Jump to content

Recommended Posts

edcam Wrote:

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

> Possibly the most tiresome thread in recent

> memory. A few people have shown their true

> colours and it isn't pretty.



Interesting. As we're now in the lounge, I'm wondering how you define and assess "true colours"?


People are quite complex and show different sides of themselves depending on the situation.


In fact, mulling this puzzle over this morning, I went back and altered one of my posts to add "judging by his tweets and many of his posts on this forum", as the person in question may well be a cuddly ray of sunshine except when he is posting on here and tweeting :))


A quick google came up with


"someone's true colors. ? the ​kind of ​person someone really is ​rather than what the ​person ​seems to be: I ​thought he was a really ​sweet ​guy, but then he got ​mad and ​showed his true ​colors. "


The question is, what exactly is the kind of person someone really is? Which are his/her "true colours"? The "really sweet" part, or the "getting mad" part?


What if somebody who was usually really bad tempered and grumpy suddenly unexpectedly did something really kind and helpful? Would that be "showing his true colours", or do "true colours" only apply to the bad stuff (however you choose to define "bad")?


And apart from that, I'm wondering who these "few people" you refer to are, and how you feel they have "shown their true colours and it isn't pretty".

Me! Me! Me! Wrote:

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

> And, to imagine ALL this could have been avoided

> years ago had Southwark Council properly

> re-appropriated for the purpose acres of unused

> designated Southward owned burial ground that is

> the adjacent land to Camberwell New Cemetery that

> has been to all intents and purposes GIVEN gratis

> to the LB of Lewisham as a play field. How dare

> Southwark Council give away land belonging to the

> people of Southwark to another borough.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought from what had been previously posted on here somewhere that this was always intended to be a temporary measure, and the land has not been permanently given away?

Like Squatters Rights where squatters can (or, used to be able to) own a property after so many years of squatting residency sees "Temporary" for the LB Southwark re said Camberwell New Cemetery land (Recreation ground) probably means Southwark has forever 'queered its pitch' (pardon the pun) as Lewisham being the land-grabbing squatter has pretty much been allowed to appropriate said unused Southwark burial patch for so long. 'Temporary' as applied to that particular piece of Southwark people's designated burial land appears to imply Lewisham gamesters and dog-poo people can have the land 'Forever'.

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Check out languagelounger's post here (23/02/11

> 13:42), it is rather enlightening:

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 0,645329,645338


In what sense is this enlightening?


John K

Hi John K,

I find it illuminating as it provides some long term context into Southwarks 'cemetery strategy'.


The Honor Oak Rec Ground issue provoked public opinion against the plans, and Southwark backed down.


It is worth nothing that the current plans for Camberwell Old and New cemeteries have gained significantly more public reaction against them, yet Southwark are pretty much ignoring it this time and pushing the plans through regardless.


One example is the planning permissions, which they applied to themselves for and were unsurprisingly granted. This process took a matter of weeks, which is highly unusual (and I think suspicious) for a planning application with a significant amount of public opinion against to be granted so quickly.


This is just one aspect of this issue which results in me being less than satisfied with Southwarks conduct in handling this.

Panda Boy,


The long term context was set at the end of the nineteenth century.


Was it Lewisham residents who provided public opinion against the plans for Southwark to use the burial ground provided with foresight by Camberwell Vestry/Council?


Any sense that the SSW petition was an honest and informed is now in doubt.


John K

Given present urgent need for Southwark burial space which was always readily available within Camberwell New Cemetery's ample 'over-the-cemetery-fence-spill-over-space-recreation-ground' and not utilised for its purpose for decades - there has to be suspicions (does there not?) of possible dirty dealings that may be dug up from Southwark/Lewisham data files that reference the two councils understanding about plans for that 'shared' Southwark burial acreage. Southwark, despite urgent space needed for interring, would seem to be deterred from using Rec space for easily available interments. And, another question - Has the Rec ground been historically or latterly listed as Holy Ground? I.e. sanctified as burial land as any cemetery space is? If so, why are dogs pooing and ruffians running amok on that 'last resting place land'? Meantime, Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries thought to be overfilled many times over are now unnecessarily being poked, prodded and dug about for evermore 'reusable-refusable-disusable-six-food-under-nook-&-cranny-last-homes-for-the-dead'.


