Sunday, 25 October 2009

Nu Labour Robbing The Incapcitated



Only Nu Labour could set up a body call the 'The Court of Protection' then fleece the sick and their dependents blind.

The Court of Protection was set up by Justice Secretary Jack Straw to hear cases involving people who become unable to look after their own affairs through mental illness, accidents or dementia, but have not drawn up a "living will" nominating a relative or friend to take control of their assets.

In two years this parody of a title worthy of the 'Ministry of Truth' has seized control of £3.2 Billions of assets and charge the sick and ill £23 million in fees. What a fantastic scam. They are hardly going to complain are they ?

However the relatives are, 3000 complaints in two years

Posters on an internet forum have complained of "bullying" letters and "being treated like a criminal" after being deemed unsuitable to look after their relatives' affairs.

Children's author Heather Bateman told how she had to apply to the court for any spending over £500 - including her daughter's university fees - after an accident left her husband Michael, whose bank account was used to pay most of the family's bills, in a coma.

"The Court of Protection brought almost as much anger, grief and frustration into my life as the accident itself," Mrs Bateman told Saga magazine.


This is another of Jack Straw's Criminal Acts, the money is not the Government's you utter bastards.

Children do not belong to the State, the dying should not be helped on their way by the State's Pathway scheme, the assets of the sick do not belong to the State. It is bad enough that the assets of the intestate dead are seized by the Crown.

Is there nothing that is sacrosanct from the grasping hand of the State ?

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Court of Protection. It even sounds like something from 1984.
Labour are utter scum.

Anonymous said...

The article is not sinister as the Mail is trying to suggest.

The Court of Protection exists to protect those who have lost mental capacity. Only if people have failed to make provision for such a situation by drawing up Lasting Power of Attorney and appointing people of their choice to handle their affairs, does the Court assume responsibility. It's certainly preferable to avoid the involvement of the Court of Protection because it's slow, cumbersome and costly. The trouble is that people just don't realise the consequences of failure to act. They tend to presume, not unreasonably, that relatives would automatically assume responsibility, rather as they don't understand that if they've failed to make a will themselves then the State has made one for them in the guise of the Rules of Intestacy.

Anonymous said...

The Court of Protection - yes, protection of the corrupt, rotten, trough-swilling scum that is Labour - honest tax-payers & their families to be laid out to dry & robbed blind. Jack Straw involved? No surprise there then. Who will protect us? Call Me Dave? Think he's only to likely to leave things as they are. Seems like the BNP is suddenly becoming a very viable option.

Anonymous said...

register the birth of your children, then they belong to the state , registration means ownership!!!!!!

Old Holborn said...

Funnily enough Anon, when my twins were born in Germany, the State sent someone round to DEMAND that I name them immediately.

"Or what?" I said

Turns out they wanted to fine me if I didn't. My response?

"I'll call them both Adolf then"

Dick the Prick said...

OH - why don't people call their kids Adolf anymore?

To be fair to Anon 11.59 - I guess it is quite a complex thing but it seems where pragmatism, logic and a bit of common sense would be required, Labour have just set up a piece of shit.

Anonymous said...

@Dick 12.46 LPAs replaced Enduring Power of Attorney which fulfilled the same function but were felt to be open to abuse. The more complex LPAs with their additional safeguards were motivated by genuine concern for the vulnerable. People have the choice of drawing up LPA as an insurance or taking the risk in the knowledge that the State will take control if they lose the capacity to handle their own affairs. When offered the choice many people prefer (unwisely) to leave it up to the State. Yes, legitimate criticisms can be levelled at both the Office of the Public Guardian and the Court of Protection but, sadly, their existence is necessary in a less than ideal world in which some vulnerable people really do need protection from their own families (not so long ago there was a case, for example where a niece (the sole beneficiary of an estate) murdered her aged aunt because the estate was being seriously eroded by care home fees.)

Dick the Prick said...

@Anon - yeah sure - got that far. Where I didn't get was direct next of kin being over-ruled because of some bullshit document. The story of the wife being screwed because of a coma is as nonsensical as it is offensive. I realize that this is not necessarily gonna protect coma victims, alzheimers etc but neither should the state intervene where the family is close or direct history can be shown to exist where the guardian is kosher.

