“One of the best pieces of advice I had came from a friend whose husband died suddenly… “Don’t forget that you are you,” she said cryptically. How right she was. She meant that I should not allow myself to be changed by my experience of grief.”
Anne Penketh here
From this morning’s Times:
A Christian group is to be allowed to claim “God can heal” after an Advertising Standards Authority ruling. Healing on the Streets, based in Wiltshire, can use the phrase only on its website, which the authority has said is outside its jurisdiction and not in printed material.
Outside its jurisdiction?? Bafflement reigns here at the GFG-Funeralcare Tower™
The argy-bargy at Haycombe crematorium, Bath, has raged over an important issue, namely, whether or not a building created and maintained by all taxpayers should, or should not, be faith-neutralThe matter of the row was the cross etched into the window (above) which the council proposed to do away with in its recent renovation of the building. There was a one-sided outcry. “We are a Christian society and if we went abroad we would expect to honour the beliefs of that country,” said Councillor Colin Barrett (Con, Weston), speaking for many. The council held firm. The secularists switched off.
The council has now given way, it seems. Once more we hand the microphone to the smug-sounding, not to say insufferable, Councillor Colin Barrett (Con, Weston), who, according to ThisIsBath, said: “I’m really pleased that the council has bowed to public pressure and backed down on its previous stance. It’s not exactly what we were looking for, which was a like-for-like replacement window, but it seems to be a compromise which most are happy with. The council has now told us that a cross will be in place in the window of the crematorium, which will only be removed on request for those who do not wish it to be part of their service.”
Is that really what’s happened? Is it the case that the default place for the cross will be in the window and not in the boot of Councillor Colin Barrett (Con, Weston)’s car?
There’s a principle at stake here. The council should have stood its ground and made it clear to all faith groups they they’re welcome to bring along whatever symbols they please, so long as they take them away with them when they leave.
“For the moment, the jazz is playing; there is no melody, just notes, a myriad of tiny tremors. The notes know no rest, an inflexible order gives birth to them then destroys them, without ever leaving them the chance to recuperate and exist for themselves … I would like to hold buy cialis online 1 them back, but I know that, if I succeeded in stopping one, there would only remain in my hand a corrupt and languishing sound. I must accept their death; I must even want that death: I know of few more bitter or intense impressions.”
John-Paul Sartre
Advertising Standards Authority Adjudication on Greenfield Creations Ltd
13 June 2012
Internet (on own site)
Business
1
A12-191396
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated of which both were Upheld.
Claims on www.GreenfieldCreationsCoffins.co.uk, stated “The Greenfield Creations cardboard coffin is a strong, sturdy, but lightweight coffin which has been developed to meet the needs of those who require an environmentally friendly and biodegradable coffin. Over the last few years demand for ‘greener’, and more cost effective, funerals has increased dramatically”. Further text stated “Cardboard coffins are load tested up to 23 stone”.
Colourful Coffins challenged whether the claims:
1. “environmentally friendly and biodegradable coffin”; and
2. “Cardboard coffins are load tested up to 23 stone”
were misleading and could be substantiated.
1. Greenfield Creations said they were willing to make changes to their advertising. They stated, however, they had not realised their product did not fall within the ASA’s definition of “environmentally friendly”. They said they considered their product consisted of the cardboard, glue and tape used to make the coffin. They said all those elements were biodegradable and sent specifications from their suppliers stating that was the case. They said the handles and liner for their coffins were “accessories” that were made from cotton or natural rope and therefore also biodegradable. On that basis, they considered that their coffin was biodegradable. They submitted general details about the company and the coffins as well as information from the manufacturers of the materials they used to make the cardboard coffin, liner, and handles. They also stated the only non-biodegradable accessories available were brass-effect handles and a lining that was used for cremations.
2. Greenfield Creations provided information and video footage regarding a load test on a cardboard coffin that took place at the National Funeral Exhibition in 2009 and 2011. They said the test was representative of four funeral directors shouldering a coffin and the test had been seen by a large number of funeral practitioners.
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged Greenfield Creations were willing to amend the ad and noted their argument that their product should be defined only as the cardboard, glue and tape. However, we considered consumers would understand the claim to refer to the whole product, including all fixtures, such as handles and liner. We noted the specifications Greenfield Creations submitted in relation to the component materials, but considered the evidence was not adequate to support the “environmentally friendly” claim in relation to the full life cycle of the product, even for just the cardboard, glue and tape. We also noted we had not seen adequate evidence to demonstrate that the entire product was biodegradable. We therefore concluded that the claim “environmentally friendly and biodegradable coffin” had not been substantiated and the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 11.1 and 11.4 (Environmental claims).
2. Upheld
We noted the information provided by Greenfield Creations regarding a test they had conducted on their product during two exhibitions. The information consisted of photographs of the product being tested at the exhibitions and an invoice for 150 kg of gravel. We also noted, however, we had not seen any evidence that the product had, for example, been subject to any controlled independent tests and considered the substantiation submitted was not adequate to support the claim. We concluded that the claim “load tested up to 23 stone” had not been substantiated and the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Greenfield Creations not to state or imply that their product was environmentally friendly, unless they held substantiation for the claim based on the full life cycle of the product. We also told them to ensure they held adequate evidence to support all objective claims in future advertising.
Response, action and clarification from Greenfield Creations Ltd
What a joy and great learning curve it has been working with these organisations…
“Environmentally friendly and biodegradable coffin”
I always understood the term ‘environmentally friendly’ to mean – causes ‘minimal harm’ or ‘less harm’ to the environment but the ASA relevant code rule (see below) needs to incorporate the ‘full life cycle’ of the product:
11.4 Marketers must base environmental claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the marketing communication states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle. If a general claim cannot be justified, a more limited claim about specific aspects of a product might be justifiable. Marketers must ensure claims that are based on only part of the advertised product’s life cycle do not mislead consumers about the product’s total environmental impact.
