Penguin68

I am not being disingenuous here, but do we know that any mature oaks are to be removed? And if so, how many out of how many? And of those being removed (if any) how many are in good and healthy condition? It is always sad to see a mature tree removed, but on occasion this is necessary, as may be substantially reducing its crown, for safety purposes. I hate to see it done, but sometimes it has to be. Scrub/ sapling growth of oak is not a natural egg-laying habitat for stag beetles.

The council are claiming otherwise but only by changing the definition of a tree depending on whether it is removed (> 150mm girth) vs planted (any sapling will do). I did say 'over time'. The saplings will grow (and quicker, where they are not competing for light etc. with scrub growth). Other plants (i.e. grass) will also be absorbing water (though not as much as well established trees). Depending on the planting some trees (i.e. silver birch) which are shallow rooted and thirsty will be more effective than some others at taking up water. And, as I have been trying to make clear, in the grand scheme of things flooding is not an issue. If the council uses field drains to overcome issue of impacted clay etc. the surface water issues are entirely manageable.

In fact one insect found here had never before been seen in the UK and the Natural History museum came down to verify the find. This is not, in fact, that unusual - a huge number (comparatively) of never-before-described-by-science invertebrates are discovered in urban back-gardens every year - we see them, but unless we are scientists we don't recognise their novelty. It is as likely that any of our gardens will have a new species as the cemeteries - indeed as our gardens have a far wider range of plants growing than the cemeteries possibly more likely. An area of scrub which is depending on self-seeding is most likely to offer a reduced range of host plants compared with a planted garden - although clearly native species like oak do offer a habitat for a wider range of fauna than exotic species. And the mixed habitat of the managed area (which, as I have said before, included last year a hay meadow) offers opportunities to a far wider range of fauna than an impenetrable scrub (which is what an untended wilded area would quickly become). And as for the 'for future generations' line is concerned - having somewhere local to bury loved ones is also 'for future generations' - there are people about who still rate the needs of fellow people. And yes, the local availability of numbers of areas of different habitat in the parks and public gardens (and nature reserves) that we have does make a pressing need for more somewhat less pressing, as far as local amenity is concerned, particularly when another set of needs (somewhere local to bury and mourn your dead) is (as far as the sws crowd is concerned) not to be met at all, if they have their way. Despite the hand-wringing about respecting the dead is concerned, it appears that only the ancient dead need to be respected, the dead of today can go hang.

Can we get this ?flooding? into perspective please. (1) Does water ?pool? in parts of the cemetery during heavy rain and (particularly) when the ground is already waterlogged ? yes (as it does in many areas ? including Sydenham Woods ? real woodland). It pools where there are dips in the ground, and where there are impermeable areas of grave furniture. It tends to dissipate quickly, save during periods of heavy and consistent rain. Some low lying areas have already been in-filled and raised to avoid this in the future (i.e. along Wood Vale and Langton Rise). (2) Does (during heavy rainfall) water run-off down the hill towards Forest Hill Road over the tarmac?d areas ? yes ? as it does down Underhill Road (and many other roads running down hills). This is rain water flowing down hill over an impermeable base. Additionally a tap (used to provide water for flowers) is frequently left on, which also causes run-off down the hill. (3) Is any of this run-off or pooling the cause of the sorts of floods which have recently hit the North East and North West etc. ? i.e. causing damage to housing, insurable loss etc? No. (4) Is any of this surface pooled water some up-welling from graves ? presumably using a mechanism where water chooses to run uphill? No. (5) Are ground-water levels generally rising in London? ? yes, believed to be caused by a reduction in industry (particularly brewing) drawing out water for use. (6 ) Is water run-off increasing in London? ? again yes, related to reductions in areas where water can be absorbed ? such as paving over front gardens, decking and other non-permeable ground cover. (5) and (6 ) are not cemetery related. As far as the proposals made by Southwark are concerned:- ? Removal of trees ? this will exacerbate the situation temporarily until:- ? Replacement planting of trees ? which will improve the situation ? over time should be no or limited net change. ? Mounding ? by creating more land to absorb the water this will improve the situation, but the changes to the topology could create new low-lying areas. ? New Burials ? will create new areas where water absorption may be reduced (i.e. through new grave furniture) ? Re-use of existing burial sites ? may create temporary changes (i.e. option for pooling where new graves sink, as they do in the first year through re-settling) but over time should be no net change. Clearly I would expect Southwark to be keeping a careful eye on the impact of what they are doing (including compacting land under heavy equipment) and the use of field drains would be sensible - but the concept that, in real terms, there is a flooding risk (as opposed to a risk of very localised flooding) seems unlikely.

