dbboy

If you look at the protesters pressure group website under plans/faculty applications, you'll find some useful info

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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_fun > erals_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=0ahUKEwiLltON5fnKAhWLWhQKHYAdB > MUQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2 > Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report > &usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&bvm=bv.114 > 195076,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).

LauraW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fantastic video showing COC before the tree > felling in Area Z (the left side looking to the > North). > > https://youtu.be/b76wj7BO8yI Actually, is it not an old video that was done last summer that has been rehashed and reposted?

If you look at that imaginative scrub organisations website, you'll notice that although Lewis is the mouth piece, all letters that have been sent by that organisation are signed by a Blanche Cameron. i). So why does Lewis never sign any letters? ii). What is the connection between Blanche Cameron and Lewis? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajVqhozq818 iii). Who posts on their website and is doing their planning? iv). Who is the person actually doing the comedic turns? v). How are Resonance FM implicated in this? vi). Does Nunhead American radio actually exist? vii). Why is everything posted with Lewis's name? viii). Is this his way of gaining publicity for his personal promotion? viiii). If you had signed a petition or donated money, would you now feel conned? x) If you have donated money where has the money gone/been spent and accounted for? xi). How has he maintained the american accent if he is from Birmingham? xii). Has a fraud been committed?

Found this link https://nunheadamericanradio.wordpress.com/about/ which might explain it????????

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The group that people are now largely referring to > as Daesh would rather the world continued to call > them ISIS, the reason being that it adds some > validation to their claimed caliphate. By calling > them Islamic State we somehow acknowledge the > existence of said state. > > Let's stop calling this ridiculous group "SSW" > because it only makes them feel validated. > > I am NOT comparing the actions of this group to > those of Daesh obviously. Lewis has not beheaded > anyone (yet). But his mad dash to chain himself to > a digger and get his photo in a local rag just > screamed "look at me look at me". > > Let's just stop all this and starve them of the > attention they so desperately crave. Being a US citizen, is he likely to have a visa and if so, presumably it has conditions that if he breached could result in his removal?

Yes, quite right.

nxjen, Agreed, getting him, to get himself banned from here was the first stage, which he fell into, a bit like stepping in a turd.

You nailed it, I think ANY organisation however small or large that collects money should be legally required to account for all the money collected/given/donated to it and show how and for what the money is used.

Thanks, the whole point of the question was to highlight, if organisations that raise money for something that IMO, does not legally exist, if they need to maintain accounts, and if those accounts can be scrutinised.

Admin, Posted in error, please delete remove this thread.

IMO, Panada Boy started to have a meaningful discussion on here about the issues, but then ssw destroyed all the good work done with a tirade of spats, including openly bulling a fellow poster on here, so any chance they had of making progress was wasted. As nxjen mentioned above, they are now making a formal complaint against Southwark's Parks & Open Spaces Manager Rebecca Towers for not providing all the documents they requested. Is it really any surprise that Southwark are not exactly rushing to be of assistance to ssw following the bile some of their Officers have had to endure through ssw's tweets and because they are in public office they cannot respond (but I bet they wish they could). Additionally they are trying to involve Sadiq Khan, however I feel he has much bigger issues to deal with (like a Mayoral election) rather in comparison a spat between a bunch of activists and a Local Authority). As one of ssw was banned from here, this forum is now called by them a "small town forum", clearly part of their way of having a dig at EDF for being banned. If you had been banned and wanted to be allowed back, surely you would not throw out further quips, but I suppose that is looking at it and applying common sense that sadly seems to be lacking.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tonight's Comedy benefit seems to have had them > rolling in the aisles. You can fool some of the people some of the time, BUT you can't fool ALL of the people all of the time.

Did you call 101?

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dbboy > > Do you mean (hypothetically) funds raised for > woods that don't exist? > > John K I was asking a question which you can interpret in anyway you like, and in doing so purposely did not mention any organisational or personal names.

If money is raised for a cause, what requirements exist to maintain accounts to show income and expenditure and are these open to public scrutiny?

Is the benefit really a wake after their recent tree funeral for a fictitious wood to raise money. Time he was recorded to the Police for harassment.

Yep, if you want to see a GP they will accommodate your requirements once you have gone through telephone triage, however if you want to see a GP in advance you'll need to be prepared for a lengthy wait, and if you want to do something else make sure it's not flu vaccination time or some other excuse why you cannot see a nurse. GP's = Good, Reception / Admin = Inadequate

Sue is not unclear, picnics were one of the things ssw wanted in addition to stopping all burials and allowing the cemetery to become overgrown, which would result in its ultimate closure. Total madness. If the ssw twitter feed is anything to go by their approach remains unchanged and as nutty as ever.

