Discussion:
Tory manifesto
Add Reply
The Todal
2017-05-18 14:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Which are the bits that impress you the most?

Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?

If Labour were planning to do such a thing, it would be condemned as
Trotskyite madness.

Surely to counterbalance this manifesto pledge they should introduce
measures to legalise doctor-assisted suicide for those with longterm
care needs. That could work.
GB
2017-05-18 14:50:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity to pay for this?
Post by The Todal
If Labour were planning to do such a thing, it would be condemned as
Trotskyite madness.
Surely to counterbalance this manifesto pledge they should introduce
measures to legalise doctor-assisted suicide for those with longterm
care needs. That could work.
Mike Swift
2017-05-18 15:10:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ofkc4k$p16$***@dont-email.me>, GB <***@microsoft.com>
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.

Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.

Just a thought.

Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
GB
2017-05-18 15:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
Post by Mike Swift
Mike
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 15:53:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
abelard
2017-05-18 16:26:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 18:28:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.

Care to explain what on earth you mean?
abelard
2017-05-18 18:53:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...

and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 19:44:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
No, I give up. What is it and how is it the solution?
abelard
2017-05-18 20:01:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
No, I give up. What is it and how is it the solution?
children are subject to supervision
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 20:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
No, I give up. What is it and how is it the solution?
children are subject to supervision
What on earth has that got to do with the welfare state 'seeming to help
the feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck"?
abelard
2017-05-18 20:15:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
No, I give up. What is it and how is it the solution?
children are subject to supervision
What on earth has that got to do with the welfare state 'seeming to help
the feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck"?
you don't leave your children free to breed and use the
results to make many from the producers...allegedly!

at the very least, the proces was to adopt them out
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 20:26:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
No, I give up. What is it and how is it the solution?
children are subject to supervision
What on earth has that got to do with the welfare state 'seeming to help
the feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck"?
you don't leave your children free to breed and use the
results to make many from the producers...allegedly!
at the very least, the proces was to adopt them out
Can anyone translate please? I'm lost.
abelard
2017-05-18 20:30:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
No, I give up. What is it and how is it the solution?
children are subject to supervision
What on earth has that got to do with the welfare state 'seeming to help
the feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck"?
you don't leave your children free to breed and use the
results to make many from the producers...allegedly!
at the very least, the proces was to adopt them out
Can anyone translate please? I'm lost.
i've no idea...farmer bloghead claims he paid mensa to tell him
he's a genius
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 20:33:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
No, I give up. What is it and how is it the solution?
children are subject to supervision
What on earth has that got to do with the welfare state 'seeming to help
the feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck"?
you don't leave your children free to breed and use the
results to make many from the producers...allegedly!
at the very least, the proces was to adopt them out
Can anyone translate please? I'm lost.
i've no idea...farmer bloghead claims he paid mensa to tell him
he's a genius
When you come down from whatever planet you're on, do let us know.
abelard
2017-05-18 20:38:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
No, I give up. What is it and how is it the solution?
children are subject to supervision
What on earth has that got to do with the welfare state 'seeming to help
the feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck"?
you don't leave your children free to breed and use the
results to make many from the producers...allegedly!
at the very least, the proces was to adopt them out
Can anyone translate please? I'm lost.
i've no idea...farmer bloghead claims he paid mensa to tell him
he's a genius
When you come down from whatever planet you're on, do let us know.
what for? to talk to the local pond life?
b***@hotmail.com
2017-05-19 09:09:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
No, I give up. What is it and how is it the solution?
children are subject to supervision
What on earth has that got to do with the welfare state 'seeming to help
the feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck"?
you don't leave your children free to breed and use the
results to make many from the producers...allegedly!
at the very least, the proces was to adopt them out
Can anyone translate please? I'm lost.
i've no idea...farmer bloghead claims he paid mensa to tell him
he's a genius
When you come down from whatever planet you're on, do let us know.
Unfortunately, abeltard confuses "obscurism" with "profundity". I *think* that abeltard is suggesting that there should be some sort of intelligence test to determine whether someone may vote. If that's what he meant, though, why didn't he just say so?
GB
2017-05-19 09:52:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Unfortunately, abeltard confuses "obscurism" with "profundity". I *think* that abeltard is suggesting that there should be some sort of intelligence test to determine whether someone may vote. If that's what he meant, though, why didn't he just say so?
That was my impression, too. Then he broadened that from voting to
having children. He thinks the Untermenschen should not be allowed to breed.
b***@hotmail.com
2017-05-19 09:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Unfortunately, abeltard confuses "obscurism" with "profundity". I *think* that abeltard is suggesting that there should be some sort of intelligence test to determine whether someone may vote. If that's what he meant, though, why didn't he just say so?
That was my impression, too. Then he broadened that from voting to
having children. He thinks the Untermenschen should not be allowed to breed.
Perhaps we should restrict voting rights to those who know how to use capital letters at the beginning of sentences?
Ophelia
2017-05-19 10:31:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Unfortunately, abeltard confuses "obscurism" with "profundity". I
*think* that abeltard is suggesting that there should be some sort of
intelligence test to determine whether someone may vote. If that's what
he meant, though, why didn't he just say so?
That was my impression, too. Then he broadened that from voting to
having children. He thinks the Untermenschen should not be allowed to breed.
Perhaps we should restrict voting rights to those who know how to use
capital letters at the beginning of sentences?

===

lol nice to see you posting, Brian:) ltns, you don't post enough <g>
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
b***@hotmail.com
2017-05-19 12:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Post by GB
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Unfortunately, abeltard confuses "obscurism" with "profundity". I
*think* that abeltard is suggesting that there should be some sort of
intelligence test to determine whether someone may vote. If that's what
he meant, though, why didn't he just say so?
That was my impression, too. Then he broadened that from voting to
having children. He thinks the Untermenschen should not be allowed to breed.
Perhaps we should restrict voting rights to those who know how to use
capital letters at the beginning of sentences?
===
lol nice to see you posting, Brian:) ltns, you don't post enough <g>
<blush> why thank you! Been away from the group for a while, nice to see some things haven't changed, including abeltard's attempts at being a savant, and Jimdith being, well, Jimdith.
Ophelia
2017-05-19 13:41:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Post by GB
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Unfortunately, abeltard confuses "obscurism" with "profundity". I
*think* that abeltard is suggesting that there should be some sort of
intelligence test to determine whether someone may vote. If that's what
he meant, though, why didn't he just say so?
That was my impression, too. Then he broadened that from voting to
having children. He thinks the Untermenschen should not be allowed to breed.
Perhaps we should restrict voting rights to those who know how to use
capital letters at the beginning of sentences?
===
lol nice to see you posting, Brian:) ltns, you don't post enough <g>
<blush> why thank you! Been away from the group for a while, nice to see
some things haven't changed, including abeltard's attempts at being a
savant, and Jimdith being, well, Jimdith.


==

<g> Did you really expect them to??? That is their raison d'etre ... ;-)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Nick
2017-05-19 10:03:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
He thinks the Untermenschen should not be allowed to
breed.
To some degree that seems sensible to me too. Unsupported reductio ad
hitlerum is not a convincing argument.
Omega
2017-05-18 19:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
Bloody hell abes, if you are talking about IQ then say so.

IQ, the last taboo.

omega
abelard
2017-05-18 20:04:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Omega
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
Bloody hell abes, if you are talking about IQ then say so.
IQ, the last taboo.
most people who talk about iq do not know what the hell
they are on about...
here is an entry point for you
http://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
Omega
2017-05-18 20:07:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Omega
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
Bloody hell abes, if you are talking about IQ then say so.
IQ, the last taboo.
most people who talk about iq do not know what the hell
they are on about...
here is an entry point for you
http://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
I have no intention of clicking a pointless link ... but thank you.

omega
abelard
2017-05-18 20:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Omega
Post by abelard
Post by Omega
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
and vice versa
here is a start:-
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
Bloody hell abes, if you are talking about IQ then say so.
IQ, the last taboo.
most people who talk about iq do not know what the hell
they are on about...
here is an entry point for you
http://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
I have no intention of clicking a pointless link ... but thank you.
not the slightest problem...but you did ask
Vidcapper
2017-05-19 06:43:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
Problem is, your definition of that is a political one, not a social or
medical one.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-05-19 08:21:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
Problem is, your definition of that is a political one, not a social or
medical one.
no it isn't
Vidcapper
2017-05-19 13:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
Problem is, your definition of that is a political one, not a social or
medical one.
no it isn't
Then if it isn't a political definition, what *is* it?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-05-19 16:31:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
franchise by examination...
Er, wish I understood.
Care to explain what on earth you mean?
treating people with inadequate ability to live as adults
as if they are adults when they are not...
Problem is, your definition of that is a political one, not a social or
medical one.
no it isn't
Then if it isn't a political definition, what *is* it?
no different than objecting to daesh running our lives...
Vidcapper
2017-05-19 06:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
How would that stop the feckless?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-05-19 08:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
How would that stop the feckless?
by not treating the inapable as if they were capable
Norman Wells
2017-05-19 11:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
How would that stop the feckless?
by not treating the inapable as if they were capable
I think I've had enough of pointless enigmatism.
abelard
2017-05-19 11:58:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
How would that stop the feckless?
by not treating the inapable as if they were capable
I think I've had enough of pointless enigmatism.
you appear to be suffering a 'mental' block...
Vidcapper
2017-05-19 13:43:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
How would that stop the feckless?
by not treating the inapable as if they were capable
But that still wouldn't stop them being feckless...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-05-19 16:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
That's a very good way of putting it. But what's the solution?
franchise by examination...
How would that stop the feckless?
by not treating the inapable as if they were capable
But that still wouldn't stop them being feckless...
i never claimed it would

there is a process called weaning that operates in
accord with nature...sometimes

but cats don't buy usually buy tickets for the underground
Fredxxx
2017-05-18 22:41:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by The Todal
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home equity
to pay for this?
It does appear sensible until you think about how they got the equity,
maybe they chose not to have a house full of children, or take a holiday
in Disneyland twice a year, or smoke, or piss thousands of pounds
against a wall in the hope they could leave their children a little of
their earned wealth.
Contrast that against the feckless who have a football team of
offspring, have no savings and rely on the careful savers to fund their
care in old age.
Just a thought.
That's the trouble with the welfare state. It seems to help the
feckless, at the expense of those with lots of feck.
I believe its the effect of means testing. As soon as you stand on your
own two feet, the rug gets pulled.
JNugent
2017-05-18 20:48:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity to pay for this?
And here's the news for Todal: that is already the situation, with only
£23,000 surviving the wipe-out. Now it'll be £100,000 (over four times
as much).
abelard
2017-05-18 20:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity to pay for this?
And here's the news for Todal: that is already the situation, with only
£23,000 surviving the wipe-out. Now it'll be £100,000 (over four times
as much).
better than spending it on insurance
James Hammerton
2017-05-18 22:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity to pay for this?
And here's the news for Todal: that is already the situation, with only
£23,000 surviving the wipe-out. Now it'll be £100,000 (over four times
as much).
That is only part of the change.

