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

Today’s update focusses on two recent updates from the counter petition.

1: “Misinformation”: (this update is very aptly named, as it is full of misinformation)

“Sadly, in our last post misinformation Monday update we thanked the other petition for their free advertising - often when they mention us we see more signers. Unfortunately, this did not happen in relation to their Misinformation Monday post. We expected something, it didn't happen - not misinformation just a change in normal patterns which we didn't foresee.”

The above paragraph refers to the signature figures re our first Misinformation Monday post on 4th March.

Over the next four days we got 54 new signatures…and the counter petition got 9.

The counter petition had claimed “we often see a little upturn in signers after such posts”.

So, that was “a change in normal patterns”? – Let’s test that shall we?

We posted the second of our Misinformation Monday updates last Monday, 11th March.

Here are the figures for that day, and the following six days:

11/03/2024       1170     532 Misinformation Monday Update

12/03/2024       1172     532

13/03/2024       1180     532

14/03/2024       1188     535

15/03/2024       1193     535

16/03/2024       1200     536

17/03/2024       1205     536

Since the last Misinformation Monday post, our signature count went up by 35, the counter petition’s signature count went up by 4.

It gets worse – their signature count did not go up at all in the 72 hours after our Misinformation Monday post (not even a little upturn) and has stagnated for 5 days out of 7 with zero new signers.

There is certainly a pattern developing…just not a good one. Even our “free advertising” does not seem to be helping.

“Sadly, the other petiton (sic) don't appear to be as keen on such discussions or democracy (a word they use often) and informed decisions (sic) as they have decided to have a private group where there will be no sharing of views, thoughts or feelings unless it follows their views. Last week they welcomed us to democracy but apparently they've decided against democracy now.”  

Someone really needs to read up on the meaning of the word “democracy”.

Undemocratic: “A system, process, or decision that is undemocratic is one that is controlled or made by one person or a small number of people, rather than by all the people involved”

We are not controlling a system or process or making any decisions. That is the remit of elected officials. We are certainly trying to influence a decision…but not control it.

We are not stopping the counter petition or their supporters democratic right of free speech. 

In any way.

They have the same online outlets as they have always had for “sharing of views, thoughts or feelings” - Reddit, Next Door, X (Twitter), their own petition updates and their own personal Facebook profiles. 

If they want to start a private Facebook campaign group as well (they probably will, they do seem keen on copying our strategies) then they are perfectly entitled to do that.

We are not censoring anything. We have never deleted a comment against our stance or locked a thread to prevent further discussion. The counter petition has done both.

Now THAT kind of behaviour IS undemocratic.

Blocking Comments

"As stated the other petition has made no such request of their suppoters - this is related to the reason we blocked comments on a nextdoor post as the opposition were writing untruths and actually seriously upsetting mourners - we posted a request not to do this but it continued so to protect people we stopped comments, you can see this here:"

https://nextdoor.co.uk/p/kxxh-kNGPJNW?view=detail

Let’s examine this thread.

It states:

“*edit* comments are being turned off to respect the person who set up the post and anyone who support them and who reads or comments. Some of these people are and may be grieving for loved ones and we are trying to protect their right to mourn in respectful ways helpful to them. Further, most negative comments are by people clearly not reading the post or petition - this is not a petition against responsible dog owners who follow current rules - we support this. We do not support a ban based on little evidence which will affect many - including people grieving forbloved (sic) ones.”

Presumably, as the post was started by “Monti S.” (an alias), then Monti S. is the person who “set up the post”?

Our petition (for the umpteenth time) clearly states “exceptions should be made for dogs with mourners and assistance dogs” – those visiting loved ones can still “mourn in respectful ways helpful to them”. 

“the opposition were writing untruths and actually seriously upsetting mourners”

We assume the untruths are in these comments from our supporters.

1: “Monti where is the potion (sic) you are talking about to ban 'all dogs'? When I looked at it before there was a clear distinction between dogs 'off leash and out of control’ and dogs who were with responsible owners who were 'in control' and visiting the memory and grounds of their loved ones. It is also important to be clear about why this has been raised as an important issue in the first place. For clarity, this all started as a result of dogs who were 'off leash’ but with owners who were using the cemetery to walk their dogs. Their dogs, who were out of sight, were taking toys, including teddy bears left by loved ones on the graves of their children and it was this reason alone the original petition started. No one ever said that dogs should be banned, just that dogs should not be ‘off leash and out of control’ in a cemetery, especially when there are so many distractions for a dog. At the end of the day as a dog owner’s we are all wholly responsible for the actions of our dogs. It is only fair that you present the most important side of this argument and I think the way you have presented your post here, completely undermines the father who raised this initially as an issue when he had experienced dogs taking items of his child’s grave throughout an important grieving process for him and his family. Like many other grieving relatives, for them, cemeteries were never intended to be a place to walk dogs, but dog owners have decided that its ok to walk their dogs in a place of rest, a place set aside so that people can visit loved ones who are no longer part of our world, in peace and without the worry of something precious and meaningful being taken from their grave. But also seeing a dog lift it’s leg and start peeing all over your child’s grave is utterly disrespectful no matter how you look at it.

2: “This poor man lost his son under a dreadful circumstance and his son’s grave is being ruined by dogs taking toys and owners/dog walkers are allowing dogs to do their business on and around graves. There are plenty other places for people to walk their dogs. How would you feel if this was happening to one of your loved ones. By the way I am a dog owner, and I wouldn’t dream of taking my dog into a cemetery, it’s very disrespectful.

I have signed the other one”.

3: “I too visit my best friend and sister, dad and gran. Ive had hand made ceramics, plants in the ground and vases removed, was told it was council policy. The signs are clear about dogs being on leads, pick up after them and there are bins. It’s a place of solace so any other rules should be made clear so as not to distress anyone visit those they have lost. It’s awful to arrive and things not as you left them.

Do you have a link for the other one please?”

4: “When did cemeteries become parks? This is ridiculous there are plenty of places for dogs. People paid for these plots for family members and they pay for maintenance. These people buried their family members there on the basis that the cemetery was a place of contemplation and peace not a dog play area. If the rules" are to be changed should it not be down to what the people who have loved ones buried think is ok?”

Where are the “untruths” that were “actually seriously upsetting mourners”?

This thread was then closed for commenting by Monti S. on 8th February, just days after it was started.

This thread does not appear to have been closed because of “seriously upsetting untruths”.

it appears to have been closed because there were people questioning the validity of Monti S’s original post, and worse, asking for a link to our petition.

Re the accusation of us deleting comments on Next Door. 

“we're not sure why this is in Misinformation Monday as it is not written by us and do we know it is actually misinformation”

We never said it was written by Monti S.
(Newsflash - Misinformation Monday is not all about you)

It is misinformation. It is impossible to delete comments on Next Door if you are not the author. 

"As you can see from the post on nextdoor the other petition states they have blocked and muted us. We would like to state for any confusion we have never private messaged them - so they had no need to block us."

We did not block Monti S. for private messaging us.

A reminder:

We stopped engaging with Monti.S, the author of the counter petition, as well as a 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 would disable comments on their threads or delete comments on their petition that do not reflect well on them. They would hijack our Next Door 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” three 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” continued to reply to Andy directly in our posts and hijack our threads on Next Door – so we blocked them.

"Dirty Tactics"

1: "In relation to this they wanted us to cite dirty tactics - does calling us liars in an open forum then refusing to cite their reasoning count? They do it three times on this post" https://nextdoor.co.uk/p/34Ls_JLwYz7N?view=detail

Not dirty tactics. Truth. 

We will say it for a fourth time - Monti S. was blatantly lying in this thread.

Again, they persisted with using the phrase “a total ban on dogs” when referring to our petition, despite us providing evidence that was never our stance, from day one. We clearly stated exceptions should be made for dogs with mourners and assistance dogs.

We asked the counter petition to stop saying this, and to alter the text on their petition to reflect our stance.

They refused..

Other thread contributors asked why they were lying:

“Well done for posting this again Andrew... I replied to Monti's post who set up the counter petition as I felt that it lacked balance and background. this was my reply to him after which he turned off comments so no one could reply or make comment. Personally I think that says it all. Monti where is the petition you are talking about to ban 'all dogs'?”

2: “Does blocking one of our supporters from a discussion so they could no longer see their own comments then posting quotes from the discussion count as dirty tactics? What if our supporter wanted to send us quotes to use but they couldn't as they were blocked, what if they misquoted our supporter who couldn't check what had been written?”

