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

[JoeLeg]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Council just cut down two trees. 20 inch diameter.

> On consecrated land. Total disrespect for nature,

> the dead, the Church, and the law. They don't have

> permission but they did it anyway. Shameful. Is

> this the way you want your council to act? Is this

> the way you want your Labour Party to act?

>

> Lewis Schaffer

> Http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

I'm sorry, but it looks like they DO have permission. I appreciate this is something you feel strongly about, but if the church aren't fighting them on this then I think it's a lost cause. They aren't actually acting illegally, however much you wish to (mis)interpret the law to say they are.

[henryb]

They don't have permission from the church for felling significant trees. My understanding is that as it is consecrated land - that is illegal. A church representives said if it was church land and the council was acting without facility they would call the police.

The church haven't decided on the matter. That is the purpose of the public meeting in March.

[dbboy]

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

[Otta]

Yes yes yes, but more importantly, did Lewis chain himself to anything today?

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Yes yes yes, but more importantly, did Lewis chain

> himself to anything today?

If he didn't, no doubt he will tomorrow as according to SSW on Twitter, "media coming":

DEMO tomo morning 8am Camberwell Old Cem. Stop illegal tree cutting. Media coming

[henryb]

Damn Skippy he did.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/man-chains-himself-to-tree-cutting-machinery-in-protest-at-south-london-cemetery-a3170336.html

[Loz]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Yes yes yes, but more importantly, did Lewis chain

> himself to anything today?

Oh, yes. There's a picture on the SSW twitter feed. Judging by the look on Lewis' face, I think the digger just gave him an almighty wedgie.

[Sue]

henryb Wrote:

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

> Damn Skippy he did.

>

Damn Skippy? What's a kangaroo got to do with it? Have I missed something here?

[henryb]

I meant - Hell Yeah

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/man-chains-himself-to-tree-cutting-machinery-in-protest-at-south-london-cemetery-a3170336.html

[edborders]

We have a letter from church to Rebecca Towers of Southwark Council saying they don't have permission to cut any trees in a nature conservation area and only trees under 75mm if not in a conservation area. Letter will be attached when I get home.

The Council doesn't care about the truth. Shameful

Lewis Schaffer

[Otta]

Brilliant! Go Lewis! But seriously man, chain around your neck? Be careful, genuinely don't want you to hurt yourself.

[Penguin68]

We have a letter from church to Rebecca Towers of Southwark Council saying they don't have permission to cut any trees in a nature conservation area and only trees under 75mm if not in a conservation area. Letter will be attached when I get home.

(1) - Neither of the cemeteries in question are conservation areas.

(2) - It is not up to the church to give permission, or not, about tree management in conservation areas (actually, that's up to the council) - neither, in municipal cemeteries, does the church have any authority save for consecrated areas (which will include areas of 'public' burial, and is limited).

An earlier post A church representives (sic) said if it was church land and the council was acting without facility they would call the police gives the game away - municipal cemeteries are not church land - they are municipal land over which, in consecrated areas and no others the church has limited authority - as regards 'substantial alteration', which includes the creation of new roads and paths and the movement of bodies or monuments.

On church land (i.e. churchyards) the church could set tree management rules and set size limits to guide a vicar or curate or parish council as to what they could so without reference to the Diocese, but this control does not extend to municipal cemeteries. The advice that is being given by, no doubt well meaning church apparatchiks is, I believe, wrong in law, and will, if insisted upon, be, I hope, vigorously defended by the council. I would rather a council I could vote for, and not a bunch of clerics who I can't vote for, interfered with my environment (have just seen Spotlight - excellent film - which has me particularly riled and anti-clerical at the moment).

[Sue]

The letter does apparently also mention restrictions on cutting trees not in a conservation area though (not over 75mm apparently)

[edborders]

The Church has said that no trees can be cut in a conservation area and no cutting of trees under 75mm circumference if not in a conservation area.

The council are acting illegally.

