Penguin68

They get paid to work full time but on average... Actually doctors at GPs are not paid by the NHS (if that is what is being implied). The practice receives money from the NHS based on the number of patients on the books and the performance of various procedures (such as inoculations). Salaried GPs (not partners) are then paid based on their contracts with the practice - full or part time or hourly if locums. Partners will share the remainder (once the practice costs are met) on an agreed basis, very probably taking into account (1) what share of the practice they own and possibly (2) based on the amount of work they do (but not necessarily). These are private businesses, owned most frequently by (some of) the doctors who work in them, but sometimes by a doctor who owns many practices, but may no longer work in any of them. In no real sense do they 'get paid to work full time'.

I can say (happily) that (1) I am entirely relaxed about Southwark implementing policies as set-out in (leads to a downloaded .pdf) https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjwqPLYyOPKAhWLbD4KHRJ0D7YQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report&usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&cad=rja and that (2) I am sad that Southwark so neglected its graveyards that it needs now to undertake remedial works to clear scrub growth and cope with graves damaged by unplanned tree-growth etc. but accept that this is a necessary step to bringing back land always intended for burials into use. Your use of words (i.e. 'confiscated') is always tendentious. But yes, actually, councils are allowed to re-use burial space, under certain very clear provisos. And I am fed up with you constantly claiming your opponents are partial - don't tell me all this publicity isn't intended to boost your personal career as a stand-up - you use your name because you want to sell your name. This campaign (dishonest as it is) is all about marketing you.

Probably only if you marketed it in Australia.

Yes dbboy, the flooding issue, and ongoing silence from the council alone should ring alarm bells. As i've pointed out to Loz, the landscaped area in COC gets flooded in heavy rains. It appears from this example alone that flooding is not one of the councils priorities. Actually, the flooding was worst around the Langton Rise boundary, until the work was carried out to raise the ground levels there, since when that part hasn't flooded. It has been a very wet winter, and much of the underlying ground is clay, so I was not surprised to see some pooling. However I noted that a couple or more of dry days allowed a lot of water to dissipate - and I never saw any flowing towards Forest Hill Road (except from the tap in the middle of the cemetery which is often not properly turned off by users drawing water for flowers - and that never got very far). It is likely that the proposed mounding, if it goes ahead, will address more of this problem. A case could be made for vegetation being good at taking up water - so the planned tree replanting is important. As I have said, focusing on doing the job properly, rather than on not doing it at all, would have been a far better use of the vigour of the protesters.

The only case that could be made about the rental increase (to the Charities Commission) is that the rents are being increased to a level where traders are being excluded (with no substitutes appearing) such that the underlying value of the estate is being jeopardised (through empty properties etc.) such that the Estate's primary focus (to raise monies for its objects) was being impeded. This is, in effect, a charge of poor management. The Estate has no general duty of care to the neighbourhood (other than standard H&S issues) save where its management is seen to be reducing its capacity to provide long terms incomes for its objectives. Clearly a blighted Dulwich and East Dulwich would do that. So if you can show that its actions are blighting the neighbourhood sufficiently to impact underlying property values - even in a time of generally rising values a slow(er) local rise could evidence that - then a case could be made to the Commission. Other than that, just because you don't approve of their 'charitable' aims (which are legal) or like what they are doing to your favoured traders, this isn't sufficient to leverage any changes to their trajectory.

I don't know anything about the people who are posting in favour of cutting down trees to make grave space. I was making it all up. It may be that Lewis doesn't know that, although almost everyone (Councilors apart) posts anonymously many are in fact known to each other through various social meet-ups etc. So making accusatory statements about 'anonymous' individuals may be, to some readers, making accusations against people they actually know. And the earliest accusations were certainly clear in suggesting bias etc. in those who opposed the SSW crowd. It was only when these were called-out that the 'only joking' riff appeared.

Penguin68 you don't even live in Southwark. You are married to someone who owns the construction equipment to be used in grinding up waste on Area Z I don't know who you think I am, you lying B**** - but I (1) have lived 3 minutes walk from Camberwell Old Cemetery (in College Ward) for the last 28 years and (2) am married to a retired company director who has never worked in construction, construction equipment or anything else related. Your wholly untrue assertions about me are part-and-parcel of your complete disregard for truth or honesty. At this stage, you disgust me. You PM'd me accusing me (wrongly) of partiality - you now make a public assertion impugning my contributions as being partial. If that is the best your campaign can offer...

