb 14, > 2016 and the money will be used to help reforest > and preserve graves in Camberwell Old and New > Cemeteries." > > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2 > 0,1619517,page=2 You quote the aims of the campaign. Otta asked specifically what the funds would be used for - a reasonable question in my view. Why at odds?

Yet another reservoir and not connected in any way AFAICT.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HopOne Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I don't know the exact use of the funds raised > as > > I do not manage the group. Am sure there are > > costs to cover but I doubt these include tree > > house construction. :-) > > > But surely if you have a benefit concert, people > need to know in advance where their ticket money > and other donations are going? Sue, have asked the organisers this question and here is the answer: "It's for very basic campaign costs - things like printing, postage, materials, website, or paying for things like tech support or graphics. Not people's time, none of it goes to campaign organisers." HTH

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HopOne Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Otta, are you referring to the golf course? > > > No, other side. So, Otta you must be referring to this: http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2015/04/honor-oak-road-covered-reservoir.html Am not aware of any plans by anyone to make this publicly accessible. As it is protected due to presence of rare species I doubt that the Save Southwark Woods campaign would push for this either, even if it was in Southwark borough.

Sorry Kiera, you are right the first video posted by edborders is of Old cemetery. I was referring to 2nd which is news report from New cemetery. Otta, are you referring to the golf course?

"But why does it need to be discussed again here? It's already been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere. Although I must admit, there have been so many threads started by members of your group, I am losing track completely of who has said what where." I think you answer your own question. There have been too many threads so for those without memory of all of them, this would be the place. I also think there has been a lot of noise about really basic stuff like where the woods are or even disputing that there are any. This has distracted from the real issue woods vs graves. There is no simple answer and people should make their own mind up, ideally based on facts. I don't know the exact use of the funds raised as I do not manage the group. Am sure there are costs to cover but I doubt these include tree house construction. :-)

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Indeed, if you look at a map of 'One Tree Hill' > you will see that the 7 hectare site is shown > entirely separate from (but bordering) Camberwell > New Cemetery. If the film is actually of One Tree > Hill (as stated) then it absolutely isn't part of > this reclamation. > http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?startTopic > =Designations&activelayer=lnrIndex&query=REF_CODE% > 3D%271421661%27 > One Tree Hill is a hill. What this refers to is the One Tree Hill Nature Reserve.

To DaveR, 1. You may find it misleading to use Southwark Woods but I think that is because you are putting to much meaning into it. Campaigns need a snappy title. You might have chosen a different one, as would I as it happens, but that is not the point. Am happy to run with it as it already has traction and is highlighting an issue of concern to everyone I have spoken to about it. You are at liberty to not share those concerns. 2. If nature has planted trees then it is a wood - I did not choose the word "neglect". If planted by hand then I would call it a forest. I did not say that most woodland in England is not managed - I agree it is, just lightly so in comparison to park or forest; 3. Then check the facts! Am not at all convinced that people with an interest in visiting graves are also anti-woodland; 4. I sourced this from a conversation I had with the (former) Southwark Council Head of Realm; 5. You have got that right. This is the part that we would most helpfully be discussing!

Well said taper. The woods that exist in CNC are continuation of the existing nature reserve which were previously known as Oak of Honor wood. To dbboy, Here we go again. There are many who are fed up with constantly rebuffing the same erroneous accusations, such as lack of woods. In a seemingly rather emotive way I might add. Your points in turn: 1. (ETA: Save) Southwark Woods is a name of a campaign. "Woods that exist in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries" might be more geographically accurate but does not trip off the tongue so well. This does not alter the fact that woods exist at both sites in question; 2. Woods always grow through "neglect" as, by definition, they are only lightly managed if at all - whether this is appropriate space for burial is the nub of the issue; 3. The graves in question do not have this lease AIUI. The 2007 act does not apply and these plots were leased in perpetuity - someone with a better handle on this can expand further I am sure; 4. 75 years is often cited as a minimum best practice period before which reuse should be considered - this depends a great deal on local conditions though and the clay soil type means that decomposition tends to be slower than elsewhere; 5. It is One Tree Hill and yes the woods there (that border the nature reserve) are under imminent threat. Hope that clarifies.

"It's not true at all - it can be done, by real science, using real data, rather than pretend science with no data wheeled out to provide dubious support for your dubious cause." We can't make predictions because we do not have the data. A big enough study could make that assessment which is what I suggested. Am pleased at least that you seem to agree with the principle. Which I think is enough to question the merits of loss of woodland. How is that dubious?