The Good Funeral Guide

David Durden

UPDATE

On July 21 2011 Sonny, the stillborn baby of Sandra and Sai Lao, was cremated. The Laos were distraught when they were told. They denied having signed the cremation forms. Co-op funeral director David Durden said no, they had, claiming they were so distressed they must have forgotten. Durden was taken to court, found guilty, fined £400, and ordered to pay £15 victim surcharge and £350 court costs. Durden appealed against the sentence. 

When all this was happening, Mrs Lao contacted us. We publicised the case here and here. 

On 14 January 2012 Durden lost his appeal.  ”Judge Cotter said it was “inconceivable” that Mrs Lao or her husband Sai Lao had mis-remembered the incident in Durden’s office at Co-operative Funeral Services in Crownhill.”

Hat tip to Teresa Evans for this.

The Natural Death Handbook, Fifth Edition

A thoroughly updated and revised edition of the Natural Death Centre‘s celebrated handbook. Now presented alongside a new collection of essays on death, dying and funeral practices by doctors, historians, authors, poets, theologians and artists including Richard Barnett, David Jay Brown, Dr Sheila Cassidy, Charles Cowling, Bill Drummond, Stephen Grasso, Maggi Hambling, Graham Harvey, Gary Lachman, Nick Reynolds, and Dignity in Dying.

It’s out in May 2012!

The Rochdale Pioneers

Posted by Charles

If any group of people in a local community wished to establish a funeral service inspired and informed by the principles and ideals of co-operativism, what would their position be with regard to the sixth Rochdale Principle if they found themselves in the circumstance of potentially competing with an established co-op funeral home belonging either to Co-operative Funeralcare or to an independent regional co-operative society? 

6th Principle: Co-operation Among Co-operatives

Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the Co-operative Movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.

First, a little history. According to a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report dated, I think, 1986, this was the position until midway through the twentieth century:

Each [co-operative] retail society … was formed by local people to serve the interests of their locality and consequently each of them was rooted in and traded in the community from which it originally sprang. Until 1960 boundary agreements existed between individual retail societies which, in effect, restricted them to trading within their particular recognised trading areas. The Co-operative Union, formed in 1869 to establish and organise Co-operative societies, acted as an  ‘arbiter’, according to its rules, in ‘boundary’ disputes between societies. 

In terms of the sixth principle, this makes perfect sense: co-operatives co-operate, therefore they do not compete against each other. 

All this came to an end with the passage of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956: 

The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 was aimed at preventing traders from entering into anti-competitive arrangements against the public interest. 

At first there was no change: 

Following the passage of the Act, some 200 such ‘boundary’ agreements between Co-operative societies were registered under the Act. 

But in 1960 these boundary agreements were found to be illegal: 

In 1960 the Restrictive Practices Court adjudicated on a boundary agreement between the adjacentDoncasterand Retford Co-operative Societies and declared that the agreement had not overcome the burden of demonstrating that it was in the public interest and that the relevant restrictions on trading outside their respective areas were void. Societies were subsequently advised by the Co-operative Union to terminate any boundary agreements to which they were parties. 

This is why, in case you ever wondered, Funeralcare competes with the funeral businesses of our last remaining independent regional co-ops. 

The Co-operative Funeralcare also has a peculiar habit of advertising the funeral homes of those societies it competes with. It’s been at it for a while. Back in 1986 the Competition Commission noted: 

CWS [Co-operative Wholesale Society, now The Co-operative Group] advertises in newspapers local toClydebank(eg the Glasgow Guardian and Milngavie and Bearsden Herald). CWS also told us that a ‘combined advert’ under which Clydebank was listed as a ‘branch’ of CWS was placed by CWS, without reference to senior management, in the Glasgow Yellow Pages as a favour toClydebank, as that Society could not afford to advertise separately. 

Funeralcare persists  in this eccentric practice, listing, for example, four out of eight Scotmid funeral homes here. 

We asked Scotmid if they knew about this. They didn’t. We asked if they knew why Funeralcare was doing this. They didn’t. We asked why only four out of eight funeral homes were advertised. They had no idea. 

For anyone out there wanting to establish their own funeral co-op, the way is clear. Go for it. You may even get some free advertising from the mother ship.

Monopolies and Mergers Commission report here. 

Posted by Charles

So badly has the image of the co-operative movement been damaged by Co-operative Funeralcare it’s easy to forget that, actually, the model of co-operation retains both its beauty and its potency.