Loz, for instance, is an undertaker (or is it called a funeral director?). Shewill benefit directly from cutting down trees to make more plots available in the cemeteries. Actually, undertakers prepare and store bodies for burial or cremation (or other disposal) and arrange obsequies as required - they do not need (and many do not have) local burial grounds to use. Most families of deceased persons choose a local (to them, or where their loved one had died) undertaker (for convenience) rather than one local to a burial ground, so I suspect the existence or not of additional burial spaces in ED will have little impact on the work load of local undertakers. It makes their life easier, I suppose, but will not be a specific revenue generator. However, I would expect someone in the funeral business to know about, and be sensitive to, the needs of bereaved families - so being able to offer a site which can be easily visited will be understood to be a boon, to some. As undertakers do not own, or sell, plots in municipal cemeteries - that is the council's purview - I believe your assertion that contribution to this discussion is selfish and 'interested' (rather than informed) is, well, par for the course, I suppose, given your past postings.

This campaign started with a lie - there are not now, never have there been anything called, or identifiable, as Southwark Woods. Had the campaign been started as 'save the wild parts of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries' this would have both been honest (so that anyone signing a petition would have had a reasonable basis of understanding of what the petition was about) - and might have laid the groundwork for an honest discussion. This didn't happen - instead wild exaggerations (12 acres) - inaccuracies (implying all of One Tree Hill was at risk) - grotesque assertions (corpse juices running down Forest Hill Road) just continue to pour forth. The objective seems to be constantly shifting - although it is clear, I believe, that the intent is to stop all local burial, for ever, and to allow the cemetery areas to become wildernesses - without any thought as to the consequences or impacts of this. And the fact that the leader of the campaign (happy to vilify others for not being disinterested, or just vile and old - 'three are bitter with age and loneliness') has a public persona to maintain and tickets to sell - so publicity, for him, is actually good business is (mainly) carefully glossed over by us all. Until now. I have been prepared to assume that some at least of the voluble SSW crowd are at least honest (if misguided) in what they think - not a courtesy Lewis is prepared to offer his opponents. Well, shame on him. So it goes.

I clicked on the link:- I am Lewis Schaffer [wwww.lewisschaffer.co.uk] or google "Lewis Schaffer" and got Sorry, the website wwww.lewisschaffer.co.uk cannot be found.

Do you have evidence of any grave being desecrated (by the council's works)? If you have this should be reported immediately. If you mean that self seeded trees in or over a grave were cut down - this isn't desecration. It's gardening.

I have off-street parking for 3-4 cars - so my one car length (slightly less, actually, since its only a car width that has to use it) dropped kerb relieves parking of net 2 cars in the street. It also means that tradesmen have somewhere off-street to park. Not every dropped kerb allows only single cars to park - in some roads it is frequently 2 - which gives a net doubling of effective parking. The council would be better employed implementing by-laws which ensured that new off-street parking was delivered via water permeable hard-standing (gravel over membrane, brick paviours over sand) rather than concrete or tarmac, than implementing stupid anti-car double yellows.

Not of people, just of trees, and dreams.

I ask again - where does Lewis think the money will be coming from to maintain his parks? - and if they are not maintained (they wouldn't be, no funding) how quickly does he think they will be sealed off as being unsafe - and then how quickly will fly-tipping start again? I would guess if he had his way they would be sealed off within 5 years (issues to do with gaping graves etc. etc.). Then they would be of 'use' to nobody. Best case scenario would be that the currently maintained areas would be kept open (for a bit) and the currently over-grown areas immediately sealed off. They would not be an amenity but an eye-sore. And he is not going to get support from the Church to stop burials - they are in favour of orderly re-use.

Otta is of course completely right - but: No one is against burials in Southwark but it can't be at the expense of cutting down trees or the loss of parks or allotments.... ...actually there have been specific points made about ceasing burial in Southwark and moving such burials to outer boroughs. And what current cemetery plans, agreed by the council, put in jeopardy any existing allotments or parks? All current agreed plans refer to existing cemetery areas. This again is prophet of doom, 'worst case scenario' stuff and is significantly hypothecated on no or reduced re-use in existing cemeteries. [Allotments all over London are threatened, of course, but not, I believe, by Southwark's agreed cemetery plan currently being implemented]. Oh, and I think cutting down (some) trees, mainly unplanned scrub growth, is acceptable to meet the borough's burial needs, particularly where this sits with a programme of re-planting.

