Penguin68

Well if neither of us have actually witnessed this particular box junction then it's academic! I've certainly witnessed it (I used to work in Holborn) - just not got caught by it as I used public transport to get to work. But, as an experienced driver, I could see it was a nightmare. And whether I've actually seen something or not, I posted the link to refute the idea that all road markings (and subsequent camera fines) were necessarily legitimate even where deemed (until over-ridden) 'legal'. When it is made effectively impossible (or very difficult) not to break the law, then the law itself may be questionable. Local authorities, in particular, can be quick to institute bye-laws which become revenue generating, especially when they involve vehicles, with less concern about, for instance good order and traffic flow than in making money. Hence clamping vehicles which are an 'obstruction' thus making the obstruction longer and worse.

Traffic Light, Box, space for one or two cars, Traffic Light, Box. As long as you (The Management) ensure that the first lights are green only when the second lights are red there is never sufficient time (except in the late evenings when there is no waiting traffic) to cross over the first box and get into a non boxed area. So, unless you travel into the first boxed area and wait (illegal) until the second lights change to green and the held-up traffic ahead of you moves on you will never progress. People behind you hoot when you don't move on green, so you do, get snapped and fined. Simples. Edited to say - and no, this never happened to me - I don't drive into the City in day-time, so this isn't sour grapes

As my Katie Hopkins reference was apparently lost in translation, perhaps suggesting that this is Donald Trump/ Sarah Palin style campaigning may get better recognition.

Why did they go into the box when they could see they couldn't get out on the other side? Their option was simply parking up in the middle of the street, because they were unable (at any time) to go forward. The box junction was never clearable - there was never enough time to cross (without excessive and dangerous acceleration). It had been set up to raise revenue. (The lights were phased so that you could only advance when cars in the next section were stopped; if you waited for them to move off so that you could cross and exit the box, then the lights would already have changed against you).

Some have wooded areas in their gardens but would not refer to them as woods unless they're deluded. Or the Duke of Marlborough

The point was that the box was so large, and the timing of the lights so quick, that it wasn't possible to clear the box. 2 Police cars were also caught by this. And, please note, the box junction was changed because it was seen as being unreasonable.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/box-junction-cut-down-to-size-6984361.html

Though you may recall that the campaign started by trying to turn the cemeteries (all of them, not just the untended areas) into parkland, so that the OP could enjoy picnics and country walks (I only slightly paraphrase). Hence the bucolic (and fictional) 'Southwark Woods'. This most recent sensitivity to the long dead and their memorials (with a huge lack of care and respect towards the wishes of the recently and future bereaved) combined with lurid and disgusting fictions about corpse contamination of local streets shows some slight change in tack, but the end-game (I want a park where I live, can't be bothered to go to the many real parks around the area) remains.

The issue is that enforcement of 'reasonable' laws (OK, matter of definition) is one thing, but where local authorities engineer the roads and enforcement to drive a revenue stream (in London this has certainly happened with some box junctions and short traffic light cycles) then 'break the law and you pay the price' doesn't look so compelling. An area of considerable problem is the extension of bus lanes to only a car's length before a permitted left turn - knowing that any early lane adjustment is a technical infringement, even where the only impact is to unblock traffic not wishing to turn left. Local authorities can create legal, but wholly unreasonable, road topologies which then become nice little earners. And, in many cases, do.

The reference is to both cemeteries having water-logged graves on a regular basis (which is illegal AIUI). If this same water runs down the hill and ends up in your house, how would you feel about it? Yes, many of the graves are waterlogged in some parts of Camberwell Old Cemetery. This is surface water and reflects the fact that the ground is, indeed, waterlogged. However, graves are dug 6ft down, fresh bodies are in coffins - which whilst not hermetically sealed are broadly water-tight for some significant period, and bodies are embalmed. The new burials are mainly on/ in raised areas, which are not waterlogged. Water flows down, not up. Any water run-off out of the cemetery (I have seen none, save for surface run during actual rain storms) will not be contaminated. Earlier myth-making was about ground-water contamination (I think reasonably well refuted) - this calumny rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road is just Katie Hopkins wrong.

