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

Then why suggest it? If he gets the council option, there won't be any grave at all. They may not even offer the ashes to the family. It's a physical disposal, nothing more.

But why though? He's dead. Why are people wasting energy on being angry on a situation that they have no control over. He has no money, so the state pays. End of. Being angry isn't going to magic up money of his own to pay for it.

People keep going on about Holly and Jessica's family. But as far I'm aware they've not said about anything publicly on who pays for the funeral so I'm not sure why people feel they need to do this on their behalf. I can imagine they just want to be left alone, to deal with it quietly and will probably feel some relief once Huntley has been cremated and out the public eye and I can imagine they'll want this done as quickly and quietly as possible so they can move on with this chapter of their life.

All this bleating and frothing at the mouth about who pays for the funeral just forces him back in the public eye which is probably the last thing they want. I can't imagine they want any more discussions on him.

Instead of being angry about an unmovable situation where its frankly a negligible cost to the tax payer, why not channel anger towards actual justified causes like violence and safety towards women and children?

Sadly I do know...

I am not sure why the state pays for the funeral of prisoners but presumably the law says it does. Presumably in the majority of cases prisoners have no family, are disowned by family, or their family do not have the means to pay. Maybe it's easier to pay for all of them than to try to find out who should pay/get the money out of them. They could also just be left with a load of bodies to house for weeks on end while who was paying was sorted out.

YABU to believe the system should treat Huntley any different to any other prisoner.

Its probably cheaper and quicker to have a very basic cremation
An unmarked grave would still need to be dug etc
I can forsee all kinds of problems with burial at sea and it would need to paid for
The body still needs to be disposed off even if only in the interest of public health
I really cant imagine it being a big occasion with lots of mourners.

I'm guessing you have no idea how much a burial plot costs - what you're suggesting is more expensive than what the council would do.

Oh for goodness sake! How do you ever come to terms if you were her, her life was ruined to and I doubt she's had it easy trying to come to terms with what her son did. Yes he was still alive in prison but she didnt have the son she thought she had. Your lack of empathy is shocking.

No, you're right. I understand why people feel incensed about it all though.

But even this ditching him in sea or ditching in him in an unmarked grave will still cost money. The cost of hiring a boat and staff to do this. Or the cost of a coffin, transport and people to do this burial.

People aren't going to do it for free, which still ends up coming back to the tax payer. And given how cheap a direct cremation is, all these ideas people keep throwing about aren't going to be any cheaper.

I really don't understand this argument that the tax payer shouldn't pay his funeral? Who are people proposing pays for it? If there is no money in the estate of the person then the state will pick this up as the case for everyone else.

Why should his mum, who has absolutely no responsibility for his crimes pay up? And if he had no family, what then? Just leave his body to decompose in a mortuary until the end of time?

He isn't having some state funeral that costs millions to the tax payer. He'll be having a no-fuss, lowest cost cremation. A quick Google tells me this will cost less than £2k maximum. Hardly worth the frothing at the mouth about. Certainly far less than it would have been to keep him in prison.

That's the unfortunate thing - any kind of funeral that isn't paid for by his family ultimately winds up being paid for by us (the taxpayer). I still think my idea of ditching him at sea or just slinging him in an unmarked grave somewhere is the better option!

Funeral businesses unknowingly handle murderers, rapists, paedophiles, abusers, and more every single day. Lots of monsters manage to fly under the radar their whole lives. The only difference between their corpses and this one is that people know this one is a murderer.

A discreet, anonymous cremation at an unspecified time and location is all that's needed. It is a necessary process that has absolutely minimal impact upon the life of anyone here so why all the frothing? What benefit is there to castigating his mother or demanding his body be flung in the sea? As a PP said, IH has left the building. There is no justice to be had in desecrating a corpse. All that's left to do is to hygienically dispose of the remains through legally acceptable channels.

The longer the hard of thinking bleat on about taxpayers money, the longer this is dragged out in the press (not aimed personally at you, just a comment). All these dipsticks harping on at everyone to "think of Holly and Jessica's families..." should maybe do the same when they're ensuring continuing press and social media coverage with their petitions and their rants.

When Brady died the only place that would take him to store his body pre funeral was the Christie Hospital. In fact that’s where the Manchester bomber went too

The state always pays if noone else offers and deceased had no money. What do you think normally happens? Do you think families are normally forced to pay?

If its not the tax payers, who should pay for it?

Because parents are not responsible for the actions of their adult children.

That's kind of what I meant as in a "no-frills" cremation. It certainly shouldn't be funded by the tax-payer and I agree, as you state, no reputable business would want any association with a funeral for that monster!

Do you know something, I never think about where my taxes go in this kind of detail. As far as I’m concerned, mine are used for roads, schools, and the NHS! I know some people get annoyed about them being used for migrants and things like Huntley’s funeral, but mine aren’t used for those, so I’m happy! 😁

Of course he played his part. But you can't blame him for not doing a DBS check when they didn't exist.

Pure cremation would lose business if they got involved, let the council,dispose of his body.

Did you not read the article? He played his oart in Huntley being in the position he was. I remember it in the press and in future safeguarding training.

I dont think that's right or fair. She didn't commit his crimes, and I don't think she agreed with what he did.
As mother's we don't know what the limit of loving or contact with our grown up children would ever be.
I have a friend who's son has done terrible, terrible things to her, yet she's still in contact with him. She doesn't think he's a good person, doesn't like him, but cannot turn her back on her child.

And actually, look at the government paying for his cremation, they're saving money in the long run. Keeping a prisoner isn't cheap.

Mother may well pay for her son's cremation. Its just media hype.

And what crime has she supposedly committed that she should be punished?

It isn't necessarily that they have to be undisclosed, but legally speaking a paupers funeral is essentials only. Which if the council are strict about it, can mean no one notified, no ceremony at all, no one allowed to attend, and not even that the ashes are returned to anyone. It really is essentially a disposal of a body and nothing more. In my experience though, when people pass and there's any public knowledge of it (such as a homeless person died on the streets) funeral directors will offer some basic service for free, or charities will help ensure there's some money put towards it and some people to attend.