*At the time of writing all information relating to the other petition's posts is correct - their information may or may not be changed which could impact on the relevance and accuracy of what we post but this is outwith our control - we do not have the capacity to keep checking their posts then correct as we write ours*
Hi all
Many many thanks to everyone supporting and spreading the word of this petition.
At the time of writing we have 1, 122 signatures - let's see if we can get that up to the next change.org goal of 1, 500!
There's other ways to get involved and these are noted at the end of this update - remember the committee meet to discuss cemetery rules on 8th August!
Response from the other petition re revised/trial rules - they still insist there are trial rules
We have covered the topic of "revised rules", "trial rules" and "official Edinburgh Council trial Cemetery Management Rules for dogs" as cited by the other petiton a few times and on 10th July confirmed that we had heard from 2 relevent, knowledgable officials that there were no such trial rules - this number is now 3 such officials as from yesterday.
Post from 10th July confirming no revised/trial rules in Morningside cemetery as according to officials: https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-petitioned-ban-on-dogs-in-edinburgh-cemeteries/u/32741321
We waited to see from the other petition if they would acknowledge this and apologise for misleading their supporters and other members of the public and for publicly incorrectly identifying people as breaking these revised/trial rules.
Other petition's first post after our news there were no trial rules according to 3 knowledgeable officials:
They posted a tragic story of a couple's experiences living in a house in a cemetery BEFORE current rules were implemented and cited they were due to an apology - they then at somepoint added in "...as well as Paul, his family, and every other Edinburgh resident who has been distressed & upset by the presence of dog walkers in an Edinburgh cemetery." We gave our response to this poor couple yesterday but not the added in statement.
We find this added in statement a little baffling - does this refers to all people with dogs in cemeteries, including those who follow current rules but Paul and others are upset by them just being there. Or does it refer to those breaking the rules - if this then we agree. We also think an apology is due to rule abiding people who may lose this valued space (including those with loved one's in cemeteries who need the support of their dog) by the minority rule breakers.
As we've stated many times we do not agree with off lead dogs in cemeteries and people breaking the rules and agree something should be done about this and rules may need sensibly adapted to cover issues they currently don't (dog urination).
We just think any action should be handled in a porportionate manner so that rule abiding people who may help protect and look after our cemeteries, their inhabitants and visitors are not unjustly excluded from a majority of 43 Edinburgh Council cemetries for a minority of behaviours in a minority of cemeteries. We would prefer measures to be relevent to each cemetery, some cemeteries do not have an issue with dogs who in fact help in relation to other issues - such as picking up litter from people who leave rubbish, smoke drugs and drink in the cemetery or deterring drug use - so why should dogs be removed from this space where they actually help and cause no issues and their "owners" may gain many health and wellbeing benefits?
Other petition's 2nd post (today's post) after our news there were no trial rules according to 3 knowledgeable officials: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck
They acknowledged our information!!!
They did not, however, apologise for for anything and instead appearred to deny that these trials signs are not trial rules. At the time of writing the photos incorrectly identifying people of breaking rules still remain in their petition updates.
Instead they discussed official rules and new trial signage in more detail which they appear to emphatically state are rules.
In this discussion they incorrectly cited current dog related cemetery rules as two rules and two sentences - we would like to clarify there are in fact 3 rules relating to dogs in cemeteries (they got the first two):
Dogs and Horses – the following acts are prohibited:
- 3.1 Failing to keep your dog on a lead whilst in the cemetery.
- 3.2 Commercial dog walking
- 3.3 Allowing a dog to foul in a cemetery contrary to the provisions of the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003.'
Full Current Offical Cemetery Rules: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/33467/cemetery-management-rules
Quite honestly people we are baffled - do they genuinely believe they are speaking the truth? Did they maybe mishear or misinterprete officials in the meeting they had about trial sinage? Are they just too scared (hopefully not arrogant) to admit they were wrong?
We have no idea but feel their supporters and other members of the public deserve the truth and deserve someone who will at least fact check for them rather than just state they are right and you are to juat to take their word for it.
As the other petiton have stated today, people can make mistakes - this is true and perfectly ok as long as you take steps to make it right.
We stated in other discussions we understood the wording of these signs was different to current rules which could cause confusion but they were not trial rules and we stated maybe there were crossed wires between Paul, Andy and Bereavement Services but they are still insisting these are trial rules.
We left the door wide open for them to gracefully say they had misinterpreted or misunderstood information but they are instead choosing to insist these are trial rules.
As they themselves noted in a previous post we ourselves met with Bereavement Services who told us of these signs but stated they were trial signage, not trial rules.
We took the effort to write to officals for clarification on the matter and we were perfectly happy to accept if these were trial rules although we would have argued any evidence from them was invalid and unfit to decide new rules upon.
As stated we have now heard from three official contacts who should be very knowledgeable in this area that there are no trial rules - the other petition appear to be suggesting they might be wrong.
I would hope that the Head of Regulatory Services, Bereavement Services and the Convener of the committee which decides such rules would be knowledgeable enough to comment correctly and if not I apologise for possibly giving misleading information. Honestly, I'm not sure who would be better qualified - are the other petition really more qualified than these people to comment on cemetery rules trial or otherwise?
We have 4 different sources (3 are official impartital sources) saying there are no trial rules to one source saying there is - which do you think is more likely to be correct?
We believed and have been told these signs were to emphasise and educate on current rules and offer suggestions of how to follow current rules and we believe this - we have no reason not to.
This BBC article discusses assessing information for accuracy and makes suggestions around finding reliable sources on the topic (we feel we have) and thinking about why someone may say something and what they would have to gain from it - all points worthy of thinking about in relation to this matter of the existence or not of trial rules: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z3hhvj6
We ask you to ask yourselves these questions in relation to our petition, the other petition and council officials stance on this matter and indeed any other information reported:
- What does this person have to gain by denying there are trial rules?
- Does this person have anything to gain by saying there are trial rules?
This petition - 1.we have absolutely nothing to gain by stating these are not trial rules except ensuring people are told the truth and are thus able to know what the rules are and thus follow them as well as helping people be knowledgeable when accusing others of not following them.
2. If there were trial rules it would be in our interest to acknowledge these and publicise them widely so that we could increase the numbers of people following them and make people with dogs look good under the light of this information.
Officials - 1. again they have absolutely nothing to gain by denying they are trial rules..
Their official duties are to look after public assets/cemeteries/rules and they are not interested in either petition. They are making sure cemeteries and the public are cared for and listened to equally then impartially deciding on matters based on evidence. They have a public duty to inform people of correct rules in place partially to help people follow such rules.
2. In fact, at least one of the officials very much personally supports the other petition so it would be in their personal interest to agree with the other petition and state there are trial rules - however, they have to put personal interests aside and tell the truth as they know it to their public and have stated there are no trial rules.
The other petition - 1. we can actually think of a few possible reasons but to be honest this is really something for the other petition to address and for you to think about when reading their information (if you do).
What we know for sure is they have made several posts referring to "revised rules", "trial rules" and "official Edinburgh Council trial Cemetery Management Rules for dogs" and have uploaded photos labelled and referring to these.
We also know that to admit there are no trial rules and cite information in their posts was incorrect would be very difficult for most people - it is hard to admit you are wrong, to explain yourself and to apologise for this.
It would be even harder to do this after information that trial rules did not exist was denied.
So perhaps in not acknowledging there are no trial rules they overcome the awkwardness of saying they were incorrect and maybe keep the trust of their supporters.
There may be concerns that supporters or potential supporters would turn away from them as they were potentially giving out incorrect information - but these are our personal thoughts we don't know if the other petition has had any of these thoughts or not.
2. In our humble opinion in stating these were trial rules the other petition potentitally gained the ability to incorrectly cite people as breaking rules thus making dog related issues in cemeteries look worse than they may be. They may also drive these rule abiding people away from cemeteries as the people may not wish to be photographed and accused of breaking trial rules. They may even drive rule abiding people away through people wrongly thinking these were new rules and adhering to them. What would the other petition potentially gain by driving people away in these manners - less dogs, rule breaking or rule abiding - at times they don't appear to agree with even rule abiding people with dogs in our Edinburgh council cemeteries. But again any gains from why the other petiton would say there are trial rules is for them to discuss if they wish and you to think about if you wish.
Summary and conclusion for today
We have to say we are increasingly concerned by the other petition and their ability to write factual information to their supporters and other members of the public.
This isn't just about being truthful (and related issues of respect) just for the sake of it.
As stated yesterday people need facts to decide on their actions - what petition to support, what rules to follow on cemeteries, what rules apply should you wish to accuse someone of breaking them and post their photo online for all to see (rather than letting officials deal with issues).
We personally would urge everyone to keep to current cemetery rules and consider the suggestions on the trial signage.
Again, personally, if I was one of the other petition's supporters I would be questioning if I trusted someone to fight for my cause when they can't get such basic details right as to how many rules there are in official cemetery rules, nevermind whether their word could reasonably override the word of 4 people (3 of whom were knowledgeable officials) on the issue of trial rules.
If you want to support a petition that wants to improve behaviours in our Edinburgh council cemeteries, in a fair porportionate manner and uses up to date relevent factual information then please consider signing ours. As shown we are more than happy to seek clarification on a matter from those who should be in the know rather than just state information as fact because it comes from us.
Let's keep working together to keep cemetries4all respectful, responsible users.
Other ways you can get involved and share your view:
Write to your local councillor - List of your local Councillors:
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=WARD&VW=LIST&PIC=0
Write to committe memebers who will discuss and decide on cemetery rules - List of who is due to be at the committee meeting including committee members:
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgMeetingAttendance.aspx?ID=7281
Consider giving a wrtieen or verbal deputaion - Website where further information will be posted in relation to the meetings, we understand around a week before the meeting:
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=139&MId=7281
Vote on the Scotsman's article where you can place your vote (it is not binding in any way):