Otta has it spot on. I am on record (in this forum) as saying that I am uneasy when it comes to destroying memorials, which on both historic and aesthetic grounds I would like to see preserved. Too many trees, randomly growing in an area which should have been, but wasn't, properly curated, and untended are scrub growth - which is by no means the same as saying that I don't like trees. I have used the term 'scrub growth' and 'scrubland' as a counter to the wholly fictitious nomenclature of 'Southwark Woods'. Actually, had you started up saying - 'save the newly wooded areas of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries' and made a cogent and unbiased case I and others would have listened to you more closely. As it is you started a hyped and less than honest campaign under false colours. You appear now desperately keen to 'save' the burial sites of the long dead - and yet are on record as suggesting that any new funerals should be stopped and the cemeteries turned over to untended park land. Why do you clasp the old dead of Southwark to your bosom whilst apparently despising the wishes of relatives of the newly dead? And by the way your reference to 'rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road' is (once again and completely in character) both inaccurate and using lies to get coverage. Oh, and offensive.

5. It is One Tree Hill and yes the woods there (that border the nature reserve) are under imminent threat. Unless I'm missing something, the only 'woods under threat' are those within the boundaries of existing cemeteries. Indeed, if you look at a map of 'One Tree Hill' you will see that the 7 hectare site is shown entirely separate from (but bordering) Camberwell New Cemetery. If the film is actually of One Tree Hill (as stated) then it absolutely isn't part of this reclamation. http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?startTopic=Designations&activelayer=lnrIndex&query=REF_CODE%3D%271421661%27 And yes, most woods are actively managed - indeed in order for them to qualify for the government's IHT exemptions they have to be. [Obviously local authorities aren't impacted by IHT issues].

Here is a video of the area we are trying to save. Please keep in mind that under the trees and meadows are tens of thousands (if not more) of London's dead. The council will be digging up or mounding over all graves over 75 years old and selling off the plots. I'm sorry, but I don't believe there are 'tens of thousands (if not more)' of burials in the area that is to be reclaimed for use. Even if there were, reusing the site (presumably for tens of thousands more burials, if that is what is being 'recovered' although other posts have suggested that far fewer are actually planned) is not a bad thing, where those who are buried here have been forgotten or lost by relatives. In what way are self-seeded trees in scrubland 'our children's' trees - you might as well say that every time a park is mown then 'our children's' grass is being 'lost'. Who, by the way, is 'our' in this context? My children will all move away from ED (they can't afford to buy here) - so I assume will care very little if ED scrubland is reclaimed.

Ain't me

The general rule of thumb about all inbound calls which are apparently about your computer (or your finances) is not to trust them unless you are expecting them (i.e. a requested call-back) - always call back (for finance) on a different line (i.e. use your mobile if called on land-line) and use a number you know is the institution's, rather than any given to you by the caller, and never give out security details on an in-bound call. Often people will try to panic you by suggesting that unless you take immediate action you are at financial risk - remember that (for banks) if they are alerting you to risk (such as a compromised card) then they are the ones who can block etc. accounts in case of fraud, and that if they are aware of the risk then they take liability for circumventing it. Despite all the publicity about hackers breaching commercial site security (which does happen) most frauds are still people based cons requiring the punter to make an elementary error (including, often, not having the simplest - and often free - security products enabled on their systems).

Bit concerned as to how the scammers know my mobile and that we have a Dell computer. I'm afraid the mobile number could have come from anywhere, unless you never give out your mobile number to e.g. commercial sites. They may very well not have known you had a Dell computer - but they are very common and, if you're a scammer it's a good bet to try with that. What's interesting is that they did come in on a mobile, more normally you would want to use a landline to make contact, as then you could access the computer over that. Unless you use your mobile as a hub for your Dell? I suppose if you were using mobile WiFi from an open site and your phone as a hub, then they could have hacked the WiFi (these are very often not secure) and then back traced from that. But I suspect that to do so requires some sophistication.

I do know someone locally who shifted a lot of VHS tapes on either e-bay or gumtree (sorry, can't remember which) - but he did have to list (by title or category - bit of a bore) the tapes he had. If you just want to avoid waste (throwing stuff away which might be re-used) then setting a very low per tape price and requiring collection should help here.

