Hello
Guest

Sponsored Links


Topic: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly  (Read 4698 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

  • *
  • Posts: 2954

  • It's 4:20 somewhere!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Mar 2006
  • Location: Earth
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2009, 08:26:14 AM »
I'm not a great fan of the DM. However, in saying that, ALL newspapers have an agenda.

What slant any newspaper gives, to me, is irrelevant. A story has been reported.
I will decide if it is important. If it warrants, I will research further.

As in this case, as I have stated previously, your preferred papers reported the same story. In fact I did state the Guardian actually quoted the DM for facts.

The story is a fact.

My question is what is the best way forward. There is clearly a problem, whether it be the end of the world for a free society or a storm in a teacup, is irrelevant.
This is a business that has generated over 10% of complaints from its 'customers'. It needs reviewed.

Can I ask the posters here, what is your motive in posting? Do you want to impart your views of an issue and perhaps sway fence-sitters to your side?

Then please do so without belittling each other’s resources and trying to be clever. All that does is bias what I read from your posts. Quote your resources and sing their praises if you wish but the moment you step from a debating arena and into a slagging arena, you’ve might just have knocked a fence-sitter to the other side.

Just a thought.


Still tired of coteries and bans. But hanging about anyway.


  • *
  • Posts: 52

    • www.diveintoamerica.com
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Sep 2009
  • Location: Worcestershire
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2009, 08:47:47 AM »
I have seen government (local authority) homes taking money off the elderly it was not there personal money but money they had raised to give them days out the person running the place refused to let the new board of trustees have the bank account when the old members died, so even those who are meant to be honest and looking out for the best interests ect steal off the elderly and take advantage of them.

Oh and you could ask the million informal carers in the UK who looks after there family members who are old or disabled (oh for nothing) giving up their ability to work, keep a roof over their heads and end up in debt and save the government billions of pounds each year.

Oh and they get no respect, no assistance when they are struggling no help to keep things together and when the people pass away are told well you better get a job now we are not keeping you because you did the right thing for the person you loved. Oh and you might have had xxxxxxx so you took money off that person, sorry you needed to pay the bills and put food on the table and keep that person in clothes and warm and with a roof over their heads.
Wanting to sell and move to the US with my family, anyone wanting to move to the Worcestershire area please fell free to contact me.


  • *
  • Posts: 2898

  • Liked: 163
  • Joined: Feb 2007
  • Location: Biggleswade
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2009, 09:13:34 AM »
There is clearly a problem, whether it be the end of the world for a free society or a storm in a teacup, is irrelevant.

I would disagree that the degree of seriousness of the issue is irrelevant.  If it's the end of the world for a free society, drastic action needs to be taken soon.  If it's a storm in a teacup, then the problem can be dealt with by making small changes to the system after deliberate study of the problem.  The truth is somewhere in between, and that's what we're debating. 

I agree we get sidetracked slagging off each other's sources, but I'd also say The Daily Mail reporting the story in terms of the secret, draconian, state-controlled court that's raiding and seizing money from the elderly doesn't lead to informed debate of the issues.  They're trying to stir up emotion, and when the issue is presented in a hysterical tone, responses are not always going to be measured and neutral.

Can I ask the posters here, what is your motive in posting? Do you want to impart your views of an issue and perhaps sway fence-sitters to your side?

Nobody sways fence-sitters anymore.  If that were the case, we'd all still get news from non-partisan sources who'd leave the hyperbole out of it.  In reality, as the proliferation of news sources continues, everyone gets their news from a source which presents the story in a way they agree with politically, and a lot of the posts here seem to have the underlying message "Look at this outrage!"

I agree it'd be nice to debate the issues reasonably using rational arguments, but that's not what we* do anymore.

*"We" meaning "society."



  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 18728

  • Liked: 2
  • Joined: Sep 2003
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2009, 10:51:27 AM »
Oh and you could ask the million informal carers in the UK who looks after there family members who are old or disabled (oh for nothing) giving up their ability to work, keep a roof over their heads and end up in debt and save the government billions of pounds each year.

Oh and they get no respect, no assistance when they are struggling no help to keep things together

What makes you think no-one posting here is in that position? I  should not have to post details of my family life here to be taken seriously.

Resposting the link I posted last night, and with the body of the article below as it seems no-one can be bothered clicking on it:

http://www.rjw.co.uk/news-events/directnews/media-criticism-of-court-of-protection-and-public-guardian-harsh_2074

Media criticism of Court of Protection and Public Guardian 'harsh'

Published 29/10/2009

The media criticism received by the Court of Protection and Public Guardian does not take into account the difficulties facing them, it has been claimed.

According to Solicitors for the Elderly, the two bodies perform a vital role in making sure that someone does not have the right to take the property of another person who lacks capacity except in certain circumstances.

For example, this can occur when the individual has authorised this in advance through a lasting power of attorney or when the Court of Protection has given the authority.

Solicitors for the Elderly claimed that any public body involved in such matters has to negotiate a "difficult balancing act" of not appearing too restrictive in terms of what it allows and not giving away authority without proper checks.

