cemetary, council and removal of personal obejcts from grave.

coolcait

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I found that Facebook page depressing full stop. Using foul language, insults to council staff and threats of violence a) doesn't gain them a lot of sympathy for their situation and b) will make it much harder to gain a resolution to the situation they're happy with.

As disturbing as that was the clear indication from the majority of people on that page that they're not actually aware they don't own the land their loved ones are buried in.

And I'm just going to gloss over some of the more hysterical statements such as cutting the grass over a grave being 'disrespectful'.

The upshot is that I can't imagine this will have a happy outcome unless they can act a little more politely when representing their concerns.

I completely agree. There seems to be little rational thought going into the campaign at all, unfortunately. And it needs at least a few people to give that kind of input.

I hope that they don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. However, it would be a lot easier for them to win their case if there was any evidence of fact-based argument, or being open to compromise.

Maybe they've got that hidden in the background. It's certainly not showing on the front line.

One of the scariest things is the complete disregard for protecting their own position legally - both personally, and as a group. I shuddered when I saw the poster which is going to be put up in various places around the area.

Not because of the same emotional references that we have seen on here, and in any argument where people are relying on emotions rather than facts. "fight for the right to grieve as we wish"; "this is a violation of our human rights"

But because of the unequivocal accusation that the council has "caused unlawful damage to the graves".

That has not been proven.

At least throw in "alleged to have caused..." or "we feel that the council has caused...".

Equally, the unequivocal statement that the council intends "to turn ALL cemeteries within the borough into military style cemeteries" is pushing boundaries. It cries out for a qualifier like "appears to want to turn...".

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is actually what the Council has stated. That's how people have interpreted the Council's actions. Two very different things.

To then also publish details of the Facebook page, with its threats etc....

[Puts heads in hands]

atrixblue.-MFR-.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20684



http://www.facebook.com/#!/events/237848692968538/

now, contained in the facebook event, is the ITV new video and other comments, we are not slandering the coucnil here, its info based on meeting and what happened. make you own minds up and if after you blieve that this shouldnt happen please sign the Epetition. thank you.

coolcait

I've been following the Facebook site since you first posted it, and I am astonished that you can suggest that it doesn't contain potentially libellous/defamatory statements.

Consider the way the news report was done, and suggest to the group that they try to emulate that approach.

The parts of the personal statements in the report talked about the deceased person, what they meant to the family, and how the speaker/their families felt when they found that things had been removed from the grave, and how they felt when they found how those things had been 'stored'.

All factual - but with a human touch. 'The deceased' was given a name, and a face, and the story of who they were, what they went through in a sometimes very short life, and the huge gap that their passing has left behind.

No rants about 'desecration of graves', 'human rights', 'our right to grieve as we wish', 'bet they wouldn't have dared to do this if it was a muslim cemetery', 'they want a military style cemetary', 'can't trust councillors', 'heartless mayoress', 'video vera' etc.

So, what was broadcast wasn't defamatory. And it was extremely helpful to your cause. In a way which you could never have hoped for if the news had simply asked actors to read out the Facebook contributions.

I still think that your group would get a lot further if you based your arguments on facts rather than emotions. It is clear from the Facebook page that many people - including you - haven't yet understood that you (or someone in your family) has only bought the "exclusive right to burial" in the plot. You haven't bough, or leased, a piece of land.

Similarly, if the Council is going to write to anyone about issues to do with the grave - like moving unauthorised items - they will write to the holder of the "exclusive right to burial". Not to every known member of the deceased's family.

One of the comments which really bothered me on the Facebook site was to do with the fact that the Council had put turf over some of the affected graves. Amidst the general (sometimes defamatory) comments about the Council and their actions, someone opined that no one would have agreed to have their loved one's grave re-turfed, since they would know about the strong feelings in the community.

Why shouldn't someone have the right to ask/agree that turf should be put on the grave? Should they be prevented from doing so, for fear that the vociferous minority, with their "strong feelings" might also target them with the type of comments that have been directed towards the Council?

What price then "the right to grieve as they wish"?

Try taking a step back, and looking at some of those Facebook comments through the eyes of others. Any chance you can rein them in, and turn all of that passion and commitment towards a more coherent strategy?

Have you considered 'compromise' options? The current legislation and regulations really don't support your wish to have borders, chippings and personalised decorations all over the grave surface area.

However, the legislation and regulations do support the principle that there will be a specific area on the gravesite which can be personalised - the area where the gravestone will/would be. What about having a fallback position where you argue for the right to personalise that area - with solar lights, footballs, toys, and whatever other items are important to the family's approach to grieving.

Also, going all the way back to your post where you mentioned that your OH's mum's grave had a homemade cross on it, because that's what you could afford. That is a very immportant point - which all of your Facebook comrades are missing, throughout all of their rants.

Not everyone can afford to buy headstones which meet the requirements set down by the cemetery regulations. That could be seen as discriminatory towards a group which is already disadvantaged. As a compromise, which would avoid any suggestion of discrimination, perhaps the council could agree to personalisation of the space which would otherwise be filled by a headstone?

DylanO

I have just read the Facebook group. I'm disgusted. Not by the council's actions but by the disgraceful posts by the 'people' on there. Uneducated, potentially libelous statements from the most vile people I've ever witness. Are teeth optional or something? Has the education system yet to reach whatever backwater that is?

Common and a disgrace to Britain.

mrcow

DylanO wrote: »

Uneducated, potentially libelous statements from the most vile people I've ever witness.

