Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Alex_b, Penguin is right except there are around 48,000 public graves on Area Z by Underhill Road. These are just the latest acres being developed for burial - but Southwark plans to dig up or mound over almost every area of both cemeteries - see their strategy here: http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/plans/4588581416


Edhistory: We?re naming places like people always have done - Honor Oak Nature Corridor includes Devonshire Rd, Garthorne Rd and One Tree Hill Nature Reserves, Brenchley Gardens and Camberwell New Cemetery - HONC if you like nature.


Here?s a photo of a bee on what some might call a weed - Save Southwark Weeds!


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

I was wrong about ?sounding the alarm? on Southwark developing over dozens of CWGC war graves, apologies.


We wish we had known about the war graves two years ago. Southwark did not declare the locations of all 48 CWGC war graves in their planning applications and we had no reason to think there were more than the five. And it appears they only contacted the CWGC around September 2016, despite starting work in February.


Thanks OddlyCurious for linking to our tweet. Southwark?s discriminatory burial service does indeed exclude most Muslim residents. They are also local people who would probably prefer to be buried locally. Most are forced to go outside the borough to private cemeteries to be buried. This is clearly wrong. Here is a link to that information.


http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/burial-discrimination-inquiry/4593829830


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

I think oddlycurious was more pointing out the fact that Lewis likes to make jokes about terrorist attacks and use the occasions pretty inappropriately to make political hay for your little cause.


Nasty of him, and nasty of you to support him in it.

Hello Blanche!


I think you misunderstood my post; easy mistake to make when you're used to interpreting things to your own end. Just to be perfectly clear - I was calling out Lewis (and SSW) for the divisive and ill-timed horsepoop you keep spouting. You couldn't give a toss about Muslim burials in Southwark, you couldn't give a toss about Jewish burials in Southwark, you don't give a toss about war graves in Southwark, the one and only thing you are concerned about is where you can have a walk on a Sunday morning.


You claim you're supported by thousands? Prove it. Start fund raising in earnest for the oft-mentioned injunction. I'm sure a comedian of Lewis' standing in the community will have no trouble organising a benefit concert to this end. You weren't threatened with legal costs - you were told you may be liable. Actually do something other than flap around the peripheries moaning about the number of trees lost.

It's good that Blanche can (finally) admit to error, but once again:-


We wish we had known about the war graves two years ago. Southwark did not declare the locations of all 48 CWGC war graves in their planning applications and we had no reason to think there were more than the five. And it appears they only contacted the CWGC around September 2016, despite starting work in February.


Southwark has NO responsibility for identifying or marking 'war graves'. This is the responsibility of the CWGC. Southwark included in its plans references to the 5 graves it did know about (and I assume the CWGC knew about as well) but it is not tasked with, or resourced to, undertake general surveys to identify particular classes of dead people. Once the existence of wholly unanticipated burials was (probably fortuitously) uncovered, Southwark has worked closely with the CWGC to address these.


There will be many people buried in the cemeteries who are also worthy of respect, but who did not die in war, or did die as a consequence of war but were not in the services. There is a lady buried along one of the paths who is noted down as 'a casualty of war' - possibly killed in a bombing raid, as so many were.


And, once again - the 'equality and anti-discrimination' actually practiced by ssw is to wish to ban everyone from being buried in Southwark - and to force everybody to be buried out of area 'in private cemeteries'.


It is possible to argue that religious groups who chose not to be buried where others of different faiths or none are buried (i.e. in wholly exclusive cemeteries) should not be being catered for by a council which is itself anti-discriminatory. There are real moral and philosophical arguments about whether failing to fall in with a discriminatory practice of one group is itself being discriminating. And there are real issues about the ability of municipal cemeteries to offer the turn-round (burial within 24 hours) that some faiths require.

The last redoubt of the campaign seems now to be to demand an archaeological survey of COC. So trees, through body fluids, to religious discrimination, veterans and now archaeology. Is this the football equivalent of sending your keeper up for a corner?

Has to be a wind-up?? As has been stated many times, when the land was bought by the Burial Board of St Giles' Vestry it was meadowland that had never been built upon. The most an archaeological survey will find is the odd clay pipe or perhaps a coin. There is no lost city of Underhillium lying underneath.


I should also be very interested to learn how an archaeological survey can be undertaken without disturbing the remains of the thousands buried there which ssw profess should be allowed to rest in peace.

