The Latin “maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit”

A translation of which is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

Welcome to the first of our “Monday Misinformation” updates, where we will respond to any instances of misinformation, insinuation and blatant lies that are directed at our campaign from any source.

Todays update focusses on two recent updates from the counter petition, and some Next Door activity from the author of the counter petition “Monti S” – not the authors real name, as they admitted themselves in this early post on their petition: https://t.ly/C7SFw

“The writer of this petition (not to ban dogs in cemetried) (sic) has themself has used an alternative name to protect themself from abuse”

Next Door is an online community forum which you can find here: https://nextdoor.co.uk

Apologies for the length of this update, however the counter petition does post rather long paragraphs that repeat certain points. We are not going to reproduce the entirety of the posts here.

We are also not going to address every single instance of misinformation, insinuation and lying. There are quite frankly too many. We will address the most pertinent ones.

You can read the entire text of the posts at the following links.

1: “Some possibly inflammatory comments and finally some answers from the the (sic) other petition” https://t.ly/tGm65

2: “Facts or feelings? A heartfelt plea” https://t.ly/R92l0

“Some possibly inflammatory comments and finally some answers from the the (sic) other petition”

“As stated before we always tell the truth that is available to us. Yes, we will ask questions. Yes, we will share thoughts. Yes, we will have hope and share small victories - we were petitioning against the other petition's proposed rule change - the council said they wouldn't change the rule for now - we celebrated and pondered victory as we had got what we petioned (sic) for whether it was a result of our work or not. It was still a potential victory and something to be happy about and ease the stress (even for a short time) of those worried about this issue."

The counter petition does not always tell the truth. In fact, they blatantly lie on occasion.

For example, they have consistently used the term “a total ban on dogs” when referencing us on social media, despite us clarifying countless times that from day one we have never campaigned for a total ban on dogs.

See our post here from 9th February, providing rock solid proof of this, a screenshot from the original “I Love Morningside” Facebook group thread that kicked off this campaign: https://t.ly/R3Rfk

The only petition to mention “a total ban on dogs” is the counter petition.

A blatant lie to those reading the counter petitions posts, and a complete misrepresentation of our campaigns aims.

Recently, the counter petition accused us of “talking as if they have their rule change in the bag."

We asked the counter petition to provide one example of us talking as if we have the “rule change in the bag”. See our post from 25th February: https://t.ly/F9cMx

The counter petition, at the time of writing, have not been able to provide this one example. Why? – because it was a blatant lie. There is no example. We have never said it. We have never talked like that.

Ironically, the counter petition are the only ones to have used this phrase, one day after making the accusation against us, making the claim on a decision they had absolutely nothing to do with: “Pretty sure we have what we want in the bag (to keep current rules)”.

You can read it for yourself here: https://shorturl.at/uFKUW

There was no “small victory” regarding the Council Cemetery Management Rules decision on 7th December 2023 …there was no victory at all. There was nothing to “celebrate”.

The Council decision to “not change the rules for now” was taken on 7th December 2023 by the Culture & Communities Committee of Edinburgh Council, a decision that was made by the committee members, with zero input or influence from the counter petition. A petition that was started a full 54 days after the Council decision was made.

Due to the Council’s own “six-month rule”, that decision was never going to be revisited until at least six months have passed, in around four months’ time, June 2024.

To try and declare “a small victory” and “celebrate and ponder victory as we got what we petioned (sic) for” is deluded. It is not true. It is a lie.

"We don't lie or deliberately mislead. We also don't try to discredit the other petition by engaging in dirty tactics or accusing them of lying when we disagree with them. We merely share information we have found or as we have said ask questions or ponder out loud." 

See previous examples above. They do mislead and they do lie.
There is another one right here in the above paragraph.

“Engaging in dirty tactics” – here we go again. A blatantly untrue accusation.

We ask the counter petition to provide one example of us using “dirty tactics”.

The “pondering out loud” is just another way of making insinuations (“hinting at something bad in an indirect and unpleasant way”) with zero evidence to back up these “ponders”.

It is a shot in the dark that misses its target every single time…because the target does not exist.

"We have lost loved ones and are fighting for ourselves and others to be able to visit them with a dog without disadvantage (such as somehow proving we should be in a cemetery). We are also fighting for those who may get many valuable gains in terms of mental and physical wellbeing in relation to visiting cemeteries (sic) whilst with their dog. We want to do this in a dignified manner to honour those we have loved and shall stick with this, we are not going to sully the memories of our lost loved ones by lying, misleading people, making accusations or manipulation against the other petition. Call it old fashioned but we believe in a more gentlemanly way of behaving."

