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

[PassingStranger]

Can't Ian Huntleys mother who was at his bedside and in touch with him, pay for his cremation.
Why should the tax payer pay?
He's already cost the taxpayer loads.🤔😫

But if not the tax payer, then who should pay for it? No one has yet come up with an alternative.

And as people said he isn't getting a funeral in the traditional sense. His body will just be going to the crematorium and burned to ashes which doesn't sound any much different than the methods you've suggested. Direct cremations don't have hymns, flowers etc and given the crimes he committed, I hardly think his family will want any of this anyway.

All those trying to push responsibility onto his mother…..are you going to take responsibility should any of your kids end up in prison for carrying out a horrific crime and who then get murdered whilst in there?

No. Thought not.

It's half than that for a direct cremation. I can't get my knickers in a twist over disposal of his body.

It's around £1k per week to keep someone in prison, so the govt has already saved a good few quid.

Well you dont get to mske that decision
I cant imagine how she must feel
Im sure she hates what he did
But a love for a son and daughter is unconditional
She's must hsve suffered enormously knowing what he did.

You're looking at this through an emotional lens but policy isn't dictated by emotion. If someone is murdered whilst under the care of the prison service then the prison service contributes to the cost of the disposal of that persons remains. They can't just rip up that policy and refuse to follow their own rules because you and a few others have a strong emotional reaction to the policy being applied to a particular individual.

It is possible to be disgusted by IH's crimes but still accept that people should be safe from murder when they are in the care of the state, and that the prison service carries some responsibility for the disposal of human remains when they fail to prevent a murder happening on their premises. You can't have system where the prison service accepts responsibility for some prisoners, but refuses to accept the same level of responsibility for others based on the strength of feeling that the general public and some sections of the press express about them.

His daughter has already said she’s going to flush him down the toilet, so you know what? I would happily contribute in that circumstance

You can't just bury someone anywhere. He won't be buried anyway, it will be a cremation as it's cheaper. It will basically be a 'pauper's funeral.

For those who said it wasnt debatable, and it was a waste of time, it certainly seems to be a hot topic.

It doesn't seem to be much of a debate. I haven't seen one credible argument or alternative put forward by people arguing the tax payer shouldn't be paying for his funeral. It seems more people pointing out holes in the completey flawed logic.

What if she were no longer alive? Should his children pay? What if he were childless, should his cousins pay? What if he had no cousins - should they seek out some distant relative in New Zealand and get them to pay?

At what point, in other words, would you stop trying to make someone else pay for the dead man being a murderer?

Ok ditch him at sea, let's add that up?

Boat hire - £££

Fuel ⛽️

How many people do you need on the boat?
Minimum of 3, one to captain the boat, two to deal with the body. Possibly need four to man-handle the body.

What are you wrapping the body in?
Can't leave it in a plastic body bag, thats sea pollution.
Can't leave it unwrapped thats a danger to the boats crew.

How are you getting the body from the hospital morg to the boat? Thats another cost.

Insurance?

So actually a public health cremation / paupers funeral at the tax payers expense is probably a whole lot easier, cheaper and safer for all concerned

I always associate sea burials with people who have served in the Royal navy and similar. People who served our country and had affinity with the ocean. Certainly not for a double child killer.

I think a direct cremation, with no fuss, body burnt straight away and ashes disposed of in secret with absolute minimal cost to tax payer is the ideal way for him to go.

It's a "hot topic" because IH was the perpetrator in a highly publicised child-murder case, the details of which caused a lot of public anger at the time and his death has of course attracted a lot of media attention. That doesn’t mean there is any logic to your argument, or that your suggestion is in any way workable in practice. The vast majority of comments have been attempts to explain to you why YABU.

A standard Public Health Funeral is paid for by the council, and is unattended. So anyone who has been to one of those would have been staff.
Prison deaths (I know he died in hospital but he was still a prisoner) the family can arrange as they would for non-incarcerated family members and the Family Liaison Officer notifies next of kin etc. If the prisoner has any money, the funeral is paid out of the estate, and the family can do whatever they usually would, obviously the family can choose to pay for a service and wake themselves if they want to.
This corpse needs disposing of just as much as the corpses of people who were loved and revered in life. The public don't want to be walking past a corpse left for the birds, the binmen don't want it at the tip. There's a lot wrong with the criminal justice system but the prison service arranging for swift hygienic disposal of a corpse isn't it.

Agreed, ditching a body at sea just isn't an option cost wise. And I'd bet its illegal different if it's a boat which has sunk or a person over board and bodies can't be recovered.

So many people are suggesting daft things like ditch at sea with out actually thinking that too has a cost.

You don't know what people would do.?
How can you say thought not?

Think you need a proper lead lined coffin and stuff. There’s only a few places in the country where you can be buried at sea and there’s all kind of stuff you have to do.

Anyway he’s being dispatched in the cheapest and quickest way possible, and no way should his mother or any other relative be liable for the costs.

Nope, there's also lots of other comments about disposing of his ashes down the toilet and other things.
It's still a hot topic. Hasn't withered away because it wasn't debatable, or a waste of time.

Well he still needs to be cremated first, at a cost to the tax payer before his ashes can be flushed down the toilet so its a completely moot point anyway.

It is a waste of time. He’s going to be cremated and that’s that. Nobody is going to make an exemption specifically for Ian Huntley when other murderers have had their cremations paid for. Most of us would rather pay for his body to he disposed than keeping him alive, so what on earth is the point in this debate?

Well there’s 50,000 people who agree with the OP if the petition going around is anything to go by.

I agree with the OP. Why should we pay? How would a simple cremation in a cheap coffin cost so much?

There are people signing a petition objecting to the tax payer paying a tiny amount for a necessary public health funeral? Jesus, some people really need to get a hobby.

So what's your alternative?

May be we could hang his body from a gibbet over the Thames to dissuade others. Seems to be the line of thinking for some on here.