A bunch of people come together “to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise,” in the words of the International Co-operative Alliance here. It’s an old and resilient idea characterised by periodic renewal and resurgence. Look at the growth of, both, credit unions in recent times, and the community-owned village shop movement supported by the Plunkett Foundation here. Burial societies probably originated in England. The most notable now are the burial societies of Jewish communities — the chevra kadisha — here. 

In some commercial sectors co-operation doesn’t seem to work at all any more. Supermarkets, for example. On the Isle of Portland, The Co-operative Food enjoyed for years the nearest thing to a monopoly. When Tesco opened in competition last summer it was marvellous to behold the good, working people of the island blinking in delight at the vaster range of choice and far lower prices – before deserting the Co-op in droves; our two Co-op stores now stand shunned and empty. Moral: when you can no longer enable working people to buy things they would not otherwise be able to afford you render yourself, if you’re a co-operative, pointless. Butt out.

The Co-operative Group is a disappointment. And we look for things to celebrate here at the GFG, so we are pleased to recommend the small, Edinburgh-based Scotmid Co-op  Society’s funeral service, admirably run and entirely ethical, here, and we have our eye on Clydebank Co-op which, in a sideswipe at The Co-operative Group, we understand, describes itself as a ‘real co-op’ here.

No, there’s nothing wrong with the model of co-operation. But applied to funerals in an altogether more radical way than it is now, it seems to me, it could actually cause a beautiful revolution in attitudes to death and bereavement. In order to bolster this theory I set off in search of examples and inspiration before testing it on you. 

I visited the US. There are very few funeral proper co-ops over there, but there’s one you might like to check out here.

There’s a group of funeral co-ops in the west of Canada dedicated to enabling people to have funerals which are ‘simple, dignified and affordable’. From what I can see, none of these co-ops does more than contract with local funeral homes to provide such funerals, and they set great store by having no business relationships with the funeral industry, as you can see here (click About). There’s a consumer activist element to these co-op societies– here. And there’s an idealistic element, of course. But the financial benefit seems, disappointingly, to be the big attraction – here. Members get the best deal, non-members pay more. Check out the Memorial Societies of Canada here.

In a different league is the Prince Edward Island Co-operative Funeral Homes group in the east of Canada. Here we have seven funeral homes, each belonging to its own society with its own membership, board of directors and history. The big difference? Each society employs its own staff in its own funeral home. Here’s a typical story, from Hillsboro:

In September of 1992 the funeral coop held its first funeral and the second followed in November. As well in the fall of 1992 the first space was rented in the Bunbury Mall and from there the Hillsboro Funeral Cooperative continued to grow.

In 1993 a ten year old hearse was purchased and in 1994 a van was purchased. As well in 1994 the negotiation for the current site were completed and in the fall of 1997 a sod turning ceremony took place with the completion of the building in January of 1998.

In 1999 a position of General Manager was created and on August 27, 1999 Vince J Murnaghan commenced employment. In 2000 a 1987 hearse was purchased and an additional 1.02 acres of land was purchased to allow for further expansion.

Find the Prince Edward Island Co-operative Funeral Homes here.

There is some advice from the Fédération des Coopératives Funéraires du Québec on how to start a funeral co-op here.

It is good to see communities take responsibility for the funerals of their members in this way. And it points up a difficulty that conventional funeral directors have in this country. They all want to demonstrate communitarian values, but that’s hard to do if you’re an undertaker, which is why so many of their community enterprises consist of little more than writing cheques. Sure, this is good news for lots of deserving causes, and it would be harsh, though in some cases accurate, to describe this community activity as nothing more than stigma-dispersal and ingratiation. We reflect, here, that while in all cultures those who deal with the dead are to a greater or lesser extent sidestepped, in Britain they are relatively well integrated. But, here’s the point, do any of these community initiatives actually involve communities in helping the bereaved in a way I once proposed they might, here? I still think they could. This is part of what I wrote:

I suspect that there are lots of people who would welcome the opportunity to do good voluntary work for the bereaved. Many people who have been bereaved want to use their understanding and experience for the benefit of others. Helping others helps them.

Some bereaved people don’t drive and need to get to the registrar, the bank. Some of them have never had anything to do with the household accounts; others have never cooked for themselves; some are skint; some have lawns that need mowing; some have never been alone before… Almost all are too blown away to think and act at anything like full effectiveness.

So there is a role for drivers, advisers, social fund form-fillers, cooks, hooverers, phone minders and listeners. And there are lots of people out there who would do this for the sake of it – who would, indeed, not do it if they were paid for it. They would also play an important part in joining up the funeral home to mainstream society.

