Penguin68

the scaremongering claiming that the area is unsafe is just plain ridiculous. I was trying to highlight just how ridiculous. The council already warns of unsafe areas off the paths in the un-managed parts of COC - and has sealed off the dumped waste. My point has always been not that individuals might not be prepared to take risks, but that the council, with a general duty of care (and not wishing to be sued) will err on the side of extreme caution - which, if the cemeteries were allowed to become wilded would eventually mean (in my view) that the council might seal the cemeteries on the grounds of health and safety (and actually, probably, using that as an excuse so they would no longer have to spend any money on their upkeep as 'wild' areas). Yes, of course, that could well be an over-reaction - but it is one which only someone who has not noticed the trajectory of H&S decisions could ignore. Oh, and if you were hosting (and thus liable) for a young children's Christmas party, would you decide not to use fireguards, or put easily toppled candles on low surfaces, or leave knives and scissors on the floor (to help cut open the parcels)?

In fact, laws on trees that relate to Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries include the Church?s Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 which state clearly that all trees over 75mm girth measured at 1.5m above ground level require a Faculty from the Church in order to be felled by anyone, including the Council. No - these rules (link here http://www.churchcare.co.uk/churches/faculty-rules-2015) specifically cover what can be done in Church Property - that is to say, Churches - and makes no reference to municipal cemeteries. The ssw crew regularly cite the Diocese as having the right to dictate tree removal policy to the council as regards consecrated areas in municipal cemeteries, as part of the ?Faculty? that they have the right to grant (or not) regarding ?substantial alterations? in such consecrated areas. The examples given in published policy for such ?substantial alterations? cover the removal or re-siting of bodies, interference with grave furniture and the creation of new paths and roads. All of these are directly consequential on the consecrated status of the land ? buried bodies in consecrated land are meant to stay there unless church authority is given for their removal; grave furniture may (and often does) contain Christian symbols or statements, and can be considered to ?inherit? the consecrated nature of the ground ? as does church architecture and, finally, new paths or roads ? where burials thus cannot take place ? alter the nature and extent of the area consecrated. However to extend this to something clearly not consecrated ? trees ? is I believe a mistake under law. Trees cannot be consecrated ? indeed that would be tantamount to tree worship ? a pagan rather than a Christian tradition. Trees, as much as grass and flowers, may adorn areas of consecration but do not thus form part of them. I believe that if the ssw people have been advised by Diocesan apparatchiks that the Faculty extends to trees, and of particular dimensions, they are wrong. The confusion may lie in the right (as shown in the above link) that the Diocese would have to set rules for their own lands (i.e. with Church property ? such as Churchyards associated with churches - which the municipal cemeteries aren?t) about tree conservation (just as I would, as a landlord, perhaps give my tenants the right to prune shrubs but not to cut down trees on my property without my consent). I suspect that any attempts by the church to lay down rules on tree conservation outside their lands, as an attempt to extend the remit of their Faculty granting powers, could (and should) be challenged by the council as being ultra vires. It has nothing to do with the consecrated nature of the land, those buried in it or their memorials ? which is what is covered by the powers of Faculty regarding consecrated land in municipal cemeteries. The rights given to the Church over non-church property are specific and limited to the nature of consecration ? and are not the equivalent of those rights the church has over its own lands (also covered by grants of Faculty - but in this case covering different rights). It may be that church clerks are advising differently, but I believe that advice, if being given, is fundamentally wrong and is readily challengeable in the courts.

Virgin is cable and Sky/BT are phone services anyway...aren't they? In origin Virgin (actually NTL/Telewest originally, before re-branding) were a cable TV service using (originally) coaxial distribution (optimised one-way). Over time they have used their networks (much enhanced) to distribute voice and data services additionally. BT delivered locally, for itself and later others, voice and then data services, initially over its copper twisted pair telephone network (using technology to boost the signal) and then over fibre. In fact modern domestic voice and data networks, even when still terminating over a copper pair in the household, can take diverse routes through BT's networks, with data and voice terminating on different equipment in the exchanges. In addition voice can be packetised and carried over data lines (VoIP). What this means for BT services is that data and voice often quite quickly separate in the network away from the premises - so that you can at times lose one whilst still retaining the other when parts of the network are compromised (theft of cable, breakage of cable). And of course things can go wrong with the bits of kit in the exchanges, some now BT's but some those of rival carriers - or in the links between exchanges or in the software controlling the traffic (and these links may be physical - copper or more likely fibre - or radio - such as microwave links). Basically the communications networks that service you can be very mixed economies - very different from the very simple distribution of gas, water or electricity.

