Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Blanche, do you have any proof that he Muslim community feels discriminated against?


Have you actually asked any Muslims? Or do you, as a white middle class individual, feel comfortable assuming you know what the Muslim community thinks?

Once again I must ask the question - does ssw - as manifested by Blanche and Lewis - want the continued burial of ANY person in Southwark or not? They are on record as saying that they want ALL burials to stop. In which case the 'discrimination' rubbish is a clear red herring and is otherwise irrelevant to their case, and is essentially lying obfuscation.[i should be clear that there are those who support much of their protest who do not form part of their coterie, and I would not wish to tar these people with the same brush. I think they're wrong, but they're wrong in the right way, as it were].


As for ssw's apparent links to the far and racist right - I do hope those who are 'green' and support their wishes will reflect on their bedfellows.

dbboy Wrote:

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

> When are you going to post the FOCC constitution

> and minutes of meetings?


As an unincorporated association, they don't have to publish anything (or even, provided they don't have a surplus, register with HMRC). As directors are personally liable for the actions of the group, there's no need. That need would only arise if, or when, they wanted to receive public money directly.


That said, things can get awkward if they accidentally confuse themselves with another group or claim to speak for other properly-constituted groups with whom confusion may be likely. Which makes their involvement in the Southwark Greenspaces Forum (SGF) a matter of some interest. The SGF emerged out of nearly nowhere (a meeting was held last July to answer the question 'Does Southwark Need a Green Space Forum', which it predictably did) and then swiftly entangled itself with the pre-existing London Green Space Friends Network (LGSFN), a division of the apparently respectable National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces. Presumably FOCC is now part of the LGSFN and possibly speaking for any other Friends group that turned up, didn't notice or failed to object. That may unfairly suspicious of me, but it is impossible to tell as the last time LGSFN published minutes was in 2014 (when the 'Southwark' rep was from the Friends of Dulwich Park)


All this parochial usurpation is entertaining enough (though unlikely to please any real Friends groups that find SGF claiming to represent them), but it does give some cause for concern. Genuine Friends groups, after all, do a real job, and raise real funds from real sponsors for real projects, and it would be a shame if any of that hard work was put at risk. Although Southwark Council (and Lambeth) might be wise to such tactics, having come across them in various guises before, not everyone can tell the difference between a genuine representative body and a bunch of shouty deadbeats. Despite the hard realities that have forced corporations to turn their hand to the rancid depradations of the gig economy, a surprising amount of greenwash money still oozes from the City and, provided it ticks the right boxes, isn't always too careful about where it ends up.

If they say they are FOCC they are perporting to represent a group with a cause. Whatever that cause may or may not be, surely they must have a constitution that lays out:


Who is responsible for what?

How they acquired these positions, were they voted into them or have they just assumed them. If assumed positions that does not seem to be democratic?

What they aim to achieve?

How they intend to do this?

How they raise funds?

How these funds are maintained?

How the funds are used?

Who is responsible for the funds?

Accounts for the funds and usage?


I would not want to support any group if I did not know were the funds were coming from and how they were being spent? FOCC need to be held to account.

Blanche, I know you were busy posting pictures of trees using unfortunate phrasing during yesterday's atrocities in London but you've forgotten to RT the UKIP support in the London Assembly from the morning; odd you missed it - it's got the hashtag #SaveSouthwarkWoods and everything. Here's the link again in case you missed it


https://twitter.com/UKIP_Assembly/status/844531695328120834

STATEMENT

23 March 2107


We are asking Southwark and Lewisham residents to object again to burial plots in the Honor Oak Nature Corridor. Even though it won?t change a thing.


The July 2016 consultation for Area B, the Old Nursery Site behind Honor Oak Park Station, showed overwhelming public rejection of burial plots on this site. 86% of 454 respondents said it should be made a nature reserve or some other social amenity.


Southwark Councillors and officers have already said in cemetery ?stakeholder? meetings they are going to ignore the results and dig up Area B anyway - in violation of the Gunning Principles on Local Authority consultations.


Click here for links:

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/phoney-burial-consultation/4593754452


ONE TREE HILL SITE(Area D1)

Southwark Council has cut down dozens of trees at Area D1 on One Tree Hill and moved on. We are waiting Council to start on roads over local poor people's graves and up the hill.


UNDERHILL ROAD WOOD, CAMBERWELL OLD CEMETERY (Area Z):

As of Wednesday, the site was quiet. We are awating work to restart. We asked for a site visit but have not gotten a reply from the Council.


OLD NURSERY SITE, CAMBERWELL NEW CEMETERY (Area B)

Southwark Council's planning application has been received by Southwark Council open land next to Honor Oak Park train station and also in the Honor Oak Nature Corridor (HONC).


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods Facebook: Save Southwark Woods


Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries was founded as Save Southwark Woods in January 2015 to stop the destruction of the woods and graves of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

We are for maintaining recreational activities already taking place on cemetery grounds, such as the Recreation Ground and the Allotments.

Email or call us if you have a question. Or if you have a complaint as to how we are working to save the trees, woods and the graves of our local cemeteries.


Lewis is blocked from posting on this forum but can be reached at [email protected] and 07886504221.


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods Facebook: Save Southwark Woods


Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries was founded as Save Southwark Woods in January 2015 to stop the destruction of the woods and graves of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

We are for maintaining recreational activities already taking place on cemetery grounds, such as the Recreation Ground and the Allotments.