SSW single aim is to disrupt the work; they know they can't stop it, they haven't managed a single cohesive argument and are now behaving like sulky children who didn't get their own way.


Blanche and Lewis - you know for ?500 you could have run a candidate in the election? You wouldn't have got more than a few dozen votes but you would have had a new platform for your tin foil hat meanderings.

We regret not fielding an election candidate ? we have made many mistakes but here we are.


Penguin68 every point you?ve made in your post is wrong:


How is the CWGC supposed to know Southwark was about to bury over war graves? Second, they are not ?wholly unanticipated burials? they are all on the war memorial and can easily be found on the CWGC database, as has been pointed out.


Third, if Southwark has no intention of providing a burial service for most of its 30,000 Muslim residents it should say so. Southwark Council discriminates against most Muslims and Jews in its burial service ? shame on Southwark.


We are informing archaeologists of the ongoing destruction of this Victorian site. http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/why-no-archaeological-survey/4593895889


As Ian Wingfield knows, we are going to raise every issue that is wrong with these projects ? and there is so much wrong with them.


Pretty picture attached.


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods campaign

07731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> We regret not fielding an election candidate ? we

> have made many mistakes but here we are.


You certainly have...



> Penguin68 every point you?ve made in your post is

> wrong:

>


No he's not. You are. Have you actually SPOKEN to anybody at CWGC? Southwark, for all their faults, IS NOT REQUIRED to do the job of the CWGC. How on earth you believe otherwise is astounding.



> How is the CWGC supposed to know Southwark was

> about to bury over war graves?


It is CWGC's remit. Like it or not other bodies are not required to report to them.



Second, they are

> not ?wholly unanticipated burials? they are all on

> the war memorial and can easily be found on the

> CWGC database, as has been pointed out.

>


So what? Irrelevant.



> Third, if Southwark has no intention of providing

> a burial service for most of its 30,000 Muslim

> residents it should say so. Southwark Council

> discriminates against most Muslims and Jews in its

> burial service ? shame on Southwark.

>


You've been flogging this horse a long time, circling back round to it ever since the CWGC did not come down on your side. Your group has been scathing about religion in the past, but feels perfectly happy trying to ride that horse. Shame on you more like, not that you have any.



> We are informing archaeologists of the ongoing

> destruction of this Victorian site.

> http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/why-no-archaeolog

> ical-survey/4593895889

>


Good luck, you'll need it. Are those straws cutting your hand yet?



> As Ian Wingfield knows, we are going to raise

> every issue that is wrong with these projects ?

> and there is so much wrong with them.

>


A lot of people disagree with you, but you insult or ignore them. You have no respect for those who want something else.

very funny Oddlycurious.


JoeLeg/Penguin68: Are you really saying cemetery owners should NOT contact the War Graves Commission before digging up or mounding over graves? That they SHOULDN'T look to find out who and where soldiers are? Just out of simple respect for World War soldiers and their families? Or families of anyone buried in their cemeteries? William Stanlake VC was buried in a public grave, only recently rediscovered and a headstone put up for him - by the Victoria Cross society not by Southwark Council who would have dug him up without even looking.


Hundreds of thousands of people's graves are at risk and all their records are online - Southwark has no excuse not knowing who they are and where they are and ensuring they do not destroy history and heritage. There should be proper investigation of what exists in a cemetery and where, before it is developed wholesale.


Southwark are piling construction waste on graves, driving roads over them, then putting their spades into the ground and digging up thousands of people's remains. The only reason they aren't marking all CWGC war graves with headstones is because they designed the scheme first, then contacted the CWGC. This shows at the very least an incredible lack of respect and at worst an intention to do whatever they want without concern for war graves, families, history or heritage.


http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/developing-over-war-graves/4593882928


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods campaign

07731 304 966 / [email protected] / www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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


> William Stanlake VC was buried in a public grave,

> only recently rediscovered and a headstone put up

> for him - by the Victoria Cross society not by

> Southwark Council who would have dug him up

> without even looking.


Looking online at the Coldstream Guards message board and others, it appears that Stanlake's grave was in the middle of the very areas of tangled undergrowth you want to save, so how could anyone have known it was there or gone to pay their respects? It seems that as with so many things you swing through 180 degrees depending on which argument suits your cause, it really doesn't help your credibility.

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...