Closing ranks

Charles 12 Comments

We’ve got to be careful because we don’t want to be sued and the email we have just received says that “If you are not the intended recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful.” It’s probably nonsense, but we know they’re out to get us. 

SAIF has emailed all of its members telling them not to talk to the press and advising them that ‘PR Spokesperson John Weir is working closingly with SAIF National President Arran Brudenell and Executives to ensure that SAIF have a uniformed [sic] stance and response on this matter.’

The NAFD has also emailed its members  advising them to ‘make no comment and refer the enquiry to National Office so we can then redirect the journalist to a member of our public relations team.’



  1. Charles

    I have had a copy of the NAFD email advising members as outlined above forwarded to me – it’s very sad that this trade association doesn’t feel that members should be free to comment on a programme that will undoubtedly impact on all funeral directors, good and bad.

    At Natural Death Centre we have long been aware of the issues involved with the increasing industrialisation of caring for our dead, and, whilst being very aware of the inevitable fallout affecting so many families who have used the company concerned, who will now be wondering and worrying about what actually happened to the bodies of the people they cared about, we welcome the bright light of truth being shone on dark corners of the funeral industry.

    An informed and aware, questioning public is the only way to improve the service that we receive from those who profess to serve us.

  2. Charles

    Surely this is what you would expect from trade associations acting on behalf of its members ad they have a PR officer and many of us do not. If it sad that the NAFD has asked its members not to comment then it is also sad that SAIF have done the same. And it is hardly surprising that the COOP have asked staff not to comment else you could have 4000 people all saying different things and how would that look.

  3. Charles

    Possibly, Simon, it would look honest? and make us realise what a lousy idea it is to have a national chain, with a degree of centralisation, for a service that should be truly local, independent and known in the community? (I’m not an independent FD, by the way!)

  4. Charles

    I do think Prof Woodruffe will have some explaining to do. This is a man who was never a funeral expert but a consumer expert and has not been involved around the profession for 10 years.
    He was quoting from the NAFD manual and referring to the code of practice one minute and then quoting the code as saying FDs HAVE to offer everyone the Basic funeral when the code on the screen at the time says That a Basic Funeral had to me available. Just not helpful and not accurate.

  5. Charles

    The desire for silence from the trade associations proves that they are not fit for purpose. The call from the NAFD, with Funeralcare as its biggest member is more understandable than SAIF, who are supposed to represent the exact opposite of what the programme depicted?
    Both responses are laughable.

  6. Charles

    I used to be a SAIF member when they first formed. They then had a clear purpose.

    I have absolutely no idea what they stand for now, they seem to have completely lost their way.

    Great shame. They now just seem to be a faceless multi-committee machine, that is geared to selling Golden Charter plans.

    At least the NAFD have a more human approach in Alan Slater.

    Cant win them all.

  7. Charles

    SAIF are worried that the programme will start up the regulation of funeral services debate again and they know that with the best will in the world many of their members are not going to be able to survive I a regulated industry.

  8. Charles

    Simon, I think “searching” you tube is misleading in the best tradition of corporate besmirching. The word you were groping for was “creating” this video from footage that has been public for a while. Now that is shocking. See every post above connected with this topic for context.

  9. Charles

    But that does not make it right.
    So many people have had a go at funeral care for having facilities that are too large and here is an independent who thinks its perfectly acceptable to have no facilities at all and treat a deceased like this, and now we have someone defending him, just because the poor chap died some time ago, does not mean he can’t not and should not be shown some dignity.

    The reason this is on every related blog is to share it, Charles who is happy to recommend this firm tweeted and linked the funeral care story to the whole of cyber space, at least I am only sharing it with the few hundred people who visit this site….,, well at the moment.

    So cone on Charles why are you happy to recommend a firm that behaves like this and don’t forget to tweet your recommendation and a link to the video, for all to see …..

  10. Charles

    You’ve caused a problem for yourself Simon. Both Charles and Ru have responded to the points you make but underneath some of your repeated postings elsewhere on the blog. Hunt through and you’ll find them.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>