Hello
Guest

Sponsored Links


Topic: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly  (Read 4696 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 #45 on: November 04, 2009, 06:51:52 PM »
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.
 
I agree. Challenge them, try and educate or sway them. Let others know they are biased or incorrect. My opinion is don’t fight them on their level.

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.
 
That is easy. Look it up in other reputable sources to see if it is factual. Then analyse whether the story slant has any credit. Perhaps there might be a legitimate concern just not as much as the author’s.

One isn't sure what one means by this.  One suspects one is being called immature, but one cannot tell for certain.
When a debate or discussion transcends to fighting, then that is immature. Be it in UKY, Parliament, Congress or even one’s own living room.

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.

Perhaps. I was just saying one should not assume. (perhaps one can with Paul but that is for him to answer).

I was also saying do not assume my view on any link I post. A lot of news threads are started with just a link.

I may post a link to a story about someone who just missed out on the big win. Just as a matter of wow! Check this out. Not necessarily looking for a debate on the merits of the lottery.
Still tired of coteries and bans. But hanging about anyway.


  • *
  • 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 #46 on: November 04, 2009, 07:08:01 PM »
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.

Yea there'll be some tricky spots with spouses but for the most part, the process should not be made difficult. But at least with this thread, there may be a few in here that are now aware of this issue and may get their 'paperwork' in order.

I must be a rare breed as I have done a PoA years ago. Did one but wasn't too keen (and still not) on knowing that my wife is effectively me.

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


  • *
  • Posts: 2898

  • Liked: 163
  • Joined: Feb 2007
  • Location: Biggleswade
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2009, 07:10:07 PM »
Look it up in other reputable sources to see if it is factual. Then analyse whether the story slant has any credit. Perhaps there might be a legitimate concern just not as much as the author’s.

I'm ok with this if I'm reading a commentary or editorial page, but I object to it in a news story.  First, news stories ought to tell me what happened, and I'll decide for myself what to think about it.  Second, if every story is told from the point of view that the end of civilization is upon us, how is the reader supposed to tell when it is, and when the author is exaggerating to make a point?

When a debate or discussion transcends to fighting, then that is immature. Be it in UKY, Parliament, Congress or even one’s own living room.

Again, I think you're calling me immature, but you're either too polite to do it directly, or you realize that calling me immature would go against your argument that we ought to debate issues without resorting to name-calling.  Or it's possible you mean something totally different and I'm not getting the message.

I may post a link to a story about someone who just missed out on the big win. Just as a matter of wow! Check this out. Not necessarily looking for a debate on the merits of the lottery.

I understand.  How am I to know if you're saying "Wow!" or looking for a debate about the lottery if you don't tell me?


  • *
  • Posts: 2898

  • Liked: 163
  • Joined: Feb 2007
  • Location: Biggleswade
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2009, 08:09:33 PM »
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.

I agree. Challenge them, try and educate or sway them. Let others know they are biased or incorrect. My opinion is don’t fight them on their level.

{rant}

What do you do if, after politely letting someone know they are basing their beliefs on biased or incorrect information, they persist in attacking things you believe in?  

If someone believes that the borders of the UK should be closed to immigrants to keep Polish people from taking British jobs, and no amount of explaining the difference between an EU migrant and one from the US will make them understand the flaw in their logic, what then?

If someone persists in claiming the Earth was created 10,000 years ago, and they're running for a school board position in your school district, do you think a reasoned debate will lead them to thoughtfully consider the merits of evolution, or are they trying to get intelligent design taught in your kid's school?

If someone claims that EU light bulb legislation will lead to armed EU troops breaking and entering UK homes to conduct light bulb raids, how much reasoned debate do you think would be required to get that person to come toward your point of view?  Even slightly?  Personally, I don't think there's enough time in eternity.

I tell ya, Bob, I'm tired of Glen Beck on Fox News saying Barack Obama is racist against white people.  I want somebody to call him out.  I'm tired of The Daily Mail blaming Britain's problems on immigration, and I'm tired of Lou Dobbs on CNN doing the same thing in the US.  I'm tired of the Democrats in the US Congress not fighting back against stupid Republican claims about death panels.  I want someone to tell them they're wrong, and to do so with the same fervor they spew out their hatred and ignorance.

I'm all for reasoned debate with reasonable people, but we're not always talking to reasonable people.

{/rant}
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 08:24:33 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 #49 on: November 04, 2009, 10:38:09 PM »
I'm ok with this if I'm reading a commentary or editorial page, but I object to it in a news story.  First, news stories ought to tell me what happened, and I'll decide for myself what to think about it.  Second, if every story is told from the point of view that the end of civilization is upon us, how is the reader supposed to tell when it is, and when the author is exaggerating to make a point?
Totally agree with the idea of commentary/editorials vs news report but unfortunately that happens. This is where, hopefully, one’s education has taught them to separate the adjectives from the nouns.

Fortunately we have other resources to compare facts.

Again, I think you're calling me immature, but you're either too polite to do it directly, or you realize that calling me immature would go against your argument that we ought to debate issues without resorting to name-calling.  Or it's possible you mean something totally different and I'm not getting the message.
My initial statement was But if one thinks one cannot debate, then perhaps one shouldn't act like they are debating.  Which I was trying to say if the person you are debating with cannot debate, then don’t carry on debating. It takes two to debate.

My next statement, from which you may be inferring I am calling you immature, 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. Basically means if one slags off the other’s resources rather than diplomatically criticising them it makes one’s actions immature in a debating arena. So I am not calling you immature but inferring all of us who can and occasionally slip when confronted with pull-your-hair-out, reached-the-end-of-one’s-tether counterarguments.

