Graves.

SPUGGIE J · 05-06-2007, 16:52

Well things must be bad if its reached this stage. Personally I think its outragous its reached this stage.

Green light for re-using old graves - Yahoo! News UK

Green light for re-using old graves

bullseyebarb · 05-06-2007, 17:33

Placing more than one family member in a single grave was not uncommon in times past. I believe four was the limit. Perhaps this is still the case. But digging them up now? That's a bit gruesome.

High rise vaults and cremation will probably be the wave of the future.

LancYorkYankee · 05-06-2007, 18:02

Bullseye, I think they're talking of just doubling up anybody not merely family members. Either way, I think the double decking is okay. This where they rebury the first "body" a bit deeper and then place the new hole mate on top. Just my opinion. I'm just not to sentimental about where my bones end up: on top, bottom or burned up!

Brian

Less · 05-06-2007, 18:33

This sort of thing has been going on all over the world for many generations and is not something we should feel too shocked about, after all there are nothing but old bones no-one is going to come back and complain, so long as it's done with care and respect nothing at all to worry about.

Catacombs of Paris

SPUGGIE J · 05-06-2007, 18:36

Will settle for the oven me and then scatered in the wind. Though its surprising how little grave space there is available. Its a bit like all the building of housing that goes on in the S.E with no additional water collectin points. Vaults could be the answer but even they will fill up eventually. There might never be a real answer that satisfies all.

jimmi5bellies · 05-06-2007, 18:46

Some countries re-use the graves as little as 7 years after the first burial. I watched that program last night on channel 4 , Gods Waiting Room. It was about Muslin funerals. It was educational.

I often go visitng grave yards, i find the headstones highly interesting especially the very old ones. You get a rough idea of the average age that people died. You could also tell those with money and those without.

I think its a good idea to recycle graves, some graves havnt had visitors for years and years.Some graveyards ive seen have broken or toppled headstones. If the family was that bothered they would have kept the plot tidy looking and replaced the headstones.

My aunt who has buried 2 children (over 25 years ago) has recently renewed the headstone as it had started to look worn. She religiously keeps the burial plot well kept. My Grandmother and Grandfather are in the next plot and she keeps that one well kept too.

Me, personally, i want to be cremated. No hassle then for family members to have to come and tend to my "spot" or feel obliged to leave flowers every now and again.

panther · 06-06-2007, 05:57

they should bury everyone upright, more space, just have to dig deeper, and if they did put ya upside down, the world would be kissing ya ass!!!

i agree with jimmi5bellies, cremation is the best thing, but as the the one with..."graveyards ive seen have broken or toppled headstones. If the family was that bothered they would have kept the plot tidy looking and replaced the headstones."....these ones might not have relatives, or the relatives dont know about it...sad though, i wouldnt like to left like that

steeljack · 06-06-2007, 07:17

What gets my goat is all the old Church yards which have had the headstones/ memorials removed in the name of "public safety" , in my mind nothing more than pure vandalism in the name of political correctness ,and the erasure of local history, the Parish Church yard in Gt. Harwood is a good example , it used to be a great place for kids to play hide and seek (even one or two open vaults

) on the way home after school now its nothing but a lawn with one or two markers,

Ianto.W. · 06-06-2007, 10:34

I gave the same answer last time something like this came up, people paid hard earned cash for their plots, so how do you propose to go about reimburseing them for re-using them?

jambutty · 06-06-2007, 13:52

Sooner or later we will run out of space to bury people so something has to be done.

Cremation is all well and good but what about CO2? After all we are carbon bipeds, are we not? Not only does it take a lot of energy (gas) to burn a body there is the question of the coffin. We chop down trees to make a coffin and then either burn it or bury it. Not very environmental friendly is it?

Surely the answer must be burial at sea where the deceased will at least contribute to the marine food chain.

The real problem is that we spend too much time remembering that someone has died and not remembering that they had lived.

MargaretR · 06-06-2007, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

I gave the same answer last time something like this came up, people paid hard earned cash for their plots, so how do you propose to go about reimburseing them for re-using them?

Land ownership is a fallacy - we should think like red indians do - we borrow the use of it in our lifetime - red indians lived ecologically as part of their spiritual beliefs.

Eric · 06-06-2007, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Land ownership is a fallacy - we should think like red indians do - we borrow the use of it in our lifetime - red indians lived ecologically as part of their spiritual beliefs.

Indians are not red ... and most of them resent the hollywoodism "red indians." First Nations is a more appropriate term. But you are right in a sense. However, First Nations people do claim land from the government, not because they are hooked on ownership like most white (shades of pink?) people, but because they were awarded land under several treaties, which have been ignored, but which are still in force.

Their basic idea is one of sharing. That the earth does not belong to any one species, and that we share the planet with all life. This approach, which runs counter to some traditional christian beliefs that the earth and all it contains was created for the use of man, would solve all of the world's man-made ecological problems.

On the topic: I heard a new report on CBC the other day to the effect that China is running out of land for burying the millions of Chinese who die every yr. I never could figure out why we planted our dead. It's not like they are going to grow.

Most of us know that old, philosophical hymn, "On Ilkley Moor Baht 'At"

MargaretR · 06-06-2007, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Indians are not red ... and most of them resent the hollywoodism "red indians." First Nations is a more appropriate term. But you are right in a sense. However, First Nations people do claim land from the government, not because they are hooked on ownership like most white (shades of pink?) people, but because they were awarded land under several treaties, which have been ignored, but which are still in force.

Their basic idea is one of sharing. That the earth does not belong to any one species, and that we share the planet with all life. This approach, which runs counter to some traditional christian beliefs that the earth and all it contains was created for the use of man, would solve all of the world's man-made ecological problems.

On the topic: I heard a new report on CBC the other day to the effect that China is running out of land for burying the millions of Chinese who die every yr. I never could figure out why we planted our dead. It's not like they are going to grow.

Most of us know that old, philosophical hymn, "On Ilkley Moor Baht 'At"

I'm sorry if the term 'red' offended -I did not know that -and will not use it again. I have great admiration and respect for their culture.

LancYorkYankee · 06-06-2007, 16:54

Well said about the term "red Indian" Eric. However, here in the States we more refer to them either as Native Americans or by their Tirbal name. This as many of them don't like being lumped into that general term. they feel they lose their identity as Cherokee, Souix, Narragansetts, Seminoles, Shawnee, etc, etc.

Brian "Running Hawkeyed Coyote " Atkin