Penguin68

Actually, I think it's a fastest route based on simple geography - it's shorter as the crow flies - you would need an application like Waze to determine traffic hold-ups. The Melbourne Grove route is suggested by sat navs even in the middle of the night, when LL is hardly congested.

Just to clarify Blanche's post (1) Tree surgeons WILL NOT disturb nesting birds - I was talking to one recently who described the frustration of rigging up to pollard a tree and then coming face to face with an 'early bird' in a nest and having to de-rig and wait for autumn. There is actually now a narrow window to achieve this work before nesting begins - a hold-up for which I am sure ssw takes the bow. (2) 'Smaller trees' would be sapling growth. (3) - as edhistory notes. The fact that Southwark is 'moving swiftly' reflects the narrow window they have now to achieve what they want before nesting actually does begin and (I suspect) the end of the budget year. The sooner the ground is cleared and made ready for burials, the sooner can the replanting begin with as much of this 'growing year' left for establishing the re-planting. Oh - and 'environmental crime'? - Come on.

Like so many things, this is an issue of definition. Certainly there is a topographical entity which is a hill and which, at the summit, is known as One Tree Hill, and clearly, as a hill, its ?foothills? (as it were) stretch down into valleys surrounding it. However, there is also a nature reserve, also known as One Tree Hill, which has a real meaning ? if you say that you are going ?to One Tree Hill? you don?t mean onto slopes leading up to it, neither do you mean ?to Camberwell New Cemetery? or, ?to the allotments? or, indeed, to Honor Oak Station embankment. So if you write that something is happening to ?One Tree Hill? it is understood by most people to be a reference to an entity which is meant by the words ?One Tree Hill? and that is the nature reserve that bears that name (whereas if you said that you needed to ?bear left? at One Tree Hill ? a geographical statement - you might more probably just be referring to a topographical hill with that name). In fact, the report being made is about tree felling in Camberwell New Cemetery ? that portion adjacent to the nature reserve on One Tree Hill. That is accurate and clear, the other report is actually misleading, and probably from ssw (though not necessarily others who support them) intentionally.

For any active academic sociologists or political scientists who might be reading this thread (and its predecessor) can I suggest it would make a wonderful case study in 'post-truth' politics - which predates both the Brexit debate and the Trump election and which may suggest that this is a true underlying sea-change in post war politics. All that is missing (I am assuming) is interference from Russia (happy to stand corrected on that...!)

Southwark Council has begun cutting down trees on One Tree Hill in Honor Oak for burial plots. No they haven't. One Tree Hill is outside the area which is earmarked for burial, not being in any municipal cemetery. They have probably been clearing within the cemetery area. Publishing a map which has One Tree Hill on it, together with many other landmarks, proves nothing. However, it should be noted that the council may also fell trees on One Tree Hill (but not for burial purposes) if these are either unstable, diseased or need to be cleared for other 'forestry' purposes. Proper maintenance of woodlands and parks does not actually mean 'neglect', whatever ssw may think.

Different, yes, but contributory to both discomfort and (as asthma always can be) possibly life threatening in the very young, the elderly and those already ill. I should have said perhaps that tree-pollen allergies can stimulate both asthma and hay-fever symptoms.

As we enter tree pollen time a number of people will also become impacted by that - I found as I got older that my allergy to grass pollens segued into tree pollens - sadly as well as, not instead of... Whilst in no way 'pollution' this also impacts breathing and general health. At least starting anti-histamines early can partly address this. But, at a time of general poor air quality, it does, for some of us, pile Pelion on Ossa.

So good you had to mention it twice? Repetition does not lead to conviction you know, although the Donald doesn't seem to have realised...

I do think it would be nice to have a proper South Indian restaurant (i.e. Keralan or Tamil Nadu style food, or even Sri Lankan) - such as the old Sri Krishna in Tooting - roll on Masala Dosai...

It would be nice if this meant that they actually reached their boarded destination, rather than (almost always recently) stopping at the River in the early evening. But I am sure that won't change, it'll just mean waiting even longer for a bus that doesn't even 'get there'.

Oh, the horror, Southwark is out gardening again. (Considering the scrub and sapling growth in the Old Cemetery in just 15 years of neglect - with saplings 13-17ft tall, 'scarring One Tree Hill for generations' may be a little rich, but hyperbole is their middle name)

This may very well be an unintended consequence of the gig economy - fill suburban roads with self employed delivery drivers and cab drivers, working long hours, with no public lavatories (much) any longer, and often at times when alternatives (caf?s and pubs etc.) aren't open and emergencies will occur.

His old regiment association (the Coldstream Guards?) put a stone up recently and created a clearing, so you can easily access it. Sorry, yes, I did recall this, but not quite correctly - his grave had been lost to the undergrowth but was 'reclaimed' by his regiment. I had not realised there was a second VC as well. Commonwealth War Graves contain graves of those who died in the war or as a direct consequence of it (hence a number of post-war deaths in the grave of combatants who died later in hospital - which also is why there are war graves in UK cemeteries as well as associated with battlefields).

I should add that if I'm right about the VC grave, it is also one in the 'wilded' section and is thus virtually impossible to access, as they others probably are as well. So hardly available for respectful mourning - not that that's ever actually been what these people are about!

I think ssw is attempting a wonderful obfuscation. They are not (properly) distinguishing between Commonwealth War Graves (I suspect) and the graves of WW1 soldiers who did not die in the war, but subsequently (possibly a lot subsequently). And there are at least 2 (I think) graves of WW1 soldiers who did die in the war, but who were buried privately and not in a War Grave (including I think one VC - but I am very prepared to be contradicted on this). So they are parading an, at best, half truth as a reason for objection. Par for their course, of course, but actually quite disgusting. There is an argument about some individual graves, of course, but the tenet of their objection is pure flim-flam.