From the reports I've seen, my understanding is the following:

Currently, your home is protected if you're receiving care at home, it
was only residential care that would entail your home being used to pay
for the care. So if you didn't need residential care then both your home
and the assets upto the £23k limit were protected.

Under May's plans, although the threshold is raised to £100k as you say,
your home is no longer protected, but will be included in the
calculations. Most homes will be valued at more than £100k...

Those who own a home will now find that home included in the
calculations as to whether they get care funded by the state regardless
of whether it's residential care or care in the home.

Some reports were also saying that the value of the home would be
recouped on your death should you find yourself in this situation rather
then being forced to sell the home to pay for the care upfront.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
Yellow
2017-05-19 19:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by JNugent
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity to pay for this?
And here's the news for Todal: that is already the situation, with only
£23,000 surviving the wipe-out. Now it'll be £100,000 (over four times
as much).
That is only part of the change.
Currently, your home is protected if you're receiving care at home, it
was only residential care that would entail your home being used to pay
for the care. So if you didn't need residential care then both your home
and the assets upto the £23k limit were protected.
Under May's plans, although the threshold is raised to £100k as you say,
your home is no longer protected, but will be included in the
calculations. Most homes will be valued at more than £100k...
Those who own a home will now find that home included in the
calculations as to whether they get care funded by the state regardless
of whether it's residential care or care in the home.
Some reports were also saying that the value of the home would be
recouped on your death should you find yourself in this situation rather
then being forced to sell the home to pay for the care upfront.
Regards,
James
Would be interesting to see how a system would work that forced people
in receive of home care to sell their homes to pay for it.
The Todal
2017-05-18 22:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity to pay for this?
And here's the news for Todal: that is already the situation, with only
£23,000 surviving the wipe-out. Now it'll be £100,000 (over four times
as much).
Nope.

The current situation - as per the link I provided in an earlier post to
this thread - is that if you need care as a result of clinical need,
assessed by the doctors, then it is provided free of charge by the NHS.

Anyone who has actually been in this position with an elderly relative
will know, of course, as I do that there is often a battle with the
healthcare professionals to persuade them that the patient needs nursing
care that qualifies for free treatment under the NHS.

Compare and contrast
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/health-wellbeing/doctors-hospitals/nhs-continuing-healthcare-and-nhs-funded-nursing-care/nhs-continuing-healthcare/

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/paying-for-permanent-residential-care/
GB
2017-05-19 10:03:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Anyone who has actually been in this position with an elderly relative
will know, of course, as I do that there is often a battle with the
healthcare professionals to persuade them that the patient needs nursing
care that qualifies for free treatment under the NHS.
In the end, with MIL, we gave up. She was getting 'care' provided for 30
minutes morning and evening. A different person every time, and most of
them UTTERLY useless.

There was the 'senior carer' who got MIL out of her chair, but refused
to support her or steady her, even. I got there just in time to cushion
the fall a bit.

Anyway, we cancelled the free care package and hired a live-in carer,
which worked out very well.
The Todal
2017-05-19 10:26:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Anyone who has actually been in this position with an elderly relative
will know, of course, as I do that there is often a battle with the
healthcare professionals to persuade them that the patient needs nursing
care that qualifies for free treatment under the NHS.
In the end, with MIL, we gave up. She was getting 'care' provided for 30
minutes morning and evening. A different person every time, and most of
them UTTERLY useless.
There was the 'senior carer' who got MIL out of her chair, but refused
to support her or steady her, even. I got there just in time to cushion
the fall a bit.
Anyway, we cancelled the free care package and hired a live-in carer,
which worked out very well.
One valid point made on Question Time by one of the audience members was
that as an ex nurse he could see that the care staff were offering a
very poor service yet the patient has to pay for that care, even now, if
it does not qualify to be free under the NHS.

I think the Tory policy is bound to lead to families trying to avoid
paying anything at all for care and putting their inheritance at risk.
We'll have people with chronic dementia-type illnesses confined to a
bedroom, hidden from view, not properly fed or cleaned.

Reminds me - a friend who moved in with her male partner found it very
burdensome to care for her elderly and demented mother in law. The
mother in law was still living alone in her own house but with regular
visits from her son and other members of the family. Eventually they
turned up one day and the mother in law had fallen down the stairs and
had died. Result! As far as I know, the family and the GP were not
expected to answer any awkward questions about whether this vulnerable
person was being adequately cared for.
GB
2017-05-19 15:15:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
I think the Tory policy is bound to lead to families trying to avoid
paying anything at all for care and putting their inheritance at risk.
We'll have people with chronic dementia-type illnesses confined to a
bedroom, hidden from view, not properly fed or cleaned.
Reminds me - a friend who moved in with her male partner found it very
burdensome to care for her elderly and demented mother in law. The
mother in law was still living alone in her own house but with regular
visits from her son and other members of the family. Eventually they
turned up one day and the mother in law had fallen down the stairs and
had died. Result! As far as I know, the family and the GP were not
expected to answer any awkward questions about whether this vulnerable
person was being adequately cared for.
Elderly folk, particularly with dementia, may be much happier in their
own home, however unpractical that is. The idea is that they have the
right to make that decision, even if it puts them at risk. I'm not
totally sure I agree with that.
Handsome Jack
2017-05-19 15:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
I think the Tory policy is bound to lead to families trying to avoid
paying anything at all for care and putting their inheritance at risk.
We'll have people with chronic dementia-type illnesses confined to a
bedroom, hidden from view, not properly fed or cleaned.
Reminds me - a friend who moved in with her male partner found it
very burdensome to care for her elderly and demented mother in law.
The mother in law was still living alone in her own house but with
regular visits from her son and other members of the family.
Eventually they turned up one day and the mother in law had fallen
down the stairs and had died. Result! As far as I know, the family
and the GP were not expected to answer any awkward questions about
whether this vulnerable person was being adequately cared for.
Elderly folk, particularly with dementia, may be much happier in their
own home, however unpractical that is.
Everybody's happier in their own home. Nobody wants to go into
residential care, surrounded by old dodderers and nutters and staff who
tell you when you can and can't have your evening sherry. Especially if
you *haven't* got dementia.
Post by GB
The idea is that they have the right to make that decision, even if it
puts them at risk. I'm not totally sure I agree with that.
It's probably OK if they have a skilled live-in carer. Like you, we did
that with my MIL, who didn't have dementia but was very frail. The GP
advised us to get her admitted to a care home, but she much preferred to
stay in her own home, where ultimately she died.
--
Jack
Yellow
2017-05-19 19:36:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Everybody's happier in their own home. Nobody wants to go into
residential care, surrounded by old dodderers and nutters and staff who
tell you when you can and can't have your evening sherry. Especially if
you *haven't* got dementia.
Post by GB
The idea is that they have the right to make that decision, even if it
puts them at risk. I'm not totally sure I agree with that.
Surely that is only true until they get diagnosed with being mentally
incompetent - and until then they are competent and can therefore make
their own decisions.
Post by Handsome Jack
It's probably OK if they have a skilled live-in carer. Like you, we did
that with my MIL, who didn't have dementia but was very frail. The GP
advised us to get her admitted to a care home, but she much preferred to
stay in her own home, where ultimately she died.
Being nosy, what sort of money does a live-in career cost?

I know round here, care homes are now in £1000 to £1200 bracket for self
funders.
Yellow
2017-05-19 19:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
One valid point made on Question Time by one of the audience members was
that as an ex nurse he could see that the care staff were offering a
very poor service yet the patient has to pay for that care, even now, if
it does not qualify to be free under the NHS.
I think the Tory policy is bound to lead to families trying to avoid
paying anything at all for care and putting their inheritance at risk.
I do not see the Tory manifesto is changing the situation from what we
have now. Three families that I know very well, three parents all with
"mind" related care requirements, all had to self fund.