Lewis Schaffer

Meet 8AM tomorrow at the old Cemetery.

[Loz]

One of your tweets, Lewis, showed the tree stump and the words 'feet from boundary'. What boundary?

[dbboy]

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

[Loz]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> 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.

I missed this little gem from earlier. Satire, shurely?

[HopOne]

Glad you like it Loz! The delivery is parody but the point is serious.

[edborders]

CONSENT / PERMISSION TO CUT DOWN TREES OR DO OTHER MAJOR WORK

Read the letter that Council worker Rebecca Towers sent to the Chancellor of the Diocese of Southwark and the Chancellor's reply. It shows the Council does not have permission.

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/evidence/4591683001

The Council is free to publish letters from the Church.

The tree they cut down is only a few feet from the edge of Area Z which means it is on consecrated ground. They don't have permission to cut down trees on consecrated ground. That is why i mentioned it.

Southwark Council sets a bad example for its residents.

Lewis Schaffer

Nunhead, Meet tomorrow 8 AM at Area Z, Go in, stay to the right, keep going, past the loo.

Sign the petition: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-southwark-woods

[Loz]

edborders Wrote:

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

> The tree they cut down is only a few feet from the edge of Area Z which means it is on consecrated

> ground. They don't have permission to cut down trees on consecrated ground. That is why i

> mentioned it.

Not necessarily. The map from the report (below) shows there is an area there that is not consecrated. Although most of that area was consecrated, squares 105, 106 and 107 (i.e. inside the dashed box) are not, so it really depends on exactly where the trees are. Also, a 4m strip along the Underhill Rd boundary and a 12.5m strip along the northern boundary is not consecrated, either.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> 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.

>Loz Wrote: I missed this little gem from earlier. Satire, shurely?

>HopOne Wrote:

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

> Glad you like it Loz! The delivery is parody but

> the point is serious.

But what is your point exactly?

The actual fact is that your "parody" would become true if your words "people who support the council's plans" were replaced by the words "people who support 'Save Southwark Woods', in particular edborders/Lewis Schaffer" !!

So I can't see what point you are trying to make?

[HopOne]

It is parody as an oft repeated refrain is about emotive responses usually directed at edborders. I, and others, have attempted to point out the folly of the Council's plans objectively but this has been drowned out by this and equally emotive responses by those in support of the plans.

The nature of a forum I guess. I don't have a problem with people being emotive BTW but it is galling to have this accusation of being overly so thrown so liberally without justification in my view.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> It is parody as an oft repeated refrain is about

> emotive responses usually directed at edborders.

> I, and others, have attempted to point out the

> folly of the Council's plans objectively but this

> has been drowned out by this and equally emotive

> responses by those in support of the plans.

>

> The nature of a forum I guess. I don't have a

> problem with people being emotive BTW but it is

> galling to have this accusation of being overly so

> thrown so liberally without justification in my

> view.

I don't think anybody has accused anybody but edborders of being overly emotive, HopOne.

Unfortunately most of his (many, many) posts are so over-the-top ridiculous that they deflect attention from any other "Save Southwark Woods" supporters' posts which may be attempting to inject some accuracy and common sense.

But what are the "equally emotive" responses by those in support of the council's plans? I haven't seen any?

[HopOne]

So why be deflected? It is posts such as these, ad hominem and emotive, which are obscuring the objective discussion.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> So why be deflected? It is posts such as these,

> ad hominem and emotive, which are obscuring the

> objective discussion.

Emotive? How is my post emotive? Or did you mean edborders' posts?

You said your post was a "parody". So wasn't your post "obscuring the objective discussion", then?!

And where are these "equally emotive" responses by those in support of the council's plans which you mention?

If I was a member of Save Southwark Woods, I would have a strong word with Lewis Schaffer. He is the front face of your group, the self-styled media star, and to say he is not helping your cause would be putting it mildly.

It's a bit difficult to ignore his posts when he's in your face on this thread all the time.