No one is talking about mourners not being able to visit a loved one with a dog or stopping the “valuable gains in terms of mental and physical wellbeing”.

Nobody. This is again 100% misleading.

Nobody is talking about some sort of “Edinburgh Council Mourner Gestapo” based at all cemetery entrances, checking why people with dogs are there. Nobody.

“Dignified manner” and “gentlemanly” – well, we will leave you Readers to judge that.

Particularly regarding the second post discussed later.

"They have not defined what they mean by "exercising" Is taking your dog to a cemetery to pay respects to service people when your dog is your only companion in life exercising? 

Should mourners be singled out and possibly have to prove they are visiting the cemetery (sic) with their dog as they are in mourning? We can't actually believe we are asking that question."

We can’t believe the counter petition is asking that question either.

It is patently obvious when a dog is being exercised in a cemetery.

A genuine mourner will have their dog on a short lead, go to a grave, pay their respects (keeping their dog on a short lead) and then leave. No one should question this. No one should approach them.

However, if you turn up at a cemetery with a dog on a long lead, or worse off-lead, let your dog run around the nice walled in area, walk around the whole cemetery without stopping to grieve,  then you are obviously there to exercise your dog.

"Is this not potentially discrimination?  We have previously mentioned someone (sic) with Autism and CPTSD who at times visits a cemetery (sic) with their dog as they cannot face the wider world and the cemetery is a safe place for them. Are we really going to take away a place of safety from someone with protected characteristics under discrimination laws?" 

Again, complete misinformation. We clearly state that exemptions should allow for Assistance Dogs. That is enshrined in the Equality Act 2010.

What the counter petition is referring to here is “Emotional Support Dogs” which unfortunately do not have legal recognition currently in the UK.

The big difference here is that Assistance Dogs are professionally trained to:

·         not wander freely away from their handler

·         settle next to their handler in public

·         toilet trained so they do not foul in a public place

·         and to not interact with members of the public

All very pertinent points in the discussion around dogs in cemeteries.

Emotional Support Dogs have not undergone this professional training.

"Quite frankly we are shocked by the other petition asking for this but also for such a petition being allowed by the Scottish Government."

Welcome to democracy….

"Just a final point this petition is a counter petition to the petition for "Edinburgh Council to reinstate "No Dogs in Cemeteries" rule that was in place pre-Covid" it is not a counter petition to their new petition to the Scottish Government - to do that we would need to start another petiton (sic) and could not use this current petiton (sic)."

Yes, you can.

We have the two petitions running side by side – they are two sides of the same coin.

 

“Facts or feelings? A heartfelt plea”

"He mentions the Facebook group where it all started. This is a closed group we do not have access to and having heard of the trouble caused by these issues for the moderators do not feel it appropriate to join to report on information. One of our supporters is in the group but cannot see the post as it was written by Paul who has blocked them after they refused to retract their heartfelt concerns re the matter. They were the probably the person Paul mentions although they have told us there were other people who raised concerns and their posts received (sic) many likes - so there was support for their views and opposition to Paul's which is how this counter petition came about."

Paul’s original post on the “I Love Morningside” Facebook group got 495 likes and 142 comments before being locked by the Administrators of the group. We have reviewed the comments today, the post is still there for anyone to read (we are aware there was one comment removed).

There are 141 comments of unequivocal support for Paul, and one comment against.

"We'd also like to say we feel this has gone far beyond exercising dogs - a new definition in terms of the petition who has previously stated they want a "No dogs" rule (with excemptions) (sic).

We have also discussed the importance that the cemetery can hold for people in terms of safety, solace and contemplation - something not acknowledged by the other petition." 

We haven’t “acknowledged it” because we are not advocating stopping anyone seeking “safety, solace and contemplation”.

See the points above re Emotional Support Dogs – we do not make the laws.

There are numerous green spaces in Edinburgh to seek safety, solace and contemplation, with or without a dog. We are going to do a post about this soon.

"We have, however, refrained from issuing "heartfelt" pleas and indeed refrained from making our main statement too emotion filled.  

We didn't want to make it personal or muddy the waters with personal stories in fact to a degree we wanted to keep some details private to honour the people we have lost and keep something special with them - we wanted people to decide on facts not because they felt sorry for us. 

Nor did we want to enter into some kind of weird and inappropriate grief contest gaining more signers based on who people felt more sorry for.

Was this wrong? 

Some of the comments in support of the other petition would suggest, yes, we were wrong and it's feelings not facts which makes decisions.

