Jump to content

Recommended Posts

> Have a look in today's [1 April] Guardian Magazine.


For the 95% of readers who don't have it to hand, it's a short article entitled "'I like the idea of my body as biomass': bright ideas for your afterlife - Our cemeteries are full, so how about becoming fuel (to heat a swimming pool) or having an augmented reality memorial?"


It quotes BC, and helps outsiders by explaining that her '?Southwark Woods? refers to Camberwell?s old and new cemeteries', but is mainly a light nudge into a little more thinking about death and dead bodies. Southwark Library members can see it via Newsbank at http://infoweb.newsbank.com/signin/LondonBoroughSouthwark (search for hawthorn).

Southwark Muslim and Jewish residents must change burial rites or be buried out of the borough

30th March 2017


Southwark Council is claiming that there is no religious discrimination in its Burial Service.


Cllr Wingfield, Southwark Member for the Environment and Public Realm, has claimed to the press:


?We do not discriminate against residents of the Muslim faith or any other faith in Southwark? (South London Press, 16th March).


But Cllr Wingfield claims to be unaware of the burial needs of Southwark?s 30,000 Muslim residents - whilst also claiming to provide for them.


He stated in Southwark News on 9th March:


?It could be that there is provision for them elsewhere in London. It?s not for us to second guess their needs.?


But that?s exactly the Council?s job - if it is actively working to avoid or eradicate religious discrimination as the Human Rights Act 1998 requires.


He then states:


?If the demand for Muslim burials increases we would have to make that provision for them.?


But lack of complaint isn?t proof of lack of religious discrimination. And the demand is already there - Muslim residents are 10% of the population but at least 30% of borough burial need.


The ONS reports around 9 deaths per 1,000 per year - meaning Southwark?s 30,000 Muslim residents experience approximately 270 deaths a year.


Southwark has what they laughably call a ?dedicated Muslim burial area?, with ?space for 48 grave plots?. Southwark records show fewer than 7 Muslim burials take place here each year - around 2.6% of Muslim residents? burial need.


This area is unsuitable for the burial rites of the vast majority of Muslim residents. Southwark is effectively saying all Muslim residents could be buried in Southwark - if they changed their religious burial rites.


In the Southwark News 9th March, Cllr Wingfield is quoted as celebrating Church of England approval: ?We are delighted that the Diocese has approved our plans to create more burial spaces in Southwark. Local people will now continue to have the choice to be buried locally, rather than being forced to pay higher costs for burials outside of the borough.?


But Muslim and Jewish residents are already forced to pay for burial in private cemeteries outside the borough, while Southwark subsidises burial plots suitable for other faiths in its municipal cemeteries.


Southwark Council's blatant religious discrimination is yet another reason why Southwark are unfit to run a burial service.


Our letter today to the press in response to Southwark's denial is below.


The Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries' letter to the South London Press in response to Southwark's denial of religious discrimination in its Burial Service.


30th March 2017


Dear Editor,


Unfortunately, Cllr Wingfield?s letter of 16th March far from reassuring us highlights perfectly the religious discrimination of Southwark?s burial service.


Cllr Wingfield appears to be claiming that all Muslim residents could be buried in Southwark - if only they changed their religious burial rites. This is clearly discriminatory.


He states ?we have a dedicated Muslim burial area which has space for 48 grave plots?.


The ONS reports around 9 deaths per 1,000 per year, meaning Southwark?s 30,000 Muslim residents experience approximately 270 deaths a year.


Fewer than seven burials take place in this ?Muslim burial area? a year as it is unsuitable for most Muslim residents? religious burial rites.


Southwark is aware most Muslim residents have specific religious burial rites it does not provide for.


The Council relies on Muslim and Jewish residents being buried in private cemeteries outside the borough in Tooting or Ilford while subsidising burial in its cemeteries for other faiths.


Religious discrimination is yet another reason why Southwark are unfit to run a burial service.


Blanche Cameron

Chair, Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries

Save Southwark Woods campaign

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk


References:


Southwark News, 9th March:

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-diocese-approves-council-plans-hundreds-new-burial-plots-fought-cemeteries/


Office of National Statistics death rates data 2015: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregistrationsummarytables/2015

Dear all,


FINAL weekend to object to THREE MORE ACRES of Honor Oak inner city nature space being taken for burial plots:


www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/object-to-area-b-development


Southwark is deliberately ignoring their own public consultation results.


In July 2016, 86% of 454 people said 'dislike it all' and called for no burial here.


Please object now on Southwark's planning register form before Monday midnight.


Thank you to everyone who has already objected - it is really appreciated, we couldn't do it without you.


Best wishes,


Blanche


Blanche Cameron

Chair, Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries

The Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

@southwarkwoods

Facebook: Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries - Save Southwark Woods


Write to Sadiq Khan to stop the deforestation of polluted inner London

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/write-to-sadiq-khan


Save the Nature, Heritage and Beauty of Britain's Cemeteries

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=1cLb1krd3Cc


Sign the petition to save the Camberwell Cemeteries

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

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

> In July 2016, 86% of 454 people said 'dislike it

> all' and called for no burial here.


OK - so that is something like (correction it is 390 people who objected), not a large number based on both the number of residents and households in the borough). If you are going to quote figures, suggest you at least use some that are representative for the borough.


I did have a look at the article, now I know why you didn't publicise it, because it does not support your campaign!!!


Think you'll find you're mis-interpreting what the Cllr said to suit your own purposes, well nothing new then with your modus operandi.

