The Real Honor Oak Recreation ground thread!

[Me! Me! Me!]

Glance up from your regular respectful visit to a buried loved one in their over crowded Camberwell New Cemetery burial plot. Look beyond the crowded burial plots over and beyond what seems to be a cemetery boundary of cast-iron palings to a boringly expansive grassed area that stretches on and on with no aesthetic demeanour attached to it whatsoever (other than grass and more grass) and you will note that expansive green presently known as ?Honor Oak Rec? is ripe and ready for overspill interments as the green was originally intended.

Trouble is that Rec, although intended for the dead, has been commandeered by un-dead dog-poopers and nondescript football players that are unable to kick their way out of a large paper bag. After paying respects to a deceased loved one I peered through cemetery palings only the other day and know it to be true of the flimsy usage of the ground as I have often noted in previous frequent visits. As for pooper-walkers what are they doing when dogs, according to by-law, are disallowed access to designated sporting fields?

It does have to be said during my Saturday afternoon cemetery visit I saw the kids play area was fully enjoyed by more in number than were sporadic on ?Camberwell New Cemetery?s Overspill Burial Green?.

I am of the opinion the dead are able to make far more use of the disputed Honor Oak disputed green than the living. By all means leave a stretch of football pitch remaining in the burial revamp. After all, British football teams are in desperate need of talent that could still conceivably be spawned in Honor Oak no matter how long it takes and on what size of grass patch the talent we crave may be captured.

[languagelounger]

PBB, have you had an answer at all from Southwark as to why they are reneging on the promise they made 10 years ago, that the 3 acres of open space they took for burials then, would be the last they ever took? This was following an expensive consultation exercise, and also, they said, a burial audit of all the cemeteries.

They then fixed on a policy that said those 3 acres (in which they would dig deeper graves) plus the reuse of old public burial spaces, would provide them with graves for another 50 years, after which the only option would be cremation. That would have meant that they were provided with burial plots until 2050.

I don't think anyone has been offered an explanation of why they're now saying that they now want to change this policy and spend more money on another public consultation and also, on another burial audit. The other aspect of this that needs to be questioned is how and why Southwark Council took a decision to stop carrying out burials in its existing cemeteries in 1992, when there was space left in them that had never been used.

Given that we know (see the case in the High Court against the former cemeteries manager, Terry Connor) that illegal waste dumping, including dumping of asbestos and other toxic substances, took place in these cemeteries for many years, I think the public needs to make sure that there has been a proper investigation into how the closure of Southwark's existing cemeteries came about. Why on earth would the Council take a decision to close both Camberwell Old Cemetery and Nunhead cemeteries when there was land in these cemeteries that had never been used for burial, at the same time as claiming that there was a shortage of space? Obviously it would have been much more appropriate to use cemeteries as cemeteries rather than closing them down, partly unused, and starting to dig up a public park instead.

We should remember that the decision to close the existing cemeteries was brought about in 1991 by Connor and his associates without any public consultation at all. If they had been kept open, and if the Council had not started on its plan of using Honor Oak Rec instead, the toxic waste dumping could not have happened. Let's remember the ?3.4 million pound bill for clearing the toxic waste that Southwark residents are now faced with and ask why energetic efforts are not being made to recover some of this cost from those who took bribes to allow it to take place. Someone should be taking a very close look at the individuals who brought these decisions about, and their bank accounts.

[Me! Me! Me!]

Of course, the answer to satisfy everyone is for no more burials. Instead, cremations should be put into law. One wonders how many who have signed for and wish the Rec to be retained will be content to be cremated when their time comes?

[Karenina75]

I am a local resident with three children, and I frequent the park on a regular basis. Dear Me Me Me, I have signed the petition and I think that it is important to keep outside space for the local children, dog walkers, football players, joggers and all whom visit for some time outside and away from busy modern life. I think that your comment regarding cremation is in very bad taste and disrespectful. London is an ever growing city and faces problems such as these - we need intelligent thinking from the local community and council - not unhelpful comments

[peterstorm1985]

Karenina75 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> .... Dear Me Me

> Me, I have signed the petition and I think that it

> is important to keep outside space for the local

> children, dog walkers, football players, joggers

> and all whom visit for some time outside and away

> from busy modern life. I think that your comment

> regarding cremation is in very bad taste and

> disrespectful.