Two fought it at local level and one fought it to court - and they all
lost.
Post by The Todal
We'll have people with chronic dementia-type illnesses confined to a
bedroom, hidden from view, not properly fed or cleaned.
Either people care about their parents or they don't - and as I say
above, I don't see what is changing here to make the risk you describe
worse than now.
Post by The Todal
Reminds me - a friend who moved in with her male partner found it very
burdensome to care for her elderly and demented mother in law. The
mother in law was still living alone in her own house but with regular
visits from her son and other members of the family. Eventually they
turned up one day and the mother in law had fallen down the stairs and
had died. Result! As far as I know, the family and the GP were not
expected to answer any awkward questions about whether this vulnerable
person was being adequately cared for.
So you consider that the family (and the GP?) effectively murdered her?
R. Mark Clayton
2017-05-19 10:27:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity to pay for this?
Er because they have been paying National Insurance for nearly fifty years and it is supposed to cover this sort of thing.
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
If Labour were planning to do such a thing, it would be condemned as
Trotskyite madness.
Surely to counterbalance this manifesto pledge they should introduce
measures to legalise doctor-assisted suicide for those with longterm
care needs. That could work.
Norman Wells
2017-05-19 13:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
Seems entirely sensible to me. Why shouldn't people use their home
equity to pay for this?
Er because they have been paying National Insurance for nearly fifty years and it is supposed to cover this sort of thing.
No it isn't. You are responsible for your own care needs. If you can
squeeze any money from the public purse, it comes out of general taxation.
Omega
2017-05-18 14:59:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
If Labour were planning to do such a thing, it would be condemned as
Trotskyite madness.
Surely to counterbalance this manifesto pledge they should introduce
measures to legalise doctor-assisted suicide for those with longterm
care needs. That could work.
Why on earth would your children not want you to be cared for with good
care and dignity, in your old and infirm age, by your spending some of
the wealth you have accumulated in your life?

omega
The Todal
2017-05-18 15:12:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Omega
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k
to leave to their kids?
If Labour were planning to do such a thing, it would be condemned as
Trotskyite madness.
Surely to counterbalance this manifesto pledge they should introduce
measures to legalise doctor-assisted suicide for those with longterm
care needs. That could work.
Why on earth would your children not want you to be cared for with good
care and dignity, in your old and infirm age, by your spending some of
the wealth you have accumulated in your life?
I'm sure you and your children would want you to receive adequate care,
and if that is caused by a chronic illness it should be funded by the state.

People are living longer nowadays. The incidence of Alzheimers and other
forms of dementia is increasing, and many people have relatives who live
for many years with longterm care needs. So even if you've paid taxes
and national insurance all your life, your property will be effectively
confiscated to pay for your care - unless, perhaps, you give it away to
your children and rely on their charity, or in an effort to protect
their inheritance your children keep you at home without adequate care,
lying in your own faeces and urine.
GB
2017-05-18 15:23:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
I'm sure you and your children would want you to receive adequate care,
and if that is caused by a chronic illness it should be funded by the state.
You say that as if it is self-evident. It isn't, I'm afraid.
The Todal
2017-05-18 15:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
I'm sure you and your children would want you to receive adequate care,
and if that is caused by a chronic illness it should be funded by the state.
You say that as if it is self-evident. It isn't, I'm afraid.
Okay, maybe you're right. It's doubtful whether you and your children
would necessarily want you to receive adequate care. You might prefer to
end things quickly.

As to whether it should be funded by the state, that has been a
long-running saga over many years. Possibly you haven't had a family
member who has had long term care for an incurable chronic illness but
if you have, the chances are that you will have been part of a battle to
try to secure NHS funding for that care.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/health-wellbeing/doctors-hospitals/nhs-continuing-healthcare-and-nhs-funded-nursing-care/nhs-continuing-healthcare/
Handsome Jack
2017-05-18 15:37:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
I'm sure you and your children would want you to receive adequate care,
and if that is caused by a chronic illness it should be funded by the state.
You say that as if it is self-evident. It isn't, I'm afraid.
Okay, maybe you're right. It's doubtful whether you and your children
would necessarily want you to receive adequate care. You might prefer
to end things quickly.
As to whether it should be funded by the state, that has been a
long-running saga over many years. Possibly you haven't had a family
member who has had long term care for an incurable chronic illness but
if you have, the chances are that you will have been part of a battle
to try to secure NHS funding for that care.
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/health-wellbeing/doctors-hospitals/nhs-continuin
g-healthcare-and-nhs-funded-nursing-care/nhs-continuing-healthcare/
That has happened under governments of both - or all three - colours.
--
Jack
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 15:52:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
I'm sure you and your children would want you to receive adequate care,
and if that is caused by a chronic illness it should be funded by the state.
You say that as if it is self-evident. It isn't, I'm afraid.
Okay, maybe you're right. It's doubtful whether you and your children
would necessarily want you to receive adequate care. You might prefer to
end things quickly.
As to whether it should be funded by the state, that has been a
long-running saga over many years. Possibly you haven't had a family
member who has had long term care for an incurable chronic illness but
if you have, the chances are that you will have been part of a battle to
try to secure NHS funding for that care.
Of course, because you're greedy and you want to inherit his wealth
rather than see it squandered on long term care before you can get you
hands on it. It's always better if someone else pays.
GB
2017-05-18 16:57:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
I'm sure you and your children would want you to receive adequate care,
and if that is caused by a chronic illness it should be funded by the state.
You say that as if it is self-evident. It isn't, I'm afraid.
Okay, maybe you're right. It's doubtful whether you and your children
would necessarily want you to receive adequate care. You might prefer to
end things quickly.
I wasn't querying that bit of what you said. However, given the choice,
I would rather die quickly and painlessly, thanks. Hopefully not for
many years.
Post by The Todal
As to whether it should be funded by the state, that has been a
long-running saga over many years. Possibly you haven't had a family
member who has had long term care for an incurable chronic illness but
if you have, the chances are that you will have been part of a battle to
try to secure NHS funding for that care.
I have had two close relatives in that position. In both cases, we (the
family) used their assets to pay for their care. No help from the NHS.

I don't think it is self-evident that the state should step in to
safeguard the next generation's inheritance.
Mike Swift
2017-05-18 23:37:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ofkjjc$ktu$***@dont-email.me>, GB <***@microsoft.com>
writes
I don't think it is self-evident that the state should step in to safeguard the
next generation's inheritance.
We're not arguing that, just that it's grossly unfair that people who
save for the future are penalised by having to pay for those that don't.

Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Mike Scott
2017-05-19 07:43:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Swift
writes
I don't think it is self-evident that the state should step in to safeguard the
next generation's inheritance.
We're not arguing that, just that it's grossly unfair that people who
save for the future are penalised by having to pay for those that don't.
Which is perhaps an argument that means-testing should be income-based,
rather than capital-based. Savers would not then be penalised in the way
they currently are.
--
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex
"The only way is Brexit" -- anon.
Yellow
2017-05-19 20:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ofm7gd$7q7$***@dont-email.me>, usenet.16
@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid says...
Post by Mike Scott
Post by Mike Swift
writes
I don't think it is self-evident that the state should step in to safeguard the
next generation's inheritance.
We're not arguing that, just that it's grossly unfair that people who
save for the future are penalised by having to pay for those that don't.
Which is perhaps an argument that means-testing should be income-based,
rather than capital-based. Savers would not then be penalised in the way
they currently are.
As a saver, with friends who earn more than me that spend every penny
are who are also in debt, I have long argued that!

I don't we are going to win the argument though.
Norman Wells
2017-05-19 08:51:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by GB
I don't think it is self-evident that the state should step in to
safeguard the next generation's inheritance.
We're not arguing that, just that it's grossly unfair that people who
save for the future are penalised by having to pay for those that don't.
But what's the answer to it? Does the State not have a responsibility
to the impecunious at all?
abelard
2017-05-19 08:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by GB
I don't think it is self-evident that the state should step in to
safeguard the next generation's inheritance.
We're not arguing that, just that it's grossly unfair that people who
save for the future are penalised by having to pay for those that don't.
But what's the answer to it? Does the State not have a responsibility
to the impecunious at all?
currently the fashion seems to involve unlimited liability
for the feckless and incapable...

from whence you move to the extremist 'not at all'....

i see no balance nor any attempt to set limits on state
interference/intrusions
Norman Wells
2017-05-19 11:40:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by GB
I don't think it is self-evident that the state should step in to
safeguard the next generation's inheritance.
We're not arguing that, just that it's grossly unfair that people who
save for the future are penalised by having to pay for those that don't.
But what's the answer to it? Does the State not have a responsibility
to the impecunious at all?
currently the fashion seems to involve unlimited liability
for the feckless and incapable...
from whence you move to the extremist 'not at all'....
i see no balance nor any attempt to set limits on state
interference/intrusions
Whereas you would of course, but won't tell us how.
abelard
2017-05-19 11:41:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Mike Swift
writes
Post by GB
I don't think it is self-evident that the state should step in to
safeguard the next generation's inheritance.
We're not arguing that, just that it's grossly unfair that people who
save for the future are penalised by having to pay for those that don't.
But what's the answer to it? Does the State not have a responsibility
to the impecunious at all?
currently the fashion seems to involve unlimited liability
for the feckless and incapable...
from whence you move to the extremist 'not at all'....
i see no balance nor any attempt to set limits on state
interference/intrusions
Whereas you would of course, but won't tell us how.
nonsense
Ophelia
2017-05-19 09:02:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Mike Swift" wrote in message news:***@ntlworld.com...

In article <ofkjjc$ktu$***@dont-email.me>, GB <***@microsoft.com>
writes
I don't think it is self-evident that the state should step in to safeguard the
next generation's inheritance.
We're not arguing that, just that it's grossly unfair that people who
save for the future are penalised by having to pay for those that don't.

Mike
==

It was ever thus. The scroungers always get it free, but at least we can
have pride! It won't ever change.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
JNugent
2017-05-18 20:53:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
I'm sure you and your children would want you to receive adequate care,
and if that is caused by a chronic illness it should be funded by the state.
You say that as if it is self-evident. It isn't, I'm afraid.
Okay, maybe you're right. It's doubtful whether you and your children
would necessarily want you to receive adequate care. You might prefer to
end things quickly.
As to whether it should be funded by the state, that has been a
long-running saga over many years. Possibly you haven't had a family
member who has had long term care for an incurable chronic illness but
if you have, the chances are that you will have been part of a battle to
try to secure NHS funding for that care...
...in order to avoid losing:

(a) [as the situation used to be] 100% of the old person's estate
(including their home), or

(b) [as the situation now is] all of their estate except for a maximum
of £23,000 (assuming the estate to be worth that much), or

(c) [as will now be the case] all of their estate except for a maximum
of £100,000 (assuming the estate to be worth that much).

