cemetary, council and removal of personal obejcts from grave.

Ranger8

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

i personally would not like to see a military style cemetry, i firmly belive it will alter the aspect and feel of this woundefull place its so tranquil.

The design and layout of the cemetery haven`t just recently changed, its obviously been used that way for many years.

coolcait

Ranger8 wrote: »

The design and layout of the cemetery haven`t just recently changed, its obviously been used that way for many years.

Yes, the photo in the local paper shows a few graves in the foreground, which appear to have been affected by this policy.

However, in the rest of the photo, a far greater number of graves are seen - and they appear to comply with the requirements.

That suggests that a majority of the local people go along with the Council's approach to the way the graveyard is maintained, and what can and cannot be placed on the graves.

This ties in with the majority view expressed on this thread, in terms of posts and thanks.

Ranger8

coolcait wrote: »

Yes, the photo in the local paper shows a few graves in the foreground, which appear to have been affected by this policy.

However, in the rest of the photo, a far greater number of graves are seen - and they appear to comply with the requirements.

That suggests that a majority of the local people go along with the Council's approach.

These days it seems people tend to think rules and regulations are made to be questioned, broken or for other people.
The vast majority of people accepted rules and regulations years ago as the photo shows because they realised that they were in place for good reason.

meritaten

the good reason the council wants a lawn only policy in the graveyard is to cut down on the maintenance budget.
perhaps people missed that this is a RECENT edict by the council. The photos show fairly recent graves - they dont show the graves of people buried for over 10 years or 15 years when the council didnt object to grave edgings or chippings. and the distress they have caused by destroying those graves. I think this is what is infuriating people - no-one objected to them personalising the graves for years - all of a sudden its unacceptable and the council are hiding behind NEW guidelines when they vandalise OLD graves!
The council are also not abiding by the charter they have adopted in the case of child graves.

coolcait

meritaten wrote: »

the good reason the council wants a lawn only policy in the graveyard is to cut down on the maintenance budget.
perhaps people missed that this is a RECENT edict by the council. The photos show fairly recent graves - they dont show the graves of people buried for over 10 years or 15 years when the council didnt object to grave edgings or chippings. and the distress they have caused by destroying those graves. I think this is what is infuriating people - no-one objected to them personalising the graves for years - all of a sudden its unacceptable and the council are hiding behind NEW guidelines when they vandalise OLD graves!
The council are also not abiding by the charter they have adopted in the case of child graves.

But the original legislation goes back to 1977.

It gives Councils the right to remove from the cemetery and destroy all kinds of things - including tombstones, memorials, kerbs surrounding a grave, and "any surface fittings not falling within [those categories] or any flowering or other plants, on a grave".

However, it also requires them to take certain steps before they carry out the 'remove and destroy' part. It doesn't look as if the Council did that, so that's why I've suggested picking them up on that point.

As for the first part you have underlined, it probably does encompass part of the truth. However, there's an element of rewriting history in it - given that the posts on here, and on the Facebook page, demonstrate that a huge part of the problem lies in the fact that people simply haven't understood what they were getting when they paid for someone to be buried in the cemetery.

I'm not denying that the Council's actions have caused distress. I have pointed out ways to make a fact-based case against those actions.

However, it is quite clear from this thread that a lot of people are equally distressed by "personalised" graves near the last resting place of their own loved ones.

They may be less vocal about it, they may not start threads on message boards, or pages on Facebook to protest about it, they may not hold meetings at local community centres to discuss it, inviting MPS and the press.

That doesn't mean that they're not distressed. Or that their feelings are less valid.

For all any of us know, this silent group may have followed the usual complaint procedures to the Council. Quietly writing to the relevant branch of the Council, explaining their distress in a low-key, unpublicised, way.

The photograph I commented on was published by a newspaper which was reporting the concerns raised by the vocal activists. A similar photo was posted on the Facebook protest/petition page. It invited comments along the lines of 'How awful' etc. Unfortunately for the protesters, it also shows that the majority of graves are entirely in line with the 'lawn only policy'.

Normally it would be seen as a good thing if a Council cuts back on a maintenance budget! And, why should Council taxpayers subsidise a maintenance budget which is artificially inflated by the fact that a minority have misunderstood the terms on which they paid for the Exclusive Right of Burial, among other things?

meritaten

fair enough - No one has the right to personalise a grave. not in a council graveyard anyway! even though when the grave was purchased no-one said you couldnt put a border round it or fill it in with chippings. make it look different to the other graves.
of course we must CONFORM! our lives are ruled by the council and the government - we arent allowed to be mourned differently to everyone else are we?

coolcait

meritaten wrote: »

fair enough - No one has the right to personalise a grave. not in a council graveyard anyway! even though when the grave was purchased no-one said you couldnt put a border round it or fill it in with chippings. make it look different to the other graves.
of course we must CONFORM! our lives are ruled by the council and the government - we arent allowed to be mourned differently to everyone else are we?

And, if you stood up in the middle of a meeting and said that, you'd probably get a cheer. From those who are swayed by emotive talk and (as I see it) attempts at manipulation.

But what has it actually added to the case against the Council's actions? Nothing. If anything, it has undermined the factual case, because it allows the Council to dismiss your concerns as emotive ranting.

'Mourning' is not about what you put on a grave. 'Mourning' is about what you feel in your heart and your soul. Don't mix the two up.

In the same way that there has been much talk about 'not judging' those who opt to display their grief through decorating the grave, please do not judge or dismiss those who choose to keep the surface of their loved ones' graves as simple and as stark as the grief and mourning in their hearts.

Death is the great leveller. It comes to us all. In that, we are all equal. The military cemeteries which you dislike are, in my view, all about equality.

The unidentified soldier - and there are many - is honoured and remembered in exactly the same way as those who have been identified. Those who lie far from home and their loved ones are honoured and remembered in exactly the same way as those who laid down their lives closer to home.

CONFORM or FOLLOW THE RULES?

Much of your argument - certainly the most solid parts of it - are based on the fact that the Council has failed to CONFORM or FOLLOW THE RULES.

Yet now you turn around with a rant about needing to CONFORM...

It's posts like yours - and posts like the ones on the Facebook page - which alienate people who might otherwise support you and offer ideas.

If you and the Atrixblues (who have identified themselves through linking to the Facebook page - sort it out, guys!) and any of the other others involved want to deal with this on the basis of emotional manipulation, incoherent rants and a very dodgy grasp of the basic rules, regulations and laws underpinning the whole issue...

That is absolutely your/their choice. It will be a victory for the silent majority who prefer simplicity.

If any of you want to have a chance of seeing a positive outcome (for you), then you'll need to park the sarky/manipulative comments, and put on your rational heads.

Only you can do that.

System

I didnt share this in my other post as i didnt feel able to share it at that time.

Each time i go to my Daughters plot i find someone has put a toy/plastic flower on her grave. They have not blown onto to the plot i'm sure as it has been properly placed. Whoever is doing it, for whatever reason it really spooks me and i wish they wouldnt. Ive asked family of course but no one knows anything about it.

londonsurrey

Can you put a sign on there, Judi, asking the person to refrain from putting things on there?

System

Well no really, i dont suppose its done out of maliciousness and i'm sure its done out of kindness but like i say.. i'd rather they didnt.