Penguin68

It's worth noting several things about the petition - the wording of which I have not seen. (1) Many people sign petitions without really reading them, particularly where they may be responding to things said (or to banners etc.) which do not exactly match the petition's wording. (2) The way that the case is presented may be biased - 'stop Southwark desecrating war graves' for instance would be something many people would agree with (and the fact that there are no plans so to do would be irrelevant to their support). 'Stop Southwark destroying nature' similarly. The actual, complex and nuanced impacts of Southwark's actual plans are very unlikely to be effectively communicated in these circumstances. (3) Even where addresses or post-codes are collected for a petition they are, in my experience, rarely carefully scrutinised. Although those coming to this particular open day are quite likely to be 'local' they are not necessarily so. When last in Pisa (a month or so ago) I had to argue strongly with someone collecting signatures for a petition about legalising drugs that, as a non Pisan (and non Italian) my support was frankly irrelevant to. I suspect that many potential signers may be less punctilious, especially if pressed to sign. (4) Even where the method of communicating their ideas was wholly unbiased and fact-based (any estimates as to the chances of that?) and even where only genuinely local people took part, anyone who disagreed with ssw's position has no vehicle in which to express his/ her disagreement. The 'votes' for are counted, without any mechanism for collecting or counting votes against. So, I'm glad if people had a good day at in Nunhead, but what else happened there is wholly irrelevant to anything.

If someone uses a hose to scare an animal intruder out of their garden (squirrel, fox, stray cat) I think that's pretty fair. I have had cats take fish from my (shallow) pond (when I still had any) and certainly lurk under bird feeders. I don't keep cats of my own and I don't much want to keep other people's either. Actually, I'm not sure a water spray really works, except immediately (i.e. I don't think it delivers a long-term deterrent). But it's better than anything which is more likely to damage the animal (60 years ago I lived next door to someone who used a catapult charged with ball bearings to rid his garden of cats - I wouldn't recommend that). You want a garden (yours) with cats in it - other people don't share your predilection. I have lost almost all the small birds I use to have in my garden (I used to have lots) over the last year, which may be linked to the two cats who took up regular residence around my patio then. And if you think that you may have turned your neighbour's garden into a big cat litter tray - well you have only yourself to blame. We all go on about dog poo on these pages - but people without dogs are spared the poo in their back gardens. Not so people without cats.

Thank you, camberwell70

In many ways it's a great shame to see them go - despite being built of asbestos sheet they were a fine example of make-do-and-mend really working - 65-70 year life when it was only meant to be about 10 or less. My grandfather ended his life in one, having been bombed out of 3 houses in London (no insurance in war time of course). They were quite spacious and had a little garden (his, at least). Does anyone know if any are preserved now anywhere in London? There were many more in Underhill even 30 years ago.

I use the Dolphin Mini browser on my android mobile for viewing the forum. That works fine and resizes sensibly.

What was all that about respecting the dead again? Evidence suggests that it is the living they don't respect, from their ad hominem attacks (now via Twitter) against those who disagree with them to their disregard of the needs of those with recent dead friends or relatives to bury their dead and mourn them locally.

The Plane Finder ap on Apple https://www.tnooz.com/article/point-a-phone-in-the-air-and-get-details-on-every-aircraft-in-the-sky/ allows you to point your phone at a plane and get full flight details.

I wish there were rules/ signage which would put a height restriction on close-to-the-junction parking. I have no problems with cars, even 4x4s, it's the double height white vans (or worse) parked on corners which I find so dangerous.

Yes, the cemeteries are becoming less beautiful. Three things to note here - firstly any newly dug grave will look less 'beautiful' than one that has weathered in, has proper grave furniture etc, around it. You are normally advised to leave up to a year before adding monuments to allow the grave to settle. Of course these graves are not actually in the areas now being prepared for new burials - which will look much worse at the moment, without proper landscaping, replanting and time to blend in. The greatest gardens in the world had some pretty horrendous 'before' pictures during e.g. hard landscaping. Secondly - beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder - I find the established parts of the graveyard wonderful and interesting to look at, and to walk through - I quite accept that others would prefer different sorts of landscape however, of which there is a lot locally in all the parks around us. Thirdly - the serried ranks of new burials very much support the view taken by Southwark that they are supplying a real need. Which is - sort of - what we expect councils to do. And (by the way) - if people take this thread as just a dialogue between me and ssw then that's a shame. Many others have things of value to contribute on both the pro more burials and the anti sides. And I hope on how Southwark can best deliver its promises - including issues of grave furniture preservation even after re-use and re-planting policies. And perhaps sensitive treatment of 75+ year old graves when these are of infants/ children - where survivors and direct mourners are more likely still to exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by blocking a bus lane. Even a bicycle could block a bus lane, in the sense that there are situations where it is not safe for a bus to overtake a bicycle (narrow lane, traffic jams in the opposite direction, not enough room to overtake safely). Two tourers travelling together (they often do - not commuting but touring) has the same width profile as a small car. Bus Lanes are dedicated to buses to allow free moving public transport. Of course bikes (like cars) can travel faster than buses, but if the logic is to have bus lanes then the logic should exclude private vehicles from them (as some do even for e.g. taxis, which are still public transport). I'm sure that bikes can use bus lanes properly (as can my car) - but the logic, and the law, says bus lanes are for public transport. (Some) two wheelers are an exception. Buses are held up when they can't proceed. We are (generally) happy for pedal bikes to do that (block them), because there are more over-riding reasons why they should use these lanes. This isn't so for reasonably high powered motor bikes and scooters.