Not perfect, but a big improvement on what we have now, which itself is
a big improvement over what we used to have.
Ophelia
2017-05-19 09:00:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
I'm sure you and your children would want you to receive adequate care,
and if that is caused by a chronic illness it should be funded by the state.
You say that as if it is self-evident. It isn't, I'm afraid.
Okay, maybe you're right. It's doubtful whether you and your children
would necessarily want you to receive adequate care. You might prefer to
end things quickly.
As to whether it should be funded by the state, that has been a
long-running saga over many years. Possibly you haven't had a family
member who has had long term care for an incurable chronic illness but
if you have, the chances are that you will have been part of a battle to
try to secure NHS funding for that care...
...in order to avoid losing:

(a) [as the situation used to be] 100% of the old person's estate
(including their home), or

(b) [as the situation now is] all of their estate except for a maximum
of £23,000 (assuming the estate to be worth that much), or

(c) [as will now be the case] all of their estate except for a maximum
of £100,000 (assuming the estate to be worth that much).

Not perfect, but a big improvement on what we have now, which itself is
a big improvement over what we used to have.

==

It sounds pretty good to me, but that won't stop idiots complaining.
Perhaps they would have been happier with the £23,000?

These people seem to want everything free. If they had even half a brain
they would recognise it has to be paid for somehow, although I suppose they
just want someone else to pay for it.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Yellow
2017-05-19 19:45:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@fastmail.fm
says...
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
I'm sure you and your children would want you to receive adequate care,
and if that is caused by a chronic illness it should be funded by the state.
You say that as if it is self-evident. It isn't, I'm afraid.
Okay, maybe you're right. It's doubtful whether you and your children
would necessarily want you to receive adequate care. You might prefer to
end things quickly.
As to whether it should be funded by the state, that has been a
long-running saga over many years. Possibly you haven't had a family
member who has had long term care for an incurable chronic illness but
if you have, the chances are that you will have been part of a battle to
try to secure NHS funding for that care...
(a) [as the situation used to be] 100% of the old person's estate
(including their home), or
(b) [as the situation now is] all of their estate except for a maximum
of £23,000 (assuming the estate to be worth that much), or
(c) [as will now be the case] all of their estate except for a maximum
of £100,000 (assuming the estate to be worth that much).
Not perfect, but a big improvement on what we have now, which itself is
a big improvement over what we used to have.
It is an improvement but personally I would rather see a maximum per
head, if we have to have self funding at all, rather than taking every
one down to the same minimum regardless of how much cash has been
collected from the estate.

Also, having a cap would allow people to give away cash without being
accused of impoverishing themselves - as long as they did not go below
the cap.
The Todal
2017-05-18 15:16:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
If Labour were planning to do such a thing, it would be condemned as
Trotskyite madness.
Surely to counterbalance this manifesto pledge they should introduce
measures to legalise doctor-assisted suicide for those with longterm
care needs. That could work.
Or maybe you're impressed by the Tory plans to censor the internet. Be
careful what you wish for.

quote

We will work with industry to introduce new protections for minors, from
images of pornography, violence, and other age-inappropriate content not
just on social media but in app stores and content sites as
well. We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users –
even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other
sources of harm. We will make clear the responsibility of platforms
to enable the reporting of inappropriate, bullying, harmful or illegal
content, with take-down on a comply-or-explain basis. We will continue
to push the internet companies to deliver on their commitments
to develop technical tools to identify and remove terrorist
propaganda, to help smaller companies build their capabilities and to
provide support for civil society organisations
to promote alternative and counter-narratives. In addition, we do not
believe that there should be a safe space for terrorists to be able to
communicate online and will work to prevent them from having this
capability.
Vidcapper
2017-05-19 06:54:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
If Labour were planning to do such a thing, it would be condemned as
Trotskyite madness.
Surely to counterbalance this manifesto pledge they should introduce
measures to legalise doctor-assisted suicide for those with longterm
care needs. That could work.
Or maybe you're impressed by the Tory plans to censor the internet. Be
careful what you wish for.
quote
We will work with industry to introduce new protections for minors, from
images of pornography, violence, and other age-inappropriate content not
just on social media but in app stores and content sites as
well. We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users –
even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other
sources of harm. We will make clear the responsibility of platforms
to enable the reporting of inappropriate, bullying, harmful or illegal
content, with take-down on a comply-or-explain basis. We will continue
to push the internet companies to deliver on their commitments
to develop technical tools to identify and remove terrorist
propaganda, to help smaller companies build their capabilities and to
provide support for civil society organisations
to promote alternative and counter-narratives. In addition, we do not
believe that there should be a safe space for terrorists to be able to
communicate online and will work to prevent them from having this
capability.
ISTM that policy automatically assumes the worst of everyone, defying
the legal tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
The Todal
2017-05-18 15:23:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
This bit is controversial. The Tories have decided not to go ahead with
Leveson's recommended press regulation. What a generous gift to the
Tory-supporting press - they will be able to continue fearlessly
peddling kiss and tell stories and infringing privacy, and if you aren't
rich enough to sue them, you'll have no remedy. Actually, if Section 40
is flawed you wonder why a stupid Home Secretary decided to pass that
law in the first place.

Quote

Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry
and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution
Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the
second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices
and ethics of the press. We will repeal Section 40 of the
Crime and Courts Act 2014, which, if enacted, would force media
organisations to become members of a flawed regulatory system or risk
having to pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy cases,
even if they win.
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 15:55:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
This bit is controversial. The Tories have decided not to go ahead with
Leveson's recommended press regulation. What a generous gift to the
Tory-supporting press - they will be able to continue fearlessly
peddling kiss and tell stories and infringing privacy, and if you aren't
rich enough to sue them, you'll have no remedy. Actually, if Section 40
is flawed you wonder why a stupid Home Secretary decided to pass that
law in the first place.
Quote
Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry
and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution
Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the
second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices
and ethics of the press. We will repeal Section 40 of the
Crime and Courts Act 2014, which, if enacted, would force media
organisations to become members of a flawed regulatory system or risk
having to pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy cases,
even if they win.
You make a mistake, you rectify it. Isn't that the way to go?
The Todal
2017-05-18 16:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
This bit is controversial. The Tories have decided not to go ahead with
Leveson's recommended press regulation. What a generous gift to the
Tory-supporting press - they will be able to continue fearlessly
peddling kiss and tell stories and infringing privacy, and if you aren't
rich enough to sue them, you'll have no remedy. Actually, if Section 40
is flawed you wonder why a stupid Home Secretary decided to pass that
law in the first place.
Quote
Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry
and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution
Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the
second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices
and ethics of the press. We will repeal Section 40 of the
Crime and Courts Act 2014, which, if enacted, would force media
organisations to become members of a flawed regulatory system or risk
having to pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy cases,
even if they win.
You make a mistake, you rectify it. Isn't that the way to go?
If it was a mistake, yes. But it wasn't a mistake.

The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation. Now
they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.

After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Handsome Jack
2017-05-18 17:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation. Now
they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Is that really what you want? People who write material that offends you
should be categorised by the State as "bad journalists" and prevented
from publishing anything? Uurgh.
--
Jack
The Todal
2017-05-18 22:41:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by The Todal
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation.
Now they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Is that really what you want? People who write material that offends you
should be categorised by the State as "bad journalists" and prevented
from publishing anything? Uurgh.
No, that isn't what I want and again, you have a lot of homework to do
to catch up. You could perhaps begin by reading the Leveson Report or
its executive summary.

Or failing that, you could do the lazy thing and browse through the
press accounts of evidence given to Leveson by members of the public
such as the parents of Milly Dowler.

The Press commits numerous breaches of privacy and regularly libels
people. On occasion it makes racist statements or statements that insult
the people of Liverpool. If you complain to its regulatory body your
complaint is assessed and judged by newspaper editors, the very people
who are committing this offensive behaviour.

If you can afford to sue, you might get damages and an injunction. So
rich people like Steve Coogan and JK Rowling and Max Mosley can
successfully sue. People who can't sue have no proper remedy. Leveson
proposed a solution, a proper regulatory system, but just about all the
newspapers (including Private Eye) were indignant and furious and
refused to have anything to do with it. Now the government has decided
to let the status quo continue and back off. Because, of course, the
government relies on certain newspapers to peddle government propaganda.

Now, maybe you think that it is an essential part of freedom of the
press that they should listen to your voicemail messages, photograph you
when you are taking part in private sexual acts and tell the world about
how you have cheated on your wife, in order to sell newspapers.
Presumably if that's what you think, it's because you know that you are
such an insignificant human being that you'll never be in the press
spotlight but you have a prurient interest in the private lives of rich
folk.
Norman Wells
2017-05-19 08:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by The Todal
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation.
Now they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Is that really what you want? People who write material that offends you
should be categorised by the State as "bad journalists" and prevented
from publishing anything? Uurgh.
No, that isn't what I want and again, you have a lot of homework to do
to catch up. You could perhaps begin by reading the Leveson Report or
its executive summary.
He asked what *you* wanted, not what Leveson says. And it seems to me
that what *you* want is for 'offensive' pieces to be banned. Offensive
to whom, though, you don't bother to say.

There is no general law against causing offence. Nor should there be.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend. If that were not so then
anyone claiming to be offended could put a halt to any action he chooses
to dislike, and curtail anything anyone else says or does.