We are for preserving the cemeteries as Memorial Park Nature Reserves, like Nunhead or Highgate Cemeteries.

You say the allotments are part of the cemetery grounds, think you'll find they are next to the cemetery grounds, and not on it, please somebody correct me if I am mistaken.


As for the recreation ground, whilst it unarguably provides a green space for those that use it, Camberwell purchased it with the intent of it always being used for burials.


Your use of a UKIP Assembly Member to pursue your political aims is shameful, particularly in light of what happened at Westminster. Sadiq Khan neatly dismissed the question and referred the AM to the statement prepared for him.


"Email or call us if you have a question. Or if you have a complaint as to how we are working to save the trees, woods and the graves of our local cemeteries."


Are you for real, you don't answer questions on here so why are you going to answer emails or tweets. Probably a way of getting peoples email addresses so you can continue the abuse you have previously been accused of. Don't think so. As you spend enough time reposting your nonsense statements, just answer the questions on here being asked of you.


So for the umpteenth time of asking, when are you going to publish your FOCC constitution and minutes of meetings?

Photo attached taken in Area Z on Underhill Road, Camberwell Old Cemetery, March 23rd 2017.


Large trees cutdown yesterday without tree cutters first removing the memorials of the poor buried there, including possibly the memorials CWGC WW1 soldiers, who are buried on the site. How they will remove the tree without disturbing the graves, as they promised, we don't know.


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods Facebook: Save Southwark Woods


Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries was founded as Save Southwark Woods in January 2015 to stop the destruction of the woods and graves of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

We are for maintaining recreational activities already taking place on cemetery grounds, such as the Recreation Ground and the Allotments.

How they will remove the tree without disturbing the graves, as...


Precisely - this scrub growth has grown through the graves - thus disturbing them - hence, I would guess, the fact that some work has not commenced until the facility was granted. The whole point about the wilded area was that the burials there were becoming over-grown and grown-through - had you any real care for those already buried there such remedial work would have been welcomed. But of course what you want is your picnic area, not a graveyard at all. There are NO Commonwealth War Graves in the area, as I understand it (these are in a different area entirely, well tended), although there are graves of WW1 soldiers there, not part of the War Graves remit. [i am happy to stand corrected by someone who is sure of the facts - which I'm afraid does not include any ssw mavens.]

Blanche, your dogwhistle campaign to attract the far right to your cause after having the door closed in your face by all other support groups is far more disrespectful of the people who died for our freedom than anything the council could do. As the Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries you should be ashamed.
Screenshot of Consistory Court ruling regarding CWGC graves. There are at least 48 known war graves in Area Z and probably more. Southwark have told the CWGC they will not bury on top of soldiers's graves but we believe it will be impossible to meet. This is a heritage site and should not be disturbed.

STATEMENT:


Southwark Council is risking disturbing the graves of London?s poorest people in Camberwell Old Cemetery including possibly the graves of First World War soldiers.


This is something Southwark has promised they would not do. More than 300 First and Second World War soldiers are buried in the Victorian cemetery. Southwark doesn?t know where many of them are.


48 WW1 soldiers are known to lie in Area Z. But how can Southwark be sure that other unknown soldiers do not also lie under the trees in Area Z?


The Council has promised the Commonwealth War Graves Commission that no soldier?s grave would be buried over, let alone disturbed.


Read more: http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/trees-chopped-above-dead-poor/4593756900


The disrespect of the graves of soldiers and the poor are another reason why this cemetery project must be halted.


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods Facebook: Save Southwark Woods

Southwark Council is risking disturbing the graves of London?s poorest people in Camberwell Old Cemetery including possibly the graves of First World War soldiers.


So the graves aren't being disturbed and the ones that aren't being disturbed possibly don't include WWI graves?

There is nothing magical about being a WW1 soldier - about 25% of the UK male population served in WW1 - which means about 25% of those aged between about 16 and 40 during the years 1914-1918 and buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery will be WW1 soldiers.


Many fewer will have died as a direct consequence of WW1 - most of these were buried close to the battlefields, where (and if) their bodies were found. Only those repatriated to UK hospitals as wounded who then died would have been buried in local cemeteries - many in 'ordinary' graves.


The War Graves Commission was only founded in 1917 - before that UK burials would have been 'private'. So it is entirely possible that there are graves of WW1 soldiers (indeed certain) and also graves of those killed in the war and buried privately before 1917.


They will not be 'Commonwealth War Graves' if buried before 1917. And indeed those buried under that 'flag' are buried together in a special area untouched by any works. My maternal grandfather was a WW1 soldier (from the beginning) - who died in 1960 (about) - were he to be buried here (he was actually cremated) his grave would be too 'young' to be disturbed. I doubt if there is anyone now living who would actually remember, except by reputation, a relative buried before 1917.


And, as I have said, there is nothing magical about being a WW1 soldier.


For those buried in unmarked graves - other than the paper records kept - their presence, absence or disturbance would have to be purely hypothetical. If you have people to remember, then there are Cenotaphs, inscriptions and services to give a focus to those memories. As if ssw actually cared!

Photo taken yesterday in Area Z, Underhill Road Wood, Camberwell Old Cemetery.


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods Facebook: Save Southwark Woods


Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries was founded as Save Southwark Woods in January 2015 to stop the destruction of the woods and graves of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

We are for maintaining recreational activities already taking place on cemetery grounds, such as the Recreation Ground and the Allotments.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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