Penguin68

I am genuinely shocked that many regular posters on here don't object to the religious discrimination of Southwark's burial service. There isn't any. Southwark's cemeteries are open to anyone who wishes to use them, whilst there are plots available. Anyone! Peruse this:- http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/162/arranging_a_burial and this http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/132/burials_and_cremations and please show me where there are any classes of people mentioned who are excluded from the municipal cemeteries (there is a reference to their Muslim Burial site not being subject to the Council's burial strategy from reclaimed land - but this does not exclude burial of people of Muslim origin elsewhere in the cemeteries)

No child should be allowed into any public transit space (in which I include pavements but exclude park areas, which I accept are for recreation) without being in proper control of their mode of transport, be it a bike or skates or a skateboard or whatever. Where they are in control then they also need to be taught proper consideration for other users of their shared space. People walking may choose to make way for e.g. cyclists - they should not be forced to. That consideration and fore-thought (and ability to anticipate actions of other space users) will serve them in good stead once they venture onto roads. I have absolutely no issue with children on bikes using pavements - clearly modern roads are genuinely dangerous for the young - I have huge issues over cyclists (of any age) who put pedestrians into danger or force them to give way. A fall for an elderly person can be devastating, and the elderly are therefore much more frightened of being precipitated into a fall than someone younger and fitter (who anyway is much more able to take necessary avoiding action). NOBODY should have to avoid a cyclist on a pavement.

Dear all - I am very sorry to start a new thread on this old subject, but once again we seem to have been diverted down sterile paths of false debate. I asked 3 questions (following the most recent council decision on the future of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries) - which I still would seek an opinion on and positive discussion about, which I am re-posting from the old thread I started, which keeps now returning like a dog to its vomit to made-up stupidities about discrimination:- (1) Is there a proper plan to address ponding and run-off in times (I know, doesn't seem likely at the moment) of heavy and continuous rain? I had hoped for the installation of a field drainage system, but with the site being sealed off it is difficult to know what is being done. There would be issues of course of disturbing burials, but less so if the drains can be installed under mounding. (2) What are the replanting plans for the sites once the clearance and preparation for new burials work is complete - tree and shrub species etc.? What is the underlying ecological philosophy behind this (native species against issues of climate change, ornament or utility etc.)? (3) What are the plans, if any, for conservation of those memorials which are still fit to be conserved? Many cemeteries place 'old' memorials around the perimeter of the graveyard, is that, or anything, planned here? As I have always said, there are genuine issues with Southwark's plans that need addressing, just not the ones over which there has been most heat (and least light).

Been back in Underhill (South of Camberwell Old Cemetery) for the last half hour, if on reduced pressure. It does take time for the pipes to re-pressurise.

or we fail to turn your water supply back on within the time promised, we will automatically pay our domestic customers ?30 and our business customers ?50. For each extra 24-hour period that you have no water, we will pay an additional ?10 to domestic customers and ?25 to business customers. 'Normal' burst mains - 12 hours to restore service - and 'If a larger 'strategic' water main bursts, we guarantee to fix it within 48 hours Last time this happened they restored service in about 11Hrs 55mins. (What a surprise!) No idea what they will say this 'main' is - my guessing is if they can't fix it in 12 hours it will be designated a larger 'strategic' water main.

Is it possible now to get back to reality (a bit). It strikes me that there are 3 issues that actually need to be addressed in the work in the cemeteries - (1) Is there a proper plan to address ponding and run-off in times (I know, doesn't seem likely at the moment) of heavy and continuous rain? I had hoped for the installation of a field drainage system, but with the site being sealed off it is difficult to know what is being done. There would be issues of course of disturbing burials, but less so if the drains can be installed under mounding. (2) What are the replanting plans for the sites once the clearance and preparation for new burials work is complete - tree and shrub species etc.? What is the underlying ecological philosophy behind this (native species against issues of climate change, ornament or utility etc.)? (3) What are the plans, if any, for conservation of those memorials which are still fit to be conserved? Many cemeteries place 'old' memorials around the perimeter of the graveyard, is that, or anything, planned here? As I have always said, there are genuine issues with Southwark's plans that need addressing, just not the ones over which there has been most heat (and least light).