That's just what the snowflake generation would like of course, and
tries to put into practice. It doesn't like hearing views contrary to
its own, so tries to silence them. In doing so, it is denying freedom
of speech.

While I'm about it, let me speak up for Kelvin McKenzie. He was sacked
for comparing the footballer Ross Barkley to a gorilla and making
disparaging comments about the city of Liverpool.

What? You lose your job for making 'disparaging comments' that any of
us might make about any thick simian footballer and any city as grotty
as Liverpool? It's unbelievable! What on earth have we become if what
he has done is a sacking offence?

Oh, but of course the snowflakes have played the racism card, which
trumps all. Unknown to McKenzie, Barclay has a Nigerian grandfather,
which therefore elevates what he said into a heinous, unforgiveable crime.

The Thought Police are rising. Be very afraid.
Post by The Todal
Or failing that, you could do the lazy thing and browse through the
press accounts of evidence given to Leveson by members of the public
such as the parents of Milly Dowler.
The Press commits numerous breaches of privacy and regularly libels
people. On occasion it makes racist statements or statements that insult
the people of Liverpool.
I don't accept that comparing a footballer to a gorilla is racist at
all. The fact that he was found later to have a Nigerian grandfather
doesn't alter that in the slightest.

I don't accept either that you shouldn't be allowed to gently mock the
people of Liverpool, or Southern Jessies, or mean Scots, or tight
Yorkshiremen, or no good boyos if you want. It's all part of freedom of
speech.
Post by The Todal
If you complain to its regulatory body your
complaint is assessed and judged by newspaper editors, the very people
who are committing this offensive behaviour.
Good. They will robustly dismiss the complaints trying to curtail
legitimate freedom of speech with the rapidity they deserve.
Post by The Todal
If you can afford to sue, you might get damages and an injunction. So
rich people like Steve Coogan and JK Rowling and Max Mosley can
successfully sue. People who can't sue have no proper remedy. Leveson
proposed a solution, a proper regulatory system, but just about all the
newspapers (including Private Eye) were indignant and furious and
refused to have anything to do with it. Now the government has decided
to let the status quo continue and back off.
Good. Freedom of the Press is important.
Post by The Todal
Because, of course, the
government relies on certain newspapers to peddle government propaganda.
Private Eye, which you mentioned specifically? I don't think so.
Post by The Todal
Now, maybe you think that it is an essential part of freedom of the
press that they should listen to your voicemail messages, photograph you
when you are taking part in private sexual acts and tell the world about
how you have cheated on your wife, in order to sell newspapers.
Presumably if that's what you think, it's because you know that you are
such an insignificant human being that you'll never be in the press
spotlight but you have a prurient interest in the private lives of rich
folk.
I don't think anyone has accepted any of that actually. Except the bit
about reporting cheating on your wife of course. That may well be a
legitimate concern.
The Todal
2017-05-19 10:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by The Todal
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation.
Now they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Is that really what you want? People who write material that offends you
should be categorised by the State as "bad journalists" and prevented
from publishing anything? Uurgh.
No, that isn't what I want and again, you have a lot of homework to do
to catch up. You could perhaps begin by reading the Leveson Report or
its executive summary.
He asked what *you* wanted, not what Leveson says. And it seems to me
that what *you* want is for 'offensive' pieces to be banned. Offensive
to whom, though, you don't bother to say.
No, you made that up. I haven't asked for any offensive pieces to be
"banned". What we need is a proper complaints system so that people who
have good reason to complain about news articles can have a fair and
objective investigation rather than an investigation by those who have
themselves been complicit in law-breaking.
Post by Norman Wells
There is no general law against causing offence. Nor should there be.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend. If that were not so then
anyone claiming to be offended could put a halt to any action he chooses
to dislike, and curtail anything anyone else says or does.
Again, you totally miss the point so that you can make a pompous speech
about freedom.

The current position, though, is that any rich celebrity can put a halt
to any journalistic investigation into his business life or private life
by getting an interlocutory injunction, as Robert Maxwell frequently
did. So the law favours the rich. The poor have no recourse.
Post by Norman Wells
That's just what the snowflake generation would like of course, and
tries to put into practice. It doesn't like hearing views contrary to
its own, so tries to silence them. In doing so, it is denying freedom
of speech.
While I'm about it, let me speak up for Kelvin McKenzie. He was sacked
for comparing the footballer Ross Barkley to a gorilla and making
disparaging comments about the city of Liverpool.
Apparently so. The irony is that his newspaper printed his remarks and
then decided that even more newspapers could be sold if they sacked him
for expressing his opinions.

So the newspaper has a win-win situation. It cynically prints
"controversial" opinion pieces to get more sales and publicity, then
cynically sacks the author to get more sales and publicity.
Post by Norman Wells
What? You lose your job for making 'disparaging comments' that any of
us might make about any thick simian footballer and any city as grotty
as Liverpool? It's unbelievable! What on earth have we become if what
he has done is a sacking offence?
As above.
Post by Norman Wells
Oh, but of course the snowflakes have played the racism card, which
trumps all. Unknown to McKenzie, Barclay has a Nigerian grandfather,
which therefore elevates what he said into a heinous, unforgiveable crime.
The picture of the gorilla was inserted by the newspaper, not by Kelvin
McKenzie. It was offensive about Barclay regardless of whether it was
racist. It was also offensive about the people of Liverpool. Now, you're
certainly entitled to make the point that the people of Liverpool are
not a protected minority in the way that homosexual or disabled people
or racial minorities are. However they are a protected minority as far
as the newspaper itself is concerned because they want to sell
newspapers to the people of Liverpool.
Post by Norman Wells
The Thought Police are rising. Be very afraid.
Post by The Todal
Or failing that, you could do the lazy thing and browse through the
press accounts of evidence given to Leveson by members of the public
such as the parents of Milly Dowler.
The Press commits numerous breaches of privacy and regularly libels
people. On occasion it makes racist statements or statements that insult
the people of Liverpool.
I don't accept that comparing a footballer to a gorilla is racist at
all. The fact that he was found later to have a Nigerian grandfather
doesn't alter that in the slightest.
Of course Kelvin McKenzie didn't intend to say anything racist. But who
knows what was in the mind of the sub-editor or picture editor who
inserted a picture of a gorilla into the text?
Post by Norman Wells
I don't accept either that you shouldn't be allowed to gently mock the
people of Liverpool, or Southern Jessies, or mean Scots, or tight
Yorkshiremen, or no good boyos if you want. It's all part of freedom of
speech.
As was the Sun report accusing the Liverpool fans of urinating on the
dead people in the Hillsborough statium and picking their pockets. All
part of freedom of speech.

You couldn't sue the newspaper for maligning your community. You could
try making a complaint, of course, but who would hear that complaint and
adjudicate on it?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
If you complain to its regulatory body your
complaint is assessed and judged by newspaper editors, the very people
who are committing this offensive behaviour.
Good. They will robustly dismiss the complaints trying to curtail
legitimate freedom of speech with the rapidity they deserve.
And that's where you demonstrate that you have neither read nor
understood the Leveson report. A report which the Government promised to
heed and the recommendations from which the Government promised to
implement, but it has now broken that promise. Cosying up to the
powerful newspaper editors is far more important than protecting
ordinary members of the public from intrusive press reporting.
Norman Wells
2017-05-19 13:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by The Todal
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation.
Now they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Is that really what you want? People who write material that offends you
should be categorised by the State as "bad journalists" and prevented
from publishing anything? Uurgh.
No, that isn't what I want and again, you have a lot of homework to do
to catch up. You could perhaps begin by reading the Leveson Report or
its executive summary.
He asked what *you* wanted, not what Leveson says. And it seems to me
that what *you* want is for 'offensive' pieces to be banned. Offensive
to whom, though, you don't bother to say.
No, you made that up.
You were the one who mentioned the word 'offensive' twice in your
denunciation above.
Post by The Todal
I haven't asked for any offensive pieces to be "banned".
So, they should be allowed then? Even though they should lead to
'sanctions' against editors and sub-editors, by which you presumably
mean heavy fines or losing their jobs. Frankly, the two amount to the same.
Post by The Todal
What we need is a proper complaints system so that people who
have good reason to complain about news articles can have a fair and
objective investigation rather than an investigation by those who have
themselves been complicit in law-breaking.
We already have a proper complaints system. It's called the law of
libel. If you win, you get substantial damages well in excess of any
actual harm caused, and you get your costs back. That's perfectly
reasonable as far as I'm concerned. If it seems too risky to take that
course, you either aren't very sure of your case or you don't really
care that much. Most libel cases shouldn't be brought anyway, so I'm
quite happy that they don't clog up the courts, which I pay for
incidentally out of my taxes.
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
There is no general law against causing offence. Nor should there be.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend. If that were not so then
anyone claiming to be offended could put a halt to any action he chooses
to dislike, and curtail anything anyone else says or does.
Again, you totally miss the point so that you can make a pompous speech
about freedom.
I'm not missing any point at all. And freedom of speech is rather
important.
Post by The Todal
The current position, though, is that any rich celebrity can put a halt
to any journalistic investigation into his business life or private life
by getting an interlocutory injunction, as Robert Maxwell frequently
did. So the law favours the rich. The poor have no recourse.
The rich have generally done something with their lives and have built
up some sort of reputation as a result which may be worth defending.
Little people in general haven't.
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
That's just what the snowflake generation would like of course, and
tries to put into practice. It doesn't like hearing views contrary to
its own, so tries to silence them. In doing so, it is denying freedom
of speech.
While I'm about it, let me speak up for Kelvin McKenzie. He was sacked
for comparing the footballer Ross Barkley to a gorilla and making
disparaging comments about the city of Liverpool.
Apparently so. The irony is that his newspaper printed his remarks and
then decided that even more newspapers could be sold if they sacked him
for expressing his opinions.
So the newspaper has a win-win situation. It cynically prints
"controversial" opinion pieces to get more sales and publicity, then
cynically sacks the author to get more sales and publicity.
Do you have any evidence for that? Or is it all a product of your
fevered imagination?
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
What? You lose your job for making 'disparaging comments' that any of
us might make about any thick simian footballer and any city as grotty
as Liverpool? It's unbelievable! What on earth have we become if what
he has done is a sacking offence?
As above.
Post by Norman Wells
Oh, but of course the snowflakes have played the racism card, which
trumps all. Unknown to McKenzie, Barclay has a Nigerian grandfather,
which therefore elevates what he said into a heinous, unforgiveable crime.
The picture of the gorilla was inserted by the newspaper, not by Kelvin
McKenzie. It was offensive about Barclay regardless of whether it was
racist.
So what? Why shouldn't it be 'offensive'?
Post by The Todal
It was also offensive about the people of Liverpool. Now, you're
certainly entitled to make the point that the people of Liverpool are
not a protected minority in the way that homosexual or disabled people
or racial minorities are. However they are a protected minority as far
as the newspaper itself is concerned because they want to sell
newspapers to the people of Liverpool.
It's for the newspaper alone to decide what it should print. I'm sure
it took all relevant considerations into account.
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
The Thought Police are rising. Be very afraid.
Post by The Todal
Or failing that, you could do the lazy thing and browse through the
press accounts of evidence given to Leveson by members of the public
such as the parents of Milly Dowler.
The Press commits numerous breaches of privacy and regularly libels
people. On occasion it makes racist statements or statements that insult
the people of Liverpool.
I don't accept that comparing a footballer to a gorilla is racist at
all. The fact that he was found later to have a Nigerian grandfather
doesn't alter that in the slightest.
Of course Kelvin McKenzie didn't intend to say anything racist. But who
knows what was in the mind of the sub-editor or picture editor who
inserted a picture of a gorilla into the text?
As an illustration of what Kelvin McKenzie had said of course. he had
in words compared Barclay to a gorilla. How does publishing a picture
of a gorilla make it worse or elevate it to racism?
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
I don't accept either that you shouldn't be allowed to gently mock the
people of Liverpool, or Southern Jessies, or mean Scots, or tight
Yorkshiremen, or no good boyos if you want. It's all part of freedom of
speech.
As was the Sun report accusing the Liverpool fans of urinating on the
dead people in the Hillsborough statium and picking their pockets. All
part of freedom of speech.
I'd like newspapers always to tell the truth, but they deal with so many
facts and reports that they can't always do that. I'm not sure where
their information came from but I expect it was reported to them rather
than just made up.

