Penguin68

Do SSW support burial for all in Southwark? To be fair, I think she did answer that with:- We are for the stopping - except for those deceased with current burial rights - all burial in inner city London - including Southwark. And for the graves of local residents to be protected and the nature, used by local residents, to be protected.

We are for the stopping - except for those deceased with current burial rights - all burial in inner city London - including Southwark. And for the graves of local residents to be protected and the nature, used by local residents, to be protected. That answers it - ssw is against any new burials (in new plots) of Moslem and Jewish people in Southwark. I note they put forward no suggestion as to how (and at what cost, paid by whom) the second element is to be achieved. Obviously not through revenues from burial.

At school in the 1960s I was taught self defence by an ex RSM of the Royal Marines. His advice was always run first - use any self defence skills only as a last resort. But he also said that if you did have to fight, fight dirty, and always kick a man once he's down. But it also became clear that unless you practiced skills very regularly then the chances of it 'coming back to you' in extremis were very slight.

As Blanche has posed a set of questions - I am very happy to answer them, although my answer of course does not reflect a pressure group:- Do you support the digging up of local peoples' graves to provide burial plots for local people on top of the remains of local people? Yes Do you support the mounding over of local people's graves to create local burial plots for local people? Yes Do support destroying the memorials and heritage of local families to create local burial plots for local people? The requirement is for the records contained in the markers to be preserved (where these can still be read)- I would prefer the headstones to be ranged around the border of the cemetery, but recognise that this cannot always be done. For private markers where the process is lift and deepen it is common to reverse these so that the 'lower' interment now appears on the back of the marker. I would also support this practice Do you support Southwark treating the poor and working class dead of Southwark buried in public graves worse than the rich dead in private graves to create local burial plots for local people. They don't. The legal practices regarding the two classes of internment are different, the Church previously requiring either mounding or disinterment and reburial elsewhere. Other graves follow the lift and deepen practice. All graves where the last burial was 75 years or more ago are liable for re-use. It happens that the public graves (amongst others) are some of the oldest in the cemetery and thus least likely to have extant families wishing to visit them. Do you support cutting down trees and undergrowth and scarring the historic and beautiful One Tree Hill - a hill which people fought to save from development over 100 years ago - to create local burial plots for local people? I do support the removal of scrub growth - most of One Tree Hill is not part of either cemetery and will not be touched by this work - the question is thus (mainly) irrelevant Do you support spending millions of pounds to subsidise local burial plots for local people - when other local people are facing cutbacks in local services - when there are cheaper, fairer alternatives? I have yet to see any detailed whole life cost whole life revenues analysis of this work. It should be remembered that much work is the effect of recovery from 15-20 years of neglect. I have seen no costing whatsoever for any alternative use of the cemeteries Do you support creating a greater flood risk for local people to local create burial plots for local people? there is some evidence of run-off associated with heavy rain in this area - there is no other flood risk. Proper land drainage can only be installed by disturbing existing parts of the graveyard anyway. There is no evidence that planned works, when completed, will in any way worsen the run-off issues following heaving rain Do you support creating subsidised local burial plots for local people when as many as half of all local people who ask for burial cannot bury locally and must go outside the borough at greater cost? Yes, in so far as this is true Do you support discriminating against Muslims, Jews and others who have needs that are not being met by Southwark's plans to create local burial plots for local people, in possible violation of the law, to create local burial for local people? Sorry, there is no evidence that there is such discrimination. Some religious groups will only allow exclusive - and hence discriminatory - burial practices - I am glad Southwark isn't pandering to these at the expense of others. No one is turned away from the cemeteries on the grounds of race or religion - although they may turn themselves away. Do you support selling local burial plots to those from outside the borough without ties to the borough which were created to provide local burial plots for local people? Yes Do you support digging up heavily-used sports fields and allotments to create local burial plots for local people? Again an obfuscation - the areas which will be returned to the primary use (burial) over time were acquired for that use and allowed to be used for other recreational purposes until they were needed. That is a good use of resource and should be applauded. AND NOW, Blanche - perhaps you could answer:- Do you support the new burial of Moslems and Jews in Southwark cemeteries?

A simple question for you Blanche, does your group want any Moslem, ever, to be buried in any Southwark cemetery? Because you are on record that you don't want anyone else buried here.

For the ease of understanding... 1. ssw is generally against any burial in Southwark, but is prepared to 'accept' (they would have no option other than doing so) the take-up of existing burial rights in old graves. However any new graves anywhere in the borough are anathema to them. 2. ssw does not want any work to be done by the council in managing the existing graveyards which would involve any changes to anything now growing, or which in the future might grow. 3. They wish the existing graveyard to be 'recreation areas' - as if they were not already (as managed) fine areas to walk etc. 4. All discussion of discrimination by ssw is an entire red herring - they do not wish burials of any people of any denomination - so arguing about classes of people who might to be able to be buried (when they want that to be the universal set) is irrelevant. err... that's it.

