Up in Smoke

Barnsley, 2010. A 40' effigy of an obese teenager eating a burger 'will form part of the mayor’s parade and summer gala in July before finally being set alight to symbolise ‘the shedding of unhealthy elements of our lifestyles’.'

Having been out of circulation for a while, I returned to find this astounding story courtesy of JuliaM. It took a subsequent appearance at Counting Cats to reassure me it wasn't a belatedly discovered April Fool and I'm still not 100% convinced.

Still, if it is a hoax, then someone's put a whole lot of work into it. I had a look at the elaborate website of the theatre company involved - always nice to see where your Arts Council-allocated money's going - and found a precedent in their piece to celebrate the millenium.

It was entitled 'Bus of Fools' - somewhat appropriately, perhaps - and consisted of a 30' effigy of a brightly-painted double-decker bus with characters from Viz magazine bursting out of the top. The whole thing was set on fire at midnight, to the accompaniment of a firework display.

The 'spectacular event' took place in the centre of Newcastle and was commissioned by Newcastle City Council. Remember them? They're the ones who took a certain Davendar Kumar Ghai to court at the taxpayers' expense over his proposed funeral arrangements.

Regular readers will recall that the gentleman in question has now won the right to be cremated in a remote spot in the open air in accordance with his religious beliefs after Newcastle City Council refused permission, employing government lawyers to brand the practice 'abhorrent'.

Leaving aside the aesthetic shortcomings of the Viz effigy (the word 'abhorrent' springs inevitably to mind), we are inclined to think that its combustion must surely have released far more in the nature of inorganic pollutants and environmentally harmful substances than will - in due course - the cremation of Mr Ghai.

Cremating Taxpayers' Money

At last - some good news!

Davendar Kumar Ghai has won his appeal to be cremated according to his religion. Regulars at the Tavern will recall our indignation that government lawyers opposed Mr Ghai's request for a burning site in a remote part of Northumberland on the grounds that it would be 'offensive to the majority of British people'.

Admittedly open-air cremations haven't figured largely in British tradition - the damp climate may have something to do with it - but it's not as if Mr Ghai planned to do it in a built-up area or on the Millenium Bridge. In any case, his wishes can be satisfied within walls providing there is an opening in the roof; the presence of open air and the scattering of ashes at sea are, I believe, the critical requirements here.

Mr Ghai's reaction was dignified: "I always maintained that I wanted to clarify the law, not disobey or disrespect it. The Court of Appeal understood my request was consistent with both the spirit and letter of the law and my only regret is that tax payers' money would have been saved had that been recognised in 2006".

Too true! For the record, I should like a full Viking's funeral at Blyth with gallons of beer and a burning longboat (and ideally a selection of my enemies despatched at the same time). Not for any religious reason, you understand; just to annoy the hell out of Newcastle City Council.

Update: This from Birmingham City Council's somewhat menacing plans -

" The council has also identified several areas where it can increase its revenue. These include looking at what can be done to increase revenues at its cemeteries and crematoria..."

The Funeral Pyre - a time-honoured tradition

Government lawyers will tell a High Court judge next week that allowing an elderly man’s last wish [a natural cremation on a funeral pyre] would be abhorrent to the majority of the British population.
The Times March 21, 2009

Yet again, the Government presumes to second-guess the opinions of the people. On what grounds do they base their assertion? And even if they are right, should the opinions of a majority have any legal force in this matter?

I, for one, do not consider the practice per se abhorrent and, judging from the comments attracted by news reports, I am not alone. The funeral pyre is a tradition that has featured for millennia in many cultures across the world, a simple way of returning the constituent elements of the human body to nature via a process of combustion.

Since ‘indoor’ cremation is common practice, one can only assume the ‘abhorrence’ lies in the open-air nature of the ceremony and the fear of contamination by smoke; perhaps, too, there is more than a touch of xenophobia in their statement. Would the majority of the British population describe the public funeral pyres of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi as ‘abhorrent’ or do they apply different standards to the developing world?

In fact, although I do not share the religious beliefs of Davendar Kumar Ghai, I can see no real objection to a scheme whereby those wishing to be cremated in this way subscribe to purchase land and build a Government-approved burning ghat in a remote area where there are no residents to be inconvenienced and where relatives of the deceased would be free from harassment.

I can appreciate that lawyers may be obliged to oppose the ceremony under the terms of the 1902 Cremation Act – designed to legalise and regulate the process of cremation - but to bring in a spurious moral argument and claim majority opinion is neither necessary nor relevant.