dbboy

Seems yesterdays warning has fallen on DEAF ears, carry on pushing the boundaries, or is that borders (see what I did there) and I hope and pray Admin will do what it should have done a long time ago and BAN you. Then you'll have no publicity what so ever. Funny how Harriet's letter is so small and unreadable, now we know why. Like everything from Nundead heights (which is also a figment of your imagination) actually its Nunhead Grove, to now saying you have universal revulsion, you call anything you don't like black when its white, hot when its cold, light when its dark, you don't want change unless its change you want etc. Your behaviour is similar to that of a magalamaniac. There was an adult discussion being undertaken on the issue, but yesterday your posts put a stop to all of that. If you disagree so vermontly with the council, go get an injunction and do it legally rather than continuing to bleat.

The very people ssw were being "impolite" about, in their tirade of rweets last week, I think that is double standards. If ssw consider a case exists they need to get an injunction, Unless that happens the works will rightly continue and what was mis managed overgrown graves by the council, will be brought back into its intended use, for BURIALS.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair, I thought it was pretty obvious Lewis > was joking. Really? Suggest taking a look at some of his video's as a comedian - the material IMO is quite gut churning in places, well most of it, well all of it. I also wonder why the Councillors have remained so silent on this matter - maybe those concerned about losing the trees and flooding need to direct their concerns in their direction. (now that is a major concern and it is not just the water that can be seen, but the water table as well) and I do hope the Council have suitable plans in place to mitigate any risk of flooding (Ask those in Herne Hill who got flooded a couple of years ago how devastating it is) Because if flooding happens the Council will have huge claims to payout on.

Just when a grown up discussion on this subject was under way, ssw wade in, in size 13's and take everything back to the gutter, there's a joke in there somewhere I think!!!!!!!!!!!!! Happy to see ADMIN finally step in.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- , three are bitter with age and > loneliness. Four just love ganging up on people, > hidden in anonymity. A few don't like some > incomer, newcomer, telling them what to do. There > are other reasons why some people take such glee > in seeing something others think is beautiful be > destroyed. > > I am Lewis Schaffer > http://www.lewisschaffer.co.uk or google "Lewis > Schaffer" reminded me of "I am Inspector James McLevy of the Scottish POlice" Lewis, you made me chuckle, ta.

Hi Renata, live on one of the roads that was affected. The traffic cutting through side roads was horrendous, I do not know the reason for the works, maybe you have some information on this, Forest Hill Road, Woodvale, Brenchley Gardens and Canonbie were all backed up, particularly at rush hour, the 63 was suspended from Peckham Rye to Forest Hill Road (Camberwell Old Cemetery), the 363 must have been severely delayed and I suspect the P12 and P4 both experienced delays in service as a result of the works. However it was good to see them go on Tuesday morning.

Lewis - you appear to now be going down a different avenue, but that is fair enough. Maybe worth contacting the council and asking for clarification on the matter, I think it depends on what is defined as the "2003 stockpile made ground" "to reuse a substantial volume of the 2003 Stockpile Made Ground to help facilitate the proposed re-profiling of the site to provide additional burial space. SEC understands that SKM have previously estimated that 2,500m3 of material requires off site disposal"

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dboy, the intended use of the area in Camberwell > old cemetery was indeed for burials. That was > when it was designed and built in 1855. I > personally don't see this as any justification for > the councils plans at all. > What we have right here and now is a significant > and valuable area of woodland. I think thats > worth keeping personally. Well that is were we have to disagree, what you define as woodland is actually as I have already said, I see as overgrown burial land that the council was NEGLIGENT in maintaining, I think we can agree on that?? > Out of interest have you seen the plans and > renders of what they want to achieve here? Yes, I have looked through the report and overall it makes sense from the background information provided, reasoning consultation, the studies, findings, conclusions and recommendations on how they intend to proceed, Are > you happy that they seem to want to make > Camberwell old cemetery resemble world war one war > graves? (I'm not being emotive, that is what the > councils renders look like.) Again, YES, I am more than happy to see graves laid out in a clear and coherent manner, rather than the way some of the Old Cemetery is, and if you look where the knotweed work is being done you'll see where very old graves are laid out in rows. This layout maximises the use of land for graves to be prepared and presented in. Go look at somewhere like Hither Green and you'll see how it looks after 30+ years of this approach to laying graves in an orderly format. It works for me. > Actually people have asked 'Lewis and co' to act > on this, but obviously not the people who are in > favour of it. Noted, but you have to admit it must provide him with great material for his role as a comedian. I can cite over 3,500 people in the > borough and over 10,000 who are against these > plans though. > I think it's more like 800 of which probably 30 - 40 are active as was evidenced from today's turn out. > As to the way the council have acted, I find your > attitude to be very trusting of them. The studies > they published re out of date. The assurances > that new studies would be made have not been > fulfilled. Their consultations were cynical at > best, arranging them at times that were difficult > for people to attend and with very little notice > period. Subsequent consultations have not > happened. > Have to disagree with you on that, the report they produced was prepared in a structured manner and what I would expect from them, anything less would have not justified the works that are being done now and future plans. You have to remember that it is a cemetery, it's purpose is for the living to bury, mourn and remember their dead, you can argue that burial is out dated, but for some faiths and some believers, that is what they want, I'm sorry, I cannot see that their wishes can be denied to be buried locally. And furthermore, it is not the first time that graves have been re-used, Where old graves are to be re-used I would prefer the new internment goes on top of the original internment and the old grave stone being turned round with the new inscription being added. This is how they proceed in City of London for burials. Lewis wants the cemetery to become overgrown, that won't be happening, as Penguin68 has previously said, if that did happen, the cemetery would be closed and no one could use it for what ever purpose. If you go to the cemetery in Ladywell, you'll see what the results of neglect look like, at times it is so overgrown it is a disgrace. It's because their is not the money for the council to do what they should. That is a whole other argument for a different day on a different thread. > Like I originally said, I expect more transparent > and honest behaviour from the council. You can expect more transparency, I think you need to request this, but the way ssw have conducted themselves to date, in particular some of the tweets to councillors and MP's, does not surprise me that they are not engaging with ssw and in fact are ignoring ssw. > If you do not then thats just fine, strange but > fine. I think you have tried to bring the case back to the table and in removing the emotive language from the argument that Lewis used, you may find your case reaches more ears. In ending, I must say it was a very amusing few hours seeing the events of today unfold.