I understand.  How am I to know if you're saying "Wow!" or looking for a debate about the lottery if you don't tell me?
Ask. Questions can clear up a lot of misconceptions.
Still tired of coteries and bans. But hanging about anyway.


  • *
  • 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 #50 on: November 04, 2009, 11:01:53 PM »
{rant}

{/rant}

I do understand where you coming from. It ain't easy. All I want to do is try and understand both sides of any story/issue. I have some very strong views but tend to keep them to myself somewhat as it allows me to put my self on the fence and learn what the other side has to say. Occassionally I have stepped down off the fence to the other side. Some of my previous strong views have been altered over the years (I like to think for the better).

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


  • *
  • Banned
  • Posts: 6640

  • Big black panther stalking through the jungle!
  • Liked: 3
  • Joined: Feb 2005
  • Location: Norfolk, England
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2009, 11:32:13 PM »
So still we have nobody challenging any of the facts of the cases presented in the article then.  To pick just a few items:

Quote
The huge sums controlled by the court are held in a Bank of England account, paying just 0.5 per cent interest a year to families of vulnerable people, which works out at a total of £13.5million a year.

Do you dispute this statement?  If not, then do you consider it fair that the court is preventing the person from earning a higher rate of interest which he could attain elsewhere?

Quote
A former lawyer being charged £4,100 in legal fees to withdraw £5,800 of her own money.

Do you dispute this?  If not, then do you consider it reasonable to charge £4,100 in fees to withdraw £5,800?

Quote
Fees of £42,000 charged to transfer a daughter’s care from her father to her mother after the father died.

Do you dispute this?  If not, then do you consider £42,000 a fair fee to charge for the transfer of care?

Quote
Complaints that simple applications to the court – which has just three full-time judges – took up to ten months.

Several clients died before their cases were decided.

Do you dispute this?  If not, then do you consider it reasonable for this court to take 10 months to process an application?

From
Bar
To car
To
Gates ajar
Burma Shave

1941
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dreaming of one who truly is La plus belle pour aller danser.


  • *
  • Posts: 186

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Feb 2008
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2009, 11:58:18 PM »
The huge sums controlled by the court are held in a Bank of England account, paying just 0.5 per cent interest a year to families of vulnerable people, which works out at a total of £13.5million a year.

What's the average interest rate on a restriction-free bank savings account in the UK right now?

Do you dispute this?  If not, then do you consider it reasonable to charge £4,100 in fees to withdraw £5,800?

How can one possibly know without more information as to what was going on here (or in the other anecdotes)? It's a nice sound bite, but without knowing the full details of the case it's impossible to judge. What we do know is that on average fees were 0.7% per year of the assets managed.

As with the healthcare thread, anecdote-driven debate is rarely very enlightening.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 12:27:58 AM by Giantaxe »


  • *
  • Posts: 2898

  • Liked: 163
  • Joined: Feb 2007
  • Location: Biggleswade
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2009, 11:34:00 AM »
My initial statement was But if one thinks one cannot debate, then perhaps one shouldn't act like they are debating.  Which I was trying to say if the person you are debating with cannot debate, then don’t carry on debating. It takes two to debate.

My next statement, from which you may be inferring I am calling you immature, 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. Basically means if one slags off the other’s resources rather than diplomatically criticising them it makes one’s actions immature in a debating arena. So I am not calling you immature but inferring all of us who can and occasionally slip when confronted with pull-your-hair-out, reached-the-end-of-one’s-tether counterarguments.

Ah, now I understand.  Sorry for being thick, and thanks for explaining.


  • *
  • Banned
  • Posts: 6640

  • Big black panther stalking through the jungle!
  • Liked: 3
  • Joined: Feb 2005
  • Location: Norfolk, England
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #54 on: November 08, 2009, 11:39:28 AM »
What's the average interest rate on a restriction-free bank savings account in the UK right now?

More than 0.5%.   A quick look at my bank's savings accounts shows rates up to 3.5% on offer at the moment.

Quote
How can one possibly know without more information as to what was going on here (or in the other anecdotes)? It's a nice sound bite, but without knowing the full details of the case it's impossible to judge. What we do know is that on average fees were 0.7% per year of the assets managed.

But that's 0.7% of a very high figure.   It's like somebody with a salary of £150,000 annum saying "I only gave myself a 2% pay raise the same as everyone else in the company," and hoping that nobody notices that 2% of £150,000 is six times more than 2% of £25,000.    Averages can also conceal a wide range of variations. 


From
Bar
To car
To
Gates ajar
Burma Shave

1941
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dreaming of one who truly is La plus belle pour aller danser.


  • *
  • Posts: 186

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Feb 2008
Re: UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2009, 01:16:31 AM »
More than 0.5%.   A quick look at my bank's savings accounts shows rates up to 3.5% on offer at the moment.

I checked the rates at Lloyds and Barclays, which I believe are the two biggest banks. For restriction-free saving Lloyds offers between 0.1% and 1.38% (for accounts over £100k). Barclays is offering even less. To get a higher rate of interest you need an account that limits withdrawals, requires notice for withdrawals, or requires regular saving.

But that's 0.7% of a very high figure.   It's like somebody with a salary of £150,000 annum saying "I only gave myself a 2% pay raise the same as everyone else in the company," and hoping that nobody notices that 2% of £150,000 is six times more than 2% of £25,000.   

What's the average amount of money managed by the court of protection and why is 0.7% of that "a very high figure"?

Averages can also conceal a wide range of variations. 

Not sure what point you're trying to make here but a complex case that involves more work logically should cost more money to manage.


Sponsored Links





 

coloured_drab