While difficult cases can make for "alarming headlines", in most instances, the Court of Protection appoints deputies as a matter of course and close relatives have the authority to administer considerable assets.

Commenting on the issue, Josine Cohen, who specialises in Court of Protection issues at Russell Jones & Walker Solicitors, said: "The Court of Protection plays a central role in protecting the vulnerable from financial abuse.

"There clearly have been teething problems but Solicitors for the Elderly together with other professional bodies have been sharing their concerns and working to help resolve issues."







  • *
  • Posts: 2954

  • It's 4:20 somewhere!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Mar 2006
  • Location: Earth
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2009, 03:57:02 PM »
The truth is somewhere in between, and that's what we're debating. 

Is that what is being debated? I lose track of the arguments when it turns into a 'your paper is rubbish, my paper is the only reliable source slagging match.

Nobody sways fence-sitters anymore. 

I would totally disagree with that. What is the point of debating/posting then? Just to get ego points and pats on the back? Perhaps I am a minority but if the arguments are sound and logical, I can be persuaded to change my mind. Too much of the world's problems are with people unwilling to hear or even perhaps change their views.

I still say the paper's POV is irrelevant. They put the story out, someone passes it on and hopefully we can discuss without bringing the paper's opinion into it.

Just stating how one person views these sort of threads.
Still tired of coteries and bans. But hanging about anyway.


  • *
  • Posts: 186

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Feb 2008
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2009, 04:10:58 PM »
This is a business that has generated over 10% of complaints from its 'customers'. It needs reviewed.

I realize that you've quoted 'customers', but it's well to remember that the actual customers of the court of protection are not the relatives of the person whose assets are being protected (with relatives presumably being set of people making the complaints), but the person themselves. The interests of the two often don't coincide.

As to whether the court needs to be reviewed, I haven't seen much disagreement with that. Clearly it has teething problems as the link posted by Shabanou illustrates.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 04:13:09 PM by Giantaxe »


  • *
  • Posts: 186

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Feb 2008
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2009, 04:33:05 PM »
I agree we get sidetracked slagging off each other's sources, but I'd also say The Daily Mail reporting the story in terms of the secret, draconian, state-controlled court that's raiding and seizing money from the elderly doesn't lead to informed debate of the issues.  They're trying to stir up emotion, and when the issue is presented in a hysterical tone, responses are not always going to be measured and neutral.

Indeed. It's the "Fox News" approach to reporting. Totally counterproductive in terms of fostering rational debate; good for ratings/selling newspapers to the "faithful" though.


  • *
  • Posts: 2898

  • Liked: 163
  • Joined: Feb 2007
  • Location: Biggleswade
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2009, 05:35:00 PM »
I still say the paper's POV is irrelevant. They put the story out, someone passes it on and hopefully we can discuss without bringing the paper's opinion into it.

I disagree.  First, in this case Paul didn't provide any commentary at all in his original post.  Without commentary, I'm led to believe he agrees with the Mail's position, and is letting the Mail speak for him.  So we don't begin by debating the issue with Paul, instead we debate it with The Daily Mail.

Second, the story reports the facts using descriptive words like "draconian" and "extraordinary," neither one of which are neutral, factual words; they express an opinion regarding the nature of the court's action, and the volume of complaints about that action.

So because Paul lets the Mail speak for him, and because the Mail uses hyperbole to make its point, we wind up debating with the Mail, and pointing out the biases and slant the Mail uses to state its position.

If you (not you particularly, AB, the generic you) want to have reasoned debate, you have to start by presenting the issue for debate dispassionately.  If the issue is presented using language designed to stir people up, you can't get upset when people get stirred up.



« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 05:36:46 PM by camoscato »


  • *
  • Posts: 2954

  • It's 4:20 somewhere!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Mar 2006
  • Location: Earth
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2009, 05:38:33 PM »
Like I said I don't care if it is Fox, DM, BBC, Times or who. They have reported a story and I will take it at bare value. Unless it is an absolute lie, then it is a story with merit and as such can be researched and debated.

But if one thinks one cannot debate, then perhaps one shouldn't act like they are debating.

It all just seems like both sides here want to slag off each other's resources. Therefore, it makes both sides immature in an argument and for that reason I find it very hard to evaluate either side of the argument (this thread and others and I know from PMs I am not alone).

I said customers in quotes because technically the ones bringing the complaints are not customers as such but it is their inheritance they are messing with.

And I still do not think a court should be secret. Certain cases maybe closed on a case by case basis but courts and records should be open.

Still tired of coteries and bans. But hanging about anyway.


  • *
  • Posts: 186

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Feb 2008
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2009, 05:44:41 PM »
I said customers in quotes because technically the ones bringing the complaints are not customers as such but it is their inheritance they are messing with.

Right, and that's why one should be at least a little wary of some of the complaints. The receiver of a potential inheritance often has interests that are very different from those whose assets they actually are. This is one of the major reasons why protections exist for people incapable of managing their own financial affairs.

And I still do not think a court should be secret. Certain cases maybe closed on a case by case basis but courts and records should be open.

