Crematorium

Neil said:
I think Ken was very diplomatic explaining what actually went on. He could have gone into great depth about the shenanigans that went on but appears to have quite rightly instead played it all down a little. I was quite disappointed when I learnt from a few sources what had gone on. Some of those should have know better how to deal with it and others were involved for either personal or totally wrong reasons.

Ken has taken the flak for implementing government guidelines. I posted some comments in the Facebook thread myself which I promptly removed when I found out what was going on so I would not be used for the benefit of others
Click to expand...

What we do not know, we cannot comment on.
I just think it was distasteful for a deceased member(whom Ken presumed, rightly or wrongly, would have agreed with him) to be brought into the discussion.....with the aim of scoring points.
I think that is a cheap shot and one which Ken should not have used.

What ever wranglings happened in the council chamber, it should have been foreseen that the removal of the cross would have repercussions.(and any political party will make as much mileage out of the situation as they can...that is the nature of politics.....whether it be local or national)
And to justify the act as 'following government guidelines' is just a fudge.

Guidelines are just that...they are not an edict......and that is because the government hope that local representatives will know and understand the feelings of their local voters.......and do what they feel is in accord with what local people will accept.
Just because many people do not profess a religion does not mean that they will be offended by the religious artefacts that may be present in crematoria.

We are all tolerant of other peoples religions yet we want to wipe the Christian religion out of daily life(this is the religion on which the fabric of this country was built)...how sad!
 
Well said MargaretP, Fudge is the correct term, no doubt. I'm beginning to seriously wonder the reason some folk are using that as an angle.:rolleyes:
 
cashman said:
Whatevers gone on behind the scenes is irrelevant, the original decision was completely thoughtless and stupid FACT.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


No the original decision was doing what most Councils have done and followed government guidelines as expected to do. A removeable cross in a non religious crematorium is logical. The building looks like a church but it isn't.

Those against a cross being taken off the wall and put on the table fell for a game played out by a few for their gain not the people of Hyndburn.

I think you would be annoyed at yourself if you realised who you'd been supporting.
 
Neil said:
No the original decision was doing what most Councils have done and followed government guidelines as expected to do. A removeable cross in a non religious crematorium is logical. The building looks like a church but it isn't.

Those against a cross being taken off the wall and put on the table fell for a game played out by a few for their gain not the people of Hyndburn.

I think you would be annoyed at yourself if you realised who you'd been supporting.
Click to expand...

Would that person have the initials PB by any chance?

And my feelings are not that I support anyone elses views, but that I think it was misguided to remove the cross because it causes very little in the way of offence to people who are bereaved(and the fact that councils have followed government guidelines slavishly at the expense of the communities they serve says much about the mindless sheep that make up these councils)...they have other things on their mind.

At the end of all the shenanigans the apology(if that is what it was ) came too late and seemed to be given grudgingly......not the mark of an honorable person at all.......yes, I know there is little honour in politics.
 
Margaret Pilkington said:
Would that person have the initials PB by any chance?

And my feelings are not that I support anyone elses views, but that I think it was misguided to remove the cross because it causes very little in the way of offence to people who are bereaved(and the fact that councils have followed government guidelines slavishly at the expense of the communities they serve says much about the mindless sheep that make up these councils)...they have other things on their mind.

At the end of all the shenanigans the apology(if that is what it was ) came too late and seemed to be given grudgingly......not the mark of an honorable person at all.......yes, I know there is little honour in politics.
Click to expand...

Ken already mentioned Peter so thats a given. It was what others did that I was disappointed by.

You can't really apologise for doing something wrong until a different solution has been found and implemented. What if the original solution was decided in the end to be the correct solution after apologising for it? I've confused myself but you probably get what I mean
 
Neil said:
Ken already mentioned Peter so thats a given. It was what others did that I was disappointed by.

You can't really apologise for doing something wrong until a different solution has been found and implemented. What if the original solution was decided in the end to be the correct solution after apologising for it? I've confused myself but you probably get what I mean
Click to expand...

If you mean that the correct solution was reinstating the cross......well, the problem would not have arisen if it had not been removed in the first place...and I know that it was said to have been removed for the crematorium to be decorated........but, if that was the case and someone made mischief by saying that the cross was being removed for other reasons, then that should come to light, and the mischief makers named.

If the cross was being put back after the decorations then there was no story to tell and nothing to apologise for.
As for the cross being too heavy to move...it did not need to be moved at all...all it needed was for it to be on the wall, a curtain runner placed above it......a velvet curtain in subtle colours put onto the runner and hey presto...anyone who wants the cross to be out of view and the curtain can be pulled across to save offending anyone who felt it to be inappropriate.

That there is more to this story than we are being told surprises no-one......but truthfully we can only comment on what we know.....what we are told bu those who know the truth......the response on here has been of that order.
Whatever the discussion on some other forum cannot be of any relevance here.
 
Neil said:
No the original decision was doing what most Councils have done and followed government guidelines as expected to do.
Click to expand...

Most councils? Government guidelines?

Looking at our nearest neighbours...Blackburn, Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale....none of which have done this, or attempted to do this..and I can't find evidence of any other local council in the UK doing this either.

And frankly I've also searched gov.uk and although I've found many relating to crematoria, I have found none that advocate removing religious sybolism...

But I'm prepared to be corrected if your 'sources', 'in the know' mates or imaginary friend can point me to them..or have you just taken them at their word too?

And I don't care if political capital was gained or not by openly publicising this travesty of intelligence...we had to put up with so many threads from this particular councillor 'slagging off' the opposition at every opportunity before he was in power (pot and kettle spring readily to mind).
 
I think the cross should be removeable. Religion shouldn't be stuffed down anyones throat.

I think they way they went about it and how they decided to do it was poor
 
Neil said:
I think the cross should be removeable. Religion shouldn't be stuffed down anyones throat.

I think they way they went about it and how they decided to do it was poor
Click to expand...

The cross isn't the problem, it has been there causing no problems whatsoever.

I have no personal religion, some do, it has already, earlier in the thread been shown that other religions didn't have a problem with it. How? by the number of complaints about the cross being there.

The crem' is where I, and most of us will end up, when it's my turn I really won't care if it's a cross, the star of David or an old betting slip that is on display.

What annoy's me is that the guy that took the wrong decision (perhaps he shouldn't rely on his advisor's?) complains that we do nothing but moan when he gets things wrong. Maybe he should listen to the Accrington six? We won't go out of our way to push him into his next embarrassing decision.
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
I think the cross should be removeable. Religion shouldn't be stuffed down anyones throat.

I think they way they went about it and how they decided to do it was poor
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is trying to stuff religion down anyone's throat.
When you are at a funeral, even a humanist one......does the religious symbolism of the cross really offend anyone?
And in the congregation there may be some who have no strong religious beliefs, but there mya be others who do have spiritual beliefs.......so who do you please?

My solution to those who feel the the religious symbol is not appropriate is simple, would cost very little and would be easy to maintain.
 
Do the local politician types seek the opinion of 'normal' people around them and some of those who elected them before reaching decisions on such matters?
I am sure that forums such as this could give a far more accurate view of public opinion than any guideline issued by the out of touch politicians who represent us.

Why did the cross have to be removed in the first place, a proper painter could have covered it up and easily painted round it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top