panda boy

Just found a note on my car (left today sometime, 19th Jan) saying that roadworks will take place tomorrow (20th Jan) around this junction. It appears cars parked within around 20m of this junction have notices to move your vehicle or it will be moved. Nice to have such a long period of notice... Can find nothing out about these works, either posted locally or on the Southwark website. Any ideas as to what this is about greatly appreciated.

Would like to add another recommendation for Aria and his plumbing skills. Had a non-emergency toilet plumbing issue which Aria had sorted within 3 hours, from first call to completion. Very fair price, excellent professional and polite service, highly recommended. Definitely top of the list.

> We've been through this before on the other thread round about the time someone was claiming body liquor would be running along Forest Hill Road. I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I am quoting a survey commissioned by Southwark and performed in October 2015. It can be found here - http://bit.ly/1Qu532O This link was provided by a council representative. Have a look and you will hopefully appreciate the sheer amount of information I am having to go through. Just to add, a lot of this information was supposed to have been made publicly available when it was produced, or at least I was told I would be informed when new information would be available. I have had to repeatedly ask for it. Call me cynical but it's telling I have finally received a response after the work has started. Someone also claimed the flooding issue in COC had been solved, which is patently untrue as 2 days after the last heavy rainfall we had there were headstones in pools of water, (I have pictures as proof) and water running from the cemetery onto Forest Hill Road.

> Theres only one thing to do and thats move to SKY they are very good and no problems and cheaper than virgin Having had experience with SKY in the past I would recommend the exact opposite of this, a thousand times over. I have Virgin broadband (basic cheapest package, just broadband and landline) and have never had such fast or consistent broadband in this area, although I think i'm fortunate as someone had previously installed a fibre connection into the house. Fastest download speed has been 53MBS, slowest in the evenings where I would expect a reduction was 33MBS. I download and upload large files often. Occasionally the router will update itself Would be interesting to know why others on the same road are having such problems. (I'm not an employee of Virgin or Sky.)

> the discussion is/should focus about what the council are doing vs what the pressure group object to/want. Couldn't agree more, although, and once again, this is not a binary Council vs SSW issue. I, and others also have a voice in this, and am starting to notice the points I have raised are largely left unanswered. I'm finding this remarkably odd. Does anyone have any opinions on; Timescale of the project significantly changing. Costs. Council accountability and transparency. Council conduct in the face of significant opposition. Potential for increased flooding due to the plans.

> Let's hope she does not try and put the tyre place out of business when people stop. She was fine with me when I pulled up to wait for a new tyre. I explained I was waiting to see the tyre fitters. She didn't appear to have a problem with this.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How are you getting on with your FOI documents? > > Ready to share? > > John K I have received some documents from a previous FOI request. They do not detail some of the figures I would like to see, and think I am entitled to see. So I will have to raise a new FOI request. I assume this will take time. Some patience may be called for. Do you not think it odd though that the council have stated their 2012 estimates are still current working costings, yet I am invited to raise an FOI request to access more details about costs? If there are more details about the costs, why cant they share them? Why are they hiding behind an FOI request? Personally I find this a delaying tactic.

> Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact Indeed, can we also broaden the horizons of the debate and include Southwark councils conduct, as this is the core of my argument and objection. Timescale - Plans for COC have been moved forward by 6 years with no explanation why. Costs - Still based on 2012 estimates. Council response - "please raise an FOI with the information Governance Team". I find this to be less than satisfactory and far from transparent. This is public money, shouldn't they account for it publicly without the need for an FOI request? Projected costs of the grave plots upon completion - their response was still vague about this but "for example a plot for 50 years will cost somewhere between ?1,000 -?1,500" still making them among the most expensive in London. Reaction to public opinion against these plans - Council response "A widely publicised consultation took place in 2011 to consider future plans for burial provision." A survey which identified there was no majority appetite for burials within the borough, and was a broad consultation without any detail of these plans. "Also in 2015, the local community was given the opportunity to review the plans for the cemeteries and contribute any feedback." This period was when the council revealed their plans and was when public opinion started to grow against them. They have so far been unable to accurately address the fact they have and are ignoring what I believe to be significant public opinion form this point. Potential for flooding - I have now been provided with comprehensive surveys which appear to address this. Although I am not a surveyor of any kind so reading and understanding these documents is proving time consuming. However one particular phrase has stood out: 5.1 Conclusions 5.1.1 The Stage 1 and 2 Risk Assessment undertaken of the proposed development in accordance with the EA guidance, Pollution Potential of Cemeteries, R&D technical Report P223?, has identified the site as having a groundwater vulnerability rating of ?very low to low?. However, as the predicted total number of annual burials is above 100, the site falls into a ?proposal with high risk? As I say I am still trying to digest and understand these documents, but this phrase "proposal with high risk" is initially concerning. I still question the sanity and cost effectiveness of removing mature trees and replacing them with fewer less mature trees, and the subsequent loss of benefits they provide. In reference to the Councils statement that their plans "have actually been designed in conjunction with the London Wildlife Trust" I am still waiting for more detail on this, and what London Wildlife Trusts involvement has been. I know the LWT has performed a variety of habitat and wildlife studies, but I don't believe this qualifies as the plans "being designed in conjunction with".