I think if they did lift and deepen private graves then this would be open to legal challenge. Although that is possible, it is clearly a drafting error in the most recent (2007) legislation - clearly Southwark was excluded from the earlier (1976) legislation because what was being proposed was already enacted for them in 1975. The most recent (2007) legislation, which referred back only to the 1976 Act could be understood to clearly mean that all those now conforming to the 1976 processes (which Southwark had already achieved in 1975) were additionally now covered by the new legislation of 2007. That sort of problem is why we still have a revising chamber (which didn't do its job in this case). I suspect that any judicial review would conclude that Southwark, in following a lift and deepen policy, would be acting consistently with the intent of legislators, if outside the (flawed) coverage of the 2007 act, which should additionally have referred to the 1975 as well as the 1976 Act. There is, as far as I can see, no intent in the 2007 Act to create an Inner London anomaly in Southwark compared with all other London Boroughs. Lift and deepen was chosen so that any survivors (after 75 years) who wished to visit the site of their relatives burials could visit the same site as before, even though that site was now shared (as of course common graves always were). This is still a caring policy, in Southwark as elsewhere in London. The practices (of disinterment and re-burial elsewhere) regarding re-use in common graves in consecrated areas was mandated by the Church of England, who I believe are themselves reconsidering this.

If the defecation was regularly adjacent to mosques, synagogues or houses of ethnic or religious minorities it might be classed as a hate crime; otherwise public disorder I would think.

The suggestion went down well but everything is being delayed by the row about digging up the concrete groundsman's area and using it for burials. Another gift from ssw then - thanks Blanche & Lewis - for ever-benefiting the people of ED and Brockley.

The real issue here, and it is not a big one, is that the 'rules' that Southwark have chosen to follow are not, in fact, legally binding on them. They could have chosen 100 years, or 30, as the cut-off before re-use was allowed, they could have chosen not to 'lift and deepen' for private graves and so on. However, I believe that choosing to act consistently with the rules that govern other London cemeteries was the most prudent course, and least open to challenge. [The rules governing the church's involvement with consecrated land in municipal cemeteries are, however, I believe binding under other legislation].

You should not confuse being excluded (i.e. made clear they are not included) in legislation with any suggestion that they are thus forbidden from following it. Their exclusion, I believe, stems from their legal status at the time being different from those covered by the legislation (which will have been a Private Bill) normally governing incorporated entities (i.e. such as councils). I believe there is no legislation governing re-use of cemeteries covering Nunhead and Camberwell, and where the law is silent the council have chosen to adopt practices which match those where the law is not silent. This would seem prudent. The difference is that they are not obliged to follow these practices, but I believe are free to choose to.

the Camberwell Cemeteries (and Nunhead) are excluded from the legislation that allows reuse. I think that there is nothing to stop the Council applying the specific terms of that legislation even though the cemeteries were not included in it, on the basis that the legislation was allowing something to happen which had not been allowed before, where it applied, but this had not been necessary for the Southwark cemeteries - which were at the discretion of their council 'owners' (and their inheritors). By following the legislation they are adopting what is already seen as legal good practice. I don't believe they are excluded from doing this by legislation, rather they could have chosen to do something different.

Burbage concluded So I'm still baffled. I had always thought that the initiating actions were all about building a comic scenario to be used in the circuit - hence the trolling and hyperbole to stimulate content. It was all good copy. Like many things it then seems to have got some life of its own - and to have involved some people who are taking it all at face value. I think some of it was about doing stuff simply because they could. Not perhaps helped by 'right-on' sympathetic churchmen who didn't actually know their own rules, or were persuaded that rules which did exist for parish land also existed for municipal cemeteries as well.

I don't know the ethics behind Peckham Plex, but I do now know the ethics behind Cineworld, so, you make your choice, simples. If you are making a choice about ethical behaviour, and you don't know how one of the two alternatives performs, then you may actually be making no choice at all. What if you are encouraging a firm which pays less even than Picture House? How does that sit with your conscience?

In the first six months of 2016 Cineworld (owners of the Picturehouse group) made ?30.6M profit, so if they wanted to they could pay the London Living Wage: Cineworld have 4,300 staff in the UK, so to pay all staff LLW would cost around ?15M - in reality they have about 1,000 staff in London, so it would cost them around ?4M. A quick look at their accounts suggests that (1) Cineworld earns about 50% of its revenues from the UK - the remainder from Israel and (old) Eastern Europe (2) the figures are EBITDA - so exclude interest payments, tax, amortization or depreciation - they are not net profit - so the amount of 'profit' shown is not additionally all available to pay staff in addition to the staff costs already covered to get to this sum. Certainly they could probably pay their staff more - but also remember that the more they pay their staff the more employer's NI they also have to pay (but, as a positive, the less corporation tax they have to pay as their allowable costs have risen!) Depending on their agreement about pensions they may also have to make a larger contribution as salaries rise. (if they put in say 3% of salary that's now 3% of a larger salary). I am not condoning them, simply pointing out that 'the sums' often aren't as easy to work out as it first seems.

DaveR you don't believe London has a higher cost of living than other places in the UK? Are you living in cloud cuckoo land? I read it not as that, but as challenging the assumption that all over 18s were either owner occupiers or living in rented accommodation (on a 50:50 split). Certainly my over 18s lived at home (rent free) for a number of years before they entered more costly arrangements. And for those voting for Peckham Plex - clearly I doubt whether this emporium is paying the London Living wage either - other reasons cited to choose them (cost, range of food availability, size of auditorium etc.) are to me far more convincing reasons. Don't choose the Plex just because of the dispute with Picture House, and think you are being appropriately 'right on'.