Penguin68

From what we can tell, the Council says it doesn't need Church permission to cut down the trees, dump the dirt over poor people's grave, drive over the bodies of dead children and remove their headstones The council doesn't need Church permission to do its job of cemetery maintenance, nor to remove grave furniture (either for safety or to temporarily remove and replace for maintenance purposes). It does need Church permission for 'public' graves to disinter for any reason (other I think than an exhumation under warrant by the police). So it will only be 'driving over the bodies of children' in the sense that it is driving over the ground 6ft or so under which children are buried (which is what their mowers do many times a year). But then there have been many links on this thread setting out exactly what councils have to do under law - I referenced the key page 12 of one attachment which sets out all the prohibitions on councils in orderly cemetery re-use for burial purposes, one of which is to make a clear record of where bodies are inhumed when grave markers are moved or covered.

is because it's too narrow for a car and a cyclist to pass safely at all times Sadly that is also true on the roads where it is allowed - such as Melford Road, particularly when there is a bus using it!

A number of one way roads (for cars) now allow cycles to travel against the car flow. Cyclists are beginning to act as if this applies to all local one-way roads. On occasions cars turn following cyclists, not realising that the rules are different for different types of road user. (And cyclists anyway - some of them - rather feel that rules don't really apply to them). I am not surprised that these changes are encouraging local confusion. And yes, it isn't safe.

Your choice. Which is precisely what you wish to take from us.

I wonder why this group is so mournfully protective of the long dead, with no one left alive to mourn them, but so despises the wishes of those who are about to be bereaved and wish to have somewhere local where they can mourn and commemorate their loved ones?

No, exhumation means to removing remains from a grave - which is what they will be doing. Southwark's own document use the word. It is true that the any remains they find will be re-interred either in the same grave or somewhere else So the 'exhumation' - for private graves - will be for a matter, probably, of a few minutes, perhaps half an hour as the grave is dug deeper, the bones bagged and put at the bottom of the newly deepened grave. Not exactly what I'd call an exhumation. For public graves (where bodies are already buried together) the 'out of soil' experience will be longer, but with no other intent than reburial. 'Exhumation', whilst technically correct for the first part of the action, gives quite a different meaning to what is actually intended by Southwark.

The most reliable figures on crime (but not to a postcode or electoral district level) are from the National Crime Survey - all others will be biased by under-reporting to or recording by police. Those figures which stem from insurance claims will tell you only about insured people whose losses are above their excess.

dbboy - this is exactly what they are proposing, exhumations No, they are proposing re-interment - either in exactly the same spot, but deeper, or in other consecrated ground. Exhumation is all about removing a body from the ground, normally for e.g. forensic (sometimes historical) examination. Exhumation is not, in itself, about (obviously) re-burial. And re-interment of very long dead bodies, without traceable relatives to object. If I declared I wanted to dig-up a row of trees in a park you might (I am sure you would) object. If I said I wanted to re-site or re-plant trees there might still be objections, but of a very different sort, and some who would object to trees being dug up might well not to them being re-sited and re-planted. Words (as you well know) are important.

The attached document shows that the two possible strategies, where bodies are encountered, is 'lift and deepen' for private graves, where the body remains in situ but at a greater depth, and 'lift and re-inter' for public graves where the bodies are re-buried in consecrated ground (and only done with the permission of the Church). In both cases it is expected that the bodies will be treated with respect, and will be dead no less than 75 years (and often, in the case for instance of the wilded parts of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries) for considerably longer. I doubt, in fact, whether such actions will in fact cause a furore (as they would for current and recent graves, which are not included in this policy). For those with the time, page 12 of the document linked above shows in great details the necessary constraints placed on authorities who wish to re-use graves - worth reading as it shows a very different attitude to remains than that implied or indeed stated by the anti-cemetery lobby.