Many local people feel very strongly about this Well 3 who post regularly on this forum do - as regards supporting the woodfolk, and about the same number on this forum oppose them (maybe more). The 'support' gathered through somewhat(!) misleading petitions is certainly additionally there, but whether it can be deemed informed is a different matter. The council has in it's own briefing answered most of the points made - and effectively refuted most of them - the 'argument' now is that the council is lying (evidence?) and that anyway, at some indeterminate time in the future, all will come to pass as foretold by the prophet Lewis. Who has (I suspect) somewhat hidden from those whose support he is seeking (i.e. the Diocese) that he wants no more funerals in Southwark and the wilding of existing cemeteries. This sympathy for the long dead which is frequently evinced, whilst having no sympathy for the wishes of those shortly to die or their relics is curiously hypocritical IMO. I doubt whether the Church would really support those who place trees (of any nature, age or lack of beauty) ahead of people, even in this right-on day and age. As I have said before, if he actually got his way the cemeteries would be sealed off as being unsafe - and, without any income to support their maintenance would soon become the haunts of fly-tippers and vermin. As they were before during their years of neglect.

We have a letter from church to Rebecca Towers of Southwark Council saying they don't have permission to cut any trees in a nature conservation area and only trees under 75mm if not in a conservation area. Letter will be attached when I get home. (1) - Neither of the cemeteries in question are conservation areas. (2) - It is not up to the church to give permission, or not, about tree management in conservation areas (actually, that's up to the council) - neither, in municipal cemeteries, does the church have any authority save for consecrated areas (which will include areas of 'public' burial, and is limited). An earlier post A church representives (sic) said if it was church land and the council was acting without facility they would call the police gives the game away - municipal cemeteries are not church land - they are municipal land over which, in consecrated areas and no others the church has limited authority - as regards 'substantial alteration', which includes the creation of new roads and paths and the movement of bodies or monuments. On church land (i.e. churchyards) the church could set tree management rules and set size limits to guide a vicar or curate or parish council as to what they could so without reference to the Diocese, but this control does not extend to municipal cemeteries. The advice that is being given by, no doubt well meaning church apparatchiks is, I believe, wrong in law, and will, if insisted upon, be, I hope, vigorously defended by the council. I would rather a council I could vote for, and not a bunch of clerics who I can't vote for, interfered with my environment (have just seen Spotlight - excellent film - which has me particularly riled and anti-clerical at the moment).

Oh, for goodness sake - please read the very useful attachment made some pages back which sets out the law concerning cemetery re-use in London. The Church is required to consider granting a Faculty where there are plans for 'substantial alteration' on consecrated land within Municipal cemeteries - such alteration would include new pathways and roads. Removal of unplanned scrub growth of trees is not 'substantial alteration' under these terms - it is normal maintenance (as is the tending of land which has been contaminated by fly-tipping - a further result of the Southwark's previous failure to maintain the cemetery). Indeed most of the 'gardening' aspects of Southwark's work in the cemeteries would not be an issue for the Diocese. What would be is the creation of new roads and pathways (but probably not the restoration of existing paths), mounding over existing public burials and any moving of existing public burials. The council is cutting down trees now before birds might start nesting - which is sensible and actually advised. The Council actually probably doesn't need the consent of any body (other than the council) for the removal of unplanned tree growth in the cemetery. I suspect that if the Church were to move to stop them (if they could) that would be ultra vires in and of itself. And - to make things I hope crystal clear - the Church very publicly endorses and supports the continuation of burials in London cemeteries and the re-use of cemetery land as proposed and in an orderly fashion. It will not support the intents of this interest group to halt burial in Southwark. Those writing to the Diocese might wish to male it clear that they support (if they do) burial in Southwark whereas the 'wood' mavens don't and wish it stopped.

'Under-cover cops'? - worryingly paranoid 'Grumpy people on the forum'? - why, like those who started this campaign, on the forum, in the first place. Pot, Kettle?