Just to note - as foxes also appear to be being targeted I would suggest that these are killings of opportunity based around a capture method (lured with meat), which means that loose dogs (now pretty unusual, I grant you) would also be at risk. Cats may be being killed (as are foxes) because they are out there and available. Not (just) because they are cats.

The figures I have used are based on the hectares declared by Southwark as the sizes of the two cemeteries (referenced to the SINC status). wikipedia is not an authoritative source. Edited to add - Figures are on pages 23 and 24 of the linked .pdf https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiHoLyr4IvLAhXJhpAKHXK8AIwQFggpMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F10241%2Fcdi17_southwark_biodiversity_action_plan_2012_%25E2%2580%2593_2018&usg=AFQjCNE9jys4UkeUsOaV_2NBDkumrY3EaA&sig2=-GmK55NnACBDVafbGiacAQ&bvm=bv.114733917,d.d2s&cad=rja

Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact (that the two cemeteries together offer an opportunity for 100 acres of parks - when they are together just over half that size?) and personal assertions. The latter are well consigned to the lounged thread - the former are relevant to this discussion, as they help form a 'bedrock' of what I might see as arguments in fact built on sand. The initiating discussion (a long time back, now) talked about the wooded areas being 'ancient woodland' for instance, which they aren't and never could have been. In COC all the areas now being worked on were once part of a managed graveyard, and most of the growth being removed is no more than 20-30 years old (much is less than that). There are some older trees (part of the original graveyard planting) which are also, I believe, being removed - there may well be good arboricultural reasons for this. It would be good to know if my original summary - that the pressure group wants to stop all future burials in the two cemeteries and to let the current managed areas 'go wild' is still their position.

the Council has no permission from the Church for works to Area Z at Camberwell Old Cemetery. That would be permission required as a Faculty from the Diocese for 'substantial alterations' - which would include disturbance or removal of remains or grave furniture, creation of new paths or roadways - all referring to work on consecrated land in a municipal cemetery (NB these are NOT church lands in any way). Types of work not counted as 'substantial alterations' as described do not require such a Faculty. As I understand it the work now underway is not considered by the council to fall under the description of 'substantial alterations' which would require a Faculty from the Diocese, and I would assume, unless clear evidence can be provided, that they would not undertake work which would require such a Faculty without gaining one. Can I also point out that the Diocese (as is the Church of England) looks and is likely to continue to look kindly at proposals to re-use cemeteries for Christian burial (other faith burials or no faith burials are not their remit) - which they consider an appropriate use of land set-aside for that use, on the assurance that work is carried out sensitively and under appropriate Faculties.

The sad truth is that (regarding the pubs) it is probably in the long term fiscal interests of the Charity for the pubs no longer to be run as large rangy old fashioned South London pubs - it's not a good use of their real estate/ footprint - housing is much more lucrative and holds its value better. The management of the pubs que pubs was never an issue for the Estate - but for their tenants. The Half Moon was clearly finally brought low by the flood, but the writing had long been on the wall for the revenue generation potential on that site. The Dog will operate far more successfully in its new incarnation - assuming the work is finished. I am not sure what revenues the Estate gets from the empty premises - but I suspect it costs the current tenants less to pay a rental and not do anything with the site than otherwise.

EE is now owned by BT. Even before it was the underlying broadband infrastructure would be provided by BT Openworld. I suspect its TV offering will be based on BT Vision.

Can I point out (again) that the 'wooded' areas being addressed by Southwark Council at the moment account for 6% of the cemeteries' area. The vast majority of the area is already managed graveyard - including, as I have said, hay meadow in the summer - which is a varied and interesting habitat already. HopOne has said The areas that are currently in use as cemetery could continue that way as far as I am concerned. - this is not the position of the ssw pressure group - which wants the whole area of both cemeteries wilded. I think such a minimalist approach would have got far more traction. There are issues of tumbling monuments and gaping graves which need addressing in this area (otherwise it will be even more unsafe than it is) and the land contamination, but a better and more supportable case could have been made if the demands had been as modest as this.

