New opportunity to save the woods!! Deadline Friday 23rd

[edhistory]

> Tuesday Meeting 7:30PM

> The Herne, East Dulwich

This is the meeting I was asking about.

Did it take place?

[Gadder]

My wife and myself live very close to camberwell old cemetery and regularly walk through it using the public footpath. When we walked through this afternoon we passed by SSW's protest to 'Save the Trees'. we were approached by a man with an American accent who asked us if we would like to join the protest. When we politely refused and proceeded on our walk he continued to follow us, asking if we were 'undercover cops' or 'those grumpy people on the forum'.

Just saying.....

[Sue]

That's harassment. Isn't it?

And "undercover cops"??? FFS.

[Gadder]

Well perhaps in America they employ undercover cops who are in their seventies

[Loz]

Out of interest, how many people on the protest, Gadder?

[Gadder]

Its hard to say because we werent really paying attention , but i would say around 40 includung children.

[Penguin68]

'Under-cover cops'? - worryingly paranoid

'Grumpy people on the forum'? - why, like those who started this campaign, on the forum, in the first place. Pot, Kettle?

[edborders]

That man I spoke to in Camberwell Old Cemetery said Save Southwark Woods (or me) were lying.

Is it a lie to say that the council will be cutting down two acres of woods then laying down three feet of dirt on top of 1000s of dead bodies in public graves then leasing off that land for private grave plots in the first part of their burial strategy?

Cause that is what we have been saying.

Lewis Schaffer

Save Southwark Woods (and graves, too)

[edhistory]

> Tuesday Meeting 7:30PM

> The Herne, East Dulwich

This is the meeting I was asking about.

Did it take place?

[Sue]

Well, I've written to the Diocese pointing out that those people who have written to the council in support of the "Save Southwark Woods" campaign have only been given one side of the story, and that people who - if they knew about them - would have no problem with Southwark Council's plans have not been subjected to a lengthy and emotive campaign giving the other side of the story and asking them to write in support of the plans.

[HopOne]

Sue, I think it is a little patronising to assume that people are not capable of making up their own minds. You clearly feel that you have been able to do so, as you have written to the diocese, yet somehow you have been "subjected" to a campaign. Am curious to know how anything has been forced on you?

I recall going to a public meeting about a year ago organised by the council. I, along with I suspect most of the people in the room, was only dimly aware of the "Save Southwark Woods" campaign at the time and was not there because of them. There was a balanced range of views put forward - even if not all the views were balanced :-). Am sure most people have reached a view point based on the facts. I have not actually met anyone locally who supports the council's action, so good for you for presenting what is probably a minority view point, you should definitely be heard.

[edborders]

Some people on this forum bang on that Save Southwark Woods people are lying.

What are we saying that is not true?

That the council in in the process of the largest excavation and mounding project in the history of the UK?

They already destroyed a pretty meadow and a hawthorn hedgerow on the Woodvale side.

Can you name another project that involves covering graves with imported topsoil or excavating graves with JCBs in TWO cemeteries, then burying people in the graves of the dead?

And the Council is cutting down acres and acres of woods and destroying the heritage and history of local people.

That is what we say. Tell us what is a lie about that.

Lewis Schaffer

Meeting Tuesday at 7:30PM at the Herne.

http://www.savewouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Sue, I think it is a little patronising to assume

> that people are not capable of making up their own

> minds. You clearly feel that you have been able

> to do so, as you have written to the diocese, yet

> somehow you have been "subjected" to a campaign.

> Am curious to know how anything has been forced on

> you?

>

> I recall going to a public meeting about a year

> ago organised by the council. I, along with I

> suspect most of the people in the room, was only

> dimly aware of the "Save Southwark Woods" campaign

> at the time and was not there because of them.

> There was a balanced range of views put forward -

> even if not all the views were balanced :-). Am

> sure most people have reached a view point based

> on the facts. I have not actually met anyone

> locally who supports the council's action, so good

> for you for presenting what is probably a minority

> view point, you should definitely be heard.