Because they share the anti car agenda.

BT Services are still working - so far (land-line & broadband).

That's what I intended to imply.

Of course, the cemeteries were wheelchair accessible (before the neglect), and now increasingly won't be - if those who want burials stopped and wilding to happen get their way, whereas Dartmoor and Brighton Beach are becoming more accessible - different trajectories here...

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/leisure-and-libraries/seafront/beach-accessibility-all http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/visiting/accessible-dartmoor/vi-accessforall http://www.devon.gov.uk/easily_accessible_paths_dartmoor

I too have had no real issues with the practice - in general urgent problems are dealt with, routine appointments are (eventually) available. I think their current method of 'releasing' appointments in a dribble isn't working - but the alternative (make everything available at once) would almost certainly lead to multiple slots being booked and then not taken-up by a small minority of patients. If their booking system was more open, it would be possible for doctors to book-in follow-up appointments during a consultation themselves in 'their own' calendars - which would offer a better continuity of care for a particular medical problem. That way you wouldn't reach the impasse of the doctor telling you to come back in x weeks, but such a visit actually being un-bookable at reception. It would also stop doctors setting impossible return times based on an ideal rather than a practical timetable. No point in saying 'come and see me in three weeks' if you have no 'routine' slots available for a month and a half.

I've walked through this cemetery, and Abney Park Cemetery, and Nunhead Cemetery, and somehow managed to come out unscathed. Am I normal? If you stick to the marked paths in the unmanaged area that is fine, but penetrate into the woodland scrub (as you are warned not to do) and there are many trip hazards (and chances to turn your ankle quite badly) - there would be no reason to maintain the paths if they are to lead nowhere, so I would assume that these also would become overgrown eventually. The paths themselves (because the soil is impacted) are regularly waterlogged, and may be expected to become more so if the area is to be generally abandoned - which will increase the slipping potential. The area will become increasingly unsafe for the elderly or infirm, and will not offer, e.g. wheel chair access - so, until sealed will be the cynosure of the fit, young and active. Nothing against them, but a park which might eventually only be 'enjoyed' from its borders by a substantial minority of potential users is hardly a community asset.

Can I suggest that, rather than pursuing those who do not fully engage in debate, but use this forum as a propaganda outlet (their choice) we, where we can, refute statements which are clearly wrong or tendentious, challenge those which are unsubstantiated with evidence (for the record) and carry on debating with those who wish to curtail or restrict the council's plans and offer achievable alternatives. As I have said, above (not actually a straw man) I believe that the nub of the debate is between those who wish to see burial continue locally in Southwark (without necessarily fully endorsing all the council's long-run plans for full re-use (100%) of the cemeteries, if that really is their long-term game plan, (whilst accepting some re-use) and those who would like to see burials substantially curtailed or stopped, at least once existing first-use space is fully utilised. As a side issue, there are those who would wish to see the cemeteries back in full management, and those who would wish an element of the non-managed areas to be left unmanaged (though I still believe that for safety reasons, with unstable and gaping graves there it would likely have to be sealed off from public access). Those waving the nature flag would however presumably be happy with that, excluding them to the benefit of wild things. (Moot point - what if Knot-weed starts growing there - can the council leave that?) I would like to see some discussion of what those of us who support, within reason, the council's plans would expect/ hope to see as an end-game of a fully managed cemetery with their re-use vision.

preserving .... and families' history No - it is a legal obligation to preserve the history (who is buried where, when etc. as part of any re-use activity) - and for private graves the lift and deepen rule means that individuals will continue to 'rest' in the same grid reference as before. (For public graves the Church is considering whether its previous requirement to lift and re-bury shouldn't be replaced with lift and deepen as for private graves where the land remains consecrated). What is 'lost' is old memorials in situ - many of which are now badly damaged and virtually unreadable, and which will refer to the comparatively long dead most of whom (war heroes apart) have no current mourners. Family history must be preserved (in records) when re-use is contemplated.

