cemetary, council and removal of personal obejcts from grave.

lostinrates

Person_one wrote: »

8 weeks? I'm sorry to say this because I usually hate this kind of comment but I can only assume that you've never lost anybody you truly love, as in my experience at 8 weeks you're only just lifting your head and realising that the sun still sets and rises every day, if that.

Well, you presume incorrectly. Tbh, i don't really care about how long it were or even propose it as a well thoguht out plan of action. But i do think one at some point can let grief co exist with life, and gradually let life take over. It can be, from what i have seen, possible to fall into a hanit of grief and let it stop pnes own life progressing...which i hope know one i greived for would want for me!

Person_one

lostinrates wrote: »

Well, you presume incorrectly. Tbh, i don't really care about how long it were or even propose it as a well thoguht out plan of action. But i do think one at some point can let grief co exist with life, and gradually let life take over. It can be, from what i have seen, possible to fall into a hanit of grief and let it stop pnes own life progressing...which i hope know one i greived for would want for me!

I apologise for my assumption then.

I still think 8 weeks is far too soon. After the initial loss of losing someone, the bereaved then have to go through the process of de-personalising the grave so soon? Removing all traces of the individual they knew and loved to turn into an identikit one among many? I think its forcing something on people that could be quite traumatic for some.

A year, or two, is more realistic and kind if you were aiming for a time limit, but personally I'd say a space limit is enough.

There are plenty of floral displays I find unattractive, we can't just start dictating what is and isn't good taste or an appropriate expression of grief.

Welshwoofs

Person_one wrote: »

I agree absolutely that things should never spill over to other graves, but I'm afraid if you just don't like the way the neighbouring grave is tended, well, that's life.

How about if the neighbouring grave has windchimes clanking away? Why is the right for one person to personalise a grave more important for the right of another person to have a simple grave?

That's why I say it'd be better to have graveyards which are suitable for one or the other.

You might not like the way your neighbours keep their garden either, or the way they decorate for Christmas, but just worry about yourself and your own spaces, you can't control everybody else's to make them to your liking.

Your analogy stands up until you consider that there are conservation areas where, as an example, if you have to paint use period colours for doors/windows you'd not be allowed to paint your door bright pink.

I'm surprised to see you care about how people look after their loved one's graves anyway Welshwoofs, as unless I've got you mixed up with another poster I seem to remember you once arguing for your right to let your dog p!ss on people's headstones, which in most people's eyes is a lot more tasteless and disrespectful than a few plastic bits and pieces.

Except I have never 'argued for my right to let my dog p!ss on people's headstones' - that's a total and utter lie. What I said....which naturally was blown totally out of proportion by knee-jerking ranters like yourself....was that in my local graveyard - which has a public right of way to a park slap through the middle of it, the dogs (including mine) make a beeline for the highly decorated graves right by the path. Making a beeline for something doesn't equate to encouraging, allowing or fighting for the right to let your dog pee on a grave....unless, of course, you're someone who has a big problem with English comprehension.

Now then person_one - if you've finished with the rants...just what would the big issue be with having some graveyards for simple graves and some graveyards allowing decorated graves?

vax2002

a swift kick up the !!!! would bring some sense to the debate

Person_one

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Now then person_one - if you've finished with the rants...just what would the big issue be with having some graveyards for simple graves and some graveyards allowing decorated graves?

I'm curious to know why my rants are rants and your rants aren't rants!

Anyone who remembers the old thread knows how you made yourself look in it, so there's no point arguing about it anymore I suppose.

There are a few problems I can see with your idea.

A lot of the people with differing ideas about grave decoration already have loved ones buried near each other, who do we dig up and move? People need to figure out a way to deal with it as it is.

Space. We're already running out of burial space as it is, so it would be pretty hard to figure out a way to keep the decorated graves sufficiently far from the non decorated graves.