I am not assuming that people are not capable of making up their own minds - provided of course that all the facts are put in front of them in an objective, rational, non-emotive way. That has not been the case here, irrespective of whether there was a public meeting "about a year ago".

The vast majority of the people now supporting "Save Southwark Woods" cannot have been at that meeting, surely?

I was approached in North Cross Road last Autumn and asked to sign a petition to "Save Southwark Woods" without the full facts of the case being put to me. I didn't sign it, but I'm sure many shoppers probably did.

I was a member of The Woodland Trust for many years, and have an area of woodland dedicated to me. But I still don't sign petitions to "save woods" without being sure of all sides of the story.

Lewis Schaffer on this very thread alone has posted lengthy and repetitive rants including such emotive phrases as "rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road" (page 6, if anybody wants to check).

The campaign has also been very active on Facebook and Twitter. I know a number of people who know about this campaign only through Facebook and had no idea there was another side of the story to what "Save Southwark Woods" are putting forward.

So yes, I do feel I and others have been "subjected" to a campaign.

And I'm sure you haven't met anybody locally who supports the council's action. Because your group hasn't been telling people the full facts. If you have, please point me to where.

As for my "presenting what is probably a minority view point", well, neither of us has any idea whether or not it is a minority view point, do we, as there has not been a vote or any kind of similar campaign to "Save Southwark Burial Space in Southwark Cemeteries".

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Some people on this forum bang on that Save

> Southwark Woods people are lying.

>

> What are we saying that is not true?

>

Well, as I said above, your statement about rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road, for a start.

[edborders]

THEY ARE CUTTING TREES NOW IN CAMBERWELL OLD CEMETERY

THE COUNCIL DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH TO CUT DOWN TREES AND ARE ACTING ILLEGALLY>

GO TO AREA Z NOW. I WILL MEET YOU> AND TELL THEM TO STOP. WILL CALL THE POLICE.

LEWIS SCHAFFER

07886504221

[Sue]

I'm sure the police have better things to do round here, like catch burglars for example.

[fleur]

I am not on anyones side but it concerns me that I can hear the sound of chainsaws at this moment when the position is not clear.

[Sue]

fleur Wrote:

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

> I am not on anyones side but it concerns me that I

> can hear the sound of chainsaws at this moment

> when the position is not clear.

This is a huge assumption, but I am assuming that Southwark Council do think the position is clear.

Why would they deliberately act illegally?

[HopOne]

Sue Wrote:

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

> HopOne Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sue, I think it is a little patronising to

> assume

> > that people are not capable of making up their

> own

> > minds. You clearly feel that you have been

> able

> > to do so, as you have written to the diocese,

> yet

> > somehow you have been "subjected" to a campaign.

>

> > Am curious to know how anything has been forced

> on

> > you?

> >

> > I recall going to a public meeting about a year

> > ago organised by the council. I, along with I

> > suspect most of the people in the room, was

> only

> > dimly aware of the "Save Southwark Woods"

> campaign

> > at the time and was not there because of them.

> > There was a balanced range of views put forward

> -

> > even if not all the views were balanced :-).

> Am

> > sure most people have reached a view point

> based

> > on the facts. I have not actually met anyone

> > locally who supports the council's action, so

> good

> > for you for presenting what is probably a

> minority

> > view point, you should definitely be heard.

>

>

>

> I am not assuming that people are not capable of

> making up their own minds - provided of course

> that all the facts are put in front of them in an

> objective, rational, non-emotive way. That has not

> been the case here, irrespective of whether there

> was a public meeting "about a year ago".

There have been numerous attempts to present facts objectively on this and other threads. These seem to have been drowned out by highly emotive responses from people who support the council's plans.

>

> The vast majority of the people now supporting

> "Save Southwark Woods" cannot have been at that

> meeting, surely?

I mentioned the meeting to counter your suggestion that people who happen to be against Southwark's burial strategy are only getting their info from a campaign. This is not true.