A real funeral co-op could do all this. There isn’t one, anywhere, that does – yet.

Here in Britain we retain one huge advantage over our transatlantic cousins: ours is an unregulated industry; there’s no requirement for a co-op to employ a licensed specialist funeral director. An ‘anti-social’ characteristic of funeral directors is that they deal only in death, and this marginalises them. Far more loveable is the undertaker who does something else, professionally, as well – a bit of building, writing and broadcasting, landscape gardening, organ playing, waiting at table, accountancy, craft pottery – whatever. A funeral co-op could employ part-timers on a rota and train willing members of the community to look after dead people – which is not that hard. There are masses of people presently looking for work in the funeral industry. Salaried staff are a must, staffing no problem at all. Celebrants could be better integrated into the process. 

A funeral co-op, with its volunteer army, might adopt a policy of encouraging family participation in all aspects of arranging the funeral. This might include saying to a family, ‘Right, you need to take these papers up to the crematorium with a cheque,’ and, best of all, ‘When are you coming down to wash the hearse?’

Finding premises is never going to be a problem. But here’s an idea: in both urban and rural areas pubs are striving to broaden their appeal by becoming community resources. Well, here’s something else they can do. 

A funeral co-op can bring death back into a community in a most enriching way. A knotty problem is that, although the co-operative movement was started by working people, it appeals mostly, now (when done effectively), to middle-class folk, especially those of a liberal outlook. So from where I sit, in working class Redditch, I contemplate an uphill struggle. Yet were I to travel 20 mins up the road to Brum’s egghead boho quarter, Moseley, I reckon I could get this up and running in about an hour and a half. A funeral co-operative is something that all sectors of the community must feel they want to buy into (literally). It mustn’t become a nice little hobby for ‘our sort of people’.

Enough for now. Some of this is almost certainly nuts, none of it offensive, I hope. I’d be interested to know what you think, of course.

Hey, wouldn’t it be good to get those Rochdale Pioneers grinning in their graves?

George Crump. No, not that one, this one.

It’s the adjudication all we Midlanders have been waiting for: the Advertising Standards Authority ruling on an advertisement which, on 8 July 2011, ran as follows:

George Crump & Son Funeral Directors Est 1895 … Available day or night – Under the personal supervision of Michael J. Crump – Pre-Payment Plans – Monumental Masonry” … incorporating Crumps Florists.

You see that and you suppose what about the business? 

And you’d be plumb wrong, of course. Michael Crump sold out to the Midlands Co-op in 2007; it’s not his business, it’s theirs. But he’s a great local character, is Crumpy. He loves conducting funerals. He’s famous for his singing voice and he attends every funeral. Heaven knows how many Rugged Crosses he’s belted out over the years; he can’t get enough of them. So Midlands Co-op has not gone out of its way to kick him out and re-brand. If it had any brand confidence or conviction, of course, it would. It would have proclaimed UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT and the good people of Droitwich would have thought, ‘Crumpy was good, yes, but this is even better.’

Does it matter that this ad may have seduced people into supposing that Michael Crump’s business was still his own? 

In a word, no. Because even though people may have supposed that, that’s not what the ad said.  In the words of the ASA:

MCO said the ad did not state that George Crump and Son was an independent or family-run funeral business. They said Michael Crump’s name was stated in the ad because bereaved families found it helpful to have the name of a person to ask for when they first made contact with the funeral home. They added that Michael Crump’s wife ran the florist outlet of the funeral home part-time.

We noted the complainant considered the overall impression of the ad was that George Crump & Son was family-owned and family-run, and that the ad was therefore misleading because the company had been owned by MCO since 2007, and Michael Crump was the only member of the family involved in the funeral director business.

We noted the ad did not make any specific claims that the company was family-owned or family-run, and we considered that that was not the overall implication of the ad. Rather, we considered that consumers were likely to infer from the ad that the Crump family were still involved in the business and that therefore the service would have certain family values. We noted we had seen evidence that Michael Crump was heavily involved in the funeral director business and that his wife worked for the associated florists, which meant it was likely that she would also be in personal contact with customers of the funeral business. We therefore considered the ad was not misleading.

Words. Slippery little sods, aren’t they? Even so, that the ASA should have concluded that the inference of the ad was not that this is an independent business is nothing short of astounding.

Full adjudication here. 

Midlands Co-op has announced the launch of its very own trike hearse. The Rocket, they call it. It’s fast, it “lets bike lovers choose a send-off in a style that mirrors the way they lived – not in a sidecar or trailer but on a custom-designed, built-for-speed motorcycle.” 