"I’m so sorry to hear this is happening. I really hope people listen and respect how traumatic this is for you. I really hope your voice is heard xxx"

“So sorry for the loss of your son and that you are having to deal with this Paul. As a dog owner I support you. A cemetery is no place to exercise dogs. Particularly as there are so many other green spaces we can take them in this area - it is completely unnecessary.""

This is where this counter petition post turns truly disgusting. A new low for them.

One of our Next door supporters summed it up perfectly:

“I am appalled at your reasoning Monti honestly personal stories are what this is about. Everyone who has a loved one in the cemetery has a personal story. The cemetery’s (sic) are for the people who are buried there who paid for their plot and their loved ones. Not for dog walking”

Personal stories, experiences and feelings are at the very heart of this issue.

A large amount of the comments that the counter petition refers to are from dog owners expressing their support, and stating they would never exercise their dog in a cemetery.

That was their stance before Paul posted his initial Facebook post. They did not make this decision in response to Paul’s feelings – they were already respectfully not exercising their dogs in cemeteries.

That is a fact. To even “suggest” otherwise is a demonstrable lie.

Supporters, you do not have to take our word for this – we reproduced many of these comments, verbatim, in this post: https://t.ly/TnS-7

To suggest we are turning it into a “grief contest” is an incredibly insensitive thing to say.

It has greatly upset Paul.

We stopped reading this horrible counter petition post at this point….

The counter petition, and particularly the author of this post, should be ashamed of themselves.

It is neither “dignified” or “gentlemanly”.

 

Next Door

As we have mentioned before, we would rather not be wasting valuable time typing posts like this. However, there is a point of principle here – we will not stand by whilst the integrity of ourselves and our supporters are questioned, or when misinformation and blatant lies are directed at our campaign.

We will respond.  

We stopped engaging with “Monti Stramka” the author of the counter petition two weeks ago, as well as the member of “I Love Morningside” Facebook group who is also involved in the counter petition.

There was no reasoning with them. It was like trying to talk to a child throwing a tantrum.

They will disable comments on their threads or delete comments on their petition that do not reflect well on them. They hijack our threads at the first opportunity, and post long winded comments asking the same questions repeatedly. They write these comments so quickly, that they often realise later they have made a factual mistake and then must go back and edit the comment.

The last Next Door conversation Andy had with “Monti S” two weeks ago ended with Andy saying:

“I have said all I need to say to you. The public here on Next Door can read both petitions themselves, including the updates, and see the truth. Please do not reply to me again”

Despite this, “Monti S” continues to reply to or posts, and hijack our threads on Next Door. They did this only last night.

The questions they repeatedly ask will have been answered by us, current legislation, or will be answered by due process of elected officials. We do not decide on how rules and laws are enforced.

We do have opinions on how things may work, and we will publish these in future updates.

Often these Next Door replies, or comments in Monti S’s own threads, will contain more misinformation, lies and crass statements:

Here are just a few:

“Not entirely sure this doesn't go against the councillor code of conduct”

This was in relation to Cllr Scott Arthur, in Andy’s ward, sharing our petition link on his Facebook page.

Again, the insinuation. It does not go against the Councillor Code of Conduct.

The Deputy Leader of Edinburgh Council has also stated her support for us.

Does Monti S. truly believe that long standing Councillors, with many years of experience, in very senior positions, do not know their own Code of Conduct?

“Can you tell the public why you don't respect the ruling of the elected officials who made these descions? (sic)

Another lie.

We do respect the ruling; we just disagree with it. That is our democratic right.

That is why we are writing to Edinburgh Councillors and the Culture & Communities Committee to ask them to revisit the rules in a professional, democratic fashion.

“If you look at some of the comments of their supporters a lot are from those who feel for the family and aren't able to separate the actual gaits and rules from the emotive connection.”

What an insult to the intelligence and integrity of our supporters.

“The debate is about rules changes not whether someone's personal story is more sad than another.”

Another quite unbelievable comment. Shameful.

“This means the councillor where the petition started is not aware that there are other key stakeholders in Morningside cemetery who do not agree with the petiton (sic).”

Another lie. All four local Councillors in Paul’s ward and all three local Councillors in Andy’s ward are aware of the counter petition and the exact number of signatories they currently have on their petition. We told them in the emails we sent, including a link to the counter petition.

We include this information in every initial correspondence with Councillors, MSPs and MPs that we write to.

Full transparency. They are all aware.

We could go on, but you get the idea.

Unfortunately, we will probably see you here next Monday…

Paul & Andy