>

> I was approached in North Cross Road last Autumn

> and asked to sign a petition to "Save Southwark

> Woods" without the full facts of the case being

> put to me. I didn't sign it, but I'm sure many

> shoppers probably did.

I think you need to present what you think are the pertinent full facts that would persuade others to change their minds. Nobody is forcing an opinion on you.

>

> I was a member of The Woodland Trust for many

> years, and have an area of woodland dedicated to

> me. But I still don't sign petitions to "save

> woods" without being sure of all sides of the

> story.

Good for you. See my comment above.

>

> Lewis Schaffer on this very thread alone has

> posted lengthy and repetitive rants including such

> emotive phrases as "rotting dead juices flowing

> down Forest Hill Road" (page 6, if anybody wants

> to check).

As mentioned before, Lewis is emotive (and nothing wrong with that). He refers to water logged graves, which are illegal for good reasons obviously.

>

> The campaign has also been very active on Facebook

> and Twitter. I know a number of people who know

> about this campaign only through Facebook and had

> no idea there was another side of the story to

> what "Save Southwark Woods" are putting forward.

>

> So yes, I do feel I and others have been

> "subjected" to a campaign.

This is the nature of social media which includes a forum such as this. You engage with it to the extent that you want to. There is no force involved as you opt to contribute or ignore. Your choice.

>

> And I'm sure you haven't met anybody locally who

> supports the council's action. Because your group

> hasn't been telling people the full facts. If you

> have, please point me to where.

Once again you assume that someone is only sourcing info from a group just because they have reached similar conclusions. I have met the group but only did so very recently as I was seeking further facts. And it was very informative.

>

> As for my "presenting what is probably a minority

> view point", well, neither of us has any idea

> whether or not it is a minority view point, do we,

> as there has not been a vote or any kind of

> similar campaign to "Save Southwark Burial Space

> in Southwark Cemeteries".

My own gut feel, true, but ironically I can only assume that anyone who supports the cemetery plans are not armed with all the facts! I can only suggest that you start your own campaign and see. In fact, I encourage you to do so. We seem to have opposing views on this Sue but I strongly support your liberty to express your own. Now how about doing so objectively?

[taper]

Here's what Southwark are saying.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/2231/the_future_of_southwarks_cemeteries/6

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

We seem to

> have opposing views on this Sue but I strongly

> support your liberty to express your own. Now how

> about doing so objectively?

In what way am I not being objective?

ETA: Thank you Taper, that council FAQ page has changed since I last saw it. The section at the top has been added recently, presumably because of "Save Southwark Woods" claims.

[henryb]

It is not just SSW. The Diocese have said they don't have permission to do what the say there are going to do. It is not up to the Council to to decide what is legal and what is not. It is up the Police and Courts.

[HopOne]

You are putting forward that you oppose a view. How is it that you oppose it? It is not clear.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> You are putting forward that you oppose a view.

> How is it that you oppose it? It is not clear.

How is it not clear?

I am in favour of the council's plans even although they involve some existing trees being cut down.

I understand that the people supporting "Save Southwark Woods" (which don't actually exist) are not in favour of the council's plans even though they involve a number of new trees being planted.

I also have no problem at all with new burials taking place above existing graves, and I have no problem at all with old bones being moved. I understand from Lewis Schaffer's posts on here that he - and by extension "Save Southwark Woods" - has problems with both of those things.

Is that sufficiently clear for you?

ETA: I would have thought if you had read all of this thread that my previous posts would have made my position quite clear already.

[Otta]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Some people on this forum bang on that Save

> Southwark Woods people are lying.

>

> What are we saying that is not true?

I think the problem with you specifically Lewis is that people can't see the wood for the trees (see what I did there). You ramble on and on and on and on and on, spouting a load of emotive half truths, and people don't know what to think (other than "I wish this Lewis dude would give it a rest").

I've never wanted to see trees cut sown unnecessarily, but you alone have made me want to grab an axe and head down there myself.