Why do you think it is disrespectful to mention cremation in this way? Surely it's the very fact that people continue to want burials rather than cremations that causes the pressure to find space. Perhaps it is time for a greater debate on how we deal with death. As the population increases there will never be the option of simply reusing grave sites after a specified period (unless that time is very short). I would much prefer to keep the open space for use by the community but unless we ban burials then land has to be found somewhere. Where would you suggest?

[Me! Me! Me!]

But, don't you see..?

I apologise if I came across 'disrespectful'...

Cremations (a perfectly respectable way to see ourselves off when our time is due) will allow green space to be preserved that would, otherwise, be used for burials? This is what the controversy is about over the so-called Honor Oak Rec and/or Overspill Burial Site for Camberwell New Cemetery. We can't have it both ways. 'Ground' is required for ongoing interment. Where is that 'ground' to come from if not from existing 'green space'? I, for one, am happy to be cremated if it preserves a playing field that has been commandeered by locals over the years that thought it was free for the taking. If cremation was good enough for my foster mother (RIP) it is good enough for me.

[Anna27]

What idiot at Southwark Council came up with this idea! please put your weight behind this cause, It's not a long term solution anyway!

[Redalways]

Me Me Me aren't you the troll who posted on the se23 website about the same issue in a hectoring way. is this becoming an obsession of yours ? I noticed that you haven't posted about anything else

[Oggie]

The important thing to focus on is that Southwark need to develope a more sustainable plan for their cemeteries.

Why aren't they reusing the old plots as they said they would (in 2000 if I remember correctly)?

We can't just let them swallow up our green spaces because it is easier then developing a proper policy.

Why aren't our councils talking about this issue with us as most are in the same position.

We need to understand our available choices rather than avoiding the whole issue.

And please don't be distracted by negative people who have a different agenda (ie: Southwark employees who don't want this issue debated or challenged).

[Gracie66]

This is my first time writing on this forum, I would just like to ask a few things. 1) Have you read the South London Press if not I suggest you read it because it does not say that Mr Connor was corrupt, and languagelounger if in your piece you are saying that he is/was corrupt you should be a bit more careful. 2) Why did Southwark take Mr Connor to court for I think it was 5 million pounds knowing that he did'nt have it. Timothy Spalls wife gave evidence to the High court but she lied and it was proved in court. Do you realise that this case has cost Southwark council at least 3 million pounds that unfortunately us ratepayers will have to pay. Perhaps before shouting your mouth off you should get your facts right because beleive me your article about Mr Connor and his associates are WRONG. Also in 1991 Jeff Webber (I knew him) was the Manager not Mr Connor, your information on that is wrong. Have a nice day

[languagelounger]

Administrator - I think you might wish to consider removing the post from "Gracie 66", at the very least you should bring this post to Shane Spall's attention, also to that of the Environment Agency investigators and Southwark Council's lawyers.

As for "Gracie66", if she or he has relevant information about the criminal activity that took place at the cemeteries her friends were responsible for, under their noses, year after year, she or he should offer to provide a witness statement. And also bear in mind that trying to intimidate witnesses in a criminal case is a criminal offence.

[Me! Me! Me!]

For the sake of a true record on issues I would suggest NO post should be removed. Otherwise, a skewed or unbalanced point of view prevails. Certainly, if offence, insult or libel, etc. is apparent then the 'perpetrator' should be given an opportunity to amend or answer their post. Otherwise, we're into the issue of a one-sided debate just as happened to me on another similar site to this where my post arguing contrarily to the Rec'ers saw my post summarily deleted. Fortunately, I'm glad to say this sensible site didn't feel the same to delete the same post (dated March 13th above) that the other site took offence to where they prefer to manipulate one side of the issue to predominate in print.