Fair enough Sue, I would hate for this thread to degenerate in the same way as the previous one.

John K > Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his false > statements? > > John K Considering this thread was started to focus on the cemetery issues and move away from the previous one that somewhat degenerated away from the point and was subsequently moved to the lounge, how do you think your comment, and it's repetition adds to the debate? Welcome to the forum Blanche, and good luck.

> The long term context was set at the end of the > nineteenth century. Eh? How so? How does the 19th century relate to what's happening now? > Was it Lewisham residents who provided public > opinion against the plans for Southwark to use the > burial ground provided with foresight by > Camberwell Vestry/Council? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question or it's relevance. > Any sense that the SSW petition was an honest and > informed is now in doubt. I could say exactly the same thing about Southwark councils conduct. To make such a broad and sweeping statement, you really should add some detail.

Hi John K, I find it illuminating as it provides some long term context into Southwarks 'cemetery strategy'. The Honor Oak Rec Ground issue provoked public opinion against the plans, and Southwark backed down. It is worth nothing that the current plans for Camberwell Old and New cemeteries have gained significantly more public reaction against them, yet Southwark are pretty much ignoring it this time and pushing the plans through regardless. One example is the planning permissions, which they applied to themselves for and were unsurprisingly granted. This process took a matter of weeks, which is highly unusual (and I think suspicious) for a planning application with a significant amount of public opinion against to be granted so quickly. This is just one aspect of this issue which results in me being less than satisfied with Southwarks conduct in handling this.

Hi Loz, > But, as I said, surely the planting of new tree will offset (perhaps more than offset) the ones lost? Southwark are proposing to plant less tress than they are removing. Removing mature trees and replacing them with fewer less mature trees. I'm struggling to understand how this can in any way 'perhaps more than offset' the removal of mature established trees. This will result in a net loss, and a reduction in the benefits they provide, whichever way you look at it. I am still looking into the costs eventually provided to me (which on first analysis are not complete, why am I not surprised) but I still question the sanity and expense of replacing existing trees. Also, I'm still studying the documentation, but it appears to me that some of the trees marked for removal are not dangerous or diseased. They are just in the way of their efforts to squeeze as many graves into the area as possible. This is just one of the details that makes me against these plans.

Ok sue, I am not trying to have an argument, just clear up any confusion.

Sue, I can categorically tell you the video you are referring to is most certainly of Blanche Cameron. She is a real (and very decent) person, and in no way an alter ego / pseudonym / familiar / disguised version of Lewis Schaffer.

Hi HopeOne, I have my own thoughts and views about the councils true motivation behind these plans and how they are implementing them, revenue being the main one. > am particularly interested to know, as I think you said that you attended a meeting about this, what was the advice given by LWT to Southwark Council re their plans? This is the response I received when I asked the same question; "London Wildlife Trust is charity dedicated solely to protecting the capital?s wildlife and wild spaces. The Trust is one of our stakeholder groups who we have worked together with and have taken on board their recommendations. More information and public reports can be found can be found" Link - http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4010/cemeteries_plans_and_surveys_-_future_management_plans_for_camberwell_old_and_new_cemeteries As you will see the link contains a great deal of information, some of which I already have, some of which is new to me. I need to take some time to pore through it all, but so far I am not convinced that saying the plans "have been designed in conjunction with the LWT" to be wholly accurate. I know the LWT have been involved in performing studies in the cemeteries for the council. I think the LWT would had to have had a more significant involvement for Southwarks statement to be correct though. I plan to ask LWT if they believe this statement to be accurate. As I said, I am holding judgement right now until I have had a chance to digest the information.

dbboy I feel compelled to try and answer some of your questions, to the best of my knowledge. > i). So why does Lewis never sign any letters? No idea. Why is this important to you? > ii). What is the connection between Blanche > Cameron and Lewis? As far as I'm aware they are both members of SSW. As far as I understand it Blanche Cameron was one of a number of people who started and continue to maintain the group. > iii). Who posts on their website and is doing > their planning? I don't know, again why is this important? > iv). Who is the person actually doing the comedic > turns? No idea. I would imagine a comedian. As one trying to focus on the cemetery issues, comedic turns are irrelevant to me unless you can explain how they are relevant to Southwarks cemetery strategy. > v). How are Resonance FM implicated in this? 'Implicated' in what exactly? Can you give some more detail as to what you are alluding to? Do you mean 'involved'? If so, I don't know, never heard of them. > vi). Does Nunhead American radio actually exist? As far as I know yes it does. You're clearly familiar with the internet, you could have a look on it. > vii). Why is everything posted with Lewis's name? What do you mean by 'everything'? As far as I can see only the posts from Lewis were signed from Lewis. > viii). Is this his way of gaining publicity for > his personal promotion? Maybe. Maybe not. > viiii). If you had signed a petition or donated > money, would you now feel conned? No. Not one bit. Why would I feel conned? > x) If you have donated money where has the money > gone/been spent and accounted for? Send this question to SSW, i'm sure they're best placed to answer this. I do know that funds were needed for publicity and getting legal advice. Funny how you appear more concerned with how a local protest group manages it's donations rather than Southwark councils accounting abilities with public funds and the fact they have advised me to raise an FOI request to find out more about costings for this project. Not very transparent. > xi). How has he maintained the american accent if > he is from Birmingham? I simply cannot take this question seriously. Are you're suggesting people form Birmingham are crap at accents?? > xii). Has a fraud been committed? You may need to add a bit more flesh to this particularly thin and potentially libellous bone. What fraud are you suggesting has been committed and by whom? A discussion into Southwarks cemetery plans, how they have and are conducting themselves and general opinion both for and against can be found here; http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1637832 All welcome.