Comparison of ED to Syria... brilliant. I think your irony meter is set on low. But if you care to read many posts here you will find numbers of people saddened by any proposed changes - to road lay-outs, to shops, to building heights etc. etc.. Not all changes are good, not everything which is up-to-date is better than things which have worked in the past. For instance, and this isn't being ironical, permitted room sizes for social housing (and new builds generally) are far smaller than the just post-war standards. Many people prefer, as regards that, living 20, or 50, or a 100 years in the past. As I suspect you would, or do, too. I was attacking your disregard for the past. My Syrian point was a reductio ad absurdum point, of course.

It's like living 20 years in the past round here sometimes... And that is not, necessarily, a bad thing. Ask anyone in Syria.

But if those who can cycle, do, it reduces congestion on both public transport and the roads generally. It also reduces pollution. It's win win. Actually, if it made it more difficult or expensive to keep a car in ED (because there was less road space, because it was part of the CPZ leverage so desired by Labour and Lib Dems) it wouldn't be a win: win. Sadly, the way our political masters play it, car v bicycle is planned as a zero-sum game (winners and losers). A non-zero sum game (everyone wins) would be better.

anything that would encourage people to ditch cars in zone 2 and replace with bikes has to be a good thing. No it wouldn't. Public transport in SE London is bad, and wanting to travel East: West is appalling. SE London is hilly, and wishing to travel, especially in winter, any real distances by bike is not always (sometimes ever) possible. Many people, with children, with infirmities, racked with age (I've worked through all three of these!) finds car travel, at times, a boon, and cycle travel an impossibility. At weekends, when the bad public transport is even worse, car travel can be even more necessary.

I am amused that in this thread (or another) they (Virgin) are 'blaming' over subscription as a cause of their problems - which is actually the equivalent of saying - 'well, we've sold stuff we didn't have, so now we're going to have to build it, at some time, when we get round to it'. 'Over subscription' is another way of saying 'over-trading'. At least BT generally tells you you're going to have to wait for services they don't yet have available in your locale, rather than selling them, billing you, and not having them (really) to deliver - and hoping to get away with it.

I'd argue that the final "resting place" doesn't need to be a grave though. For example, many people are cremated then the ashes are burrid in a particular place, marked with a plant or something. That's exactly right, for those for whom such an action would meet their needs - for others, however, the formality of a grave (and the burial of the 'whole' body, not ashes) provides greater levels of comfort. It's of course a personal (and cultural) thing - but it is 'our' (people in the UK) culture - even though your alternative also works for some. Forcing people to bury their loved ones whole in a grave is as wrong as forcing them to cremate. We now allow multiple approaches to death, disposal and mourning - that is a wholly good thing, to my mind. Sometimes there are issues which may over-ride such choices - how you dispose of people in times of dangerous infections, for instance (such as Ebola) where local customs have to be ignored for the greater good. This, to be frank, isn't of them.

but they have been there since at least mid 19th century (see Nisbet) so are no less woods than those at Sydenham Hill in my view. I find it most unlikely that trees of that age, unless they are unstable/ weakened by disease would be cleared - on purely practical grounds the costs associated with clearing the root ball/ roots of such well established trees - necessary if the ground is to be used for burials, would probably be, if not prohibitive, at least not cost effective. Nor do I believe (happy to be corrected) that the entire area generally known as One Tree Hill is to be cleared for burials. it is true that the environment there supports many interesting species Whilst this is so (indeed suburban and urban gardens are notorious for the range of species, often new to science, found in them) it is also, I believe, true that there are no unique or protected species associated with this scrub area. Any area of uncared for land will support 'many interesting species' except, in the main, in non-native monocultures. I note that Camberwell Old Cemetery has its resident population of parakeets to accompany the crows. Indeed, there is a wide range of habitats in the 'maintained' areas of the cemetery which I am sure has a rich and varied wild-life. As there will be in an new areas of burial, once 'established'. Including, I would suspect, many of the 'interesting species' now resident in the scrub land.

So, Penguin68, as I understand it you do not believe that there are woods on One Tree Hill? Not in the sense you would like readers to believe. There are trees and scrub growth (yes) - as there is at the back of my garden, which I also do not designate as 'woods'. If you want (real) woods try Sydenham/ Dulwich woods (which actually are woods, are managed as woods, are named 'woods' on maps etc.) Is there (mainly) secondary growth on One Tree Hill? - yes, is it (all) to be used for burials? (as I understand it) - no. And, if 'woods' is meant to be something other than, 'a place where trees have happened to self seed' - then, no, I do not believe there are woods on One Tree Hill.