I'm sure too that newspapers have a code of conduct.
Post by The Todal
You couldn't sue the newspaper for maligning your community. You could
try making a complaint, of course, but who would hear that complaint and
adjudicate on it?
No-one, as has always been the case.
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 18:27:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
This bit is controversial. The Tories have decided not to go ahead with
Leveson's recommended press regulation. What a generous gift to the
Tory-supporting press - they will be able to continue fearlessly
peddling kiss and tell stories and infringing privacy, and if you aren't
rich enough to sue them, you'll have no remedy. Actually, if Section 40
is flawed you wonder why a stupid Home Secretary decided to pass that
law in the first place.
Quote
Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry
and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution
Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the
second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices
and ethics of the press. We will repeal Section 40 of the
Crime and Courts Act 2014, which, if enacted, would force media
organisations to become members of a flawed regulatory system or risk
having to pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy cases,
even if they win.
You make a mistake, you rectify it. Isn't that the way to go?
If it was a mistake, yes. But it wasn't a mistake.
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation. Now
they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
No, the thinking is that a free press is a bastion against oppressive
government, and is vital to the maintenance of freedom of speech.
Post by The Todal
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
Omega
2017-05-18 19:58:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
This bit is controversial. The Tories have decided not to go ahead with
Leveson's recommended press regulation. What a generous gift to the
Tory-supporting press - they will be able to continue fearlessly
peddling kiss and tell stories and infringing privacy, and if you aren't
rich enough to sue them, you'll have no remedy. Actually, if Section 40
is flawed you wonder why a stupid Home Secretary decided to pass that
law in the first place.
Quote
Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry
and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution
Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the
second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture,
practices
and ethics of the press. We will repeal Section 40 of the
Crime and Courts Act 2014, which, if enacted, would force media
organisations to become members of a flawed regulatory system or risk
having to pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy cases,
even if they win.
You make a mistake, you rectify it. Isn't that the way to go?
If it was a mistake, yes. But it wasn't a mistake.
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation. Now
they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
No, the thinking is that a free press is a bastion against oppressive
government, and is vital to the maintenance of freedom of speech.
Post by The Todal
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
No!

The freedom of speech is to challenge, it *may* offend!

omega
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 20:13:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Omega
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
This bit is controversial. The Tories have decided not to go ahead with
Leveson's recommended press regulation. What a generous gift to the
Tory-supporting press - they will be able to continue fearlessly
peddling kiss and tell stories and infringing privacy, and if you aren't
rich enough to sue them, you'll have no remedy. Actually, if Section 40
is flawed you wonder why a stupid Home Secretary decided to pass that
law in the first place.
Quote
Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry
and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution
Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the
second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture,
practices
and ethics of the press. We will repeal Section 40 of the
Crime and Courts Act 2014, which, if enacted, would force media
organisations to become members of a flawed regulatory system or risk
having to pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy cases,
even if they win.
You make a mistake, you rectify it. Isn't that the way to go?
If it was a mistake, yes. But it wasn't a mistake.
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation. Now
they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
No, the thinking is that a free press is a bastion against oppressive
government, and is vital to the maintenance of freedom of speech.
Post by The Todal
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
No!
The freedom of speech is to challenge, it *may* offend!
Snowflakes who are challenged are always offended.
Vidcapper
2017-05-19 06:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Omega
The freedom of speech is to challenge, it *may* offend!
Snowflakes who are challenged are always offended.
Snowflakes consider any challenge to their PC dogma as automatically
offensive.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Vidcapper
2017-05-19 06:57:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
This bit is controversial. The Tories have decided not to go ahead with
Leveson's recommended press regulation. What a generous gift to the
Tory-supporting press - they will be able to continue fearlessly
peddling kiss and tell stories and infringing privacy, and if you aren't
rich enough to sue them, you'll have no remedy. Actually, if Section 40
is flawed you wonder why a stupid Home Secretary decided to pass that
law in the first place.
Quote
Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry
and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution
Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the
second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture,
practices
and ethics of the press. We will repeal Section 40 of the
Crime and Courts Act 2014, which, if enacted, would force media
organisations to become members of a flawed regulatory system or risk
having to pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy cases,
even if they win.
You make a mistake, you rectify it. Isn't that the way to go?
If it was a mistake, yes. But it wasn't a mistake.
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation. Now
they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
No, the thinking is that a free press is a bastion against oppressive
government, and is vital to the maintenance of freedom of speech.
Post by The Todal
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
But the ability to challenge incorrect media stories about you, should
not depend on wealth.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Norman Wells
2017-05-19 08:14:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
This bit is controversial. The Tories have decided not to go ahead with
Leveson's recommended press regulation. What a generous gift to the
Tory-supporting press - they will be able to continue fearlessly
peddling kiss and tell stories and infringing privacy, and if you aren't
rich enough to sue them, you'll have no remedy. Actually, if Section 40
is flawed you wonder why a stupid Home Secretary decided to pass that
law in the first place.
Quote
Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry
and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution
Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the
second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture,
practices
and ethics of the press. We will repeal Section 40 of the
Crime and Courts Act 2014, which, if enacted, would force media
organisations to become members of a flawed regulatory system or risk
having to pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy cases,
even if they win.
You make a mistake, you rectify it. Isn't that the way to go?
If it was a mistake, yes. But it wasn't a mistake.
The newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation. Now
they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
No, the thinking is that a free press is a bastion against oppressive
government, and is vital to the maintenance of freedom of speech.
Post by The Todal
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
But the ability to challenge incorrect media stories about you, should
not depend on wealth.
I don't think media stories can be cleared with every person mentioned
before publication. That's obviously hopelessly impractical, as well as
delaying exposure of the misdemeanours of the guilty and putting too
much power in their hands to prevent disclosure.

Most of the misrepresented innocent who have little wealth are in truth
little affected by innaccuracy in the press, which concerns itself
mainly with the rich and powerful. They would be best advised just to
forget it. Yesterday's newspapers are today's fish and chips wrappings
as they say. Stories fade away unless artificially kept alive.

I don't know quite what you mean by 'challenging incorrect media
stories'. If what you want is a correction printed in the same
newspaper, I think that's misguided. No-one takes much notice and it
just keeps the story simmering away.

The expense involved in challenging media stories does eliminate most
challenges, especially the trivial ones. That's a good thing, otherwise
the courts would be clogged with Mrs Jones objecting to being reported
as 40 years old when they are only 39 and demanding a retraction. It
would be even better if it eliminated the vast majority of the more
significant ones too. Very few libel case litigants emerge with their
reputations enhanced, even if they are in the right. And the damages
awarded seem to me to be vastly out of proportion to any reputational harm.
p***@gmail.com
2017-05-18 20:13:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
If Labour were planning to do such a thing, it would be condemned as
Trotskyite madness.
Surely to counterbalance this manifesto pledge they should introduce
measures to legalise doctor-assisted suicide for those with longterm
care needs. That could work.
Surely elders have their property in family trusts already or at least
will do now?
JNugent
2017-05-18 20:47:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
After all, no family has EVER lost a previously-expected inherited house
because the aged relatives who owned it had to be cared for in a
care-home and had to whstle through the lot (down to £23,000 or less),
have they?

