AIBU to question why taxpayers should fund Ian Huntley’s cremation?

She’s not getting a free cremation, they’re cremating him. Just like the state would pay to cremate anyone, criminal or not, who died without an estate to pay for it

Exactly what I was going to write. What kind of a country are we if we can’t keep people safe when we incarcerate them, it’s shameful.

I’m not a murderer, and as far as I’m aware, my mother would not be responsible for paying for my cremation if I died. The money would come from my estate. If there was not enough to cover it, the state would pay for a basic cremation.

The state is paying for IH’s funeral, presumably he has no estate to pay for it. Exactly the same situation, except he’s a murderer and I’m not. So your thread seems to be suggesting that his mother IS in some way responsible for his actions, because you think she should have to pay for his cremation. Nobody would think she was responsible for the costs if the state was covering the disposal of his body and he wasn’t a murderer.

In other words, she should have to cough up, even though no other parent would be forced to, because she gave birth to a killer. That’s completely unfair to her, she didn’t commit the crimes.

Why do none of the grooming gang members get killed in prison?

So whats a reasonable amount for the government to pay?

The crem and undertakers aren't exactly going to do it for nothing

He was an adult and not a dependant of his mother, so she is under no obligation to pay.

The relatively small cost of cremating him compared to keeping him in prison is a reasonable alternative to leaving his stinking, rotting corpse lying around.

How would you know?

Not that it's relevant to this case. The government has to dispose of his corpse. Who do you think should pay for it?

I’m sure the families made claims via the CICA - so the cost of their funerals would have been reimbursed.

The CICA is a Government funded scheme so yes, the Government would have paid for Holly and Jessica’s funerals.

Not that that is in any way relevant.

It is standard for the taxpayer to cover the costs of funerals/disposing of remains of prisoners who die in custody.

It’s not some kind of special treatment.

Why would you recall? Do you know the families?

Because thank goodness Daily Mail readers are not let loose on legal or political decisions, they can take their 2 shiny new brain cells and see if they can start a fire by rubbing them together

This question sounds like a Daily Fail headline or Jeremy Vine phone in 🙄

If you really are concerned about cost to taxpayers of heinous criminality there are many bigger fish to be fried.

Who knows who is mother is, how she lives or gets through her day.

Whatever happens it doesnt need to cost £3k

I dont recall the gov paying Holly and Jessica's parents £3k each for their funerals

What do you think should happen to his remains if you don't think the state should pay?

Can't exactly leave the body in a morg forever?

That's not an argument as to the validity of your statements.

This is not a hill to die on OP, you come across as angry and vengeful. He's dead, has paid the ultimate price - the debt is clear.

Agreed.

Well that point is slightly invalidated by the arguments that I've posted throughout, and in the same post below my insult. Whereas you haven't posted a single one apart from some nonsensical ramblings about perspectives and the laws of physics.

Why won't you actually answer any of the points put to you - why do you think she's being prevented from paying if she wants to, why do you think she's responsible for his funeral costs, what difference do you think her visiting makes to that, what do you think should be done with his body as an alternative to a no frills govt funded crem?

Don't bother trying to engage with empathy with the OP. The facts are, a criminal died in the government's custody and the only way to deal with the dead body is burial or cremation. And not dealing with the dead body would cost the tax payer a whole lot more money than 0.007p. There's just no reasonable argument that the state shouldn't dispose of dead bodies. That's just not debatable.

His mother didn't commit crimes.
His mother if I remember correctly gave evidence against him.
His mother is an elderly woman, who possibly doesn't have money to deal with his remains.
He himself was murdered, his remains may have to be buried rather than cremated (laws may have changed in 30 years & maybe different in England)
His murderer wasn't exactly a nice bloke.
He is unlikely to have assets to pay his funeral
Can you even get life insurance for someone in prison?

All things consider, the state needs to pick up the tab.

God bless his poor mum. She's the one who's had to live her life with people pointing the finger 👉.
He didn't turn out like that from her. What was his Dad like?
Has she already suffered at his hands?

I agree ☝🏻

Well the body has to be disposed of somehow and there are no ways of doing that which don't incur some costs. I would imagine it will be a simple cremation and then the ashes will be scattered somewhere or buried in an unmarked plot. It's not like the state will be funding a large funeral service and a marble memorial, just disposing of the body in a legal and hygienic manner.
I have had a few patients over the years who have been estranged from their families or had no living relatives so nobody has claimed the body after death. In that case the local authority arranges a public health funeral. I presume it will be similar to that but the time and location may well be kept secret.
I don't really see the alternative. I don't think the family should be forced to pay for or arrange the funeral and the disposal has to meet the legal and public health standards.
There are lots of things that I would prefer my taxes not to be spent on but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. I can certainly think of a lot of misuse of public money that has occurred in recent times that bothers me a lot more than paying for what is likely to be the cheapest way of legally disposing of a dead body.