*At the time of writing all information relating to the other petition's posts and their supporters post 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 for changes*
Hi all
Many many thanks to everyone supporting and spreading the word of this petiton.
You may support us for a variety of different reasons but remember if we want to stop dogs from being banned in any way we need to work as hard as we can to do so before the meeting on the 8th August.
Please keep sharing the petition and see the end of this update for other ways to get involved.
Remember you can email us at any time: cemeteries4all@yahoo.com
For interest the image we have used today is similar to those used by lauded psychologists many decades ago to explore human perception; how different people may see things differently and why this might be.
Many apologies, we know people may be bored of hearing about today's topic but people need to know what rules exist to know what rules to follow.
Also, supporters of both petitions and other members of the public in general deserve to know the truth and know when they may be being mislead.
As you will know there has been an ongoing dispute between ourselves and the other petition as to whether there are trial rules in Morningside cemetery.
As far as we are aware they last posted on this topic on 12th July. "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...":
https://www.change.org/p/edinburgh-council-to-reinstate-no-dogs-in-cemeteries-rule-that-was-in-place-pre-covid/u/32745575
Although one of their supporters did post about it on the recently discussed Nextdoor post: https://nextdoor.co.uk/p/JpXwDWt8HhrN?view=detail
In the 12th July update and the nextdoor post the other petition essentially seemed to say that these are trial rules because they think they are and because to them the look like trial rules.
They still deny there are no trial rules and have made no acknowledgement or apology for misleading information.
We don't know if they genuinely believe what they are saying or are deliberately misleading people but their supporters and other members of the public are due honesty from everyone involved in discussion on cemetery rules.
We have now had contact with 4 officials - knowledgeable and working in the area who all state there are no trial rules.
What there are are trial signs to emphasise and make suggestions on how to follow current rules.
We have had three meetings, one before the signs were introduced and one last week and one this week where the officials deciding on signs in cemeteries stated these were trials signs and NOT trial rules.
Are the other petition better qualified to state information about rules in our council cemeteries than these officials?
The other petiton have dismissed officials views mutiple times so what makes the other petition a more accurate trusted source than council officials?
Further, the other petition state they are trial rules because to them they look like trial rules.
We appreciate that may be a matter of perspective but we personally think they look nothing like trial rules as we discussed when we first heard discussion of trial rules:
https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-petitioned-ban-on-dogs-in-edinburgh-cemeteries/u/32727757
If you read about how to write clearly for your audience in general or more specifically in relation to rules or law you will see the same advice repeated over and over - write precisely and concisely so the reader knows what you are talking about and what you want them to do.
There may be one rule with a bit of wiggle room to cover a multitude of aspects. This is to save having to write hundreds of pages or to cover many similar behaviours or behaviours that may not have been specifically covered due to oversight - you can see this in rule 1.1:
"1.1 Behaviour which causes (or in the opinion of a Council Officer is likely to cause) annoyance, offence, alarm or distress to any other Cemetery visitor."
This rule could cover many unwanted behaviours and by keeping a certain openess to the rule they don't have to write a different rule for each behaviour. Behaviours, such as, those reported in Morningside cemetery towards dog walkers could be covered by this rules - approaching people, being verbally abusive towards people, following people and taking people's photograph.
When you look at current cemetery rules they are written precisely and concisely as advised in guides for writing, in relation to dogs these are:
"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.'"
You know where you stand with these there is no wiggle or room for doubt about what they want - you must keep your dog on a lead, you cannot come in as part of your buisness if you are a commercial dog walker, you must clean up your dog's poo and here is the law that covers this.
If we look at the trial signage it is full of ambiguity and nothing like the normal precise, concise language the coucil use in other rules.
"Do you plan to exercise your dog in this cemetery" - what is exercise? I'm walking slowly with my dog on a lead (which is allowed) is this exercising?
"...remember short-lead only" - what on earth is a short lead? What do you want me as a reader to do/not do? Can I use a metre lead, 2 metere, 3 meter, I don't know.
"...those needing fully exercised..." - the same issue as "exercise" what does this mean? What do you want me to do/not do? Is this running and chasing a ball or walking slowly on a lead - different dogs have different exercise requirements and what may fully exercised for one will be different for another.
Could it be these trial rules may look like a duck to the other petition but are actually a rabbit?
Will the other petition ever acknowledge this to their supporters and others? Do they not owe truth and respect to their supporters and other members of the public? Can they be trusted to post the truth and not mislead people into supporting them?
Whilst we agree there are issues in our council cemeteries which need addressed we would support education on cemetery rules and the ethos of a cemetery.
We do not support banning dogs in any way as dogs may be needed by mourners and may help keep cemeteries protected and maintained. Further, we do not feel it just to ban dogs who are in the majority and follow rules for a minority who do not follow rules
Let's keep working together to keep cemeteries for all.
Official current cemetery rules:
https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/33467/cemetery-management-rules
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):