Agreed no tax may be due, but better to be registered than not

If you are self employed (even more important if you are a cash business, so all your income is cash, rather than cheque, BACS or CHAPS payments), you will need to maintain some level of accounting, allowing you to you know what your income and expenditure is, so that you can determine any level of profit you make. Using this information will make completing and submitting your tax self assessment form to HMRC much simpler. Being registered you won't get any unwelcome surprises i.e. a tax investigation. Ran a micro/small business for 10 years.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dbboy, thank you for your response. I did ask. > > > Zac has accepted what ssw have told him without > clearly knowing all the full facts, > Fair enough, that's your opinion. Regardless he > is an MP who has called on Southwark to stop > working and I welcome his intervention. > From Harriet Harman, this is paraphrased but no > less accurate; > Ms Harman says: ?it would be wise to await any > further report, including report from an > independent expert before clearing any further > trees or shrubs.? > The MP says the work on clearing trees should not > have happened before the completion of a full > drainage report on the site. She also questions > whether the council has full planning permission > for the tree felling ? saying the application did > not make clear exactly how many trees were to be > felled. > > Regrettably the only way to hold up the works is > an injunction, nothing else is going to stop the > council doing what needs to be done. > Regrettable indeed. I still find it unacceptable > that after being ignored and lied to (not meant as > a contradiction) over 2 years that my only > recourse is a step I cannot afford. This wouldn't > be the last resort it is if Southwark had acted > more honestly in the past. Suggest trying to talk with the councillors who have been strangely silent on this matter. > > The Council are not engaging probably because > they got tired of the tirade received from ssw. > Again, unacceptable. I am not part of SSW, so for > the council to refuse to engage with me is > childish in the extreme. > I have asked some pretty simple and > straightforward questions. The fact they are > ignoring them in once again utterly unacceptable. > Again, try to speak with the councillors, they are the ones who ineffect direct the Officers of the Council in terms of what they do. > > Having looked through the report as I have said > before, I believe the report was well researched > and it provided the conclusions that need to be > implemented. > As have I, and I was broadly satisfied in 2011/12 > when they were conducted. They raised some > interesting points that suggested further studies > were needed before any work could be considered. > Although with the current drainage question > hanging over this, for you to claim 'well > researched' is a bit of a mystery. > > The same goes for the costings. I'll have to > repeat what I just put to Loz, but; > > Also, the very fact they are refusing to to > release details of current costs should raise > suspicions. Either they haven't re-costed > (implying incompetence) or they have and are > refusing to divulge this information. I'm not > satisfied with the 2011/12 costings as they were > estimates and do not wholly reflect the current > plans. It's a pretty simple question, how much is > this going to cost? I know for sure it will be > comparatively expensive as the proposed new plots > in COC will be among the most expensive in London. > What an accolade for East Dulwich. > I see no reason why they will not provide an estimated costing. Burial space is expensive no matter where in London. > > I accept your concerns however the council have > undertaken a comprehensive study and are > implementing what needs to be done. > Well quite frankly the exact opposite is true. > There are unanswered questions Southwark are > refusing to answer, and I disagree with them doing > 'what needs to be done'. It doesn't need to be > done. > Again try speaking with the councillors, they are the first point of contact, then MP, then Govt Ministers. > 3 points; > > Budget - why are we not allowed to know how much > this is costings us? It is our money after all? > 2011/12 estimates are not satisfactory, nor would > they be in any other walk of life. > Agreed > Church Permission - Still not been granted by the > Church of England, yet the council have started > 'preparatory work' which has included felling > trees and rather large scale digging. They didn't > put the number of trees to be felled at this stage > in their planing application, so yet another > example of their sly tactics. Also, why are they > in such a rush? After all these plans were > originally penned for 2022, with zero explanation > as to why they have been brought so far forward. I was under the impression it was 19 trees. I suggest they are in such a rush so they are able to continue to provide burial space in the borough, perhaps they should only provide it for residents in Southwark. > > Potential flooding - Well you know about this one > so I won't labour the point. > > I completely accept some people are in favour of > these plans and I cast no judgement on them for > their opinions, although to be honest i've met > more on this forum than in real life who are > against. I am interested to know why they don't > question the councils conduct more and why they > are so trusting of Southwark when there are quite > a few examples of their unacceptable conduct in > this. Southwark are putting right the errors from their past, if they had properly managed the cemetery this whole issue would not have arisen. I want to add that I have no issues about the works along Woodvale, it looks far neater and tidier. If you remember before that, there was no access from Woodvale/Langton Rise, the cemetery had far less usage and probably on those visiting graves went in. Since the changes I believe the cemetery gets much more usage. Are people really not that bothered that > our elected officials, using our money appear to > be acting with impunity and no public > accountability? > Especially considering the criminal actions of a > previous councillor which caused the contamination > and helped result in the situation in COC in the > first place. > I'm not. I accept you are not, and your frustration at not getting the answers you want. You could try emailing the Council Officers and Leader and raise your concerns with them to try and get the answers you are seeking. Your approach is totally different to that of ssw. You present arguments and seek answers without engaging into any emotional nonsense. Good on you and I salute you for your continued perseverance.