Almost half of all residents who require burial [*added 'who require burial] cannot use Southwark?s cemeteries. What on earth do you mean by that, and from whence do you get your figures? Nobody at all in the census required burial, all being alive at the time. Ultra orthodox Jews and Moslems (that is to say probably a reasonable fraction of those listed as self-identifying as Jewish or Moslem) - say perhaps a generous 6% of Southark's current population, would eschew cremation, as would some fundamentalist Christians. For almost all others listed, the method of disposal is an entirely personal matter - bound up in tradition and personal taste. For all of them burial in Southwark's cemeteries taking into account availability of space, is an option. And that includes Moslems and Jews who are not so orthodox that they require segregation. You should visit your beloved war graves sometime - in those cemeteries dedicated to the war dead. There you will find Jewish and Moslem, as well as Christian, graves side by side, marked by Stars of David and crescents.

Almost half of all residents cannot use Southwark?s cemeteries. This is simply wrong. Many people of Abrahamic faith background are not so orthodox, or even observant, that they feel a need to follow strict burial customs. There will be some who will feel such a need, of course, but by no means all. From the census the number of Southwark residents identifying as Moslem is 8.5% and Jewish 0.3% - so of the groups who do have separate cemeteries in parts of London fewer than 9% identify as such in Southwark - and some at least will not be so orthodox as to turn down burial in Southwark's cemeteries. You may have noticed that 55.2% identify as Christian and assumed that the remainder are therefore excluded from the cemeteries by reason of religion. This is rubbish and typical of the post truths we have come to expect. Read the actual figures here:- http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200568/public_sector_equality_duty/3859/religion_and_belief

FOCC are against burial on land near their homes, but happy for Southwark Council to provide burial for residents as long as it doesn't inconvenience them. I think that might be a little unfair - they don't so much want no burial close to them per se - but they don't want to have to travel any distance to access a nice park for picnicking - so they want to turn the cemeteries into parks so they have these close to where they live, rather than having to go, well to Peckham Rye - no more than half a mile, to get these facilities. Playing Lewis's game of 'who benefits?' one might almost suspect that having parks on their back door might improve their property values, rather than having cemeteries. Of course they have actually argued in the past for out of area burials (out of Southwark anyway) - whatever Blanche now claims - - but that's just part of their grasping at straws strategy.

In general most car users in the cemeteries seem to be considerate - but maybe I've been lucky. I try to watch out for them and stand by the side of the road to let them pass, but I haven't felt that they have been travelling too fast. Maybe I chose the right time of day to walk in the cemeteries. Some do seem to pick up a little speed when there is no one ahead of them. If the limit is 10mph (I think it is) I would guess that many do slightly exceed that, but I haven't seen any near misses etc.. The larger commercial (i.e. digging etc.) vehicles are another issue - not on the grounds of speed but just that they do take up a lot more of the roadways - and I did have a problem with one reversing without really checking it had a clear run to do so.

.

Penguin68: So you personally condemn the faith practices of many Southwark residents of Muslim and other faiths. This explains why you are able to support Southwark Council's religious discrimination. That's all. On a personal level I condemn, but only in the sense that I don't endorse any religious belief - I am an atheist and happy to be so. If others want to exercise their religious beliefs, and as long as these don't impinge on the liberties of others, including others of their faith who may happen to be women, or gay, or liberal, or believe in liberal education, or the outcomes of science, or eating (or not eating) particular foods, or wearing particular clothes (or not) then I am relaxed. If religious people want to exercise elements of their religion which suggest that they don't hold others, or others' views worthy of respect, then I would prefer that they did that on their own recognisance and expense, and not on the public purse. Southwark DOES NOT discriminate religiously. Their cemeteries are open to all faiths and none to be buried in. You are creating controversy where there is none, in a wholly despicable and divisive manner. Some of your posts come close to inciting hate crime, by stirring religious controversy where there is none.