This is acually a big improvement for such families. You know that. You
cannot be so stupid as to believe otherwise, but you are hoping that
some will be.
The Todal
2017-05-18 22:31:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
After all, no family has EVER lost a previously-expected inherited house
because the aged relatives who owned it had to be cared for in a
care-home and had to whstle through the lot (down to £23,000 or less),
have they?
This is acually a big improvement for such families. You know that. You
cannot be so stupid as to believe otherwise, but you are hoping that
some will be.
On the contrary, the Tories are hoping that the electorate will be duped
into believing that their proposals are an improvement on what is
currently the law.

And because you haven't been in that position, with a relative with
dementia, and you haven't studied the relevant law and regulations,
you're been duped.

I see they've had quite a good discussion about it on Question Time.
Vince Cable had some useful things to say.
Yellow
2017-05-19 19:48:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
After all, no family has EVER lost a previously-expected inherited house
because the aged relatives who owned it had to be cared for in a
care-home and had to whstle through the lot (down to £23,000 or less),
have they?
This is acually a big improvement for such families. You know that. You
cannot be so stupid as to believe otherwise, but you are hoping that
some will be.
On the contrary, the Tories are hoping that the electorate will be duped
into believing that their proposals are an improvement on what is
currently the law.
And because you haven't been in that position, with a relative with
dementia, and you haven't studied the relevant law and regulations,
you're been duped.
I see they've had quite a good discussion about it on Question Time.
Vince Cable had some useful things to say.
I am not usually a Cable fan but he was very good on this topic and
explored it quite thoroughly. His point about it being a 100%
inheritance tax if you are unlucky enough to get an illness requiring
long term care, gave perspective.
James Harris
2017-05-19 20:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
After all, no family has EVER lost a previously-expected inherited house
because the aged relatives who owned it had to be cared for in a
care-home and had to whstle through the lot (down to £23,000 or less),
have they?
This is acually a big improvement for such families. You know that. You
cannot be so stupid as to believe otherwise, but you are hoping that
some will be.
On the contrary, the Tories are hoping that the electorate will be duped
into believing that their proposals are an improvement on what is
currently the law.
And because you haven't been in that position, with a relative with
dementia, and you haven't studied the relevant law and regulations,
you're been duped.
I see they've had quite a good discussion about it on Question Time.
Vince Cable had some useful things to say.
I am not usually a Cable fan but he was very good on this topic and
explored it quite thoroughly. His point about it being a 100%
inheritance tax if you are unlucky enough to get an illness requiring
long term care, gave perspective.
Yet once a person's assets drop below £23,250 (currently) doesn't the
state pick up the rest of the tab?
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-05-19 20:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ofnioo$6eu$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
After all, no family has EVER lost a previously-expected inherited house
because the aged relatives who owned it had to be cared for in a
care-home and had to whstle through the lot (down to £23,000 or less),
have they?
This is acually a big improvement for such families. You know that. You
cannot be so stupid as to believe otherwise, but you are hoping that
some will be.
On the contrary, the Tories are hoping that the electorate will be duped
into believing that their proposals are an improvement on what is
currently the law.
And because you haven't been in that position, with a relative with
dementia, and you haven't studied the relevant law and regulations,
you're been duped.
I see they've had quite a good discussion about it on Question Time.
Vince Cable had some useful things to say.
I am not usually a Cable fan but he was very good on this topic and
explored it quite thoroughly. His point about it being a 100%
inheritance tax if you are unlucky enough to get an illness requiring
long term care, gave perspective.
Yet once a person's assets drop below £23,250 (currently) doesn't the
state pick up the rest of the tab?
At the moment - yes. How is that a "yet" statement?
James Harris
2017-05-19 20:54:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
Would it include the plan to make the elderly infirm pay for their own
care needs by plundering the equity in their home, leaving only 100k to
leave to their kids?
After all, no family has EVER lost a previously-expected inherited house
because the aged relatives who owned it had to be cared for in a
care-home and had to whstle through the lot (down to £23,000 or less),
have they?
This is acually a big improvement for such families. You know that. You
cannot be so stupid as to believe otherwise, but you are hoping that
some will be.
On the contrary, the Tories are hoping that the electorate will be duped
into believing that their proposals are an improvement on what is
currently the law.
And because you haven't been in that position, with a relative with
dementia, and you haven't studied the relevant law and regulations,
you're been duped.
I see they've had quite a good discussion about it on Question Time.
Vince Cable had some useful things to say.
I am not usually a Cable fan but he was very good on this topic and
explored it quite thoroughly. His point about it being a 100%
inheritance tax if you are unlucky enough to get an illness requiring
long term care, gave perspective.
Yet once a person's assets drop below £23,250 (currently) doesn't the
state pick up the rest of the tab?
At the moment - yes. How is that a "yet" statement?
You said it could be a "100% inheritance tax". If the government leaves
some money untouched I couldn't see how it could be a 100% tax.
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-05-19 22:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ofnlsl$g5e$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
I am not usually a Cable fan but he was very good on this topic and
explored it quite thoroughly. His point about it being a 100%
inheritance tax if you are unlucky enough to get an illness requiring
long term care, gave perspective.
Yet once a person's assets drop below £23,250 (currently) doesn't the
state pick up the rest of the tab?
At the moment - yes. How is that a "yet" statement?
You said it could be a "100% inheritance tax". If the government leaves
some money untouched I couldn't see how it could be a 100% tax.
Oh, I see but start with a million quid (or just a shabby 2 bed bungalow
like mine, but in a pricey part of the UK) and end up with £23,500, it
is surely going to feel like 100% tax.

And talking of shabby 2 bed bungalows like mine, the Tory fellow on The
Daily Politics today was asked to justify the way care is paid for by
saying that all the well off people with their money in their homes have
experienced house price growth so it is OK for the state to take it -
that was his justification. But while that is of course true for my
parents generation, who bought a house for £12,500 in 1970 which is now
selling for £450,000 but this is not the same for those of us who have
bought more recently.

I actually paid a bloody fortune for this house because the prices have
risen so much, so if I have a stroke tomorrow and need care, they are
not taking profit (well some perhaps) but the money I actually paid out
for my home.

Which leads me to another thought - what happens if you need care and
have assets, which they take, and you recover?
James Harris
2017-05-20 06:46:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
I am not usually a Cable fan but he was very good on this topic and
explored it quite thoroughly. His point about it being a 100%
inheritance tax if you are unlucky enough to get an illness requiring
long term care, gave perspective.
Yet once a person's assets drop below £23,250 (currently) doesn't the
state pick up the rest of the tab?
At the moment - yes. How is that a "yet" statement?
You said it could be a "100% inheritance tax". If the government leaves
some money untouched I couldn't see how it could be a 100% tax.
Oh, I see but start with a million quid (or just a shabby 2 bed bungalow
like mine, but in a pricey part of the UK) and end up with £23,500, it
is surely going to feel like 100% tax.
And talking of shabby 2 bed bungalows like mine, the Tory fellow on The
Daily Politics today was asked to justify the way care is paid for by
saying that all the well off people with their money in their homes have
experienced house price growth so it is OK for the state to take it -
that was his justification. But while that is of course true for my
parents generation, who bought a house for £12,500 in 1970 which is now
selling for £450,000 but this is not the same for those of us who have
bought more recently.
I actually paid a bloody fortune for this house because the prices have
risen so much, so if I have a stroke tomorrow and need care, they are
not taking profit (well some perhaps) but the money I actually paid out
for my home.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the Tory plan, just relating what
I understand of it. The following is my understanding.

First, if a person needs medical (but not dental) treatment that is
provided for free on the NHS including for the elderly.

Second, it's worth considering the situation at present. AIUI those who
move out of their homes and go into care have to pay for some or all of
that care if they have assets of more than £23,250, with their homes
included as one of those assets. By contrast, for those who get publicly
funded care in their own homes the value of their house is not included.

Third, the Tory plan is to say that the value of a house will be
included in the calculation even if the person receives state-funded
care at home, but that the limit will be raised from £23,250 to £100,000.

There's nothing to stop us planning for our care in old age, either
privately or via some sort of scheme. But if we want the government to
pay for our care then they will only do so (if this goes through) while
our assets are worth more than £100,000. Once those assets go below
£100,000 the government - i.e. the taxpayer - will take over.