Disgraceful!

> The long term context was set at the end of the

> nineteenth century.

Eh? How so? How does the 19th century relate to what's happening now?


> Was it Lewisham residents who provided public

> opinion against the plans for Southwark to use the

> burial ground provided with foresight by

> Camberwell Vestry/Council?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question or it's relevance.


> Any sense that the SSW petition was an honest and

> informed is now in doubt.

I could say exactly the same thing about Southwark councils conduct.

To make such a broad and sweeping statement, you really should add some detail.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

> Fair point, my mistake. I also believe it was a

> council officer and not an elected councillor.


Although somewhat ironically, given the above confusion, the ex-employee Southwark took to court is currently a UKIP councillor in Thanet.

  • 3 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Ahh, the old "it's only three days" chestnut.  I do hope you realise the big metal walls, stages, tents, toilets, lighting, sound equipment, refreshments, concessions etc don't just magically appear & disappear overnight? You know it all has to be transported in & erected, constructed? And that when stuff is constructed, like on a construction site, it's quite noisy & distracting? Banging, crashing, shouting, heavy plant moving around - beep beep beep reversing signals, engines revving - pneumatic tools? For 8 to 10 hours a day, every day? And that it tends to go on for two or three weeks before an event, and a week after when they take it all down again? I'm sure my boys' GCSE prep won't be affected by any of that, especially if we close the windows (before someone suggests that as a resolution). I'm sure it won't affect anyone at the Harris schools either, actually taking their exams with that background noise.
    • Thanks for the good discussion, this should be re-titled as a general thread about feeding the birds. @Penguin not really sure why you posted, most are aware that virtually all land in this country is managed, and has been for 100s of years, but there are many organisations, local and national government, that manage large areas of land that create appropriate habitats for British nature, including rewilding and reintroductions.  We can all do our bit even if this is not cutting your lawn, and certainly by not concreting over it.  (or plastic grass, urgh).   I have simply been stating that garden birds are semi domesticated, as perhaps the deer herds in Richmond Park, New Forest ponies, and even some foxes where we feed them.  Whoever it was who tried to get a cheap jibe in about Southwark and the Gala festival.  Why?  There is a whole thread on Gala for you to moan on.  Lots going on in Southwark https://www.southwark.gov.uk/culture-and-sport/parks-and-open-spaces/ecology-and-wildlife I've talked about green sqwaky things before, if it was legal I'd happily use an air riffle, and I don't eat meat.  And grey squirrels too where I am encourage to dispatch them. Once a small group of starlings also got into the garden I constructed my own cage using starling proof netting, it worked for a year although I had to make a gap for the great spotted woodpecker to get in.  The squirrels got at it in the summer but sqwaky things still haven't come back, starlings recently returned.  I have a large batch of rubbish suet pellets so will let them eat them before reordering and replacing the netting. Didn't find an appropriately sized cage, the gaps in the mesh have to be large enough for finches etc, and the commercial ones were £££ The issue with bird feeders isn't just dirty ones, and I try to keep mine clean, but that sick birds congregate in close proximity with healthy birds.  The cataclysmic obliteration of the greenfinch population was mainly due to dirty feeders and birds feeding close to each other.  
    • Another recommendation for Niko - fitted me in the next day, simple fix rather than trying to upsell and a nice guy as well. Will use again
    • Looks great! but could it be possible to pinch the frames a bit tighter with some long nose pliers and add more struts to stop the tree rats getting inside? Also, the only issue with a mesh base is that it could attract rats towards your property.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...