Pengin68: Are you really saying residents should change the way they practice their faith or go private? That would be illegal. Council services cannot be just for residents whose face or faith 'fits'. Actually, if their faith requires them not to be buried near others not of their faith because that in some way would 'pollute' them - then yes, I am saying that. Many people who are Jews or Moslems (or Christians) do not hold such rigid views - some do. Councils should not be obliged to be discriminatory on behalf of others who discriminate. Moslems (or ultra-orthodox Jews) who do not want their girl children educated with or mixing with boys have to send them to private schools if no local single sex school is available. As do those who object to such things as Evolutionary theory being taught. Or who insist on a specifically religious curriculum. In education at least Councils can determine not to offer religious specific education - even where religions can look for financial support of religious teaching (to some extent). Even within Islamic schools which receive state funding sexual segregation is stopped when it is seen to occur. For independent Islamic schools this is not so, I believe. There are a number of funerary practices (exposing the dead in Towers of Silence - as does the Parsee version of Zoroastrianism; open air cremation as practised by Hindus) which are illegal in the UK - but otherwise Southwark does not, I believe, worry about what words are said over a corpse etc. Nor about the orientation of the grave if that is an issue. There are practical issues about burials with 24 hours. They do even try to set aside specific areas in cemeteries for those for whom segregation in death is important - though I personally don't think they should. So, to answer your question - yes, I do think that those who wish to segregate themselves from other people should not be looking for council funding to support this. We live in an inclusive society. If people want to exclude themselves from that, they should certainly be allowed to do so, but it should be at their expense.

Similar argument developing on SE23.com I see Lewis is back on his old hobby horse of accusing anyone who disagrees with him as having a vested interest in funerals. Obviously that's the way his mind works (nobody would bother to have an opinion if they couldn't benefit from it financially) - I am glad that in fact I believe his obvious distrust and hatred of his fellow person is misplaced.

This religious mumbo-jumbo is of course simply an attempt by ssw to stop any burial in Southwark. I know I play into it myself, but it sticks in the craw. They don't actually care for the religious sensibilities of anyone - otherwise they would not be trying to stop any burials. They have no thought for the living (apart from themselves and fellow picnickers). The fact that they fellow-travel with the far right suggests that their real care for people of Jewish or Islamic faith is pretty tenuous as well. But they are equal opportunity haters - they hate anyone who wants to be buried in Southwark.

non-discriminatory burial service. I have already raised this issue - but where a religion refuses to be buried alongside other religions (demands an exclusive burial place for its coreligionists) it is being discriminatory - so should Southwark support this demand for discrimination - and if it does is it being discriminatory itself, or not? I would argue that where one group discriminate against others, supporting it in its discriminatory position is discriminatory. Southwark offers non discriminatory burials (open to all comers) - if someone wishes them to offer a discriminatory service they should be turned back. [As far as I know, you can be buried under any, or no, religious rite in the cemeteries, but some strict Abrahamic groups (Christian, Jewish and Islamic) insist on exclusive use of burial areas.} True, there are some Christian consecrated areas, but this is a function of that religion (Anglicanism) being Established in the UK (law of the land). I personally wish it weren't. It doesn't stop people of whatever faith (or none) being buried wherever, as far as I understand it.

I'm afraid people have even been known to dig plants up from front gardens - and certainly attractive planters (with the bonus of plants) appear to be irresistible. Even sheer weight doesn't seem to be an obstacle. There must be a market for these things, but I don't know where. Presumably some distance away. Certainly inform the police. It's possible, with wooden window boxes, to fit them securely (bolt them to their window ledges, or use brackets to bolt them in) and big planters can be chained - but securing ceramic planters is more difficult - you don't really want to concrete them in as this makes them immovable for you as well, and impacts drainage.

A police flyer describes the car as a black Ford Focus.

