Not discriminating is discrimination

As many of the regulars are struggling to empathise with people who have religious beliefs, try this scenario:

A family are visiting the UK on holiday and the dad dies of a heart attack. The family is desperate to have the body released so it can be brought home as soon as possible. Your response as the coroner would be:

(a) I understand and the duty coroner will deal with it ASAP.
(b) Get bent.

Another fatuous attempt at a point ....

I myslef and I assume a lot of other people here would have no problem with a a coroner expediting the processing of a body as required in such a case as the family are from abroad and not because of their particular religious beliefs.

In the unlikely event that there was two deaths such as this in quick succession one to let's say a Jewish family and the other to a Sikh one and both families wanted the body released quickly then the Jewish family should not get preferential treatment over the Sikh one on the basis of religion alone!

As before I (and i assume most other people) would have no issue with coroners prioritising cases based on criteria that applies to everyone and is not based on giving preference to certain group identities like religion.


Ie people with few or disinterested relatives can be put back to prioritise people who have close relatives who want to hold a ceremony quickly regardless of what religion (or no religion) they subscribe to.
 
Last edited:
This thread clearly demonstrates otherwise.

A lot on people have confused people being ignorant of any preferential treatment to not caring ....

Imagine if relatives were handed a pamphlet by the coroner explaining the process which stated that if you are not Jewish or Islamic you will have to wait longer, on average, for the release of the deceased.

I imagine that might cause lots of awkward moments.....

Trying jumping a que in public and then loudly exclaiming that your are entitled to do so because of your belief system!
 
Imagine a world where the wait time was 10 days and where 1 muslim or Jew dies each day.

Under the 'equal' system, when you die, there will be 10 jews or muslims in front of you in the queue.

Under the fasttrack system, there would be no jews or muslims in front of you, as they would already have been processed.
During your 10 day wait, how many muslims or jews would be fasttrack-processed ahead of you?
There would be 10. the same under both systems.

So you would not be held up any more under the fasttrack system than you would under the 'equal' system.

You're still getting confused by this which is why I was suggesting a simple model and to stop thinking of two speervate queues, they're going to the same place, the fast track queue is just people skipping ahead.

You're again presenting an argument with some "magic" where suddenly all the jews and muslims get processed super quick and the wait time is unchanged so
Fine

The size of the queue:
10 days of non-Jew/Muslim deaths ahead of Ethel = 4 x 10 = 40
All Jews and Muslims are processed on the day of arrival, so there are none in the queue ahead of her.

Ethel will join as position 37 to 40

Day0: 37 to 40
Day1: 33 to 36
Day2: 29 to 32
Day3: 25 to 28
Day4: 21 to 24
Day5: 17 to 20
Day6: 13 to 16
Day7: 9 to 12
Day8: 5 to 8
Day9: 1 to 4
Day10: processed

Reduces by 4 every day, since capacity is 5 per day, and one spot (of those 5) is taken by a Jew/Muslim fasttracker.

this again relies on magical handwaving, you've not demonstrated anything, you've just made a statement that suddenly all jews and muslims are processed in a day

they can do that if they either, skip ahead of the rest (i.e. cause a delay) or there are some extra dedicated resources to deal with them (so you're the not making a fair comparison)

you probably should think of an even simpler model as you're still confused by this

I mean take the above, suppose a bus full of 50 jews bursts into flames on the motorway - are they all somehow processed in a day - if you're going to fast track them (i.e. put them ahead of everyone else) then you need to delay "Ethel"

or lets take it to extremes - everyone in the population aside from one person converts to judaism - do you see the error now?
 
You're still getting confused by this which is why I was suggesting a simple model and to stop thinking of two speervate queues, they're going to the same place, the fast track queue is just people skipping ahead.

