I noticed this in the Oxford Mail the other day:

Get Rid Of Gravestones Says Councillor (from thisisoxfordshire):

UNSTABLE gravestones in Bicester's cemetery have been laid flat and could be thrown away if not claimed by relatives within two years.

In the past, Bicester Town Council has repaired unsafe headstones, but councillors say it is simply becoming too expensive.

A total of 28 unsafe memorials, whose owners cannot be traced, have been laid flat or cordoned off in the cemetery.

At a meeting last week, town councillor Carol Steward said the council needed to adopt a firm policy for the future.

She told fellow councillors she believed unsafe memorials should be removed, stored for two years and then disposed of if relatives had still not come forward.

She said: "People could miss an anniversary or Christmas for two years. Any less and I think we would be doing the families a disservice.

"This is the only way the council can afford to go forward. It is a very, very costly item for which we are not actually responsible we have been doing it to be fair to everyone. We have to draw the line somewhere."

Now, it may be a bit morbid, but these stones are our future's history. Whether they leave people behind to look after them or not, are the memories of those people simply to be erased after two years? There are odd rules governing management of cemeteries in this country for a very good reason. We have municipal and church owned graveyards. When a church one gets full, it is "closed" and responsibility for managing it in perpetuity falls on the local council.

Now I realise Bicester is looking more and more like some anonymous "new town" as a result of housing policies. But that does not mean the people there should have their memorials and memories wiped out so presumptuously.

How much will rebuilding the Garth cost compared with this saving, by the way?