We petition the London Borough of Southwark to stop destroying trees, open spaces and graves in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries and make the cemeteries nature reserves. It would have been interesting to see how many would have signed up to:- 'We petition the London Borough of Southwark to stop removing unplanned scrub growth (including brambles and Japanese Knotweed) and clearing possibly toxic waste from working cemeteries (Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries), stop them for replanting with appropriate trees and shrubs and putting in effective drainage to stop water run-off and pooling during heavy rains, stop the uncovering of obscured grave markers and the repair of grave furniture, including those of war dead, where they reflect burials less than 75 years old, stop developing very old parts of the cemeteries, where there are mainly unmarked graves, to allow future burial of local people, and make the cemeteries nature reserves where there are no funds to manage these, such that they would have to be sealed from public use within the next 25 years.'...

The fact that ssw aims and ambitions are contradictory is hardly surprising - they are trying to whistle in as many different dogs as they can to support them. Their original, and underlying, aim was to allow the existing scrub growth (wilding) to continue and indeed extend (and the cemeteries to be closed for future burial) so that the cemeteries would become wild-wood - which they never, of course were, and wouldn't now become if left untended. There was early talk of picnicking. This seemed to be under the (incorrect) impression that the area was starved of green spaces which weren't working cemeteries. It is possible that initially this was just a huge troll and attempt to build a narrative to support (create copy for) a stand-up act. If so it has grown out of control. Sadly it has entirely diverted those who might have been interested in contributing to the development of the cemeteries in ways which did protect some nature and some history, from participating, as they instead felt it necessary to counter untruths, hyperbole and woeful exaggeration from ssw. Attempts to judge the work on the cemetery whilst in progress is of course to misunderstand the long-game that gardening and landscaping actually play. The way that Southwark manage the open parts (for instance by allowing hay-meadows to develop) does suggest some sensitivity to the environment - and some of the recent planting in these areas is developing nicely (the dog wood grove). So, fingers crossed...

The intent of terrorism is to disrupt and dismay. To change the way of life for ordinary people. If you consider what is happening to our roads, what already happens at airports and what we can take on board planes and so on, it is difficult to argue that the terrorists are not succeeding. True, we are far more p*ssed off than terrified, but we are definitely disrupted. The only good things are that an intent to create internal hatreds has only had a muted success - although the extent to which Brexit is a terrorist achievement would be an interesting one to argue..

Two people were seen running to get into a car (small saloon/ hatchback and dark) at the time of the burglary, by a separate witness to the burglary. The description and registration details were given to the police at the time. There is supposition, but no proof, that the burglars and the people who jumped into the car were the same people. Again, the use of a police descriptor (IC3) was used as that descriptor is used to say what the observer believed the ethnicity of the individual was (what they looked like to the observer)- which is not (necessarily) the same as the ethnicity which would be claimed by the person observed. I'm not sure (considering the police have the actual registration number) why the car description would be additionally useful on these pages.

Dear admin, your security certificate ran out today, my browser is advising me.

Just a heads up - a house in Underhill Road was burgled (door kicked-in) at about 5:30 on Saturday afternoon. The police were called almost immediately (within 2 minutes of the sound of the door being kicked in) but missed the robbers by about 2 minutes - apparently they had been held up during a demonstration (or something) in Peckham. The police were given a description of two of the robbers (apparently there was a third in a car, which was also described to the police). The two described were IC3 males in (at best) early 20s. Possibly younger. The house was empty (nobody in, not un-lived-in) at the time.

Personally, if I see a 6 year trundling along the pavement on a bicycle, I step out of their way with a smile. I'm glad that you are young and fit enough (and not partially sighted or blind) to be able to do this. There are pedestrian users of pavements who are elderly, who are disabled or unsteady on their feet, or are simply no longer so nimble as to make way for wheeled users of pavements. The thoughtful child will stop, or move, to allow people like this to walk unimpeded. But to suggest that the six year olds on bikes should automatically be free to barge through on a pavement, and expect all others to move out of their way, is ridiculous - if that is what you are suggesting. And should someone with a buggy launch themselves into the road to allow free passage for the toddler cyclist?