Penguin68

Dear Lewis (since another poster believes you read this thread). (1) I don't do social networking - I post on this forum because it's local to me. I thus have no exposure to other e-media sources, save where people post links to e.g. twitter. (2) Other than being local, and living close to one of the cemeteries I have no other interests in the cemeteries, either through current or past employment (mine or any of my family's) or through any other pecuniary interest. (3) I dislike lies, obfuscations, errors and distortions of the truth and will expose these where I can. (4) As I have made clear on a number of occasions, I welcome the continued use of the cemeteries as places to (continue) to bury people. I respect those who put forward alternative cases where these are not based on lies and distortions, but I do not agree with them. (5) I entirely reserve my right to continue to debate (appropriately, under the rules of the forum) this subject on this forum under my pseudonym, as I have done for a number of years on multiple subjects. Your attempts to uncover forum identities can serve no purpose other than to use this knowledge to continue attacks and personal vilification which you have attempted in the past - cyber and possibly even real-life bullying - to argue and refute (if you can) my arguments could be done on this forum by your acolytes without needs for names. But then your acolytes tend to make announcements but then not engage in debate (others, who share some of your world view do of course debate and are very welcome to continue).

I went to dinner in one of the new high buildings from which I saw a sea of concrete to the horizon 360degrees. I'm not sure where your high rise was, but this is Google Earth over SE22 (which is where we are talking about in this thread). There's concrete, sure, but...

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2017/apr/15/tenants-charged-835-new-name-contract-winkworth

?There were no trees felled between 75mm ? 150mm diameter on consecrated land? The consecrated area only forms part of the area which is being gardened. It may well be that in that area no trees between 75mm and 150mm were felled - whilst trees of that size may have been felled in other areas. I doubt whether photos actually do show '100s' of medium sized trees (75mm-150mm diameter) in that area - 10s posibly - but many of the trees are saplings and will not be of that size. A diameter of 75mm is a circumference of 235.7mm (about 9.3 inches). 150mm equates to a tree of 18.6 inches circumference. Those are both quite big. I would be hard pressed to get my hands (delicate but not Trump-ish) around the larger size of trunk.

Without the cycle lane on Westminster Bridge the recent outrage could not have developed quite as it did - there are quite good security arguments in favour of jammed (or at least slow moving and queuing) traffic in areas where otherwise there would be vulnerabilities. There are also arguments in favour of multi-use lanes determined by time-of-day (as many bus lanes are rush-hour or day-time specific). Of course, the main argument for cycle lanes isn't about priority (as it is for buses) but safety - but a proper survey of lane usage could determine the cost-effectiveness of this - at certain times it is clearly very cost effective to give sole use of highway to cyclists for safety reasons - at other times if the dedicated roads are then being very sparsely used it may not be.

Happy to be proved wrong but I thought the Hoover building has survived as a Tesco Superstore? Another marvellous art deco building, the Firestone Factory building on the Great West Road was demolished in 1980 to forestall listing. Yes - sorry you are completely right - both by the same architect I believe but it was the Firestone which was destroyed. The Hoover building is now a Tesco - silly because I regularly drive past it. It doesn't look quite the same because of other buildings around it now.

Whilst there is nothing to stop the Royal Mail selling off a listed building, any listing may make it less attractive to potential buyers, for whom the site, not the building will be the attraction. By reducing its 'saleability' this may encourage Royal Mail to re-think its plans. However there is a long history of 'listed' buildings being sufficiently neglected (or 'taking fire') to make their eventual destruction inevitable - I think of the listed Hoover Building on the A40 which was destroyed despite its listing - and there are a myriad of other examples. But still, worth a try.