By-the-by, as a local amateur archivist, I have ongoing digital photo records going back years covering local cemeteries and other areas of South London collected during countless walks. 'Dumping' in the cemeteries going back years was contentiously observable in my record. E.g. Camberwell Old Cemetery (one of the dumping sites) sees in my pictures an obvious example which has, all too late, now been 'noticed'. 'Dumping' in Nunhead is another tricky one. I contended years ago that the open sector near where Moslem burials are rightfully enabled may have been mis-overlaid upon Christian burials plots. Although, this was, oddly, denied by 'certain authorities connected to that cemetery' when observable evidence was (and as far as I am concerned) remains clear. In any case, it was for all to see that 'builders rubble' or inappropriate infill had been used to overlay said area that subsequently had a further thin overlay of 'purer earth' spread to mask bits of brick, electric wiring and other out-of-place cemetery ground covering.

[Administrator]

Posts removed following a legal request to do so.

Anyone posting defamatory comments is liable for their comments.

[Me! Me! Me!]

For attention of administrator: Please specify for sake of fairness and non-bias "defamatory comments" that caused you to delete certain posts of a third party and, also, of my most recent post which was composed, knowingly, not to insult or defame anyone. Otherwise, this thread leaves itself open to bias as to the Camberwell New Cemetery issue re: 'overspill burial ground/sports field'.

The additional issue raised re: illegal dumping in Southwark cemeteries also needs clarifying as to what posts (or what part of a post) was/were deemed defamatory. Otherwise, again, certain bias may be levelled at you the 'administrator' of this thread. If, as you state above "Anyone posting defamatory comments is liable for their comments" then why delete certain posts when onus is, as you say, rests entirely with 'posters for their comments'?

[Administrator]

I cannot repeat the comments that were defamatory.

I remove them as it may take the poster a while to do so, they may have gone on holiday for example. Or maybe they've decided to watch every episode of Country File back to back for a few days.

I have no idea what you are on about re. "The additional issue raised re: illegal dumping in Southwark cemeteries".

[Me! Me! Me!]

This "TROLL" has posted all too eagerly. But, because I dissent against 'the general line' I am now seeming to be 'deleted' by person or persons unknown because of my 'vigorous dissenting'. LOL!

[Me! Me! Me!]

This "TROLL" has posted all too eagerly. But, because I dissent against 'the general line' I am now seeming to be 'deleted' by person or persons unknown because of my 'vigorous dissenting'. LOL! javascript:editor_tools_handle_smiley()

[PaperBagBadger]

The e-petition is over 1500 now including Joan Ruddock, MP Lewisham Deptford.

Join those who have already signed and help it grow!

The Cabinet meeting to discuss burial options has been postponed to 19 April. Why?

The comprehensive burial audit taking longer than expected?

Long term, sustainable options being put together which do not include the use of the Rec?

A realisation of the importance of local green space in our city and the need for its protection?

But it means that there is still time before the Cabinet meeting to let the those key councillors know before their meeting what you think -

email names and addresses on the blog!

Your opinion counts and it means that you will be included in any future consultation, so do it today please!

Steve Bullock, mayor of Lewisham, met with Peter John, leader of Southwark Council last week.

The mayor shared the concerns of residents about the potential use of the Rec for burial.

Cllr John reassured the mayor that Southwark are reviewing this issue and that there are no immediate plans to use the Rec for burial.

They also agreed to work together on longer term solutions to the limited burial space in Lewisham and Southwark.

So, a cross borough meeting and while hopeful, this falls a long way short of a definite commitment from Southwark Council to safeguard the Rec for ever.

The campaign goes on!

Check out the blog for updates:

friends of honor oak recreation ground blog

[Administrator]

I have merged the three HOP threads

[Oggie]

I saw a good post on the Nunhead forum which I've copied below...

Hello, here's a quick update.

The Mayor of Lewisham met with the Leader of Southwark council, Cllr. Peter John last week. One of the things discussed and agreed to was to work together on longer term solutions to the limited burial space in Lewisham and Southwark.

However in the short term we need more Southwark residents to write to our councillors to let them know that we want to protect the Honor Oak Park Recreation Ground. This precious green space will only be protected if Southwark council agree to preserve it along with the other protected parks in the borough.