Taste. Who is the arbiter of when a grave crosses the line from tasteful to tacky? One plastic windmill put there by a child on a summer day? One bunch of flowers that happens to have a few plastic ornaments scattered in? Laminated cards or prayer sheets? Objects relating to the person's religion? Who gets the job of taste police?

lostinrates

Person_one wrote: »

I apologise for my assumption then.

I still think 8 weeks is far too soon. After the initial loss of losing someone, the bereaved then have to go through the process of de-personalising the grave so soon? Removing all traces of the individual they knew and loved to turn into an identikit one among many? I think its forcing something on people that could be quite traumatic for some.

A year, or two, is more realistic and kind if you were aiming for a time limit, but personally I'd say a space limit is enough.

There are plenty of floral displays I find unattractive, we can't just start dictating what is and isn't good taste or an appropriate expression of grief.

They would have to de personalise the grave...they could not personalise it in the firs place! I don't presume to suggest all trace of the person from their lives is omitted. For example, from the bereavement i suffered when i was seventeen i have art work of the person in a drawer (my choice not to have it on display, though i think after all these years i feel ready soon). I suffered a few less close losses and another close oneabout ten years ago. I still can't bear visual reminder of that one yet. If i were the other way round, a person who wanted this i could deal with my greif by having all of these visual things in other ways in my home or life. For me having soe where quiet to go, some where visually quiet was incredibly important at first. Now its not.

Person_one

lostinrates wrote: »

They would have to de personalise the grave...they could not personalise it in the firs place! I don't presume to suggest all trace of the person from their lives is omitted. For example, from the bereavement i suffered when i was seventeen i have art work of the person in a drawer (my choice not to have it on display, though i think after all these years i feel ready soon). I suffered a few less close losses and another close oneabout ten years ago. I still can't bear visual reminder of that one yet. If i were the other way round, a person who wanted this i could deal with my greif by having all of these visual things in other ways in my home or life. For me having soe where quiet to go, some where visually quiet was incredibly important at first. Now its not.

Its wonderful that you have figured out the best ways for to mourn and remember, but its just not anybody's place to tell people that their way is wrong or worse.

I'm not a big fan of graves actually, I don't want one myself when the time comes, I don't want anyone to feel obliged to tend it or guilty for not doing. However, what my family want after I'm gone is more important in the long run, the rituals of death are really all for the sake of the living.

mumps

My fathers grave is plain and simple, I would never put plastic flowers, wind chimes or anything other than flowers on it. That is my choice and I think people should respect it. I would never dream of expecting anyone else to give a fig about what I do and I don't give a fig what they do. I would never walk across a grave and other than that I really don't feel that the other graves are any of my business. If a teddy or a plastic rose makes someone happier then I will vote for their right to have what they like.

mumps

Person_one wrote: »

Its wonderful that you have figured out the best ways for to mourn and remember, but its just not anybody's place to tell people that their way is wrong or worse.

I'm not a big fan of graves actually, I don't want one myself when the time comes, I don't want anyone to feel obliged to tend it or guilty for not doing. However, what my family want after I'm gone is more important in the long run, the rituals of death are really all for the sake of the living.

I'm not a fan of graves either but I do quite like a woodland site that has been set up near where I live. I have always thought I would like to be cremated but this woodland site is tempting. I hope it won't be needed for a few years yet and then my kids can fight it out unless I decide to book it all in advance. I think I am getting old as I have started thinking of music I would like for my funeral, not quite sure where that is coming from.

Humphrey10

Person_one wrote: »

How dare you take it upon yourself to decide that what a son puts on his parents grave is wrong? :mad:

If the parents had chosen their own grave and graveyard, as many people do, and they had chosen one that doesn't allow 'decorations', and their child goes against their wishes by plastic flowers on it, the child is being terribly disrespectful.

Easy way to solve this problem - all graveyards / areas of graveyards should have their rules enforced all the time. So if one says 'no decorations, all items left on graves will be disposed of' then item left on graves should be disposed of. If the rules are 'any items may be left on graves at any time' then items should be left in place.