That means that people will always be able to hand over at least
£100,000 to their children, and a lot more if they have the wealth and
have planned for it.
Post by Yellow
Which leads me to another thought - what happens if you need care and
have assets, which they take, and you recover?
I don't think they will take your house while you are still this side of
the daisies!
--
James Harris
Norman Wells
2017-05-20 08:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
I am not usually a Cable fan but he was very good on this topic and
explored it quite thoroughly. His point about it being a 100%
inheritance tax if you are unlucky enough to get an illness requiring
long term care, gave perspective.
Yet once a person's assets drop below £23,250 (currently) doesn't the
state pick up the rest of the tab?
At the moment - yes. How is that a "yet" statement?
You said it could be a "100% inheritance tax". If the government leaves
some money untouched I couldn't see how it could be a 100% tax.
Oh, I see but start with a million quid (or just a shabby 2 bed bungalow
like mine, but in a pricey part of the UK) and end up with £23,500, it
is surely going to feel like 100% tax.
And talking of shabby 2 bed bungalows like mine, the Tory fellow on The
Daily Politics today was asked to justify the way care is paid for by
saying that all the well off people with their money in their homes have
experienced house price growth so it is OK for the state to take it -
that was his justification. But while that is of course true for my
parents generation, who bought a house for £12,500 in 1970 which is now
selling for £450,000 but this is not the same for those of us who have
bought more recently.
I actually paid a bloody fortune for this house because the prices have
risen so much, so if I have a stroke tomorrow and need care, they are
not taking profit (well some perhaps) but the money I actually paid out
for my home.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the Tory plan, just relating what
I understand of it. The following is my understanding.
First, if a person needs medical (but not dental) treatment that is
provided for free on the NHS including for the elderly.
Second, it's worth considering the situation at present. AIUI those who
move out of their homes and go into care have to pay for some or all of
that care if they have assets of more than £23,250, with their homes
included as one of those assets. By contrast, for those who get publicly
funded care in their own homes the value of their house is not included.
Third, the Tory plan is to say that the value of a house will be
included in the calculation even if the person receives state-funded
care at home, but that the limit will be raised from £23,250 to £100,000.
There's nothing to stop us planning for our care in old age, either
privately or via some sort of scheme. But if we want the government to
pay for our care then they will only do so (if this goes through) while
our assets are worth more than £100,000. Once those assets go below
£100,000 the government - i.e. the taxpayer - will take over.
That means that people will always be able to hand over at least
£100,000 to their children, and a lot more if they have the wealth and
have planned for it.
Post by Yellow
Which leads me to another thought - what happens if you need care and
have assets, which they take, and you recover?
I don't think they will take your house while you are still this side of
the daisies!
What you will find though is that the house will have had a 'charge'
placed on it equal to the amount of the care costs you have incurred.
When the house is eventually sold, either by you or by your
beneficiaries, that amount will have to be repaid to the government,
subject to £100,000 of total assets being left alone to be passed on to
your successors.
James Harris
2017-05-20 09:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Harris
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the Tory plan, just relating what
I understand of it. The following is my understanding.
First, if a person needs medical (but not dental) treatment that is
provided for free on the NHS including for the elderly.
Second, it's worth considering the situation at present. AIUI those who
move out of their homes and go into care have to pay for some or all of
that care if they have assets of more than £23,250, with their homes
included as one of those assets. By contrast, for those who get publicly
funded care in their own homes the value of their house is not included.
Third, the Tory plan is to say that the value of a house will be
included in the calculation even if the person receives state-funded
care at home, but that the limit will be raised from £23,250 to £100,000.
There's nothing to stop us planning for our care in old age, either
privately or via some sort of scheme. But if we want the government to
pay for our care then they will only do so (if this goes through) while
our assets are worth more than £100,000. Once those assets go below
£100,000 the government - i.e. the taxpayer - will take over.
That means that people will always be able to hand over at least
£100,000 to their children, and a lot more if they have the wealth and
have planned for it.
Post by Yellow
Which leads me to another thought - what happens if you need care and
have assets, which they take, and you recover?
I don't think they will take your house while you are still this side of
the daisies!
What you will find though is that the house will have had a 'charge'
placed on it equal to the amount of the care costs you have incurred.
When the house is eventually sold, either by you or by your
beneficiaries, that amount will have to be repaid to the government,
subject to £100,000 of total assets being left alone to be passed on to
your successors.
Yes, and there's two ways of seeing that.

On one hand, the government - and hence the taxpayer - would pay for the
care of everyone who has less than £100,000, and those who have more
will never need to spend so much on their own care that they cannot pass
£100,000 to their descendants. They won't be affected while they live.
The only effect will be on what they can bequeath.

On the other hand, many of the elderly have paid in to the system
throughout their lives, e.g. with National Insurance payments. They may
expect that their prior payments were meant to pay for their old age.
--
James Harris
Norman Wells
2017-05-20 10:38:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Harris
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the Tory plan, just relating what
I understand of it. The following is my understanding.
First, if a person needs medical (but not dental) treatment that is
provided for free on the NHS including for the elderly.
Second, it's worth considering the situation at present. AIUI those who
move out of their homes and go into care have to pay for some or all of
that care if they have assets of more than £23,250, with their homes
included as one of those assets. By contrast, for those who get publicly
funded care in their own homes the value of their house is not included.
Third, the Tory plan is to say that the value of a house will be
included in the calculation even if the person receives state-funded
care at home, but that the limit will be raised from £23,250 to £100,000.
There's nothing to stop us planning for our care in old age, either
privately or via some sort of scheme. But if we want the government to
pay for our care then they will only do so (if this goes through) while
our assets are worth more than £100,000. Once those assets go below
£100,000 the government - i.e. the taxpayer - will take over.
That means that people will always be able to hand over at least
£100,000 to their children, and a lot more if they have the wealth and
have planned for it.
Post by Yellow
Which leads me to another thought - what happens if you need care and
have assets, which they take, and you recover?
I don't think they will take your house while you are still this side of
the daisies!
What you will find though is that the house will have had a 'charge'
placed on it equal to the amount of the care costs you have incurred.
When the house is eventually sold, either by you or by your
beneficiaries, that amount will have to be repaid to the government,
subject to £100,000 of total assets being left alone to be passed on
to your successors.
Yes, and there's two ways of seeing that.
On one hand, the government - and hence the taxpayer - would pay for the
care of everyone who has less than £100,000, and those who have more
will never need to spend so much on their own care that they cannot pass
£100,000 to their descendants. They won't be affected while they live.
The only effect will be on what they can bequeath.
On the other hand, many of the elderly have paid in to the system
throughout their lives, e.g. with National Insurance payments. They may
expect that their prior payments were meant to pay for their old age.
But they were never intended to. They cover benefits, like pensions,
and health care, not purely residential costs, which you are expected to
provide for yourself throughout your life.

If you have a house but you're not living in it, why should you expect
the taxpayer to pick up the tab for you to stay somewhere else? Why
should you expect the taxpayer to preserve your house just so that you
can pass it on to someone who has paid nothing towards it?
abelard
2017-05-20 10:48:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 20 May 2017 10:53:20 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Harris
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the Tory plan, just relating what
I understand of it. The following is my understanding.
First, if a person needs medical (but not dental) treatment that is
provided for free on the NHS including for the elderly.
Second, it's worth considering the situation at present. AIUI those who
move out of their homes and go into care have to pay for some or all of
that care if they have assets of more than £23,250, with their homes
included as one of those assets. By contrast, for those who get publicly
funded care in their own homes the value of their house is not included.
Third, the Tory plan is to say that the value of a house will be
included in the calculation even if the person receives state-funded
care at home, but that the limit will be raised from £23,250 to £100,000.
There's nothing to stop us planning for our care in old age, either
privately or via some sort of scheme. But if we want the government to
pay for our care then they will only do so (if this goes through) while
our assets are worth more than £100,000. Once those assets go below
£100,000 the government - i.e. the taxpayer - will take over.
That means that people will always be able to hand over at least
£100,000 to their children, and a lot more if they have the wealth and
have planned for it.
Post by Yellow
Which leads me to another thought - what happens if you need care and
have assets, which they take, and you recover?
I don't think they will take your house while you are still this side of
the daisies!
What you will find though is that the house will have had a 'charge'
placed on it equal to the amount of the care costs you have incurred.
When the house is eventually sold, either by you or by your
beneficiaries, that amount will have to be repaid to the government,
subject to £100,000 of total assets being left alone to be passed on to
your successors.
Yes, and there's two ways of seeing that.
On one hand, the government - and hence the taxpayer - would pay for the
care of everyone who has less than £100,000, and those who have more
will never need to spend so much on their own care that they cannot pass
£100,000 to their descendants. They won't be affected while they live.
The only effect will be on what they can bequeath.
On the other hand, many of the elderly have paid in to the system
throughout their lives, e.g. with National Insurance payments. They may
expect that their prior payments were meant to pay for their old age.
the question seems to amount to 'am i my brother's keeper?'

and is the state my brother?

or is my brother my brother or my samaritan neighbour down the road?

this nonsense has gradually allowed the state to usurp the place
of the neighbourhood or the local church congregation...

unless this is discussed from the roots upward it just becomes a
matter of tradition and fashions

yyyyy

who then can pay...obviously the ones who have money/assets...
not use trying to get money out of the feckless...they're too
exercised in extracting your money from you...
with the all-powerful state as an agent...

the notional money is increasingly in a property owning 'democracy'

so you transfer that wealth to missis sawkins down the road after
a life of grafting for it...how different is that from extracting
40% of your wages week by week to pay for missis sawkins
18 children and her fags?

Ophelia
2017-05-20 08:28:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <ofnlsl$g5e$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
I am not usually a Cable fan but he was very good on this topic and
explored it quite thoroughly. His point about it being a 100%
inheritance tax if you are unlucky enough to get an illness requiring
long term care, gave perspective.
Yet once a person's assets drop below £23,250 (currently) doesn't the
state pick up the rest of the tab?
At the moment - yes. How is that a "yet" statement?
You said it could be a "100% inheritance tax". If the government leaves
some money untouched I couldn't see how it could be a 100% tax.
Oh, I see but start with a million quid (or just a shabby 2 bed bungalow
like mine, but in a pricey part of the UK) and end up with £23,500, it
is surely going to feel like 100% tax.

And talking of shabby 2 bed bungalows like mine, the Tory fellow on The
Daily Politics today was asked to justify the way care is paid for by
saying that all the well off people with their money in their homes have
experienced house price growth so it is OK for the state to take it -
that was his justification. But while that is of course true for my
parents generation, who bought a house for £12,500 in 1970 which is now
selling for £450,000 but this is not the same for those of us who have
bought more recently.

I actually paid a bloody fortune for this house because the prices have
risen so much, so if I have a stroke tomorrow and need care, they are
not taking profit (well some perhaps) but the money I actually paid out
for my home.

Which leads me to another thought - what happens if you need care and
have assets, which they take, and you recover?

==

Scary thought:(
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Judith
2017-05-19 15:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Which are the bits that impress you the most?
I liked the fact that she showed that the Mayhem plan was fully costed and
gave a clear breakdown : just like Labour did.
Loading...