Refusing to pay funereal costs

Mojisola

bradders1983 said

If any of the "grieving survivors" actually cared that much about the deceased then they would have sorted the funeral out to avoid a "paupers funeral" occurring? 🤔

You don't seem to have any understanding of how little money many of the previous generations had to live on - the survivors just didn't have enough spare to pay. 

Mickey666

Aranyani said:

Dr_Crypto said:

Why is it derogatory? There’s no shame in being poor. It is what it is. 

But call it what you like, I’ve never been the best with political correctness. 

Its not political correctness, its basic decency and dignity.  

Call it what you like, but a pauper's funeral, is only an indication of wealth at the time of death and says nothing about the life of the deceased.  Indeed, dying flat-broke could be argued to the ultimate way to squeeze out value from every penny.

I once knew a 'businessman' who lived a very flamboyant life - large house, multi-car garage and chauffeur, private schooling for his children, own helicopter (may have been chartered as needed) etc, etc.  He ended up shooting himself and it transpired he was bankrupt, without a penny to his name.  Didn't seem to affect his widow's lifestyle or children's education so I guess he'd seen it coming and had planned accordingly.  Appearances can be deceptive.

elsien

If I were trying to scrape by on benefits (which I have had to do in the past) there would be absolutely no chance of being able to afford enough for any sort of funeral, without having to get into debt to do so. The £74 a week JSA were kind enough to give me didn't cover my basic bills, let alone anything else.
 I'm sure my nearest and dearest would much prefer to go the public health route than have me paying off their funeral costs for months/years to come. 
Those who say scrape together the money somehow have clearly never been in that position for any length of time. 

Robin9

Mickey666 said:

Out of interest, whatever it’s called, is a funeral a public event that anyone can attend.  I understand that’s the case with weddings, ie anyone can attend a marriage ceremony, but I don’t know if this is also the case with funeral services.

Certainly not at present times when funerals are limited to 30 and weddings to 15.  There are always going to be building capacity limitations.

elsien

I think generally speaking, in normal circumstances funerals are open to all comers unless a private ceremony has been specified. It probably depends in part where it's being held. Can't see anyone with their own private chapel allowing the hoi-polloi in. 
Or you can have a direct cremation with no service, in which case there's nothing for anyone to attend anyway. 

ToxicWomble

It still doesn’t change it for what it is.
Who has decided the perm “pauper” is derogatory or not politically correct anyway ?
It’s still a valid word and has definitions In all the dictionaries 
Just because someone has decided to “rebrand” it doesn’t make the use of the word any more or less acceptable or applicable 
You get the same level of “service” regardless - lets just call it a luxury funeral to make everyone feel better then 

Dr_Crypto

It’s only “shameful” if you believe poverty is something to be ashamed of. I don’t think it is. Very few people chose to be poor and are mostly trapped in poverty and that’s not really something in their control.
Similarly there is no pride in wealth. 

My old man had a direct cremation. Not because of money but because he wasn’t bothered about a funeral and we had decided to have a celebration of life a few months later when we were all feeling a bit better. 

diggingdude

bradders1983 said:

Mojisola said:

ToxicWomble said:

Dr_Crypto said:

Why is it derogatory? There’s no shame in being poor. It is what it is. 

But call it what you like, I’ve never been the best with political correctness. 

Agree -  potato or potato it’s still the same thing
Pretty sure the deceased doesn’t care what you call it
The worlds gone woke mad

 The deceased might not mind but what the funeral is called can affect the grieving survivors. 
There was nothing 'woke' about my grandparents' generation squirrelling away tiny amounts that they couldn't really afford in order to avoid the disgrace of a paupers funeral and an unmarked grave. 

If any of the "grieving survivors" actually cared that much about the deceased then they would have sorted the funeral out to avoid a "paupers funeral" occurring? 🤔

Could not have put it better myself 

Mickey666

Dr_Crypto said:

It’s only “shameful” if you believe poverty is something to be ashamed of. I don’t think it is. Very few people chose to be poor and are mostly trapped in poverty and that’s not really something in their control.
Similarly there is no pride in wealth. 

My old man had a direct cremation. Not because of money but because he wasn’t bothered about a funeral and we had decided to have a celebration of life a few months later when we were all feeling a bit better. 

Good decision.  Funerals are dreadful affairs and I've never understood making a big deal about someone's death when it is far better to celebrate their happy times when all the initial sadness has subsided.  I've left my body to medical science, so no funeral or funeral costs - money-saving tip of the week