Renata - do you mean, removed?

"Lewis S and SSW are trying to protect an area of woodland within a metropolitan area". - I have to disagree with you, it is rather burial land that was neglected by the council and became overgrown scrubland, the council realised this existed and now wish to clear it and bring it back into use for the purpose it is intended for - burials. I appreciate the amount of effort Lewis and co are putting in to try and defend it, but unfortunately I feel the efforts are mis-guided. No one has asked Lewis and co to act on behalf of the community. "They are not personally gaining out of this", - no one has ever inferred that Lewis and Co are gaining personally from this. "they are doing it for the benefit of the community". - noted "The council have acted in a wholly dishonest and disingenuous manner about this". - They have consulted, undertaken a study, produced a substantial document detailing the history, findings, conclusions and recommendations on how they intend to proceed, I cannot see why / what is wrong with this. I seems a wholly democratic approach. "Regardless of your feelings about how the opposition to these plans are conducting themselves, can we assume you are content to have a council who lies to get their own way, and who's plans are so economically illiterate that they are wasting valuable funds to push these plans through then your moral compass is truly broken". - It seems like we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

yep, must agree the ssw twitter feed this morning in particular has been really, really amusing reporting the exploits to hold a funeral for a tree, as having been excluded from the cemetery, at least one arrest and best of all Lewis in a bowler hat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good of miss harman to write to TW asking for answers and requesting them to consider public access.

We need to oppose local station ticket closures at all costs. They need to be staffed to deal with problems, queries, enquiries, issues and ensure the public's safety.

Hey, edborders - that video, doing it on the hoof, really didn't seem to work, should've shown the trees coming down, now that would have been impressive to show.

Is it running again to the terminus at Forest Hill Tavern?

Lewis, Penguin68 has clearly explained the situation p16,10.16pm), what part of it is unclear or you do not understand?

And the Church do not wish to pursue the Council with an injunction, so what does that tell you?

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Council just cut down two trees. 20 inch diameter. Great lets get the remaining 17 cut down this week > On consecrated land. - So what Total disrespect for nature, er no, clearing overgrown scrub land > the dead, - how do you work that one out? the Church,- They are not interested in pursuing legal action as you already said and the law. - The Law, either follow it and apply for an injunction or stop bleating and find something else to campaign on, They don't have permission but they did it anyway. - ~Oh yes they do, They are working within their legal requirements Shameful. Is this the way you want your council to act? - They are dealing with their own neglect that resulted in the overgrowth of the areas concerned so yes. If you checked history you would see that this has been done before in the cemetery. Is this > the way you want your Labour Party to act? Don't think corbyn is interested, too busy with trident and overseas issues right now. > > Lewis Schaffer > Http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Junctions of Brenchley Gardens with Forest Hill Road and Canonbie road - four way traffic lights in place, traffic chaos in all directions with traffic backing up and Woodvale being held up as turning onto Forest Hill Road, suggest either travel later, earlier or not by car, van or bus.

Simply Lewis & Co need to follow the Law, if he does that then his cause may move forward. Currently he & Co are disrupting the councils works, which will result in additional costs that council tax payers will ultimately have to fund.

one down, only another eighteen to go, at this rate will be the middle of the month by the time the council get them all down. Interestingly the council say the area is just over 3 acres and nowhere near the 12 Lewis quotes.

As Sidhue so kindly pointed out the following legal process has to be followed and until that is done the works WILL continue and rightly so. "To get a legally binding prohibitory injunction in England and Wales you need to do the following: Complete an application notice (Form N244). Prepare a witness statement in support. Draft the order. File copies of application notice, evidence and draft order at court, and pay the current court fee. Serve the application notice, evidence and draft order on the respondent, at least three clear days before the hearing if possible. Go to Court, argue your case and win in front of the judge. Handing over a bit of paper in a meeting asking the Church to intervene isn't 'filing an injunction'. I'm also not aware that the Church of England has the power to issue a legally binding injunction to stop what Southwark are doing - they would need to go to Court like everyone else and ask a judge to issue an order." I hope the matter can now be allowed to rest peacefully. Apparently ~Lewis unchained himself, but do not know if the police took him away, but there's hoping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sorry to see any independent business close, however there were options that could have been considered, firstly if the business was no longer viable (for what ever reason), the only option is to close down the business and stop the losses. the alternative was that if the business still had potential, then to re-locate to premises somewhere else. Another business will eventually take over the former toy shop and it will transform into something else, If the rents are that high though likelihood is that it won't be an independent. Although the reason given was due to an apparent significant rent rise, and haven't we seen that happen on Lordship Lane for established businesses to close up, the business could have been re-started somewhere else. I do wish the proprietor well in what ever she decides to do next.

I believe he maybe pulling your plonker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!