It is worth taking advice about your whole water system - certain types of hot water cylinder (such as stainless steel) may require some protection from the effects of the soft water - some types of protection used for your existing water supply may not work with a softer water input. It may also be an issue where in your system you put the softener - it is normal, I think, to break in to the water supply (mains) before it branches - but clearly the softener (which will be powered) needs space - and that may not be possible sufficiently close to where the main enters the house. Edited to note that you may indeed also want an un-softened supply (as mentioned above), e.g. for drinking water - so the exact plumbing details need to be got right.

It is the position of the Friends that those with rights for additional interments in the Cemeteries should be allowed to use them. Well, that's big of you - you're not then in favour of the arbitrary and illegal removal of paid-for rights then, so direct theft isn't part of your agenda. Just indirect theft of the right to burial in the cemeteries for 'new' families, whilst there is still (or could be) space for this. I forecast (from the start) that the Diocese would support the council's application - being as they are in favour of burial and that there are clear requirements as to how the Council can go about its re-use plans - and that, as it is outside their remit in municipal cemeteries, issues about gardening and tree management wouldn't be issues for them. The Diocese has 'decided to support' exactly and precisely what is set out in law and which matches the church's preferred options. No grave will be disturbed where the last occupant was buried less than 75 years ago (many continental graveyards require bones to be moved to ossuaries far quicker) - so it is unlikely (but not impossible) that any mourners who actually knew the deceased will still be living (not so for child interments, possibly). Frankly this is a victory for common sense BUT it is important to ensure that the council now does what it has declared it intends to do. And in particular it must now sort out issues of storm run-off - where that is an issue - ponding and plan for appropriate tree planting, ideally native species which may cope with a warmer climate. Genuine friends of the cemeteries (rather than anti-burial agitators) need to keep a close eye on delivery - and I hope the relevant Councilor (Renata I think?) does so as well.

Burial plots are unsuitable for a third of residents by faith This assumes that all those identified as Jewish or Moslem are ultra-orthodox - most of my Jewish friends do not eat 'kosher' (even where they culturally eschew pork) - many of my Moslem friends drink alcohol - for many of these (perhaps most) if they want burial they do not require full orthodox rights. And once again - this group wants NO burial plots for ANYONE in Southwark.

Re discrimination - it is worth noting that restaurants that do not provide a kosher kitchen, or supply only (or any) halal meat are not thus guilty of discrimination - it is the choice of the orthodox etc. whether to eat there or not. So I suspect that Southwark not providing religiously specific (and often exclusive) options are also not guilty thereby of discrimination, so long as they do not stop anyone of a particular race or religion making use of the facilities they do offer. If there was a problem of under-use of the cemeteries it might be sensible (in marketing terms) to extend take-up by offering specific religious 'products' - but there isn't.

There is no room in the Borough to meet the demands of all the residents that require burial and Southwark should look elsewhere. And the council cannot house everyone, or provide social care for everyone in borough, and therefore should stop doing it for anyone in borough. Just to make it clear - the Council's plans of re-use will extend the use-able lives of the active cemeteries significantly - it may be that a more general move to cremation by those without religious or cultural sensibilities may help reduce demand - even where ashes are still buried with memorials - but the aims of this group have always been to turn cemeteries into parkland (with no clear plans, indeed no plans at all for how the costs of management of this parkland is to be met). Indeed they have in the past recommended the wilding of all cemeteries (as the areas now being worked on were inadvertently wilded) - which would certainly mean that quite quickly existing graves and memorials could not be viewed or visited. Despite their apparent support for 'respect' and minorities these people are simply anti-cemetery. That is their objective and plan, and to confuse their obfuscations and half truths with any actual care for either the living or the memories of the dead is to fall into the traps they have been digging.

No, it is clear that ssw wants no more burials in Southwark at all, ever - they want burials to be pushed miles out into the outer boroughs or beyond - (so very convenient for Southwark residents who want to visit their loved one's graves to mourn). The Jewish and Muslim ploy is a smokescreen to cause more delay - hopefully (for them) so that the weight of public opinion will swing to them. Southwark provides (albeit limited) burial space for anyone who wishes to use it and can afford the fees - they wish to provide more by implementing re-use strategies for open cemeteries. There is no point of discrimination here at all. Some religious sectaries may chose to opt out - but that is their choice.

I thought racism was largely dead but I guess it's just not expressed publicly. The expression of directly racist sentiment is certainly unfashionable - at least in metropolitan London - but it certainly isn't dead - even in metropolitan London. Fear, and dislike, of 'the other' - however that manifests - appears as part of our psyche - and needs overt and conscious over-ruling. It can be readily exposed through (often) drink, anger, and of course forms of dementia. Most of us who pride ourselves in 'not being racist' are actually priding ourselves in our abilities to suppress expressions of our racism - even sometimes to ourselves. Hence the discovery of 'institutional racism' in the Met - even amongst officers who had not thought of themselves at all as racist. 'Not being racist' is for most of us a case of our own vigilant internal policing, and not some magical change of underlying attitudes. That is different of course for some young people, and hopefully for many more in times to come, but to pretend we (all, of whatever background) don't harbour these thoughts in our subconscious is probably delusional. In a majority white culture, white racists clearly (because they have imputed majority power) are the most concerning, but others also harbour similar thoughts. And for 'racism' see also 'culturalist' and 'religious' discrimination.