We are still waiting for information from the ASA advisory team to clarify if, in fact, ANY product could be deemed “environmentally friendly”. We have racked our brains in the office, while awaiting the information and can only come up with an undisturbed mushroom that grows and dies. If anyone out there knows of an actual “environmentally friendly product”, I would love to hear about it.
Regarding biodegradability – The ASA’s definition of a coffin would include all fittings such as the lining and handles. Therefore we will present a complete breakdown for ALL choices of order combination. All % examples have been based on weight of product/product parts. For example:
Brown economy coffin with cotton strap handles & cotton calico liner would be –
100% biodegradable cardboard in product = 99.88% biodegradable.
Biodegradable content of total product is = 99.83% biodegradable.
Content of total product that is recycled = 76.91% recycled.
Brown economy coffin with brass effect handles & cremfilm liner would be –
100% biodegradable cardboard in product = 88.98% biodegradable.
Biodegradable content of total product is = 88.93% biodegradable
Content of total product that is recycled = 68.51% recycled.
“Cardboard coffins are load tested up to 23 stone”
This has been excellent for us and a big thank you goes to Colourful Coffins Ltd…
We had previously demonstrated a load capability of 23 stone at many Funeral exhibitions in front of hundreds of Funeral Practitioners over the years but the ASA needed an independent load test to satisfy the complaint.
Consequently we had an independent test facility undertake a new, controlled, load test… and guess what? At 49.5 stone the coffin was still capable of holding more load but the testing bench which represented 4 ‘bearers’ could take no more. New info we can now use to promote our Cardboard coffins, if we so wish:
“Cardboard coffins are load tested up to 49.5 stone”
The GFG notes: Environmental credentials are important to consumers. Both Greenfield Creations and Colourful Coffins have both now been brought to book in the matter of claims to the environmental purity of their product, and both have emerged from ASA adjudication more or less vindicated. We don’t doubt the good faith of either party. In the matter of the load bearing capacity of cardboard coffins, it is absolutely vital for a cardboard coffin manufacturer to be able to demonstrate that their product is fit for purpose given the tendency of many funeral directors to talk their clients out of choosing one on the grounds that their ‘loved one’ may burst through the bottom on the way to the catafalque. The load bearing capacity of the Greenfield coffin emerges from stern examination with positively heroic credentials far exceeding original claims. The ‘problem’ that neither party addresses, interestingly, is the waterproof credentials of their product. It is not unknown for a funeral director to cast doubt on the rainworthiness of a cardboard coffin.
Of the two companies, only Greenfield sells its coffins direct to the public and, what’s more, the GFG endorses and recommends the Greenfield coffin, so our credibility is at stake here, too. Our belief in the integrity of Greenfield remains entirely unshaken as a result of this adjudication, as does our admiration. Greenfield was the first to bring colourful coffins to market in the UK, a courageous thing to do when the acceptability of their product was by no means assured. They are pioneers in the field, trailblazers, something which deserves the highest respect. They are also incredibly nice people, a matter of equal importance to us.
Were you intrigued by the illustration on the previous post of the Grammofonus Orchestra? If you were, you might have done some googling. If you were too idle or too busy, we’d like to show you what you would have found.
We can’t find any information about Grammofonus except for a website here and some video clips which hardly anyone has ever bothered watching.
The website reveals the artist to be Stupor Schwärze, about whom we can discover nothing but what he tells us about himself. He’s a musician/performance artist. Anarchic. Arty.
Here at the GFG Funeralcare Tower™ we have fallen in love with Herr Schwärze. We’ve been listening to Our Glorious Dead all morning. One little intern loves Ave Porcus best, another Hitlerwetter. We all love Schlafe Ein. You can listen to the album here.
“When a very loved friend dies they make a gift of their love of life to you in that it’s now your responsibility to love life as much as they did.”
Martin Amis on the death of his lifelong friend Christopher Hitchens
“A survey last week listed the 50 indicators that you have become a fully fledged adult, which include being able to bleed a radiator, washing up immediately after eating, and carrying spare shopping bags “just in case”.
“I’ve already failed on quite a few – such as owning “best towels” and “filing post” – but in any case I’d like to substitute a handful of my own: buying a slow cooker; enjoying lunch alone in a restaurant rather than fretting that people will think you’re a “Billy-no-mates”; and, when you hear a much-loved song, briefly considering whether you might like it played at your funeral.”
Jenny McCartney here.
At the Telegraph Hay Festival last weekend, Martin Amis opined that women write better about sex than men. They do so, he said, with greater sincerity. Men get carried away showing off their writerly potency.
This set me wondering whether female celebrants write better, more emotionally articulate funerals than men.
Amis went on to say:
“Let me venture a distinction between men’s writing and women’s writing. There is a difference between real sincerity and literary sincerity. When you’re told about the death of a friend you can burst into tears but you can’t burst into song. But I would say there’s a bit more song in women’s writing, there’s more real sincerity in women’s writing.”
I suspect there’s something in this, and that it carries over into funeral scripts. The emotional temperature of a ceremony written by a man is likely to be cooler than one written by a woman, its content thinner.
I suspect that the best male celebrants acknowledge the general superiority and greater emotional fluency of the sisterhood.
On reflection, I acknowledge that this may not be a universally held view.
“Traditionally, older folks would say this profession is only for those people who are not married, have no children, and have no choice.”