Whether or not this is this is a handsome conveyance has been the subject of curt debate here at the GFG-Batesville Tower. Someone noted its central wheel and wondered how it would cope with snow. Someone else wondered about those who have specified a motorcycle hearse in their Midlands Co-op funeral plan, with a sidecar hearse in mind; is this what they’re going to get instead? 

Aesthetics aside, here’s another very good motive for suppliers of specialist services and merchandise to cut their ties with undertakers and go direct to the consumer. A far better deal for both parties. 

 Midlands Co-op announcement here. 

We don’t often flag up Co-op cockups on this blog any more because they dim our spirits. We’d rather spend our time looking for people to praise. Anyway, for what it’s worth: 

A family is refusing to pay for a “funeral from hell” for their mother after a catalogue of problems – including the grave being dug too small. 

Undertakers have been accused of trying to force the coffin of Maureen Shelton, 62, into the grave at Primrose Lane in Huntingdon and then advising the family to go away and come back when it was buried. 

Now her family are refusing to pay Anglia Co-operative Funerals for the £2,600 funeral and have had bailiffs sent round in an attempt to recover the money. [Source] 

No details of the catalogue of problems. A commenter on this story alleges: 

It appears that Coop funeral service has not improved.My Dad died in December 2003,and we employed the Coop for the funeral ,he had lived in the same house for 63 years so we asked for him to be taken from there to the crematorium withe the family following.When we got to the crem I was approached by the funeral director and told there had been a mistake and they had brought the wrong body.They suggested we carry on with the service whilst they went back to swap the bodies.This was obviously refused so we went back to the chapel of rest but rather than a sedate and peaceful final ride for Dad it was more like a race at about 70mph as all other funerals booked for that chapel had to be delayed.The Coop did not charge us for the funertal but did not offer any compensation for the upset and distress,and thoughorly ruined the final farewell to my Dad.

Posted by Charles

I must have been asleep when this story broke. Perhaps I was on holiday. Whatever. In case you missed it, slap your thighs and make merry.

Recipe book next? 

Hat-tip to Kingfisher. Full story here. 

Posted by Charles

When East Staffordshire Borough and South Derbyshire District Council sold Bretby crematorium to Midlands Co-op there were those who said no good would come of it. It’s been just a few weeks and the doomsayers are already feeling grimly vindicated. 

The Co-op has been refurbing the car park with this consequence to a mourner: 

“I was attending a funeral last Tuesday (August 23) and was standing outside the entrance to the crematorium at 10.30am with about a dozen other people and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

“It was just disgraceful. The workers were shouting at each other over the machines and using foul language, right in front of the mourners with absolutely no thought for them. The people I was standing with were just as disgusted as me. 

“People are paying their last respects and saying their last goodbyes so they shouldn’t be expected to put up with this behaviour. It is disgraceful that mourners have to witness this.” 

Full story in the Burton Mail here.

Posted by Charles

When a public service organisation falters as a result either of market change, incompetence or poor leadership, it doesn’t fix what needs fixing, it repudiates its public service ethos and starts wooing the psychopathic private sector. The public service ethos is systemically unbusinesslike, couldn’t run a whelk stall, etc. The private sector exemplifies gleaming, exemplary efficiency. Hello and good morning, Southern Cross.

Royal Mail has been riven with self-doubt for years, and the great British public has not been helpful in enabling it to evolve in an age of email. Take post offices, the public sector equivalent of Woollies. Both inspire affection levels which rival those for guide dogs and lifeboats in the hearts of all those millions of people who never use them yet campaign so tirelessly against their closure.

The Post Office has been trying for years to stem its losses by selling financial products. As far back as 2007 the ill-effects of this were noted.

Now the Post Office has entered into an unholy alliance with another crap business, The Co-operative:

The Post Office® has today launched a new Funeral Benefit Option as part of its Over 50’s Life Coverplan offering customers £250 towards funeral costs, available from today.

The Funeral Benefit Option is a free addition to the Over 50’s Life Cover plan and means that Post Office customers who choose to arrange their funeral through The Co-operative will receive an additional £250 contribution towards the cost from The Co-operative Funeralcare. Using this £250 contribution, and the lump sum from the Post Office Over 50s plan, The Co-operative will help make the funeral arrangements – simplifying matters for family and friends. [Full text here]

When a public sector organisation makes an assault the market share of honest, decent traders and, thereby, damages the best interests of consumers, it can truly said to have lost the plot.