The way the animals are being displayed does in fact suggest there is an element of attention seeking to the behaviour, I think the jury may be out on this one, until the perpetrator is caught - it may be about exposing his/ her crime for public shock/ approbation or there may be a ritual element to it - the human Ripper also ritualised the display his crimes, but the last one was undertaken out of the public gaze. Publicity could be the key to the behavior, or it might be irrelevant to it. Is it the act itself, or the impact of the act, that is driving this person? I hope we will be in a position to find out very soon when he/ she is caught.

I would guess the psychological motivation of the perpetrator may not be about publicity - and animal torture is so left-field that I doubt others would imitate (although I suppose it might 'give authority' to someone already well down that path). How many people locally would be sick in that way such that local publicity would engage imitative behaviour? National publicity might engage someone elsewhere in the country, I suppose - but probability alone would suggest that lightening is less likely to strike twice in the same local area.

panda boy - my point was simply that some people were taking propaganda at face value - it is clear that you haven't been, and are clearly rowing your own boat on this. I am not surprised that getting cost detail is difficult - most institutions protect financial details as much as possible, and in many cases planned and actual costs (particularly for major capital works) tend to drift. It is often better to estimate and only change that estimate when works actually need to be put out to tender. If a budget is then fixed, less work may be tendered for, if flexible then a new cost estimate may then emerge. But a tendering process is itself costly, and should only be undertaken when actually needed. I don't know what the planning inflation rate is on these types of works, but general inflation hasn't been particularly high in this period. It wouldn't surprise me that detailed costing work has not been re-done since the initial plans were formulated. That's not to say that challenging on cost isn't a reasonable thing to do, just that it may be evidence neither of duplicity or stupidity that up-to-date costs aren't readily available.

Can I suggest that those people who oppose the council's plans for the cemeteries, in putting forward counter arguments, do their own research. It appears clear that some at least of the information presented in the ant-campaign is tainted by excess and dissimulation for comic effect by a comedian who is using a character (either 'Brian' or 'Lewis') as part of his comedy act. What 'Lewis' says or writes I'm afraid cannot be trusted. There are good arguments to place against the council's plans, of course (I don't necessarily agree with them) - but facts, figures and assertions of truth hitherto made cannot be trusted (e.g the actual areas involved). The ssw response to the council's FAQs - for instance - again make the claim that the church has not given permission for trees to be cut; neither, for that matter have Presidents Putin and Obama - none, in fact, have any authority in this area (the Church would have, in Church lands, which a municipal cemetery isn't). The church could object to tree work which impacted grave furniture in consecrated areas in the cemeteries without a Faculty - although I suspect the Church would welcome the removal of trees growing through graves and monuments. The bottom line is that what is being promulgated by the campaign cannot be trusted - there (surely must) be some truth in parts of it, but without forensic analysis it is difficult to discern exactly where. It is clear that one at least of the prime movers is claiming a false identity and has shown, on a number of provable occasions, to have lied, ostensibly for comic effect, but how much else is untrue remains a question. There is a good history of comedians and comic writers inventing to create material (look up J Rochester Sneath & Henry Root - other comic alter egos - and rather funnier IMHO) - it is clear that we are (possibly) in the middle of another such comic creative episode. The problem is, we cannot tell. Edited to acknowledge that it is unclear whether 'Lewis' or 'Brian' is the invented character.

If I was one of the ssw fellow travelers I might feel somewhat let down and betrayed that the campaign is substantially a comedic turn being stage managed by someone using a comedic persona - presumably as part of an opportunity to build material. I am prepared to believe that some at least of the 'Lewis' shtik was heartfelt (but introducing a novel 'Brian' into the mix at some stage doesn't bolster belief) - but how much more of it, including the wild inventions of facts, figures etc. was solely for comic impact and to build a humorous following? What annoys me is that so many of us have been constantly, and in good faith, correcting errors, which have also been, in good faith, promulgated by his followers. The 100 acres myth, for instance. And how many council and church officials have been put to extra work on the back of what may be, substantially, a hoax? MPs and councilors and Mayoral candidates have all danced to this tune - answering in good faith what were being presented as genuine concerns, but which may have been created for material. I am sure it will make a good book, or possibly another turn at Edinburgh, but at what cost? Edited to account for the confusion (intended I would suppose by the creator) between comic personae 'Lewis' and 'Brian'

at Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries, a total of 98 acres Actually the two cemeteries together are 23.72 hectares or 58.85 acres - this is an overstatement of 40 acres - close to doubling the actual size. About 12 acres (now 9.5 acres) of Grade 1 SINC woods are to be cut down in the Old Cemetery The council state that the area to be cleared, not all of which has trees on it, in the Old Cemetery is 3.12 acres - a third of the claim here. There is no such thing as a Grade 1 SINC wood - the whole cemetery (including the fully managed area), is classed by the Council as Grade 1 SINC. The cemeteries are to be used as cemeteries - including legal re-use. Save Southwark Woods is campaigning for the woods, graves and headstones to be preserved and protected for the benefit they bring to current and future generations. The 'woods' account for approximately 6% of the cemetery land. The memorials of recently deceased (up to 75 years) will be preserved (for now) - so current generations can mourn. The re-use will also allow future generations to use the cemeteries for what they were intended - burying loved-ones - not as park-land. The main 'benefit' gained by future generations from burial memorials is the information they contain, this must be preserved under law. The actual memorials (the oldest ones) are often broken (particularly in the wild area, where they are also unstable and dangerous), many have little or no aesthetic value and are increasingly becoming unreadable. As I have said elsewhere, the most likely result of the objectors achieving their aim is that the areas will be sealed and unvisitable for health and safety reasons (not body-fluid contamination but headstones falling on you, or you falling into graves opened by tree-roots).

Removal of butcher's waste is now a licensed activity - and should be (as in, is expected to be,) heavily regulated. And,for butchers, it's not cheap. This waste can no longer be recycled into any food chain (animal or people), although I think it can be processed for other industrial or agricultural uses (i.e. bone-meal).

Since Sue's alter ego is in the music and entertainment 'business' it might be argued that his constant linking of this to what is in effect abuse of her viewpoint (which opposes his which he has painted as being with the right-on angels) has the impact of damaging, by such linkage, and entirely unfairly, her professional image and standing - at one level they are in competing parts of the same business spectrum (local entertainment inter alia) - so his actions, by trying to damage her professional reputation by making that link are, broadly, anti-competitive. His attempts to paint others of us into a partial corner (as having business or professional or personal links to the council or those who might benefit financially from the council's plans) were about destroying our credibility in this debate - his links to Sue's other life are, I would suggest, about destroying her credibility in her professional entertainment life which competes, perhaps in his mind, with his. And that's my opinion.

It was suggested further up the thread that a new thread be started. Would it not be possible to do that, and start again with sensible people like panda boy putting their case sensibly? I did, nobody wanted to use it, it is still here:- http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1637832

After foot and mouth it is no longer permissible, I believe, to feed pigs swill. This is how the last outbreak was believed to have started (with contaminated meat in the swill).

If you wish to warn cat-owning people, the most likely warning point would be shop shelves where cat food is sold - as that is the most common point where cat owners might expect to find themselves. As long as any poster is not too horrific (so that it might frighten children) I am sure most shop owners would be prepared to allow such posters to be displayed, if they are not doing so already. Perhaps using language which is carefully muted (again because of children) and placing the posters quite high (again so that children do not readily read them). I suspect that for some children the idea that their (or other people's) cats might be so at risk could be very disturbing and frightening (well, it probably is to adults as well, but they have better coping mechanisms). What concerns me is the ritualistic way in which (some of) the cats are reported as being displayed. This does suggest someone who is very deeply disturbed. As others have commented, psychiatric care rather than prison may well be the appropriate remedy here, once the offender is caught.

I am also at the Southern (ish) end of Underhill (past Langton Rise) - I have BT Infinity 2 - it works well for me.

Completely off topic, but is what is shown as Harris Road in the mappaplondon link now pretty well on the route of Crystal Palace Road, with what is shown as a very short Manor Road the start of what is now Barry? Fascinating.

I will be suggesting that East Dulwich ward remain with the name East Dulwich ward as it forms the bulk of the East Dulwich area. Actually, I would think that the two wards proposed of Goose Green and Dulwich Hills together cover what I would see as East Dulwich as an area - so the new Goose Green would actually form about half, not the bulk, of East Dulwich. Together they form almost all of the postal district SE22, for instance. http://www.postcodearea.co.uk/postaltowns/london/se22/