My mum's batted all her cash into my name and soon to be her next house (gonna mortgage myself up to fuck so on paper she'll be skint in a few years) so, you're saying that by law it'd be better if I get an LPA to protect either a son from his mother or a mother from her son? That there is no facility in this bureaucratized testicle for someone to take 3 seconds out of their life to say 'yup, up to you, fuck off out my office'?

I'm not against the legal position existing to act as arbitrator, I object to the fact that it's guilt before innocence, that safeguards don't exist after the fact. That intrusion is default. Certainly don't believe we can bang up a policy on a Sunday afternoon - but I bet by Friday we could sort it out.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't all this stem back to the Magna Carter? Seems Libertarians only want to cherry pick the bits that suit them.

If the Government really want to get people to make wills then they should put the same effort into running a campaign about it as they did for the seat belt and drink driving campaigns.

Rogerborg said...

>The article is not sinister as the Mail is trying to suggest.

Uh huh. The "Court" of "Protection" exists because ZanuLabour believes that my relationship with an unaccountable stranger appointed by a Home Secretary of the Month is more intimate than my relationship with my wife or children.

You don't think that's sinister? Swinger, are you?

Guthrum said...

Doesn't all this stem back to the Magna Carter? Seems Libertarians only want to cherry pick the bits that suit them.

The Magna Carta only applied to the the top 10% of the Strata, the bulk of us were no account peasants.

It is a myth that the Magna Carta holds any sway in a Court of Law eight hundred years later.

Parliament is the ultimate authority, if Parliament votes to strip you of every cent, that is what will happen. The Courts only uphold the Laws passed by Parliament.

Not having a written Constitution means we cannot declare unjust Laws unconstitutional.

Simples

Which bit did you not understand.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 15.40 - Why should the Government give a damn if you do or don't make a will? It's the individual's responsibility (you know, that concept that you have to take on board if you don't want to be treated like a child by an over-intrusive State). If, however, someone's died without making one there has to be a policy of dealing with their estate and the policy is decided (and implemented) by the State.

WRT mental incapacity, yes, you can argue that the State shouldn't demand proof positive, in the form of an LPA, that people are happy for their immediate family to assume control of their affairs, absence of which will trigger State intervention, but proof positive was introduced because that approach wasn't working - families were routinely stealing from the mentally incapacitated, they were compromising their quality of life and care and also, ultimately, stealing from each other. There are, in fact, many people who choose not appoint expected members of their family as Attorneys because they don't trust them.

The Mail headline is no more than spin - the Court of Protection doesn't confiscate assets but it's a nightmare to deal with and costly and if the Mail's scaremongering does any good it will be to encourage people to avoid it by drawing up LPAs.

@Dick - there are better ways for your Mum to protect her assets (I take it she's worried about them being used to fund care). Do yourself a favour, mate, and get proper advice.

Dick the Prick said...

It's really so she can fucking burn £200k like chavs and it costs us fuck all and I get an house out of it (ltd co. and it being the safest investment - maybe a bit of cash at the end.) I don't want her money and it'd be nice if she could get a better return than equity release. Plus there's loads of benefits you get if you have been a fucking useless cunt all your life which obvioulsy me ol' dear gets fuck all of. It's not really the care home thing although that is the crash at the end of the tunnel - it's more lack of incentive.

We'll get these LPA shits boxed off. There is a highly legitimate argument that it hasn't been publicized properly but I guess I know now.

Anonymous said...

@Dick - yes, it'd be nice if HMG spent a little of our money to publicise something that would help us, although CAB tries to do its bit.

HMG actually suggests a way for people to stop it from getting its hands on their assets but, unsurprisingly, it's tucked away where few are likely to find it.

Dick the Prick said...

Cheers anon. We're nowhere near doing it yet and she's been talking about moving ever since we were kids so... If she ever does downsize, we certainly will take advice but I know dam well she won't spend any of it, it'd just be nice if I could leverage myself up a bit and get a buy to let mortgage for her retirement cottage and blag all the money into my account. It's a bit of a long shot and may take some bullshitting but she's in rude health now so... Anyway, cheers again. DtP

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails