*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 always have the capacity to keep checking whether their posts change*  

Hi all  

Many thanks to everyone supporting and spreading the word of this petition.  

At the time of writing we are at 1, 199 signatures will you be the one to share the petition and get it up to 1, 200? What about 1, 500 signatures?  

If you don't want dogs banned from cemeteries on the 8th August ( with or without exemptions) there are other ways to get involved at the end of this post but you need to act to make sure a ban doesn't happen - we cannot do it alone.  

Remember you can email us at any time:  cemeteries4all@yahoo.com   

We're still feeling very ropey so today's update is going to be a short one, again, but we like to check in with you all.  

Yesterday and not for the first time the other petition called us childish. 

We totally understand this is generally suppossed to be an insult but we love kids.  

Kids are open and honest about their feelings, they like adventure and they need a lot of sleep (we totally get this, sleep is the ultimate).   

Kids can turn a huge messy pile of lego into a castle, a dragon, a spaceship, some weird looking beast that only they understand and love.  

They are curious about life and the world and see things through fresh eyes.

They don't judge, they just see, ask questions, make points with no strings attached, hidden agendas or inferring something else.  

They can take something very plain and simple like a box and have hours of innocent fun with the intricate adventures and stories they create to go with the box.   

They can see beyond what we as adults see.   

Adults recycle boxes without a second thought.  

In all honesty if we are childish we are proud to be - thankyou.  

So why were we called childish - it's a little hard to tell as we found it a bit hard to follow but there seemed to be 3 things.  

1. Part of it appears to be as we use a pseudonym - as explained many times this is for our own safety.  

This is a sensitive topic which has involved some words and behaviours we find threatening and it makes us feel safer to use a pseudonym.   

We apologise if it's childish to worry about safety and if it's childish to do something harmless to help get over your fear.

 2. We may also have been called childish as we stated that although very sad and obviously traumatic for the people in involved that the Pedans deputation from 2022, before rules were brought in, could not be used as evidence of current rule breaking when the current rules did not exist then.

We did not downplay it, we outright stated it was not reflective of current events.

We're sorry if this was childish. We thought this was common-sense, reasonable and basic rules for research/evidence - apologies.  

We did however state on 11th July when we firsy commented on the Pedens tragic deputation:  

 "Perhaps rather than trying to manipulate or misinform people by sharing this out dated incomparable information the other petition is merely introducing us to this couple and they are going to do a follow-up to see if things have changed for them since the rules came in in 2022 - then attempt to use that up to date informatiom as possible evidence of rules needing changed."   https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-petitioned-ban-on-dogs-in-edinburgh-cemeteries/u/32743789 

The other petition have confirmed they have met the Pedens who state they are still experiencing issues and will be giving an up to date deputation - we wish them well as we could see how hard it was last time for them to do this.  

Whilst such a deputation will undoubtedly state informatiom of dogs breaking rules (otherwise why would they speak) we would ask  you to think carefully when considering the information they give.  

As always we feel for the Pedans and acknowledge their bravery in speaking out on something that has traumatised them - we in no way dismiss their personal feelings or experiences.   

However, we have to remember that there are 43 cemeteries in Edinburgh - not just Warriston or Morningside - and that the Pedans are in a very unique position in that they live in a house in a cemetery - what they experience will be nothing like anyone else (unless they live in a cemetery where simialer behaviours happen).

This is not to take away from their experience, merely to state it is a very unique one which may not be entirely representative of issues in 43 cemeteries.  

Warriston and Morningside are the two cemeteries we seem to have heard about in relation to issues with dogs - are there actually issues with dogs in the other 41 cemeteries? We don't think a majority of cemeteries have issues with dogs at all.  

Warriston we definitely think there is an issue although we think it is a lot more complicated than is being reported.  

Morningside we are still unsure - in over 40 years of visiting we never experienced any issues with dogs, others state there are no issues with dog behaviour and it is in fact human behaviour towards people with dogs that is the issue. Furthermore, photos shared by the other petition showed 75% of people with dogs adhering to rules (or did when we last looked at photos, this may have changed).  

Also remember the research study we have shared before featuring Warriston and Morningside which showed that the previous ban did not work and that councillors themselves have stated rules were not enforced or adhered to.  

Research study: https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/3/3/72  

Are people asking for a ban (with or without exemptions) when some cemeteries have no issues and value the footfall of dogs and the protection and help they can bring?  

What would make a ban work when it didn't work last time?  

Would it not be better to concentrate on improving issues relevent to all cemeteries alongside targeting specific behaviours in specific cemeteries with means tjay might actually help?  

Sorry if that's childish, as a mourner who visits with their dog (for emotional support and as the deceased would have liked it) and does not want that intruded upon to prove why I am there it makes sense to me not to ban dogs in all cemeteries.

As a mourner with a loved one in a cemetery who would undoubtedly love a dog visit it makes sense to me to keep rules we have and target specific cemeteries who experience specific issues as well as some all round cemetery wide education rather than use a method we know doesn't work.   

3. The final thing which may have lead to us being called childish is because we used two laughing emojis on a comment to one of their supporters on nextdoor.   

This is the supporter who appeared to be dismissing women's safety concerns which we have discussed in other updates.   Nextdoor post:  https://nextdoor.co.uk/p/JpXwDWt8HhrN?view=detail  

The offending post from us:

"🤣🤣 misleading information does not make you right.That video was from before the rules were in place - who knows the rules may have helped"  

Our heartfelt response when they stated they weren't happy:  

 "As for emoji we apologise if they offended you, we were trying to inject a little less confrontation tonflwhay we were feeling comkng ay us and to be honest when feeling uncomfortable (upset/disteessed) we laugh - it's a common phenomenon"  

Was it childish to use emojis to make ourself feel more comfortable in a difficult situation - possibly but as you can see we clearly apologised for this.  

We do not condone our behaviour in saying this but our reason for doing so is we felt very uncomfortable and frustrated with responses we were getting from this person and as (not very clearly stated) when we are uncomfortable we laugh.

Yes, it isn't always appropriate and we apologise but sometimes it just happens - we are human we make mistakes and we can acknowledge, apologise and end endeavour not to do it again.  

If you are interested in why we were uncomfortable or frustrated you can see this on the post in the link given above but in a nutshell we were uncomfortable and frustrated as:  

• The person appearred to be dismissing women's and vunerable groups safety concerns citing it was not enough for them to be concerned and asking for evidence of assaults in cemeteries. These are groups who have been discriminated against for centuries and are the victims/survivors of crimes and assaults or are at  more risk than the general population of this. To dismiss safety concerns and ask for such evidence is potentially ruining decades of campaigning for these groups to be protected and taken seriously. Also as we share these concerns it did actually worry us that someone wasn't appearing to take the matter seriously and appearing to dismiss many years of camapigning and that it is ok to feel unsafe and voice this.
• The person had repeatedly asked us the same question over and over despite us having given an answer. Our answer did not suit them so they kept asking which was incredibly frustrating and they then accused us of avoiding the topic and not caring about mourners- we are mourners of course we care.
• The person was falsely stating there are trial rules in Morningside cemetery because to them they look like rules. 4 officials have stated they are not, I have had two meetings where trial signage to emphasise current rules was discussed NOT trial rules and to be honest - they look nothing like rules to us but that's for another post
• They also appearred to be stating photos shared by the other petition showed dogs breaking rules - yes two do but the pther 6 out of 8 (75%) showed people and their dogs following rules

 There were a few other points but these were particularly frustrating and why we may have acted in a childish manner - apologies.  

All these possible acts of childishness do not diminish what we are fighting for or our concerns in relation to a ban - below are some of our concerns in relation to a ban on dogs (with or without exemptions).

• Mourners who wish to take their four legged family member with then to grieve for a lost one without intrusion on their grief as to why they are there
• The deceased themselves who may have loved dogs in life and might like to see them in death
• The no dogs rule pre covid was not enforced or adhered to in at least 2 cemeteries (all if you believe some council officials) - what would this rule actually to do improve the behaviours of the minority of rule breakers  
• There are many socially accepted reasons one might visit a cemetery in addition to mourning - to visit ancestors, to visit historical graves, for nature, for quiet contemplation, to settle a baby - the list could go on - why should a rule abiding person and their on lead well behaved dog miss out on this for a minority of rules breakers - is this really just
• The footfall of dogs can be protective and a deterrent to unwanted or illegal behaviour - if you remove this footfall how will you ensure cemetries, their inhabitants and visitors are protected?
• People with dogs may actually help such as cleaning up rubbish or maintaining older graves that are no longer visited by loved ones - if you remove dogs how will you ensure this important help continues?
• People have their dogs with them for many reasons - comfort, feelings of safety, mental health or neurological conditions- should these people effectively be discriminated against for their need for something that may make them feel safe in a secluded environment?
• Is is porportionate and just to remove a rule abiding majority for a minority of rule breakers in a minority of cemeteries?

Let's keep Edinburgh Council Cemeteries4all x  

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 members 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 written or verbal deputation - 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):   https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/why-council-will-vote-on-a-ban-dogs-from-all-edinburgh-cemeteries-4679251?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1jiu0nmOB5KkeddVY_d0oDN6U2gt09cUrdWgBgQNW9Nr0N14p8EnUv3gs_aem_n3NYnWSu9Bpe_wP_x0twLw#disqus-comment-section