You're again presenting an argument with some "magic" where suddenly all the jews and muslims get processed super quick and the wait time is unchanged so


this again relies on magical handwaving, you've not demonstrated anything, you've just made a statement that suddenly all jews and muslims are processed in a day

they can do that if they either, skip ahead of the rest (i.e. cause a delay) or there are some extra dedicated resources to deal with them (so you're the not making a fair comparison)

you probably should think of an even simpler model as you're still confused by this

I mean take the above, suppose a bus full of 50 jews bursts into flames on the motorway - are they all somehow processed in a day - if you're going to fast track them (i.e. put them ahead of everyone else) then you need to delay "Ethel"

or lets take it to extremes - everyone in the population aside from one person converts to judaism - do you see the error now?
In that model I outlined, 1/5th of the total resource is effectively dedicated to the fasttrackers. In reality , it would work differently depending on demand (and don't be too literal with my number of processing days). But it's just a model to illustrate that a fast lane, in this type of scenario, doesn't slow down the rest.

Things may need to be flexible in moments of peak demand but, equally, there would also be slowdowns.

Perhaps you could illustrate a model that backs up your assertion that a fasttrack system would slow others down?
 
Two very different things, really.

Although I agree that neither should be allowed to be performed on minors.
Just to clarify....
a) both are carried out for non-medical reasons and
b) both are inflicted on minors who cannot give informed consent
...they are functionally the same i.e. both are derived from folklore, culture and ignorance.
Arguing over the validity of biblical claims isn't really relevant to this thread so I'll leave it there.
 
In that model I outlined, 1/5th of the total resource is effectively dedicated to the fasttrackers. In reality , it would work differently depending on demand (and don't be too literal with my number of processing days). But it's just a model to illustrate that a fast lane, in this type of scenario, doesn't slow down the rest.

Things may need to be flexible in moments of peak demand but, equally, there would also be slowdowns.

Perhaps you could illustrate a model that backs up your assertion that a fasttrack system would slow others down?

Well that is the problem, that is why you're not getting it, you'd have the full set of resources before you introduced those dedicated resources for the fast track (that's why I said consider most of the population converting)

if jews/muslims represent 1/5th of the population then you have the same resources (relatively) for them so should have the same delay... so you'd need them to be representing less than a 5th of the population to have speeded up their processing... and in that case you then only have left 4/5ths of the resources to deal with more than 4/5th of the population - ergo relatively fewer resources and a longer delay.

perhaps better if you imagine there is one coroner who can deal with just one person a day... whether you want to envisage it as a fast track queue or just skipping to the front of the same queue - the effect is the same, every fast tracked person pushes everyone back a place

just think again: if the average wait time is the same (that was an initial assumption from the fact there is no change in the number of bodies actually being dealt with etc..) but some portion of the people are getting a shorter waiting time then others are getting a longer one
 
In reality of course, you'll have spikes in volumes and you'd need to overflow the volumes of Jews and Muslims to maintain their 1 day SLA into the non-Jew/Muslim queues, which would push up their service level times over 10 days. Unless you'd handle the spikes in volumes differently?
 
this again relies on magical handwaving, you've not demonstrated anything, you've just made a statement that suddenly all jews and muslims are processed in a day

No what he's done is added in the extra delay from the start. So it doesn't look like a delay when it is.

Ethel will join as position 37 to 40 and does indeed get processed on the 10th day with the fast trackers jumping in.

If there were no fast trackers Ethel would be processed on day 8.

So the delay is 2 days for every non fast tracker.

He needs some maths lessons fast. :/
 
Even in loony Orange Northern Ireland, religious tolerance of the antiquated views of Christianity is limited as in the case of Asher's Bakery but we still have to pander to Islam and Judaism.
 
No what he's done is added in the extra delay from the start. So it doesn't look like a delay when it is.

Ethel will join as position 37 to 40 and does indeed get processed on the 10th day with the fast trackers jumping in.

If there were no fast trackers Ethel would be processed on day 8.

So the delay is 2 days for every non fast tracker.

He needs some maths lessons fast. :/
No she wouldn't - the queue would be longer because there would be Jews and Muslims in it (you'd be back at the original example posted by Caracus2k) so she'd join at position 46 to 50 and still take 10 days.

It's worth remembering that these systemic delays are built-in to smooth periods of high and low demand and avoid downtime. It's not reflective of an overloaded system. You can have room to fasttrack a proportion of the population without upsetting that balance or by requiring more resources, but wouldn't be able to do the same for the whole population.
 