You obviously don't get out much.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

DylanO wrote: »

I have just read the Facebook group. I'm disgusted. Not by the council's actions but by the disgraceful posts by the 'people' on there. Uneducated, potentially libelous statements from the most vile people I've ever witness. Are teeth optional or something? Has the education system yet to reach whatever backwater that is?

Common and a disgrace to Britain.

this posts no different then from the facebook comments do you fall into this catagory?

whilst i cannot speek about otheres posts i am not them i am me a human being.
i have not contributed to a labellious or inproper comments made by others.

the organiser and speeker for our group, is in desperation to calm others in this matter as personal feelings sometimes do get the better of people.

i was not at the petition hand over so i cant comment on the mayoress's actions nor can i speculate and take sides, my opinion of the sitution was the mayor felt overwhelmed and instead of taking a diplomatic sympothetic approach refused cllrs to talk about the situation by telling them to "shut up"not tactfull or respectfull but i am not her so cannot fathom why this approach was taken.

i have to go out so ill add a bit later.

theres alot happening in the background.

to touch on exclusive right to burial, there are a number of plots owners that dont have this wording in thier deeds, and the PLOT is refured to as a "purchase" theres a legal aspect there that has to be explored in more depth.

many council officials has refured to the plot ownership as shared and is a "lease".

theres a curstesy block on the planned works while the council review the policy, against legislative law, but what has angered people is that the work is still being carried out, more poeple have come forward stating that during the block their plot has been affected without written notice or permitting the council to do this, the council claim this work is only carried out at the plot owners request, yet many are still claiming they havent requested the work.

the legal aspect lawfull aspect legaslative aspect or cemetarys is very complex and something i'm mulling over at the moment with interest in my spare time.

whilst i agree with coolcait there more than just challenging the right to personalise a designated area i.e headstone space.

i agree the most of the people there need to differentiate feeling from the situation.

this type of action was undertaken by the council in another cemetary. it was featured in the programme the ferret where by CCBC stated they could have handled matters in a better understanding way and inform plot owners in god time before work carried out and look to implement this in future works, this lesson hasnt been learned as were here in this situation that others were in.

refrences to "military style cemetary" and saying "LAWN ONLY" was made in writing by the council.

as an aside, can i please ask those who visit the facebook site to try and differentiate between the hurt and anguish people are posting under and look at the morral side, ask yourself what would you do in this situation as it could happen to you if you have a loved one in any uk cemetary.

the council refuse to attend meetings as they say this is a personal matter.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

i must also add the responses on the facebook page are from those directly affected by this, many have small children there, many tend to the graves themselfs and keep it in orderly fasion spend alot of time effort and money there.
there are many items missing that havent been stored, and the council admit to removing yet wont accept they lost them or damaged them.

so yes the posts there are strong and heart felt.

put yourselfs in the position of the people affected and think how YOU would act, your seeing responses of people grieving all over again through no fault of their own.

dizziblonde

And still you're refusing to listen to any of the feedback given here unless it reinforces what you think.

I have parents who are both local councillors (nowhere near where you're dealing with I'll add)... I quite regularly see the correspondence they have to deal with in terms of complaints, I quite regularly take initial phonecalls from people and, despite me trying to keep it to an "ok so tell me briefly what it's about and leave your name and number and I'll pass it on to them when they get in" - you get people going into full-flow and being uninterruptable so you tend to get the full picture whether you like it or not.

What I know from that is that the complaints that are put together coherrently are the ones that get progress - the ones that resort to rants like "it wouldn't happen to muslims" or ones making threats of violence - well, what do you really think? There's heart-felt and then there's personally abusive and threatening - and that's not that difficult a distinction to draw really... one gets sympathy and support - the other gets you chalked down to ranting semi-lunatics and just gets people tuned off to what you're trying to achieve.

Of course you're not going to listen to any of this.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

dizziblonde wrote: »

And still you're refusing to listen to any of the feedback given here unless it reinforces what you think.

I have parents who are both local councillors (nowhere near where you're dealing with I'll add)... I quite regularly see the correspondence they have to deal with in terms of complaints, I quite regularly take initial phonecalls from people and, despite me trying to keep it to an "ok so tell me briefly what it's about and leave your name and number and I'll pass it on to them when they get in" - you get people going into full-flow and being uninterruptable so you tend to get the full picture whether you like it or not.

What I know from that is that the complaints that are put together coherrently are the ones that get progress - the ones that resort to rants like "it wouldn't happen to muslims" or ones making threats of violence - well, what do you really think? There's heart-felt and then there's personally abusive and threatening - and that's not that difficult a distinction to draw really... one gets sympathy and support - the other gets you chalked down to ranting semi-lunatics and just gets people tuned off to what you're trying to achieve.

Of course you're not going to listen to any of this.

just because i havent responded directly to advice by replying to it doesnt mean i have not taken the advice and passed it on.

like i said i havent contributed to angry comments on the FB group, i have messaged the group host to come on here and look at some of the responses on what people from outside looking in are viewing. yes i was angry at the start of this thread and i think i had a damn right to be! so would you be in this situ.

cllrs AM's and MP's are doing the utmost best to support us were greatfull for it and have respect for them the council are blocking their efforts.

the group page is being monitored, so people cant descuss legal and lawfull aspect on the group page it would be telling that what angle were going to get them from.

Errata

I have no idea when the decorating started except it seems to be a fairly recent behaviour, like the roadside 'shrines' that appear all over the country nowadays.
In addition to the other cultures Coolcait mentions, there are cemeteries in the UK which have a War Graves Commission section designed and laid out in the same way as the WGC war graves in European countries and north Africa.