Penguin68

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/

NOTE TO ADMIN - TAKE THIS DOWN IF YOU DON'T THINK IT HELPS Previous threads seem to have generated more heat than light, including personal accusations and counter accusations, so in an attempt to bring discussion back to the detail of the Councils? proposals and implementation:- The story so far: Southwark Council, who manages these two municipal cemeteries, created in the latter half of the 19th century from pastoral (meadow) lands bought from farmers, plans to extend their use for burials by starting to bury in areas not previously used and (eventually) re-using grave space, as allowed by law. Their proposals cover only those areas which form designated parts of the two cemeteries, although bits of these have not been used previously for burial. Their initial focus is on areas which have been allowed to run wild (following a period when the council abrogated its responsibilities to look after the cemeteries properly) or which have been taken out of use (concreting). This work initially involves clearing scrub growth (and some older, intentionally planted trees) and areas of contamination following fly-tipping. Some of this work takes place over 19th century graves, both private and ?public? (formally known as paupers graves). For private graves (the majority of recent burials) the law requires that no grave be disturbed (other than for new family burials) for re-use in less than 75 years after the last burial. Where private graves are re-used the normal rules are for ?lift and deepen? where the original occupants are buried lower down (but in the same spot), with new occupants buried above. In other London cemeteries it is common to ?turn? the grave marker so that the original inscriptions now are on the back of the gravestone. Some of the land is ?consecrated? (particularly public grave areas) ? the Diocese of Southwark must give a ?Faculty? for consecrated areas to allow what is described as ?substantial alterations? ? which includes the removal of any remains for re-interment in consecrated ground (which is their current policy regarding public graves), the disturbance of grave furniture and the creation of new paths or roadways. Some actions (in practical terms ?gardening? and tree management) do not require such a Faculty, nor would clearance of contamination and fly-tipping residue where this did not disturb graves or grave markers. The council?s plans include plans for replanting trees (though these will tend to be saplings rather than mature trees). Over time they suggest any net tree loss will be minimal, though this probably ignores removal of current spindly sapling growth. It is inevitable that some wild habitats will be removed or substantially altered, although it should be noted that different habitats will consequently arrive. Last year, for instance, in the existing managed areas of Camberwell Old Cemetery a substantial portion was allowed to grow into mature hay meadow during the summer. The existing areas which have been let run wild in the cemeteries are limited (i.e. most of the cemeteries are already fully managed). Camberwell Old Cemetery is 11.62 hectares, Camberwell New, 12.2 or 58.86 acres together. The council?s current plans for removal of trees and scrub growth etc. cover 3.12 acres in the Old Cemetery (not all of which is tree covered) and 0.54 acres in the New Cemetery. Combined that is 6% of the total area of both cemeteries. There will, of course, over time, be substantial re-use of burial space within the existing properly managed cemetery areas, this being achieved by a combination of re-interment for public burials and what is called ?mounding? (raising the soil levels to allow new burial) as well as lift and deepen for private graves. This work (in existing managed areas) will not, over time, have significant effect on changing habitat. A pressure group (calling itself ?Save Southwark Woods? ? although there has never been an entity or area actually called ?Southwark Woods?) is committed to attempt (a) to stop council works in reclaiming areas of the cemetery not properly maintained (b) to stop all future burials in Southwark and © to allow the whole cemetery areas (Old and New Cemetery) to become wilded and overgrown. They claim this will create a ?nature reserve? ? although who will run it and how it would be funded has never been made clear. There is already a Nature Reserve in part of One Tree Hill (which is adjacent to the New Cemetery); Nunhead cemetery, now ?closed? for burials, is treated as a Nature Reserve ? so we already have two of these locally; and there are many other local areas of woodland and park. Both Old and New cemeteries are already classified (in their entirety, being mainly managed areas) by the Council as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). The Council claims (and it is in their gift) that SINC status would be maintained following the proposed developments. Arguments the protesters have used (over and above the ?loss of habitat? ? which is accurate but perhaps has been disproportionate ? as only 6% of the land is involved with that) include biological contamination from burials and flooding ? as well as ?disrespect? towards the existing dead. Their main belief appears to be that if their views prevail the areas will become new parkland for them to enjoy (although the area is already well provided for green spaces of different types). How this parkland would be managed, by whom and at whose cost has not been discussed by them, nor are any proposals made for this. The Council?s responses to the protest so far can be seen here:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/2231/the_future_of_southwarks_cemeteries/6 The 2013 Guidance on reuse of cemeteries in London (a .pdf) can be downloaded from here:- https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiLltON5fnKAhWLWhQKHYAdBMUQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report&usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&bvm=bv.114195076,d.d24&cad=rja (NB ? Summary written by someone who, living very close to one of the cemeteries, broadly supports the Council?s policy, on the assumption that it is carried through as promised and sensitively).

And just as soon as people stop dying or stop wanting to bury their dead, or visit the site of their burials without having several hours travel we will follow this advice. And the dead don't think. That's rather the point of being dead.

Your agent is right. Although there is something called 'outline planning permission' this is used only when you wish a general authority to undertake a new build (for instance a second house on your property). This is of value if you want to sell off a plot where such a second build was feasible - in order to demonstrate to a buyer that the 'right sort' of development plans would be acceptable (and thus to price the plot accordingly). However, an extension would require full planning permission, which would then be given only for the design submitted, which a buyer might well not want to proceed with. If there are (recent) examples of permitted development or planning permission granted on your sort of house you can point this out to any buyer - it is up to them then to get their solicitor to check if local planning rules have recently changed which might now disallow such a development. Otherwise you are building unnecessary time and cost into your sale, which you will not be able to recover.