There is a strong argument for consistency of treatment across London - confusion and uncertainty has to be a contributory cause of accidents (as does enforced lane changing from an inner to an outer lane, especially for low powered scooters etc.) Personally I am not sure that high powered bikes really need special treatment - and some can be sufficiently wide, with panniers, to potentially block bus traffic, presumably an issue with bus lanes, but it would make sense to me at least for all unpowered and sub 50cc powered two-wheelers to have full access to bus lanes throughout London, TfL managed or not. And I wouldn't object if all bikes could use them. However, I do find, in traffic, that jinking and lane changing by bikes (powered and unpowered) is dangerous - it is much more difficult (if you are in a four wheeler) to keep track of what two wheelers (who move in an out of blind spots) are doing behind you, if in traffic, when you need also to be looking ahead carefully.

I wonder what the solicitors' searches found during the conveyancing? I suspect that for a long time there would have been nothing to find - the cemetery was being ignored. It was still (evidently) a cemetery - and any buyer should have been aware of this by looking or looking on a map - but how (much) it was being used would have been a matter for observation. Until the decision was made to work on it, clear sections and start to mound and or/ re-use existing grave sites there wouldn't have been much to find, certainly not before, I would guess, 2010 or later. A good solicitor (or land agent) might have reminded buyers that there was a cemetery and that it hadn't been closed, perhaps, but I'm not sure. Caveat Emptor. There has never been a change of use for the cemeteries (ssw wishes there had been) or any proposal to change use. I am not sure a search would have found anything.

Penguin - could you tell them to vent their spleens at the estate agents who failed to mention the area near the houses they were selling was actually a viable cemetery instead of South London's answer to 100 Acres Wood? Actually, that's a little unfair - I moved to living close to COC about 30 years ago - it was already ceasing to be active and shortly, and for 10 to 15 years after, it was effectively closed for new burials - that was when the near criminal neglect of some areas started, including conniving at fly-tipping. It was only a few years ago that the cemetery was brought back into use, and proper care and reclamation work of neglected areas was undertaken. So people who started to live near the cemetery around 1994 to, perhaps, 2010 (these dates aren't accurate, but simply an approximation from my memory) might have thought that the area was (at least becoming) a wild(ish) wood. I am very glad that the cemetery has been brought back to its primary purpose, and money spent on turning what was becoming an over-run dump back into something it is pleasant, and safe, to walk round, but I understand that not everyone would have the same view. However the protests did start long after the cemetery was brought back into use, and I suspect that many of the protesters, those who do live close, may not have my history of knowing it at 'full neglect'. But there are people who would have moved close when there weren't burials taking place, and would not have been aware (were even the council?) that it would be brought back into use. Had the neglect continued, however, I suspect that the cemetery (or large portions of it) would have had to be closed completely on safety grounds.

I suggest you give up and ask penguin what changes he/she would suggest Well...that's a target on my back, then...

No, that's the written ruling, not the hearing. The findings are normally the written record of the hearing, with its results, as it clearly is in this case. I suppose there may be a verbatim record of the hearing, but, unless you are challenging the findings as not being relevant to the hearing the one is generally a good substitute for the other. The burial of bodies in stacks (often 6 deep) is a tradition of London cemeteries - the way that Southwark plans to do it, with 75 years between one set (layer) of burials and the next is entirely acceptable to most. And, for the record, much (not all) of the mounding around Langton Rise and Wood Vale was to counter regular water logging in that corner, rather than being over existing graves. Some of that mounding has been landscaped with planting (dogwood, inter alia) as a precaution against future water logging. When you talk about 'having to disclose' burials you are hinting at conspiracy - nobody realised the burials were there (they were recorded but were not known to current officials) - remember most of the graves weren't marked, and were in an area entirely overgrown. Southwark officials would have assumed that war graves in the cemetery would be mainly those known and marked by the CWGC - who had clearly failed in their duty to discover all the pre 1917 burials in the UK. This was a much more difficult task, as these were in local cemeteries, whereas the war dead on the front had tended to be inhumed in dedicated burial grounds where only war dead were located. And war graves are just one of your many red herrings. Had you stuck to your arguments about ceasing burial of anyone in inner London boroughs and wilding existing graveyards I wouldn't have agreed with you, but I would at least have respected a consistent argument which could be put forward as honestly held. But the fact that you are prepared to try to force your way with any specious, spurious (and entirely intellectually dishonest) argument makes it impossible to respect your group or its views - and especially not its tactics.

