Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.....

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)

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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