I myslef and I assume a lot of other people here would have no problem with a a coroner expediting the processing of a body as required in such a case as the family are from abroad and not because of their particular religious beliefs.
So there is no objection in principle to the dreaded queue jumping and maybe even a recognition that individual circumstances can give rise to additional emotional stress, which a coroner can and should respond to. That’s a good start.

Ie people with few or disinterested relatives can be put back to prioritise people who have close relatives who want to hold a ceremony quickly regardless of what religion (or no religion) they subscribe to.
This entire thread is driven by total ignorance of how the coronial system works and the rationale of the High Court judgment.

Anyone can ask for an expedited release of a body for any reason, including a secular family wanting a relatively quick funeral (e.g. the deceased is Irish and everyone back home is expecting a funeral three days after the death). You might not get it and it might result in another body being dealt with later, but allowances are acceptable because coroners are dealing with real people with emotional needs at the worst moments of their lives, not running a conveyor belt or computer program on a rigid ‘First in, first out’ basis.

This one coroner decided she would never even consider a request to release a body quickly that was driven by religious reasons, regardless of the additional distress caused to the family, while every other coroner in the country is prepared to consider and deal with such requests if they can.

I’m repeating ‘consider’ in the hope that people start to realise that saying “The family is Jewish” doesn’t legally compel a coroner to expedite the release of a body. Public officials are legally required to consider matters and make a decision. They cannot lawfully decide that as a matter of policy they will never consider a request that is driven by a religious belief, which is a protected characteristic.
 
So there is no objection in principle to the dreaded queue jumping and maybe even a recognition that individual circumstances can give rise to additional emotional stress, which a coroner can and should respond to. That’s a good start.


This entire thread is driven by total ignorance of how the coronial system works and the rationale of the High Court judgment.

Anyone can ask for an expedited release of a body for any reason, including a secular family wanting a relatively quick funeral (e.g. the deceased is Irish and everyone back home is expecting a funeral three days after the death). You might not get it and it might result in another body being dealt with later, but allowances are acceptable because coroners are dealing with real people with emotional needs at the worst moments of their lives, not running a conveyor belt or computer program on a rigid ‘First in, first out’ basis.

This one coroner decided she would never even consider a request to release a body quickly that was driven by religious reasons, regardless of the additional distress caused to the family, while every other coroner in the country is prepared to consider and deal with such requests if they can.

I’m repeating ‘consider’ in the hope that people start to realise that saying “The family is Jewish” doesn’t legally compel a coroner to expedite the release of a body. Public officials are legally required to consider matters and make a decision. They cannot lawfully decide that as a matter of policy they will never consider a request that is driven by a religious belief, which is a protected characteristic.

Interesting that you have brought up ignorance and the actual court ruling.

Whilst it's correct that the ruling does not specifically say that Jews and Muslims must always be fast tracked or treated differently (or any other religion) and makes it clear that its one of a number of considerations the coroner should consider it still explicitly singles out religious consideration as one that must be considered.

From the ruling....


Just for clarity I am explicitly stating my point that the law should not expedite services or treat anyone differently for 'religious reasons'

The earlier post about the ruling amounting to discrimination against atheists isn't really hyperbole.....

You also ignore that there are powerful Jewish and Islamic lobbies especially in the area concerned here and that in practice this policy results in Jews and Muslims receiving a superior service because of the lobbies and the families being more aware of the situation and far more likely to hassle a coroner or their staff and threaten their lobby and/or some trumped up accusations of antisemitism or islamophobia if their demands are not accepted.

The rest of the public, lacking a religious lobby, inevetiablly get an inferior service.

Religions and their adherents should not be afforded superior rights or services by the state either vs other religions or people of no religion.

Do coroners routinely inform relatives that they can ask for matters to be expedited? And if non religious families and Jewiah and Muslim families are asking at the same time for matters to expedited who gets priority?

I can guarantee you it will most likely be the Jewish or Muslim family unless you have a coroner with some serious spine!

So are you in favour of the law treating people differently for 'religious reasons' and if so do you forsee and potential issues if this is the policy?
 