How do you know what was said in the Church directions hearing? You have reported the findings yourself. Para 45 (Page 9) of the Petchey Consistory Court Ruling Camberwell Cemeteries to which you have made links indicates the general surprise evidenced that there were so many burials of war dead in Area Z. In this paragraph is also noted the broad approval to Southwark's proposals by the CWGC and the note (page 10) that 'the proposals..are respectful of those who died in the World Wars and who are buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery'.

I should only note that as these graves (which were not CWG) took some finding, and were (mainly) not anticipated in these areas by anyone it is not entirely surprising that plans may have to be amended to ensure that paths are not put in which compromise these. You show no evidence that Southwark is not working with others to sort this out. I am not sure that Southwark is 'denying' them anything - have you evidence of any such thing? The passage you quote, from a March 2017 exchange says:- note from conversation that plans for the site are beginning to progress, however suggested a meeting in the late Summer / Autumn to discuss the layout of the new area. note that grave 25680 lies directly under a new pathway on the plans which sent to dated 14.11.16, as does 25626. Would it be possible to adjust this layout so that these two burials are not built upon and made inaccessible? would welcome a meeting, sooner rather than later, with and Harrison Design Development to discuss this and to confirm which war graves will be marked in the new layout, before plans are finalised. Or, 'can we have a meeting in late summer or autumn of 2017 - or perhaps earlier? - You have interpreted this as being late summer or autumn of 2016, I assume, but it is not clear this is what was said. Certainly what you have quoted shows no evidence of 'trying to delay'. In total the note refers to 3 graves, out of 48 in the areas to be developed, where path work is of concern, or where the wrong grave number may have been cited. Oh, and no, I haven't hacked somebody else's e-mails - I wonder how you have got access to these? Were you one of the CCs? The remainder of the article quoted by you is a complete disgrace, full of lies and unpleasant innuendo. As was pointed out in the hearing, the reason Southwark did not contact the CWGC initially was that it had no idea that there were so many pre 1917 burials of soldiers in the cemetery - it knew of only a handful - the number was remarked on by all as surprising. Most people believed that it was the Commission who was responsible for all war burials (as it was for those overseas, albeit retrospectively). And those (the CWG) were all thought to be known about in the Cemetery (and are not, and were never, under threat). But pre 1917, as I have said, burial was a local and often private decision, for those soldiers dying in hospitals locally. For a group that hates the thought of modern burials (at least anywhere near you) you do seem to make a fetish of the (probably long disappeared) mortal remains of people unknown to you. Remember that, certainly for WW1 - many marked graves have unknown soldiers in them ('Known unto God'), and very many soldiers have no marked graves - their remains disappeared into the mud of Flanders and Ypres. We remember them all, and we don't need individual graves to do that. Burial is for the living (those who remain) - the dead are long past caring. And it is for the living that keeping burial available in Southwark is so important. Amended to add - but I'm really pleased that there is now some form of debate emerging, ssw (via Blanche) accepting the concept of listening and responding rather than just being in broadcast mode. Advice from Admin being listened to!

The fact that Southwark didn?t contact the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to find the soldiers? graves and include them in their plans before they started their project is just another clear reason why Southwark is unfit to run a burial service and why this project must stop. They didn't because they weren't Commonwealth War Graves (they knew exactly where those were) but were private burials of soldiers who died of wounds in London pre 1917. Southwark's own records were the ones that later uncovered these non CWGC burials. And once again, the Commission is on record (so don't put words in their mouth) as entirely satisfied with what Southwark plans. It is they who have noted that only 25 graves sites (of 48 recorded burials) can be sufficiently identified for markers to be placed. The others were either unmarked private burials or public burials in a common grave. Everyone on the enquiry was surprised by the number of burials.

