It's not as if this was sudden ... the baby had been dead for three months. A gut-wrenching good-bye, to be sure, especially for the mother. But she is not the only mourner on the block; and there were people whose grief was fresher than hers who were next in line.
That's correct: there was another funeral that needed to be set up after hers..... is there a particular reason why she should assume it's her right to keep the next set of mourners waiting?
The vicar asked her if she needed more time to grieve and she accepted. The next funeral wasn't until another fifty minutes. It seems the funeral home alotted an hour between services. My complaint is the headline reads like she committed a criminal act and not a billing mistake.
Well you didn’t read the article very well. The church officials said the next funeral wasn’t for another 50 mins and that there was plenty of time to allow this woman to grieve. Moreover the child’s body had been kept by authorities for “testing” for three months -— this implies that they weren’t 100% certain of the manner of death and that this mother may have been under suspicion during that time. How dare you tell someone else how they should express their grief at the loss of a child?
Oh wow, three months had passed and she wasn’t done mourning?? How crass of her!
/total and complete disrespect of your hard hearted attitude