BT has bought EE (the deal is finalised and BT has now reorganised around the new Divisions). BT already has BT Mobile - as it has had, as a Mobile Virtual Network Operator, since it sold-off 02 (that's now on the EE platform). [Curiously, BT Mobile did buy a limited G4 license to support its commercial customers before it bought EE.] EE will continue to operate as a separate entity. I doubt whether Plusnet will lose its identity as a broadband supplier - and it's not clear that it, either, will become the nominal EE broadband supplier.

I have refuted this multiple times as I think this is inaccurate. No, you have disagreed with it multiple times. A refutation would require evidence. Most scrub is made up of seedlings of trees and bushes sourced from any mature trees or bushes local to the scrub - interestingly rose-bay willow herb and buddleia - which were very common on bomb site and railways - don't seem to have appeared noticeably in the cemetery scrub - presumably because it was already too overgrown for them to seed. Neither (which is a blessing) as far as I can see is Japanese Knot-weed. But ivy is ubiquitous. So it's mainly a very few species of (granted mainly indigenous) trees and bushes. Competition will reduce the varieties to those most suited to the area, which will then dominate. Any study of untended scrub (which is what ssw wants) shows a reduction in diversity compared with managed areas. Scrub tends to be successional (one group of plants is replaced by another - eventually becoming true woodland - but again with generally limited ranges of species) Most woodland you will see nowadays, particularly around London, is heavily managed and planted for diversity - the numbers of different species present are by no means 'natural'. Large areas of woodland which are managed for species diversity will also have intentionally varied habitats, including clearings and e.g. adjacent meadowland and hedgerow. All this takes money, skill and time - and I see no clear route for a cash-strapped borough to devote this the the cemeteries - indeed the ssw position, as I understand it, is to abandon these areas to the wild. And this is really a side issue. The argument is really between those who see cemeteries as places to bury people to meet the emotional and psychological needs of those still living - and want this facility to continue locally for the benefit of Londoners, and those who don't care about the needs of these people, but believe that their own needs for places to entertain themselves trump these other needs, even in an area which is well provided for recreational open spaces of multiple types. If we had all been in the City of London I would have been more likely to consider that a balance for need tipped towards those wanting recreational open spaces - but this simply isn't true round here, already, as I have said, well provided for these. The cemeteries do not provide (even locally) unique recreational space or habitat - they do provide the only place to bury people locally.

Plusnet has been owned by the BT Group since the end of January 2007 - but is operated at arms length.

Details on the other war graves in COC are here: There are specific rules about Commonwealth War Graves and War memorials - I cannot think that Southwark has any attention (Renata - you are much more aware than I of agreed plans, can you confirm?) to extend re-use to these. The lone VC grave not with the other war memorial graves is another matter, but, again, I suspect that preservation of this (taking into account the Regiment's interest) would be entirely possible. Many of the graves in the wooded area are badly damaged - by the very trees that are being lauded by ssw - who also talk about preservation of old memorials - these two aims are not actually compatible.

I know that as a local and someone who uses it regularly for recreation. I also use it for recreation (there are only two people memorialised there that I knew well) - but part of my 'recreational' enjoyment is that it's a working cemetery - where there are new burials weekly, flowers, people quietly remembering loved ones (recent deaths, not pre-war or earlier). I am fascinated by what people put on graves, by how they use them as a focus of family ceremony. I walk in other areas for different experiences, but the participation in family feelings is also important to me. Cemeteries which simply become well tended sculpture parks have their place, no doubt, but its a different place to a working facility. It's the raw utility of the space that pleases me, the fact that it's (almost) a working as well as a contemplative space which I enjoy. So - for those who play the 'heritage and value and wild beauty' card (and by the way, cemeteries don't naturally have a wild beauty) there are other beauties - associated with people and what they do, which is of value. I, personally, enjoy the recent memorials more, possibly, than the impenetrable over-grown bits, which I have only viewed from the periphery (and which, to be honest, are pretty dull - once you've seen one overcrowded sapling you've seen them all, whereas every grave is a novelty). Edited to add - and by the way, the mature trees in the managed part of the cemetery, standing uncrowded and able to spread fully, are far more beautiful, to my eyes, both in the winter and when clad in the summer than the 'woodland'. Each tree is able to show its full nature and delight. And a managed cemetery allows for many different species of trees to be planted, tended and enjoyed, rather than a scrub mono-culture.