Panda boy - I was not going to comment further but you have asked for a response. panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dbboy, > Once again, i'm personally unaware of SSWs tweets. > I do not and cannot speak for them. Suggest taking a look at their twitter feed. > From my point of view, being a concerned > independent resident I welcome the intervention > from Harriet Harman and Zac Goldsmith calling for > the council to stop work immediately until they > answer important questions they are ignoring. > The letter from Harriet is hard to read due to the size it was posted, others have commented on it. I believe Harriet asked for "time for further drainage reports to be completed" Zac has accepted what ssw have told him without clearly knowing all the full facts, if you re-read his response you'll see what I mean. > And I simply don't agree with you the and > injunction is the only way forward. Sure it is an > option, a last resort when both sides reach and > impasse. My feelings on the council should be > pretty clear by now, but if you believe an > injunction is the only way forward at this stage > doesn't it suggest that council have failed in > their duty of care to their residents? > I'm baffled that you're satisfied with their > conduct. Regrettably the only way to hold up the works is an injunction, nothing else is going to stop the council doing what needs to be done. The Council are not engaging probably because they got tired of the tirade received from ssw. > Southwark cannot claim to have been open and > honest in this process, they have withheld > important public information, and they have failed > to deliver on a number of valid points raised to > them. Having looked through the report as I have said before, I believe the report was well researched and it provided the conclusions that need to be implemented. > > what was mis managed > > Absolutely it was mis-managed, and desecrated by a > corrupt council official. Accepted > What give you the confidence that these plans > aren't being similarly mis-managed? The previous > recent works in COC were not particularly > successful and led to flooding over graves, > leading to more works to remedy this, all costing > valuable public funds. The report This way of laying graves out makes best use of the available space. Any flooding is unacceptable, but is a common issue in other cemeteries, the only thing is to report it to inform the cemetery manager and ask them to deal with the issue. > Based on their previous track record, and the way > they have conducted themselves I have zero > confidence in their honesty or competence, and I'm > not sure we can afford much more of Southwarks > competence in implementing their 'cemetery > strategy' until they come clean on these plans. I accept your concerns however the council have undertaken a comprehensive study and are implementing what needs to be done. Their are others such as Penguin68 who has also commented on this thread and from his comments is clearly more knowledgeable and articulate with his thoughts and better at expressing then myself.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Think that would be a really good idea to have a > meeting or a debate or something - to see how the > community feels. There has been posts on this > forum which say that Save Southwark Woods doesn't > really have local support. > > Would someone on this Forum give me the name of a > group or a person who supports the Council's > cemetery strategy? Someone? > > The person or group can even debate what we think > is the strategy. > > We think the council's strategy is to cut down > trees, remove headstones, and dig up and mounding > over graves to provide burial spaces in crushed > construction waste on top of the buried dead or to > provide space in confiscated graves above the > remains of the previous occupants. We are sure it > is to cut down trees cause they have done that > already. > > I think it should be someone who doesn't have a > vested financial interest in the strategy. Then > again, it would be nice to see Councillor Vicki > Mills or her husband Gavin Edward or Fiona Colley > defend their horrible, sinful, cynical and immoral > actions. > > Any names? > Lewis Schaffer > Local Person Yeah, the Grim Reaper, running around a cemetery.

Try southwark Council, you have all their names, Oh they won't talk with you either, I wonder why????????????????????????? But in the mean time................................ > SSW: We are making notes, and when we win the war, > you will be brought to account. You - what is > your name. > Mainwaring: Don't tell him, Pike! > SSW: Pike...