These are the graves of hundreds of local people who died from fighting in two horrific wars and are supposed to receive special recognition for their sacrifice. No, this is simply not true. There were 48 graves of military personnel (not hundreds) who died of wounds in 1917 or before and who were buried 'normally' with others in the cemetery. The remainder of the War Dead, in actual, real, Commonweath War Graves (and those not buried but memorialised there) are in no way under threat. Civilians who died during the second world war as a result of military actions (mainly bombs) are also buried in the cemetery. Nobody is 'supposed' to receive special recognition for their sacrifices - there are special days (Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day) when we choose, specifically, to set side a time for remembrance of those who have made such a sacrifice. I absolutely hate the way that you try to use the long-dead to deprive those who are losing their lives now, and their relatives and mourners the options to bury their loved ones close - when there will be nobody, now, who has a personal memory of those WW1 dead - given memory reorganisation at about 3 they would now have to be 103 years old to have any chance of such a memory. I recognise that this is about blowing right-wing dog-whistles in the hope you can clasp the militarists around your sad cause, but really... Those who have actually lost relatives in a War (as I have) may respond differently from what you hope.

I would advise those who feel that there is already sufficient in the council's armoury to control out of control dogs, dog walkers and dog owners (should they care to use the powers they have) to take part in the survey. Banning dogs from parks does not seem a sensible or nice thing to do. Neither is banning dog walkers. Making some areas of parks dog-free, or dogs-off-leads free may be a different issue, though there are many parks where these areas already exist. Encouraging (implicitly or explicitly) vigilante behaviour and 'shaming' web publication (if that is what is happening) is appalling. (NB I neither own, nor walk, dogs)

Southwark didn't check for First World War soldiers' graves before starting the cemetery redevelopment. And they only first went to the CWGC late last year. They were told of 48 CGWC graves in Area Z - not the six that Southwark had put on their planning application. I don't think this is strictly true. There were, certainly, 48 graves of soldiers (and possibly sailors and airmen) who died as the results of wounds, in the UK, almost certainly before 1917 (when the War Graves Commission came into being). Those who died overseas would always have been interred there - as was common practice until the Falklands war. They were not buried in Commonwealth War Graves (by the Commission) and would not necessarily have been recorded originally as anything but the deaths of parishioners, in hospital. There may also have been those buried after 1917 whose mourners chose for them not to be buried by the CWGC. The area, as we know, is terribly over-grown (a sin of neglect which the Council is responsible for). Some of those buried may have been in public (unmarked) graves. There is a clear confusion between war dead and those classed as being in Commonwealth War Graves. These are always fully documented and cared for by the War Graves Commission (directly or via agents). They are also normally buried (as in COC) together, where additionally those who have no other resting place may be memorialised. It does not surprise me that Southwark was originally unaware of most of the war dead burials in Area Z. The hearing expressed surprise that they were there at all as well. Most people believe that all the war dead of WW1 (and subsequently) form part of the CWGC remit. But deaths in the UK pre 1917 would have been buried outside this remit (as they occurred before the Commission was formed). The CWGC took over all cemeteries on the Front in 1917 (most were ad hoc at best, even by then). But pre 1917 home-front burials were a different issue.

Once you say "heel" a dog should be right behind you as if on a lead. But of course, as you know, many dog-walked dogs are not fully (or indeed at all) trained.

Isn't the issue one of control, not numbers? I have seen someone walking eight (albeit small) dogs on linked leads - 4 a hand, in a very controlled manner, and someone else incapable of looking after just 2. Dog walkers should be doing a good job - controlling however many dogs they can control and walking them sufficiently to be exercised. If they can control 8 and be paid (as it were) 8 times an hourly rate for just one - well good on them. If they can't and if the dogs they aren't controlling then act up (chasing other dogs or people, fouling in the wrong places etc.) then actions should be taken against them. And it is quite possible that someone photographing dog walkers is indeed putting together a portfolio for an exhibition.

I think the police prefer 999 when it is clear a crime is actually happening or very likely to happen - or has happened very recently (someone trying car doors or climbing over a fence into a garden - or screams of course). Apparently suspicious activity - where no actual crime seems imminent, or is actually taking place - is more a 101 call - may either be responded to or added to intelligence gathering activities.

You don't make it clear why you have to re-seed (dryness/ shade/ over-use?) - but there are many natural alternatives to grass (and some very tough rye grasses where over-use is the issue). Embrace clover and moss - they are both green and clover is great for bees. Allow areas to wild (go to hay) and mow only in July when the grasses go over. Work with nature where you can, not against it. Think of alternative ground cover - under some trees I now have gravel with shade/ dry loving plants (including crocuses before the trees leaf up), wild (creeping) geraniums and thin leaved (drought tolerant) herbs growing through it. The gravel is laid over membrane, so I get the things growing that I want.