I don't understand you dbboy


I think you need to realise that SSW have a refreshingly irrational position.


a) Southwark is discriminating against Moslems and Jews because it doesn't provide enough burial space for them although they could choose it if they want


QED


b) therefore it shouldn't provide burial space for anyone.

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> b) therefore it shouldn't provide burial space for

> anyone.


At one point, their (b) was their (a), and there wasn't a (b) at all. The (b) only came in because some object to cremation on religious grounds and, at the time, there wasn't much of an alternative.


As the Guardian piece pointed out, however, more methods are becoming available. One it mentioned was composting, though I doubt that would be viable in London given the likelihood of fly-tipping, especially around Christmas. Reading it, I remembered a brochure for what appears to be a more practical solution. I'm no expert, so I've scanned and uploaded it here, so those who know better can make of it what they will.

"more methods are becoming available. One it mentioned was composting, though I doubt that would be viable in London given the likelihood of fly-tipping, especially around Christmas. Reading it, I remembered a brochure for what appears to be a more practical solution. I'm no expert, so I've scanned and uploaded it here, so those who know better can make of it what they will".


Flytipping dead bodies should be easy to track down the culprits. Cremation is very non eco-friendly as I guess the Guardian article says. Combined heat and power would be one solution -- attach area central heating systems to the crematorium. Also burial in stacks outside London which I would have thought to be the thing SSW most disapproved of. Trees are only eco-friendly upto a point and I would have thought that the composting element of burials would offset it.

I fear he is going back to his old tropes, of preparing to accuse those who don't agree with him of being partial, employed by undertakers, the council or other interested parties. That was the reason I started this thread in the first place, to focus on real issues and not personalities and insults. I find it interesting that he only seems to understand having views in terms of leveraging one's own (pecuniary) interests. For the record (again) I am employed by nobody relevant, nor do I contract to anyone relevant; I live adjacent to one of the cemeteries - oh - and I care about truth.

In case you missed them, Blanche...


1. Why have SSW/FOCC associated with far right groups on social media?

2. A question was raised by UKIP at the London Assembly the other week; you chose not to publicise it when you generally RT every comment that backs your point of view - why was this?

3. FOCC - who is the chairman of the friends group, how were they elected and how can the public join and steer this group?


and now with added..


4. Will you condemn Lewis for organising a witch-hunt against people who disagree with him on this forum?

Otta Wrote:

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

> Just been given a heads up that the slightly

> unhinged Lewis is asking on twitter for the real

> identity of me (not hard to find Lewis) and

> various others from this thread.


I don't have a dog in this fight but I must say that's extremely disturbing. In the US there is an offence covered by many state and federal laws known as "doxing": revealing documents about a person. Revealing the name of someone who chooses to operate under an alias online comes under that heading. I assume some similar provision exists in UK privacy laws, so Mr.Schaffer should be extremely cautious about sharing real names of posters on Twitter, or encouraging others to do the same.


My EDF name is my real name Lewis, in case you're wondering.

What's even more worrying is the reply from the arts reporter at Southwark News. It is possible to disagree with the positions being taken by Save Southwark Woods, particularly given the inconsistencies therein, and not be a troll. Screenprint below for those who haven't seen it.


file.php?5,file=255190

Just to add, I also thought the Guardian article was good overall - and agree that there should be more encouragement of ways to balance different forms of end of life remembrance. But there will still be a group of people for whom burial is particularly important for religious/cultural reasons and I would support provision being made for them as well as encouraging other options which may be more suitable for people who aren't bothered in the same way.
The sad thing is that the response from Horniman Heights will be taken as serious by some people. This is frankly disgusting - anyone who reads the ED forum ouevre of those mentioned by Lewis (including mine) are welcome to draw conclusions as to whether we are trolls, or whether we simply disagree with mis-truth and lies. Starting with the invention of a place called Southwark Woods. Luckily twitter (social networking generally) is not my thing - so he can rant on that to his hearts content.

But there will still be a group of people for whom burial is particularly important for religious/cultural reasons and I would support provision being made for them as well as encouraging other options which may be more suitable for people who aren't bothered in the same way.


Exactly right. Different cultural and religious groups, indeed different people have very different approaches to addressing the disposal of loved ones. Many will choose ways of disposal which can be seen as economic of space (i.e. cremation) or ecologically sound (although simple burial can be so). But equally many wish to retain what they perceive as the body's integrity, or wish to have somewhere they can visit to focus their mourning. Indeed many wish to create a monument and memorial for their loved ones (or their families).


To impose your cultural views on others as they cope with grief is unwarranted (save, for instance, when cultural views include such things as suttee, of course!) We also legislate against open air cremation in the UK.


If you wish to reduce the impact of death on the built and lived environment (I don't, actually, even though my personal wishes are not for graves and memorials) then do so through education and debate. But don't try to hijack a space dedicated for one purpose for your own ends.


And in particular, don't use lies, half truths and obfuscations to support your case (for want of a better word) and don't pray-in-aid issues such as discrimination when you wish nobody to be buried in the cemeteries, rather than better provision for religious or cultural minorities.


And don't set up a witch hunt against people with the temerity to disagree with you or point out your lies and obfuscations.

Horniman heights - hilarious twitter feed, keep up the great work.


For he who is searching for me;


Health and Safety alert/warning, Caution, tree cutting/pruning in progress, low flying branches can cause accidents, keep away from the cordoned off area for your own safety. Chain saws are dangerous, accidents may, can and do happen, but are great for brining down trunks. The tree surgeon chops, cuts and trims whilst as a side line makes coffins in preparation of you being finally laid to rest, the stone mason makes and prepares memorials and the undertaker will finally lay you to rest.

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...