Your letter will get passed to someone like me to investigate, liaise with the appropriate people and draft a reply for the CEO 😀 but yes it will get dealt with quickly because you have gone to the top. I, too, have worked in Private Offices and know how they work (and cc-ing our MP won't have harmed my position) - a couple of hours after Moya Greene's office responded on her behalf, I have now received the following:- Thank you for contacting Moya Greene. As part of Moya?s senior team, I have been asked to look into your complaint. I?m sorry to hear that the planned delivery office relocation will cause you and other residents in the area a great deal of inconvenience. I will investigate the thoughts behind this decision and will pass on your feedback. When I have an update I will contact you again. If you have any concerns in the meantime please don?t hesitate to contact me. Kind Regards One might assume that the final decision, whatever it is and whenever it's made, at least won't happen without senior management being aware of it - and therefore feeling some slight element of responsibility. With an MP in the loop, avoiding a PQ (even when it's a nationalised industry) is something most CEO's want.

As suggested I have written to the Royal Mail CEO (e-mailed on Sunday) - and have received this reply today Thank you for your e-mail about the future of your local Delivery Office. I have asked my senior team to look into this for you straightaway. Yours sincerely Moya Greene Chief Executive Officer At least their CEO's Office team is working properly...now to see what they say...

That should do it (close the bold) - sorry - it does it on preview but not in reality - somewhere (no spaces) there is - to close it you need to input - I'm going to put in another couple to see if that works - it didn't - and now it has?

One of the problems about 'living wages' is that the wage economy was fatally distorted by Gordon Brown when he introduced tax credits and support to the low waged - clearly at one level a 'good thing' - but in fact allowing employers to pay less, knowing that their workers could make it up via government hand-outs - in effect from other tax payers. A proper market economy would mean that employers who offered too little wouldn't find employees at that rate - but 'make it up' via tax credits and suddenly you can offer less than living wage. So we (if we are net tax payers) are subsidising the profits of companies that pay what otherwise would not be attractive (or even viable) wages.

I mean really, getting so wound up by people saying mean things about you Actually, most of the 'mean' things that are being said are in fact contrary arguments to those put forward by ssw - there is very little ad hominem attack from those who don't share ssw's views. There has always been some suggestion that those arguments put forward by ssw are not always close acquaintances with the truth - and sometimes some harsh calls for answers to questions - but very little than can be judged as personally mean. Some, but not that much.

The CWGC was formed in 1917 - before that war dead would have been buried in private (or public) graves - where they died in the UK - otherwise they would have been buried broadly where they fell. There are many former soldiers (and sailors and airmen) buried in our local cemeteries, most of whom did not die during or as a consequence of the war(s). The graves in the area of the cemetery being recovered are not, in the sense that it is normally used 'war graves'. There may well be graves of soldiers who died in the UK following injury pre 1917 - as ssw notes in its propaganda, these were 'unmarked' - and indeed no record would be available for them above ground - only in the cemetery records giving a broad indication of where they are buried. These are (again) not war graves. The propaganda says 'These are soldiers who gave their lives for their country, dying either in battle or afterwards from their wounds. ' Actually it is the UK practice always to bury those who died in battle in graveyards associated with that battle area - so it is most unlikely that any soldier who 'died in battle' would be buried in our local cemeteries. And I'm afraid that the cemeteries are full of worthy people, certainly worthy of our respect, who weren't soldiers - but ssw hopes that yet another foray into the land of near fantasy will gain them some extra support. If the CWGC is happy about Southwark's plans (and these are people with a real mission) I certainly am too.

There are numbers of acceptable reasons why someone might wear a face-mask - including as mentioned above light sensitivity from lupus - but also to conceal severe or disfiguring scaring - someone wearing a mask in a very public place and in daylight, if unaccompanied by other mask wearers (which would be threatening), may well be no threat at all. I think that other behaviours also need to be taken into account (the OP had a very different experience) - and in many cases context is key. Clearly children may be worried (or at least surprised) but sometimes the benefit of the doubt is the right approach to otherwise 'strange' incidents. As someone not in the first flush of youth I still find myself avoiding (and being worried about) people talking and (sometimes) shouting to themselves - the use of blue-tooth (or even wired) connectivity to concealed phones notwithstanding. When I was young those were real symptoms of erratic and 'crazy' behaviour to be wary of.

When we last had snow the P13 was stranded at the bottom of the hill at Dunstan's Road. It couldn't make it either.