Last edited:
No she wouldn't - the queue would be longer because there would be Jews and Muslims in it (you'd be back at the original example posted by Caracus2k) so she'd join at position 46 to 50 and still take 10 days.
Your example starts with 10 places not filled for the fast trackers. If they were already in the queue you then get 10 more fast trackers during the 10 day period anyway. (using the assumption that 20% require fast tracking for these examples)

So we start with 40 standard people and Ethel is the last. There are no fast trackers in the queue at this point because they would have been done(The point of fast tracking).

Without faster trackers she would be delt with on day 8. But if we get 10 fast trackers, they go infront of her and she gets pushed back 2 days as a result of these.

If she joined in position 50 (with 49 exisiting people infront, not reserved fast track places), she'd be due out in 10 days, but again if we got 1 fast tracker a day (Average) she'd be pushed back 2.5 days to 12.5 day wait.

This really is basic Junior school maths.
 
religion is a belief system, indoctrinated, dynamic and clearly ever evolving, and, like most belief systems, IMHO should not be able to be discriminated against, even if it is that religion seeking equality and fairness. Unlike say, the colour of your skin, which can clearly and unequivocally be discriminated against. In which case, its clear in what order the cases should be dealt with...

Nobody should get priority service based on their religion. It's the same thing as having one queue for whites and another for blacks.

Technically, it isn't. In my case above, I can choose to be a religion, I can't choose to be black or white. This is actually why, before the cold white flake era, things were actually a lot easier when it came to understanding and classing discrimination.
 
No she wouldn't - the queue would be longer because there would be Jews and Muslims in it (you'd be back at the original example posted by Caracus2k) so she'd join at position 46 to 50 and still take 10 days.

It's worth remembering that these systemic delays are built-in to smooth periods of high and low demand and avoid downtime. It's not reflective of an overloaded system. You can have room to fasttrack a proportion of the population without upsetting that balance or by requiring more resources, but wouldn't be able to do the same for the whole population.

This is more nonsense, you're now just assuming the people you want to fast then die at convenient times where you've got a bit of low demand... so you can slot them in and claim no impact.

Your examples all have an inherent flaw and you're still not grasping the basic maths here - if the overall average is unchanged (same number of deaths, same ability to process them) and you reduce the average delay for one subset, you increase it for the other.

If there is a queue/backlog and you skip some people to the front, you inevitable delay/push back the people behind them.
 
Your example starts with 10 places not filled for the fast trackers. If they were already in the queue you then get 10 more fast trackers during the 10 day period anyway. (using the assumption that 20% require fast tracking for these examples)

So we start with 40 standard people and Ethel is the last. There are no fast trackers in the queue at this point because they would have been done(The point of fast tracking).

Without faster trackers she would be delt with on day 8. But if we get 10 fast trackers, they go infront of her and she gets pushed back 2 days as a result of these.

If she joined in position 50 (with 49 exisiting people infront, not reserved fast track places), she'd be due out in 10 days, but again if we got 1 fast tracker a day (Average) she'd be pushed back 2.5 days to 12.5 day wait.

This really is basic Junior school maths.
I think you are getting confused

I acknowledged there would be a 'crunch' period upon introducing the fasttrack system (theoretically, at least):

There would need to be a 'push' at the outset to deal with the backlog, but it would be a short term thing. I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to push through such a thing.

Once that 'push' was over, you would be back to a system of 10 day waits for the 'slow' queue (new entries starting at position 37 to 40).
.

Once that 'push' had been dealt with, the same processing resource would get the 'slow' queue through at the same rate as pre-fasttrack introduction, using the same amount of resource.

What you seem to be arguing is that, having introduced the fasttrack, and gotten new arrival Ethel into position 37 to 40, you could withdraw the fasttrack system, add any new Jew/Muslim deaths to the back of the queue, and process Ethel in 8 days. Which doesn't seem very insightful.

I think you need to be careful with your 'junior school maths'.
 
Cheesyboy you're still not getting this, consider increasing the special queue to 90% of the population? How do you get a magic delay reduction?

You don't! The reason you're not seeing it in your example is that you've masked it and then made some handwaving arguments to ignore it.

Try again with a simple example.. assume one coroner and a single queue... how are you able to not delay/push back others when you allow a special group to skip the queue?
 
Back
Top Bottom