Please email or write to the leader of the Cabinet, Cllr. Barrie Hargrove and copy the other members to let them know if you want the the Honor Oak Park Recreation Ground protected. Their email addresses are below and I have attached a sample letter that you may copy and or adapt to your liking.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Please do write to the councillors and sign the petition at [www.petitionbuzz.com]

And thank you for all your support!

[ianr]

> We now know, of course (see press reports re High Court case, last year) that Southwark's former Cemetery Manager (the only unqualified person to hold

> such a position in the entire country) had a nice little arrangement with local criminals to allow them to dump toxic waste on the site.

A(nother?) related High Court case has recently been determined: report (SLP) here.

[nmb]

I live in Peckham Rye and have lived in Honor Oak, Nunhead & Brockley so can see both points of view in this argument.

I used the Rec as a child and my son played there too but have also got relatives buried in Camberwell New Cemetery.

The problem with the supporters of HOP Rec is that most of them are Lewisham residents. It is the Southwark residents who pay Council Tax to enable Lewisham residents to use HOP Rec. The petition they have going on all over the area is incorrect and in places downright dishonest when it states that Southwark wants to use the space as a cemetery. The Council have said again and again that using the Rec is their least preferred option but it has to be an option. I can't help but feel it's inevitable, if not now, then in the future.

One of the groups complaining most are Hillyfielders football team. Hilly Fields is a park in Lewisham, so why the hooha over a Southwark space that isn't in their Borough?

I agree that it's sad to take away a green space but we clearly have a problem about lack of burial space all over the country and in our cities in particular. And yes I also agree that we also have a lack of green spaces for kids!

In the 1970's Councils across the country presumed that more and more people would be cremated and in fact the figure has stuck at about 70% ever since. This means that people need to be buried somewhere. If the Council re-use older graves it will be expensive and legally difficult, if it buys new cemeteries out of the area it will cost more and be inconvenient for families travelling to funerals. If Southwark residents have to go to Lewisham for burial then Lewisham quadruple their fees from ?2322 up to ?9288 or more. Will Friends of HOP Rec pay my family the difference if I die and can't be buried in the Borough I live in?

Camberwell New Cemetery is now closed for new burial so single plots on top of existing public graves in Camberwell Old Cemetery are all that are available for residents. This means that couples will not be able to be buried with their partner in double depth graves.

The Rec was purchased as burial ground in 1901 and so far about half has been used for burials. At the time of the first burials Southwark could have used all of the land and had one large cemetery but decided to use it bit by bit as the need arose. Well the need has arisen for more of the land to be used.

Southwark has clear financial responsibilities to Council Tax payers and one of these is to reduce the costs associated with this problem and sadly the cheapest option for residents is to use the Rec.

[PaperBagBadger]

nmb is very well informed for a local resident. For someone who has lived in the area since they were a child, it is most welcome that this issue has motivated them onto the forum for the first time ....

As far as I know it is not general knowledge that Camberwell New Cemetery is closed for burial.

The whole tenor of this posting has a strong whiff of Southwark Council propaganda.

And to talk about Lewisham residents making a fuss about an open green space which is not in their borough is blinkered. The geographical situation of the Rec means that local people who happen to be Lewisham residents use it as it is their local park in their neighbourhood and they care about it, for the kids of today and tomorrow.

It would not just be sad to take the Rec for burial, it would be morally and socially unacceptable.

friends of honor oak recreation ground

[TheReclaimer]

What do you mean "We must stop Southwark taking away our playing fields". On the contrary WE MUST STOP LEWISHAM TAKING AWAY OUR BURIAL GROUND! since it is mainly Lewisham campaigners voicing their wants over our (Southwark's) stolen spare burial space designated as such for donkey's years. And, contrary to whinging argument the space is frequently empty of footballers - mostly used by dog muckers who, by local dog control law, have no place there where children and others play.

[PaperBagBadger]

I was down at the Rec yesterday and there was a class from Turnham school there with their teachers, enjoying the big safe open space and play area.

Sorry kids, TheReclaimer says you shouldn't be there - you're Lewisham kids.

And like NMB, I can't help to notice that TheReclaimer is another first time poster.