The P13 travels along otherwise residential streets (i.e Underhill and Melford - no chance of a double decker there at all!), at least in part, where a double decker would be too long - and would cause jams. That's why that is a 'hopper' style bus, I'd guess. The same I think is true of parts of the P4 route. Cross post with above, sorry!

It is worth noting that people will write-in against a council proposal, but very rarely in favour of one - for the simple reason that if you are in favour you do not desire any change to what is being proposed, so your 'intervention' is pointless. This sort of exercise is NOT a poll with any statistical significance. It is not in any real sense a numbers game. I should also note that the anti-campaign has been marked by (at best) half-truths and confused arguments. If you believe that ancient woodland is being destroyed; that the council is guilty of discrimination; that areas that aren't under any 'threat' actually are, then you are more likely to object to proposals than not. The level of information and understanding contained in those 347 objections is moot (as of course are the levels of understanding etc. of those not objecting). All in all - I think it helps neither side to argue about numbers - there has been no systematic and properly conducted poll - where sampling has been undertaken from relevant populations and where the questions have been agreed as being unbiased and un-distorting. At best we have self selected write-ins. There was no campaign (why should there have been?) to support any of the council's various proposals for work to be done on the cemeteries, although exactly what work has been a matter of debate.

It is not just the East Dulwich Ward which is impacted by this closure. Parts at least of College Ward is as well (as Helen Hayes should know!).

Agree absolutely with Brulysses. These will be bumble bees - you are lucky to have them. Great pollinators. (If you are sure they are bees, wasps are a different matter, though less likely to be ground dwelling - though that's not impossible).

This link may help in correspondence http://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-9559

But there will still be a group of people for whom burial is particularly important for religious/cultural reasons and I would support provision being made for them as well as encouraging other options which may be more suitable for people who aren't bothered in the same way. Exactly right. Different cultural and religious groups, indeed different people have very different approaches to addressing the disposal of loved ones. Many will choose ways of disposal which can be seen as economic of space (i.e. cremation) or ecologically sound (although simple burial can be so). But equally many wish to retain what they perceive as the body's integrity, or wish to have somewhere they can visit to focus their mourning. Indeed many wish to create a monument and memorial for their loved ones (or their families). To impose your cultural views on others as they cope with grief is unwarranted (save, for instance, when cultural views include such things as suttee, of course!) We also legislate against open air cremation in the UK. If you wish to reduce the impact of death on the built and lived environment (I don't, actually, even though my personal wishes are not for graves and memorials) then do so through education and debate. But don't try to hijack a space dedicated for one purpose for your own ends. And in particular, don't use lies, half truths and obfuscations to support your case (for want of a better word) and don't pray-in-aid issues such as discrimination when you wish nobody to be buried in the cemeteries, rather than better provision for religious or cultural minorities. And don't set up a witch hunt against people with the temerity to disagree with you or point out your lies and obfuscations.

Whilst blue lights are much more visible after dark, anybody who is visually impaired will be much less able to see them, or to distinguish them as emergency vehicles (and there is a local home for the visually impaired in East Dulwich). The sound of a siren approaching may also be of comfort and support to either a victim or somebody who has called for support. In the early hours (and where there are clubs and pubs) pedestrians may have drink taken and be less cautious in their road use. All of this suggests that though annoying, blues and twos rather than just blues may be the right late-night decision for emergency vehicle drivers.

The sad thing is that the response from Horniman Heights will be taken as serious by some people. This is frankly disgusting - anyone who reads the ED forum ouevre of those mentioned by Lewis (including mine) are welcome to draw conclusions as to whether we are trolls, or whether we simply disagree with mis-truth and lies. Starting with the invention of a place called Southwark Woods. Luckily twitter (social networking generally) is not my thing - so he can rant on that to his hearts content.

I fear he is going back to his old tropes, of preparing to accuse those who don't agree with him of being partial, employed by undertakers, the council or other interested parties. That was the reason I started this thread in the first place, to focus on real issues and not personalities and insults. I find it interesting that he only seems to understand having views in terms of leveraging one's own (pecuniary) interests. For the record (again) I am employed by nobody relevant, nor do I contract to anyone relevant; I live adjacent to one of the cemeteries - oh - and I care about truth.

Set irony meter to stun