It is also worth pointing out that there are very specific sets of laws which govern, in London (and peculiarly in Southwark) how cemeteries can be re-used. Burials less than 75 years cannot be interfered with, public burial areas can only be altered (as they are deemed to be on consecrated ground) following a Faculty from the relevant diocese, and this includes 'substantial alterations', (including e.g. new paths and tracks) as well as any dis-and re-interment of bones. Indeed private areas in consecrated ground are similarly impacted. The re-use of burial grounds is standard (with different rules) throughout Europe where there is pressure (as there is in towns) for burial space. Most people consider that proximity (how close your deceased loved-one is) beats permanence. For those who don't, they may chose to inter elsewhere. It is a matter of choice. Most of the language and description of what Lewis believes is planned is either mistaken or is chosen to present in terms of horror what most people accept as reasonable. Burying bones deeper, but in the same position a minimum of 75 years after first interment is very unlikely to directly effect anyone who knew the deceased. Where that isn't true (for instance the death of a child) representations may be made and will, in all likelihood, be listened too. Readers should remember that the original (and underlying) attempt of the pressure group was halt all future burials in the cemeteries and to allow them to become wildernesses (for walks and picnics, or am I mis-remembering that?) He (or one of his supporters) references burials of the Spanish flu victims - my aunt (died 1918 aged 21) was one of those - who died in London (not Southwark). There is no one living who would remember her or would care if her bones were either mounded over or re-buried elsewhere (indeed, that may already have happened). So don't pray-in-aid these 'victims' please.

The really sad thing about all this is that there is a good case to be made that Southwark's plans need oversight and attention to make sure that (1) they do (just) what they have announced they will be doing and that (2) their planned replanting makes sense in terms of ecology and of changing climactic conditions (for whatever cause). Orderly control and oversight of what should be an orderly process is paramount for what are (for those on either side of this debate) important local public spaces. But this has been diverted by hyperbole, spin and half truth such that attention to what the council is actually planning and doing has been lost in contemplation of the very worst things it would be possible for any authority to do; with those who do care about the spaces, as cemeteries, having to fight stupid battles against ill informed supporters of what is (undoubtedly) a very heart felt, but also, frankly a very personal campaign by someone with an entirely different agenda to most of us. I want the best for the cemeteries, he wants no cemeteries.

Maybe someone (hopefully unbiased) could explain what proportion of the substantial (over 150mm diameter) trees now growing in the area to be landscaped are to be removed, and what their replacement policy is to be (what type of tree to be replaced by what (other?) types of trees). How many (if any) of the trees being removed are being removed for safety or other 'practical' reasons (i.e. they now offer some threat because of disease or damage or too close-growing to other trees or are now considered an inappropriate planting for the site?) By the way, the fact that the council does not intend to replace mature trees with mature trees, but to plant saplings (presumably the right saplings in the right places) to grow is a natural part of landscaping and tree management. Indeed it is good management to have staggered ages of trees to allow for succession. If you are dealing with trees, you deal with the long-term. That is normal and good practice. 'Instant gardening' is not, normally, necessarily consistent with 'good gardening' - and mature specimen trees are phenomenally expensive.

I still do not see why the Church has any rights over debating about normal cemetery management (removing unplanned scrub growth). This cannot be seen as a 'substantial alteration' to consecrated ground - you might just as well argue that the removal of fly-tipped debris, or even the mowing of grass, would equally require their authority. And the Church cannot set sizes on what trees are to be cut - the Council can, as part of its tree preservation work, but not the Church. It might require, where memorial trees have been planted, that these be preserved, but in the main this is not the case (and I'm not sure memorial (as opposed to landscaping) trees are planted on public (formerly pauper's) graves. Nor does the Church have a specific remit over private graves, save where these are, inter alia, on consecrated ground. But make one thing absolutely clear, the Church is never going to ally with the desires of the interest group to stop all burials and 'wild' the cemeteries.

Call the police (non emergency number) to check whether such a scheme is operating in your area - if it's not then a heads-up should alert the police to possibly worrying activity. If it is in any way an 'official' position then the individual should be carrying ID.

The irony of this meeting with the Church is that removal of self-seeded trees and shrubs falls absolutely outside the Church's remit, for consecrated ground in Municipal cemeteries, of having to grant (or not) a Faculty for 'substantial alteration'. So even if Lewis managed to execute some stay on the re-use issue (not the Church's general policy), the removal of the trees cannot be stopped by the Church. Nor could any work not in a consecrated area. Since it was the removal of the trees which is the prime mover in all this (with concern about ancient burials somewhat of a side-show) efforts with the Church, while ensuring an orderly approach by Southwark to its plans, cannot 'save the trees'.