If the fund is registered as a charity then, in theory, it could be challenged. If the fund raiser is just going to donate to a registered charity however then there is no obvious check to be made, unless and if you believe that the fund raising is a scam, in which case it could be reported to the police as such. There is no mechanism whereby the fund raiser could be audited 'on spec'. And if the funds are not destined for a registered charity then no interest would be taken. Caveat emptor. However, such fund raising could be seen as income generating (depending upon the mechanism being used to raise funds, for instance the sale of tickets or other items) in which case, if the enterprise was seen as being a business, then HMRC could be involved, were there to be tax liability issue. If the fund raising was using a lottery that too is regulated. (I am not a lawyer, however, so this is based on a normal 'business' understanding of affairs).

You have to be careful jumping a modern car from another one. Can't remember the technicalities but there is a danger of overload for one of them. Did you offer to pay the garage?

Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries are (in total) 23.82 hectares (Old, 11.62, New 12.2), or 58.86 acres. In order to make a (new) 100 acre nature reserve some readers (and I hope supporters of ssw) are going to have to give up their back gardens for Lewis's aims to be met. Not me, I'm afraid.

The council already insist on a residence test for both the deceased and the person arranging the funeral. Isn't this because there are reduced fees for residents? I had thought that non-residents were still allowed to be buried (this was a ssw complaint, that the cemeteries would be full of foreigners) but at a higher cost. I was assuming that HopOne was wanting exclusive burial rights for locals only. In which case someone who had lived all their lives in the borough, but had moved out to die in a Home outside the borough, might be refused burial rights.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12151550/Martin-Clunes-joins-hunt-for-cat-ripper-of-Croydon.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/27/crodyon-cat-killings-mystery-attack-decapitated_n_9087262.html

Apologies HopOne - it is shown as designated, though it is worth noting that (1) the whole area of COC is so designated, not just the area which stimulated the protest, so clearly a maintained and well managed cemetery also fits this bill (and hence a future maintained cemetery would as well), and that (2) the 'wild' area is described as 'scrub' - which is exactly the words I first used to describe it. You should also note that the law (in London) does not allow re-use of cemetery space where burials are less than 75 years old - so that no space with burials which post date 1941 could yet be re-used for new burials - much of the maintained area has burials which post-date that year - it is the un-maintained area which has the earlier burials which could be re-used. And the accusations of 'lying' have been mainly applied (and correctly) to a single poster no longer on this thread. However those too closely allied to his particular strident campaign and its flawed arguments should understand that they are very likely to be tarred with that same brush, guilty by association. I would entirely agree that this whole problem has been precipitated and exacerbated by Southwark's very poor record of care for the cemeteries in the last decade of the last century into the first decade of this. This neglect is unpardonable.

Penguin68, are you accusing me of lying? If so, then provide an example please. No, I am not. However you refer to the trees in the cemeteries as 'Grade 1 SINC woods' - as far as I know this is inaccurate. You suggest that the council should reuse ?the currently used space that they have for local burial? ? I am not sure what this means ? they intend only to reuse space in the existing cemeteries for burials ? I assume that you wish this to be restricted to ?locals? ? whatever that means, presumably you would insist on a residence test both for the deceased and those arranging the funerals? Apart from that, the council is planning to use the designated cemetery areas for funerals. The issue about 'non residents' being buried here as being important is somewhat exploded by the campaign's express desire for all Southwark residents to be buried in future out of borough. You have mitigated this, certainly, but has the campaign? You assert the ?current path is ?unsustainable? ? but reusing existing cemeteries is exactly that, ?bad for the environment? ? again the plan to replant trees and maintain the cemeteries instead of allowing them to slip back into the target for fly tipping that they were, would be good for the environment; and bad for ?public health? which is nonsense originated in the earlier part of the campaign which talked about rotting corpse fluids flowing into Forest Hill Road (hyperbolic rubbish). This issue about flood protection is also not really valid, although of course proper care will be need to be taken with drainage. The Old Cemetery has in the past had parts waterlogged but has never been the cause of floods. Nor is it likely to be in the future. This is all taken from one post of yours on the previous page of this thread. You are not lying, but your assertions are challengeable. This is very different from the clear and admitted inventions of a now banned poster.

Whilst not wanting to pour oil on the flames I do feel that people are allowed to operate more than one persona - personal comments on issues can be separated (by using different ID's and sign-offs) from comments in a corporate capacity. Lewis has decided to combine his public profile with his private one (so he posted as edborders and latterly has also signed his name, when he could, on these threads). However, even where he knows someone's personal identity, where they are not using it in a 'conversation' neither should he. He has also made (what he later admitted were) completely fictitious accusations against posters on this forum (including me) - which if not countered would have suggested we were partial players in this debate. That is not pleasant and I am shocked that he seems to be continuing this trajectory in other media. Other supporters of his campaign are more moderate, and I welcome that. They do, however, I'm afraid, frequently fall into the trap of quoting his more outrageous statements as fact. Or dismissing them as if they are being made up by opponents of ssw. He did, really, originally suggest that the best uses of the cemeteries were for walks and picnics, and that they should be turned over for that use. He has countered any statement made by the council as to what they plan as being either a straight lie, or dissimulation to hide a greater truth. He is of course welcome to hold the view he does, but where he uses un- and half- truths to stimulate support then he should be challenged. And he does appear to be combining his career publicity with this campaign - that's his choice but he shouldn't then attribute to others such intents for themselves. It is no encouragement to 'stand up and be counted' when doing so invites attacks and harassment.