Southwark Council is subsidising burial for Christians - in this time cutbacks. Actually, in so far as their very high charges can be taken as a subsidy, they are 'subsidising' burial for any prepared to be buried in municipal cemeteries - which does, certainly, include those of the Christian faith (although the grave orientations are based on topology, not East/ West orientations - so unacceptable to some) but also those of no faith, and those of other faiths who are not 'fundamental' in their beliefs. Apart from those faiths who require exclusive burial (won't be buried in the same enclosures as other faiths) there is also an issue about burial speeds, both Islam and Judaism looking for very quick interment - which is less readily deliverable in a municipal cemetery. There is NO discrimination as regards burial in Southwark - but people of some faiths will chose not to be buried there because their specific needs cannot be met. The people then exercising discrimination are those not choosing to be buried - because the choice is theirs. Equally it should be noted that public (in the open air) cremation (part of Hindu death rites) is outlawed across the UK (but was exceptionally allowed during the first war for Indian war dead).

The ONLY interest the Diocese has in municipal cemeteries is the consecrated areas - consecrated for Christian Burial. The Diocese has no interest in the burial requirements of other faiths - it may have (I would hope it did have) a general bias against discrimination, where that can be shown, but it has no obligation to pursue such interests on behalf of others (though I am sure it would support such claims). As the pressure group is actually against the continuance of ANY burials in the municipal cemeteries the praying in aid of other faiths (whose burials they would also wish to block) is bizarre - maybe they wish to be equal opportunity ban-ers - sad they can only work to ban Christian burial and not Jewish or Islamic burials as well. [Or the funerals of those of no faith, but who have some cultural leanings towards burial].

To be fair, Sue, these two posts are the first and only posts by AdaDulwich, which is not to say the real originator hasn't got other aliases and posts. Probably only Admin would know (and not even Admin if the originator also has multiple e-mail addresses).

Constant repetition of the same 'facts' and half facts is a good political method of wearing down opposition - in the end we give up not because we don't care, but because we have other things in our lives. Monomania will often win out in the end.

It is true that the work was started on the cemeteries before full permissions (which do not cover all the cemetery or many actions on the consecrated areas in the cemetery for which permissions apply) had been granted by the Diocese, it is less clear that this work included (intentionally) any work which would have been covered by any such permissions. Tree work is not, in or of itself, an issue for the church in municipal cemeteries. The post above records scrub and unplanned trees removed - it does not reflect (because it is not yet complete) planned replanting of trees. Actually, it's a cemetery - its primary purpose is burial, not forestry. The number of recent burials in Camberwell Old Cemetery (and the graves dug over last week waiting to be filled) suggests a very real demand is being met.

These might help https://inspiringcity.com/2013/05/18/the-outdoor-street-art-gallery-of-dulwich/

'Traditional' fencing sites - Bicycles - Brick Lane Jewelry & Silver - The Lanes, Brighton Consumer Electronics - often round pubs (but old ones are stolen so that when they are replaced the thieves can come back and steal the new ones) Increasingly also on auction and sales web sites - but only for reasonably non traceable items. But we are talking here about professionals - if it's an amateur probably to his/ her friends - or to a (drug) dealer.

In France I would expect a proper cheese trolley with regional cheeses and the choice of up to 3 or 4 cheeses at one price (there is a restaurant I know just outside Calais that manages a brace of trolleys!). I hope you get to choose your one, two, or three slices - rather than them being forced on you without choice.

An invention

Clearly there are mixed experiences of forum-members - it is possible (not probable) that a proper study might show some consistent patterns - maybe some crews are more assiduous than others in doing out of sequence pick-ups - whether this study would give a useful result (and one which is cost-effective) is however moot. Mind you - relying on the good offices of councilors to pick-up on individual issues is equally not a very cost-efficient way of progressing!

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make with your final sentence, In the US the minimum wage for waiting staff is set much below that for ordinary workers, meaning that service charges (tips) are an absolute necessity for these staff - the 'going rate' is seen as 20% (certainly in New York). This allows outlets to keep the 'headline' prices low - but the real price of meals is 20% higher - tabs actually include in them what tips at different levels would be (15%, 20%, 25% are the levels often chosen). Restaurants don't add a service charge, as such, but they make it very clear what is expected. At least, in the UK, the minimum wage is set regardless of industry.

Where service charges are not paid through (at all or in full) to the staff (as is the lamentable custom in a number of restaurants/ chains) it is possible to hold back the service charge on the bill and pay your waiter directly in cash. I often ask waiting staff how the service charge is handled. One issue is that, if you pay by credit card, some establishments will hold back an element of the service charge which equates to 'its' share of the charge made by the CC company, or even a 'handling charge' to allocate money to staff. A number of establishments also operate a tronc system where service charges are pooled and then allocated to all the staff, including those you don't see (such as those in the kitchen). If you want to directly reward your own waiter then you may wish to consider how best to do that. UK minimum wage laws do mean that serving staff are not paid (legally) below that and are thus obliged to 'earn' their living through tips (as is frequently the case in the US).