London is a city constantly under pressure and constantly changing. Attempts to set things in aspic (that's the way we were, we don't want change) is both understandable and clearly wrong-headed. Where environs don't change, they cease to be fit for purpose and sooner or later 'die'. London is (in many places) a 24/7 city - that's generally a good thing, I think. London is heavily populated (and getting more so) - that's actually a good thing, as well, as long as there is sufficient housing. If (slightly) higher rise gets there that may be an acceptable price to pay, if we wish our children to be able to live close to us rather than being forced out into the sticks and long commutes. [The dystopian view in the film shortly to be released, High Rise - which is a great film - is also not the way ED is going, by the way.] Perhaps the (Labour) Southwark councilors actually have a better vision of the necessary future of the borough than those local to (and too wedded to the past) of our wards. Reading these pages you'd think a Centre Point was being planned for Lordship lane, not a shop which many people have been crying out for (not all, of course) and a handful of additional flats to add to the local housing stock. Yes, it's change, yes it's being hard fought for by the shop and developer, no, it may turn out not be such a disaster as all that. Of course individuals who live very locally are worried about the change and what the impact will be on them, that's completely understandable - and sometimes the greater good prevails. And if the extended licencing hours, if granted, lead to violent excesses etc. - then there are remedies to be had. And if they don't - well maybe we'll be pleased we can buy stuff when we want to (and if we don't want to over extended hours, no shop as clever as M&S is going to be staying open late with no customers).

Your new strap line "we feel it is wrong to cut down a living tree to bury a dead person" is a more honest argument. Although, in fact, in so far as living trees are being cut down and not replaced, the 'benefit' is going not to a 'dead person' but to the relatives and friends who mourn that person, and for whom burial may form an important part of their world-view - just because you (ssw people) don't share it (actually I don't either) doesn't invalidate its importance, or the psychological benefit such obsequies and a focus of mourning and grief can give. The deal is a living tree plays other living entities, with whom you have a greater share of DNA and heritage than otherwise.

I thought it would be obvious that forcing Orthodox Muslims and Jews to bury outside the borough while subsidising Christian and Atheist burials inside the borough is discriminatory. There is a facility for 'devout' Muslim burial in Nunhead cemetery - see many posts passim. There have been devout Jewish burials in the cemeteries. Any Muslim or Jew can be buried in any of the cemeteries - but if they choose only to be buried in areas where there are only Jews or Muslims (i.e. chose to self-segregate) then a municipal cemetery may not be for them - where all are welcome. Many consider that a select area within a wider cemetery is acceptable (as do some Christians wanting to be buried in consecrated plots). They key issue as regards devout Muslim burial is that it should be undertaken within 24 hours of death - this may be a problem for a particular cemetery in terms of completing arrangements - for instance where a Sunday burial may be required. Southwark does discriminate against devout Hindus wishing to be cremated on an open-air pile and devout Parsees wishing to be exposed and predated on by the birds of the air. Thank goodness. And as for any practicing Aztecs - well, don't get me started.

Affordable housing = less housing No, as 'affordable' housing tends to have a smaller footprint and be less expensively built then, for any given investment and land size it would be possible to put up more 'affordable' housing units. Your syllogism only works if you assume that developers intend to build affordable housing units but then price them as un-affordable. Or perhaps you are confusing 'affordable' with uneconomic or 'at a loss'. Which it isn't/ needn't be. There are, of course, local market rates; what is deemed 'affordable' in London may not be in Birkenhead. There are (sadly) marketing issues where what is seen as 'social' housing appears in the same development as premium/ luxury build, but that says more about the people who might buy the premium housing than it does the economics of building it.