Sue - Much as i'm trying to avoid this thread now and focus on the cemetery issues on the new thread, I have to ask, did you mean this to come across as incredibly offensive? > The youtube link on the cemetery thread shows someone purporting to be Blanche Cameron (but apparently a woman) Unless i've misunderstood, what exactly do you mean by this?

Hi Penguin > - my point was simply that some people were taking propaganda at face value - I agree entirely, which is why I am taking Southwark to task on this. We may be on different sides of the same coin, but we appear to share a common attitude. I don't think it's correct to dismiss SSW in it's entirety. I know you and others have taken issue with some of the language and opinions from them. I'm no fan of over-emotive language either, from any side, but as far as i'm aware they do have a valid support base that extends much further than one person. SSW are also recognised as being part of a 'stakeholder group' by Southwark in this issue, so they, as a group should be afforded some legitimacy at least should they not? I really don't mean to prolong this aspect of the debate at all, just trying to respond to the points you have raised. I would much prefer to focus on the plans and southwark have conducted themselves, and how they implement them. Regarding costs, a FOI request has been raised and information has been received, so I will be going through this as well as the other information. > It wouldn't surprise me that detailed costing work has not been re-done since the initial plans were formulated. If this is common practice then indeed. I am surprised that public funds can be dealt with with such a lack of accurate accountability, but if that's how things work then so be it. It's barking in my view, but I will hopefully learn more when I get a chance to go through the mountain of new information I have finally received. > just that it may be evidence neither of duplicity or stupidity that up-to-date costs aren't readily available. Indeed, I always try and keep an open mind. Why is it though, that a FOI request has to be raised to discover more detailed costing information on this project? Regardless of the fact the costs are still not updated, why couldn't they have just included this with the metric ton (see disclaimer) of info (some of which is outdated) they sent? I'm not trying to find issues, just identify any that may be existing. (Disclaimer - I don't mean to be emotive in my use of the word 'mountain' or 'metric ton'. Obviously the information is neither an actual mountain or weigh a metric ton, it just feels like that right now.)

Penguin68, I thought the point of this new thread was to discuss the issues and leave the CSI into Lewis Schaffer on the previous thread? Can we please try and stick to the point? > The bottom line is that what is being promulgated by the campaign cannot be trusted I take issue with this. This is absurd and untrue. Your post appears to try and polarise the two sides involved in this, those for and those against the plans, which on face value is fair enough. By arbitrarily declaring one sides views as invalid due to the behaviour of one person is creating a false dichotomy, is disingenuous and I see it as an attempt to discredit the views of many due to the actions of one. Why do this? > Can I suggest that those people who oppose the council's plans for the cemeteries, in putting forward counter arguments, do their own research. I have, and continue to do so. Please try to appreciate how difficult, and at times soul destroying it is for an individual to try and communicate with a variety of council officials, to repeatedly request public information that should be available, to be ignored, lied to and generally given the run around for over 2 years. > for instance - again make the claim that the church has not given permission for trees to be cut Are you talking about the preparatory work during which trees have been cut down, or the second phase, where more trees will be cut down? Southwark claim they don't need permission for their preparatory work. While this surprises me I have no reason to doubt this. I have been asking for more details on which of these 10 trees were the ones identified to be removed, but they were unable to provide this information in time. I suppose now I can have a look and count the stumps, but that doesn't help in ensuring that Southwark are acting correctly according to their own proposals. Southwark do however need, and are still waiting for church permission for the second phase of more tree felling. This is a fact. The hearing is in May. I have now received some more information from the council. It contains many links, documents and studies which I need to read through and study before posting any findings on here. As a point of note, my question to them about updated costs from the estimates presented in 2012; "There cost remains the same as it was in 2012. This can be found in the Cemetery strategy. If you would like a full breakdown of costs or require any other data then please raise an FOI with the information Governance Team at [email protected]" I personally find it odd that I can be presented with a dearth of other information, yet to find out costs I would need to raise a FOI request. I also find it odd that estimates form 4 years ago can be described as up to date costings, when the plans have changed over that time. Is it me being unreasonable to expect slightly better and more transparent accounting from a public office spending public money? In relation to how much these new plots will cost; "With regards to the cost of burial plots for residents, that will depend on the time for example a plot for 50 years will cost somewhere between ?1,000 -?1,500" At least they are being consistent in producing some of the most expensive burial plots in London. Hooray.

Hi EDAus > Southwark is a public body who should be held > accountable, protections are in place to ensure > this happens. This, a thousand times this.