Agreed. I guess the justification is that of personal financial privacy. However, I think the public interest in knowing the workings of the court should have at least some precedence.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 05:58:10 PM by Giantaxe »


  • *
  • Posts: 2954

  • It's 4:20 somewhere!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Mar 2006
  • Location: Earth
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2009, 05:57:49 PM »
I disagree.  First, in this case Paul didn't provide any commentary at all in his original post.  Without commentary, I'm led to believe he agrees with the Mail's position, and is letting the Mail speak for him.  So we don't begin by debating the issue with Paul, instead we debate it with The Daily Mail.

Second, the story reports the facts using descriptive words like "draconian" and "extraordinary," neither one of which are neutral, factual words; they express an opinion regarding the nature of the court's action, and the volume of complaints about that action.

So because Paul lets the Mail speak for him, and because the Mail uses hyperbole to make its point, we wind up debating with the Mail, and pointing out the biases and slant the Mail uses to state its position.

If you (not you particularly, AB, the generic you) want to have reasoned debate, you have to start by presenting the issue for debate dispassionately.  If the issue is presented using language designed to stir people up, you can't get upset when people get stirred up.

I would never assume that whenever someone posts only a link to a story that they necessarily side with that story or resource, just that they are sharing a story. Perhaps just something that is newsworthy, perhaps to get more of a varied view or to actually debate it. Perhaps Paul does let the DM speak for him but please don't ever assume that if I post a link only post.

We should be mature enough to read past opinionated loaded words and not lower oneself to that of the opposite side. Fight with the pen and research. Be diplomatic.

My grandma used to say you'll get a lot more with honey than with vinegar.

Still tired of coteries and bans. But hanging about anyway.


  • *
  • Posts: 186

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Feb 2008
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2009, 06:04:03 PM »
Perhaps just something that is newsworthy, perhaps to get more of a varied view or to actually debate it. Perhaps Paul does let the DM speak for him but please don't ever assume that if I post a link only post.

I've yet to see Paul post a DM link that he has then subsequently disagreed with later in a thread. In fact, quite the opposite.


  • *
  • Posts: 2898

  • Liked: 163
  • Joined: Feb 2007
  • Location: Biggleswade
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2009, 06:10:14 PM »
Like I said I don't care if it is Fox, DM, BBC, Times or who. They have reported a story and I will take it at bare value. Unless it is an absolute lie, then it is a story with merit and as such can be researched and debated.

I believe allowing biased news reporting to go unchallenged lends unwarranted legitimacy to biased news organizations.  I especially hate biased news organizations that claim to be unbiased, and I think the standard that only stories that are absolute lies should be questioned is too low.

Therefore, it makes both sides immature in an argument and for that reason I find it very hard to evaluate either side of the argument (this thread and others and I know from PMs I am not alone).

I feel the same way when I read stories out of The Daily Mail.  All the argumentative language and opinionated reporting makes it hard to determine if the story is legitimate.

But if one thinks one cannot debate, then perhaps one shouldn't act like they are debating.

One isn't sure what one means by this.  One suspects one is being called immature, but one cannot tell for certain.

I would never assume that whenever someone posts only a link to a story that they necessarily side with that story or resource, just that they are sharing a story. Perhaps just something that is newsworthy, perhaps to get more of a varied view or to actually debate it. Perhaps Paul does let the DM speak for him but please don't ever assume that if I post a link only post.

Wouldn't it be easier to add a comment to start the debate you want to have?  If you just post a link without any comment, you rolls the dice and you takes your chances with whatever discussion follows.


  • *
  • Posts: 2954

  • It's 4:20 somewhere!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Mar 2006
  • Location: Earth
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2009, 06:17:28 PM »
Right, and that's why one should be at least a little wary of some of the complaints. The receiver of a potential inheritance often has interests that are very different from those whose assets they actually are. This is one of the major reasons why protections exist for people incapable of managing their own financial affairs.


I agree some people will act in their own interests rather than in the interests of their loved ones. And I agree protections are needed to be in place for these people. But it sounds too involved as it is. I fully disagree with a husband or wife having to apply to the courts to take control of their spouse's affairs. Perhaps this is one of things they are looking into.

Still tired of coteries and bans. But hanging about anyway.


  • *
  • Posts: 186

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Feb 2008
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2009, 06:33:19 PM »
I fully disagree with a husband or wife having to apply to the courts to take control of their spouse's affairs. Perhaps this is one of things they are looking into.

This is a tricky one, because obviously married couples have the option of jointly titling all their assets (in addition to having a financial power of attorney set up). If they choose not to and keep their financial affairs entirely separate from their spouse, who should those finances logically become "unseparate" if one of them is incapacitated and they have given no indication that they want that to happen? Otoh, joint titling is of no help if both signatures are required, e.g. for the sale of a house.

It seems to me that the underlying issue here is not the Court of Protection, but the fact that next to nobody in the UK (maybe it's the same in the US?) has set up a financial power of attorney for such eventualities.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 06:39:10 PM by Giantaxe »


Sponsored Links





 

coloured_drab