All the main social media platforms give you the option to block a user. It is a perfectly reasonable, widely accepted practice employed by many users – certainly not a “dirty tactic”.

A little tip for the counter petition - ever heard of screenshots?
Rule Number One – gather evidence to back up your claims.

The Admin team of the I Love Morningside Facebook Group deleted two threads on the group, which did mean that some content was not available any more…but that was the Admin teams decision, not ours.

3: "Does writing a strongly worded incorrect public message to one of our supporters about information we write count as dirty tactics?"

https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-petitioned-ban-on-dogs-in-edinburgh-cemeteries/u/32336818

No. Not a “dirty trick”.

What passages would you define as “strongly worded”? – it seems a very polite (under the circumstances), balanced and restrained response. 

The “public message” was in response to a “public update” on the counter petition.

What is “incorrect” in the message? - Paul’s response was to the one person promoting, and therefore the face of the counter petition, on the I Love Morningside Facebook group.

He is not writing to them as the author, he is writing to them as the counter petition representative.

Taxes! 

“Remember everyone pays for cemeteries (sic) and at somepoint (sic) anyone may have a loved one in a cemetery (sic) so everyone should be able to access them as long as they are responsible, respectful and in keeping with current rules.”

We hear this a lot – basically “everyone pays for cemeteries” translates to “we pay our council tax which pays for cemeteries, so we can do what we want in them”.

Here is a similar exchange we had this week with a user on Next Door:

Us: “Let me ask you one simple question. Pick one answer from these two - in regard to a cemetery, who's needs are most important? Dog walkers...or the bereaved?”

User: “Not wishing to sound pedantic, but probably as public taxes are funding it, then I guess the public's needs is the answer to the question, whether they are with a dog or not, providing they adhere to the current rules, which are quite clearly signposted on arrival, just as parks and greenspaces rules are.”

Us: “You are avoiding answering the question. Let me put it another way. When deciding on the Cemetery Management Rules, who's needs do you think the Culture & Communities Committee at Edinburgh Council should be making paramount? Dog walkers or the bereaved? (bearing in mind Edinburgh Council's own Cemetery Strategy states in its Strategic Objectives that cemeteries should be "Poignant places of remembrance and reflection".)”

User: “I'm afraid I genuinely don't know the answer to that question as I'm not sure I'd entirely trust the decision making process of any Edinburgh Council Committee, judging by some past examples”

Us: “and if you were on the Council Committee?...”

Funnily enough, we never received an answer to the last question….

It is of course a ridiculous self-centred argument.

Council Tax and Income Tax also pay for hospitals, theatres, museums etc.  Paying taxes does not give you an automatic right to take your dog in to any of these places.

This is typical of the selfish entitled attitude of a minority of dog owners. A complete lack of empathy for the bereaved, and a lack of respect for the true purpose of cemeteries.

It is “all about them”.

2: We dream the same dream. We want the same thing and all that we need is to see it together

“we do wonder whether council and government funds could be better spent and agree there are many other issues in our world which might need council/government attention more urgently.   

There are people out there who have to use food banks to feed themselves; people pulling out their own teeth because they can't get an NHS dentist and can't afford to go private; people waiting a long time for medical care; families are homeless or living in mouldy houses which are too small for them; people are worried about losing their jobs and how they will survive; people are dying due to hit and run accidents - this is what is happening in the wider world and in our city right now and everyone will be touched in some way or another by these issues.   

In comparison, whilst awful for people involved issues in cemeteries (sic) pale in significance to these issues so we can fully see where people are coming from.  

We'd much prefer to stay with current rules and work on adherence (sic) to these rules rather than disadvantage current cemetery users based on a minority and spend goodness knows how much time and money to change a rule or introduce a new law (which we think is unlikely to have a positive effect) when there's many more things that the time and money could be spent on which affects more people and relates to serious safety and quality of life issues.  

Cemetries (sic) are paid for by all and should be able to be used by all - respectfully, responsibly and in keeping with current rules. But the needless change of rules should not cost us extra money especially over other important issues.”

Misinformation - complete speculation and blatant scaremongering (and there is the “we pay for cemeteries” argument sneaking in again).

We prefer to deal in facts.

Look out for an update coming from us this week, where Edinburgh Council themselves have given an indication of costs involved in a change to Cemetery Management Rules…you will be surprised.