From edborders We are against Southwark Council's plan to dig up or mound over graves and remove memorials in the cemeteries. Every grave over 75 years will eventually be dug up. So - 'dig-up' or 'mound over'? - obviously 'dig-up' sounds more sensational, so let's go with that then. Within two adjacent sentences we get contradiction - with the most gruesome being chosen as the runner. With the ground conditions we have, someone buried 75 years or more ago will not be leaving a lot to be dug-up. And quite a lot of the interments are actually of ashes in family plots. Where 'digging' does occur, and recognisable remains are uncovered, there are quite strict rules about re-internment. From:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18505222 Strict rules apply to the exhumation of bodies. In England and Wales, the Ministry of Justice first has to grant a licence for their removal, it then has to gain planning permission and adhere to rules set out by organisations such as English Heritage and the church. Because of the age of most of the burial grounds this tends to be the Church of England. Reburial must also take place - usually in other nearby cemeteries. The graves in question date back at least 100 years, though many are much older. In some cases, they are unmarked by headstones and any living relatives are no longer contactable. As Draper adds, the lack of close living relatives could for some be the line between acceptable digging and not. "Some would argue that the whole thing about burial is actually more for the benefit of the living than the dead. Once the living connection is lost, then you lose completely the reason to rest in peace in that particular way." In practice old bodies are sometimes buried in the same spot, but deeper, to allow for another burial on top. Also see http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/06/recycled-graves-coming-soon-to-a-cemetery-near-you/.

More and more hyperbole and misleading information... The '75 year rule' (in so far as it exists), starts with the premise that a burial which is more than 75 years old is unlikely to have living mourners visiting it - for a 'family' plot with multiple burials this would mean the last interment. Southward attempts to contact plot 'owners' before taking any action. Clearly, where there is an infant burial 75 years may not be long enough - siblings might well live longer. Over time (a lot of time) re-use may mean that the burial sites of all current interments may be excised, but we are talking, I would guess, a minimum of 75 years before that might happen, and very likely much longer. The idea that someone would turn up to lay flowers and find their loved one disappeared is simply fantasy - although the option, as you can with country churchyards, of visiting the graves of family members 100s of years dead is lost. I do not want yet another bit of park, particularly one which would have no management money for it be anything other than a dangerous wilderness which would probably have to be shut-off on health and safety grounds if nothing else and thus completely unavailable for local use as anything (other than for fly-tipping, as in the past when parts of it were criminally neglected). I enjoy walking amongst the older and new graves, I like it that locally we have a focus for grieving (if that's your thing), I think cemeteries are as much an amenity as parks, or indeed schools. And the pricing structure still very much favours locals. Had you focused on trying to ensure that the council's plans were carried out effectively and sensitively I would have applauded this. But your very clear aims to destroy the cemeteries, as cemeteries, is wholly (to me) unacceptable. If there is anyone out there in 'destruction' mode, it is you and your gang.

Claims against policies, surely.. Actually, no, I've just re-read the initial article and it's much worse than that - the article says:- 'For every 1,000 quotes recorded that declared a history of burglary, 61.2 were from households in Tulse Hill and Dulwich' That means (1) that the incidence is past (in the last 3 years normally, I think) and (2) that there is no evidence the quote was taken up. So the 'news' might reflect a past crime spree only... (probably doesn't, but there's no evidence for that). It may also mean only that people in SE21 are more honest about declaring a past history of burglary, or a simply more likely to have lived there for longer (and thus know of a past crime history). I really wouldn't draw many certain conclusions from this about future dangers.

The figures are based on number of claims against insurance quotes - thus the uninsured aren't included in this analysis. However, where 100% of houses are insured, then 100% of burglaries will result in claims (give or take). Where only 50% of houses are insured then, assuming that burglars are as likely to steal from the uninsured as the insured then the apparent 'rate' will halve. Indeed, if you make the assumption that if you are insuring things you will improve your security (often an insurance requirement) then burglars may actually target a greater proportion of uninsured (more vulnerable/ less security) homes. So the lower the contents insurance penetration, the lower the same level of burglaries per household will be reported in this type of survey, based only on insured households. Lies and damned lies, eh? Edited to add: - Even police statistics don't necessarily help here, as people often only report thefts as part of the insurance claiming process.

This is bad news. Point to point season tickets will no longer be available, meaning a commute from ED to London Bridge will cost ?140 per month instead of ?68. I am not sure this is certain - point-to-point will presumably still operate on trains starting outside the TfL area (i.e. outside the furthest zone) - I suspect that this will be more complex (and thus offer perhaps some changes from) the Oyster style charging on the existing Overground. There may well be opportunities to make representations about exactly how these lines will be taken over, and its impact on customers. Certainly, for you, this may be a worse case scenario (although presumably you would also welcome the opportunity for flexibility inherent in a fully integrated and comprehensive trains: buses: tubes system in London).

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.