El Barbudo wrote:Telegraph too. Bit of a conundrum this eh? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... offin.html Not at all. That was the protest I was talking about - the booing. Hardly dignified. And as for that twit of a 22 year old, he was probably the one interviewed on Sky who sounded like he was spaced on weed.

El Barbudo wrote:Telegraph too. Bit of a conundrum this eh? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... offin.html Not at all. That was the protest I was talking about - the booing. Hardly dignified. And as for that twit of a 22 year old, he was probably the one interviewed on Sky who sounded like he was spaced on weed.

There was quite a poignant phone call to Radio Leeds today after the question was asked about whether listeners thought that the cost of the funeral should be borne by the taxpayer and whether or not it was worth the money (whatever it will eventually cost) - a woman rang and said that her seven year old child had died in January '11 and as she was on benefits she had applied to see if there was any sort of funeral grant available - the reply was that because the child had "assets" in their "estate" which amounted to the £250 Child Trust Fund payment that had been made and put into an ISA, then the only death grant that could be made was for £56.

Sort of put the £10million into context really, and I never knew that the Child Trust Fund was also intended to bury your child in the unfortunate event of their premature death - apparently it is.

If you have never read it why would you bet it said anything? You couldnt possibly know.

How actually can you have formed an opinion on a newspaper you have never read? You have no more idea about the Guardians standpoint than you do the Thanh Nien Daily.

I much preferred the fool on BBC breakfast.
He was asked if £8M was value and his answer was 'yes' clearly no schools or libraries are being closed near him.

But the 300, they now exist do they, now it's been in the Torygraph?

That puts it into perspective.
But I guess the response from our resident rightwing fruitcake contingent is going to be that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford their funeral.

As is so often the case when people telephone radio phone-ins, I suspect there is more to it than that.

I am not sure what happens with something held on trust when the beneficiary dies. Does it automatically go to their estate? Can a child even have legal title to anything?

Sadly you know I don't think there would be, its a matter of fact that the vast majority of parents simply don't believe that their children will die and don't insure them - they will insure themselves to make sure their spouse and children are ok, but they don't insure their children alone, I never did, never crossed my mind to do so and I don't ever recall an insurance policy aimed at protecting parents from the cost of a childs funeral.

All of which means that when a child does die the funeral costs are probably the second biggest shock that the parent gets - I did a small bit of fund raising a couple of years ago for a friend of a friend who's young boy had died in his sleep one night, they were helped out by family to pay for the funeral but the one thing that most parents of deceased children want is a memorial stone and they are horrendously priced and usually out of reach cost-wise - thats why this friend of a friend set up the Joseph Salmon Trust to help parents of deceased children immediately after their bereavement, and its been met with a huge demand even in their small area of operation.

So am I surprised that there is very little help for parents at that awful time in their lives - no.
Am I surprised that they take into account the Child Trust Fund when assessing for a funeral grant - 12 months ago I would have been appalled, but now, nothing surprises me at all.

Did someone say her ashes were in turd?

That's actually made me cry.