Jump to content

Recommended Posts

precious star Wrote:

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

> Support from many of us from the green party and

> ordinary people who care about our green spaces

> and wild life . Blanche has done a good job of

> making more people on this forum aware of these

> issues.


Well, the Green Party can't really disagree with SSW on this, though it's a shame because it means they align themselves with a pressure group that is happy to accept support from racists.


Many ordinary people care about local spaces and wildlife, but they have different ideas about how to manage it. You seem to agree with Blanche that none of those ideas are worth anything, and that we should all shut up.


I would say those that support Blanche and Lewis are unable to think for themselves.


Still waiting for those photos from you by the way...

The Greens should be quite conflicted because burial is eco-friendly (compoting people really) and the alternative, cremation or burning them at very high temperatures, is very destructive.


Of course burial becomes more eco-friendly the more bodies are buried -- so as close as possible together, piled on top of one another.


I get the impression that burying bodies on top of one another is the root of SSW objections to the council's plans and yet it is historically normal in the UK. Look at the first scene of Hamlet with the gravedigger to see the historic attitude to dead bodies. "The dust of Caesar now stopping a bung hole"

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

Look at the first scene of Hamlet with

> the gravedigger to see the historic attitude to

> dead bodies. "The dust of Caesar now stopping a

> bung hole"


Alexander! (Though Caesar is mentioned later) ;-)

I get the impression that burying bodies on top of one another is the root of SSW objections to the council's plans


No. I'm afraid its simply yet another dog whistle in their root objection which is the continuance of any burials at all in these cemeteries, or indeed any in Southwark, and the conversion of all Southwark cemeteries, but particularly these ones, into parks and recreation areas so that they can picnic. Family plots, for instance, have always had burials close to/ on top of each other. They also wish no tree clearance, for any reasons, so also the wilding of these areas such that (look at the bits in Camberwell Old Cemetery) they become impenetrable (and hence no good for recreation) - but don't expect consistency or logic in all this. This started as an objection to proposed tree cutting and clearance in bits of the cemeteries (very small areas, proportionally) which had been woefully neglected - but spun very quickly out of control.

I don't think it's helpful to criticise individuals and their erratic behaviour on here. EDF have a reporting mechanism, and if anyone is bullying or telling lies, they get banned. We're all still here so make of that what you will.


SSW/FOCC are a bit like Corbyn led Labour; no-one is really against the general principles - it's how they've been managed and promoted that's the issue.

UNAPPROVED TREE CUTTING IN NEW AREA


The Council has told us it is to start felling remaining woods in Camberwell Old Cemetery, acting without permission.


Today we warned the Church of England that Southwark Council intends to cut down hundreds more trees in Areas J, K and L of Camberwell Old Cemetery without needed permission. See photo.


FOCC has also written to remind Southwark Council that tree felling on consecrated ground requires Church of England permission.


Southwark says this is ?to progress projects? ? ?new? burial plots over thousands of people?s graves. The Council is calling the tree felling ?woodland management? as if this exempts the Council from applying for Church permission.


These woods are on consecrated ground. Southwark must apply for Church permission to cut down any tree over 3 inches or 75mm diameter. There are hundreds of these trees ?in the way? on the ten acres.


Full Statement http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/focc-warns-church-tree-felling/4593805274


MEETING


FOCC/SSW will be having a planning meeting at The Herne Tavern, tonight at 7:30PM. All are welcome.


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.

"Campaigners clash with council over soldiers' graves"


Friday, 14th April 2017 in the South London Press. Councillor Wingfield is quoted as saying that "We will not bury on top of war graves". The Council had neglected to include in their planning application for Area Z, Camberwell Old Cemetery, the graves of 42 soldiers. Many of their graves would have been buried over (and still may be buried over).


We are currently investigating whether any CGWC soldiers are buried in the Area F Woodvale development area of Camberwell Old Cemetery and if any have since been buried over.


Disrespect for the nation's soldiers, and all of the buried, is just one reason why Southwark Council is unfit to run a burial programme.


MEETING TONIGHT


FOCC/SSW will be having a planning meeting at The Herne Tavern, tonight at 7:30PM. All are welcome.


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.

So Blanche, once again CWGC says you're talking rubbish.

And that's according to the article you linked to.


Have you actually read your own words? These are graves that cannot be indentified. You have no way of knowing who they were or what they did in the war. And they are not buried in Commonwealth Grave sites so stop trying to conflate it with that argument; that really does dishonour the memory of soldiers who died on the battlefield.

It is not woods nor has it ever been officially recognised as being woods.


What ssw/focc purport to being woods are in fact land neglected by Southwark Council within the cemeteries that became overgrown scrub and that the cemeteries now want to reclaim so the land can be used for its intended purpose, burials.


Simple really unless of course you are ssw/focc, but then I doubt they can see the woods from the trees.


On past history its already clear ssw/focc talk garbage, CWGC just confirm that.

Today we warned the Church of England that Southwark Council intends to cut down hundreds more trees in Areas J, K and L of Camberwell Old Cemetery without needed permission.


Sorry if I go back over (very) old ground.


(1) The C of E has an interest only in the consecrated areas of municipal cemeteries. I do not believe there are consecrated parts in J K and L - even if there are, only parts of those areas will be consecrated (as only parts were in Areas Z and D where a faculty has been granted).


(2) That interest is restricted to the the disturbance of burials (bodies), disturbances to grave furniture (monuments) and the creation of any paths or roadways in the consecrated area (as that would restrict the land that can be used for burials).


(3) Whilst the Diocese has an interest in trees within parish church (i.e. their own) lands and must give permission for trees above certain dimensions to be cut on this land, this interest does not extend to consecrated land in municipal cemeteries. ssw has in the past made this confusion and has (wrongly) cited the document relating to parish land as if it referred to municipal cemetery lands.


Southwark Borough Council is the authority to give permission to gardening and arboriculture plans within its own municipal parks and cemeteries. Not the Diocese of Southwark.


If ssw really has been warning the Diocese about matters outwith its (the Diocese) remit or scope - more fool them.

dbboy Wrote:

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

> It is not woods nor has it ever been officially recognised as being woods.


Incorrect

Southwark council's Tree Management Strategy makes it quite clear that it is officially designated as woodland:-


Page 7 footnote

> "(2) Southwark has 74 hectares of designated woodland including Dulwich Upper Wood, Sydenham Hill Woods, Russia Dock Woodland, One Tree Hill and parts of Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery and Camberwell Cemetery.".

The Tree Management Strategy (2013) does not designate either Camberwell Old Cemetery or Camberwell New Cemetery as "woodland".


The writer of the footnote(2) to paragraph 3.1, C.Cook, seems to be confused.


There may be another document that designates either or both of the cemeteries as "woodlsnd".

and parts of Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery and Camberwell Cemetery - This is an odd note - there is no 'Camberwell Cemetery' - you would refer either to the Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries (or specifically to just one of them) - or possibly just to 'the Camberwell Cemeteries'. Was Camberwell actually meant? I think that Nunhead may not be the only closed cemetery in Southwark. If there is another one it may have been that which was meant.

Destruction of the remaining wild areas of Camberwell Old Cemetery could begin this week, without necessary permision.


Here is the link to the letters we have written the Church of England and Southwark Council regarding tree felling in the Lanes of Camberwell Old Cemetery. These areas were consecrated in 1862 and 1913 and the Church has final say over trees over 75mm in diameter. Southwark has said they will start doing "woodland management" in Areas J, K, and L in the Lanes.


http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/council-tries-dodging-planning/4593805274


For aerial view of 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.

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

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...