Depending on the cubic footage of your proposed extension, relative to the existing house, and assuming no previous extensions were undertaken post 1949 (about) it may fall under 'permitted development'. Such work would not require planning permission per se but it would need to meet the borough's current planning rules and building regulations - and the planning department would need to confirm that it did. A council issued certificate confirming this would be required by any future buyer to demonstrate the works were lawful. As long as you meet planning rules then a 'permitted development' does not require planning permission - but it still must meet planning rules. The planning department are the best people to confirm this - when they see the plans. The rules about permitted development have changed http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1343825/new-permitted-development-rights-will-affect-applicants-local-planning-authorities - three key paragraphs here are:- Single-storey domestic rear extensions up to eight metres deep for detached houses and six metres for all other houses were exempted from the need for planning permission for three years up to 2016 by a permitted development right introduced in 2013. This replaced the respective limits of four metres and three metres under the previous system. Pickles' written ministerial statement extended this exemption until 2019, but with more restrictions than originally proposed, as well as limiting the life of the measures to three years rather than making them permanent. and Planning departments also have to prioritise applications for prior approval - even though they do not receive a fee for them, said Stephen Weeks, head of planning at the London Borough of Brent. "If they are not considered within six weeks, they are deemed to have been approved," he noted. According to the DCLG's figures, the borough received 163 applications for prior approval in the last quarter of 2014, the largest number for any English planning authority in that time. with Under the rules for the householder extension permitted development right, local authorities must notify neighbours of applications for prior approval. Where objections are made, councils must decide whether the impact on the amenity of all adjoining properties is acceptable. What I think all this means is that you can do more than you think, but you need prior approval (based on submitted plans) from the council to do it. But a planning committee may not have to consider it, only officials, unless there are objections. Amended to add:- http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/when-is-permission-required/what-are-permitted-development-rights/ is also very helpful.

You are right, but if (all) these cemeteries really weren't suitable it seems strange to list any of them them - I agree that all are without italics. There are certainly (based on names and inscriptions) people of Turkish origin buried in COC, who are most likely to be of Muslim origin, even if not (given the past secular nature of Turkey and the fact that the graves are marked out in any way) devout Muslims. There is a requirement of Islam that devout Muslims be buried only with other devout Muslims - so I suspect a specific section of any municipal graveyard would need to be so dedicated - these types of restrictions have led e.g. to specific graveyards for observant people of the Jewish faith. There is an argument that those who wish to exclude themselves from the company (even in death) of certain others are not then being discriminated against by a secular society happy to offer them a facility (which is offered to all others equally) which they are not prepared to accept. There are significant areas in the cemeteries which are not the cynosure of any faith (the unconsecrated areas). I suppose it is a matter of interpretation whether devout Muslims are being excluded, or are excluding themselves, if they require a cemetery (rather than e.g. a part of a cemetery) where only devout Muslims are buried. There are limits to the levels to which municipal cemeteries should be required to offer religious compatible facilities - we do not allow open air cremation (for instance) - a Hindu tradition - nor do we have Towers of Silence where bodies can be laid out for vultures to dispose of (a Parsee (Parsi) - Zoroastrian tradition). Not offering these I do not think would trigger Human Rights complaints. But we do have a tradition of burial, and an understanding that this should be 'conveniently' located, where possible for mourners/ families. Across Europe re-use of local cemeteries (often combined with ossuaries where disinterred bones can latterly be stored) is very common.

Whilst COC may not be suitable for Muslim burials The Muslim Funeral Service lists both Camberwell Old and Camberwell New as well as Nunhead as suitable for Muslim Burial. http://www.mfs.org.uk/default.asp?ID=62 - although it notes that spaces may not always be available. I assume that if there were problems (other than availability) with these cemeteries they would not be listed. Other than having land not consecrated for Christian Burial available, grave orientation is a key issue for devout Muslim burial - as would any requirement for e.g. embalming. Also key for devout Muslims is immediate availability, Islamic traditions require very quick burial following death.

What you are paying for is peace of mind (and a pretty quick service) delivered by engineers who are backed by a pretty big concern (so, if they don't do the job right, not that I've had that problem) you've got a big company to get back to. If you are sure you can get service within 24 hours (24/7) at no additional cost and from an assured service company, fine. But I would guess I've had my money's worth, in terms of actual service and peace of mind. I wouldn't use them for some other types of work (domestic appliances other than heat and hot water) as the money spent would go (probably more than all the way) towards buying a new one of whatever - but for 'proper' engineering work it's worth it to me. An engineering call-out is going to be ?60 - and then there's the cost of parts and almost certainly another ?60 as the time to fit trickles magically over an hour. With the 'insurance' there's no benefit in extending the job to ramp the price. But everyone makes their choice about what is 'value' to them. For me British Gas Homecare is.