125,000 sign petition to try and stop Britain's oldest prisoner of war being evicted from his home

Britain's oldest prisoner of war is being forced out of his home of more than 50 years because a council says his care is too expensive

Britain's oldest prisoner of war is being forced out of his home of more than 50 years because a council says his care is too expensive, his family has said.

More than 125,000 people are now backing a campaign to stop Second World War veteran Robert Clark, 96, being forced into a care home after his local authority refused to continue paying for his at-home carer.

Brent council claim the cost of a carer coming to his home in Burnt Oak, north London, is too great and they are trying to move him to a nearby facility.

For the past two years, Mr Clark, who is also blind, wheelchair bound, and deaf in one ear, spent his £50,000 life savings on part of the cost of his £960-a-week live-in carer. But the council, which currently pays just £350 towards his care, is refusing to increase its contribution.

During the Second World War, Mr Clark was one of the few prisoners of war who survived Hitler’s 1,000-mile “Death March” retreat across Europe in 1945.

His son, Mike, 58, fears that his father will just “give up on life” if he is forced into a care home against his will, because it will remind him of prison.

Mr Clark was a gunner in the Durham Light Infantry when he was captured by the Nazis in the Libyan city of Tobruk in June 1942.

He spent the remaining three years of the war in a variety of prison camps in Poland, as well as taking part in the horrific Death March from January to April, 1945. Phil Porter, Brent council’s strategic director of adult social care, said: “We recognise Mr Clark’s contribution to this country and sincerely empathise with the situation that he and other older people like him across the UK are in.

“However, the problem arises as the care package that Mr Clark is choosing is not affordable to council taxpayers given the constraints of local government funding and the need to be consistent for the 2,900 people we support.”

The council said the maximum they can spend per resident is £451 a week, but even if he moves into a care home, Mr Clark will require specialist help that costs far more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11510637/War-Hero-forced-out-of-home-over-cost-of-care.html

How about the 100 rich gits from yesterday stick their hands in their pockets to stop this happening.

£960 per week for one carer? Why does it cost that much?

I see there's a son who perhaps could help care for his father.

We had carers at home for a short time for my Mum to help my Dad, that was nearly £500 a week during the day.   The son can't give up his job, he is under retirement age and has his own family to support, if he gives up his job to look after his father he will then lose pension entitlement and and someone will have to look after him later, that's the way our society works now.

PS, it wouldn't be one carer, it would be at least one during the day and one at night.

risingsun wrote:We had carers at home for a short time for my Mum to help my Dad, that was nearly £500 a week during the day.   The son can't give up his job, he is under retirement age and has his own family to support, if he gives up his job to look after his father he will then lose pension entitlement and and someone will have to look after him later, that's the way our society works now.

PS, it wouldn't be one carer, it would be at least one during the day and one at night.

It's still quite a lot if they have two carers.

How do you know all that about the son? If he's so concerned, he'll find a way.

Rags, have you ever been in that position?   Thousands of people struggle with it every day, and because families no longer spend their lives all living in the same town, it is getting more and more difficult.   24 hours is THREE 8 hour shifts, so at the least you would have three people seven days a week, which is only just over £300 each for a seven day week.    I don't have to know the son's life story, he is under retirement age and working and having been in that position when trying to look after my daughter, I know juggling it is a nightmare.

risingsun wrote:Rags, have you ever been in that position?   Thousands of people struggle with it every day, and because families no longer spend their lives all living in the same town, it is getting more and more difficult.   24 hours is THREE 8 hour shifts, so at the least you would have three people seven days a week, which is only just over £300 each for a seven day week.    I don't have to know the son's life story, he is under retirement age and working and having been in that position when trying to look after my daughter, I know juggling it is a nightmare.

Well the article says he has one carer, but I agree that he probably has more than one.

You made some assumptions about the son's life. The only thing in the article is his first name and age, and it doesn't say if he works or not, or if he has a family or not.

Anyway, the old chap might enjoy being in a home - I know they get a bad press, but they're not all bad.

OMG! Yea right, ok, whatever! Sigh!

risingsun wrote:OMG!  Yea right, ok, whatever!  Sigh!

Well try not to make assumptions based on nothing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

risingsun wrote:We had carers at home for a short time for my Mum to help my Dad, that was nearly £500 a week during the day.   The son can't give up his job, he is under retirement age and has his own family to support, if he gives up his job to look after his father he will then lose pension entitlement and and someone will have to look after him later, that's the way our society works now.

PS, it wouldn't be one carer, it would be at least one during the day and one at night.

It's still quite a lot if they have two carers.

How do you know all that about the son? If he's so concerned, he'll find a way.

Are you a socialist?  What about the son's rights to spend his money as he sees fit, and to go his own way, by himself, and for himself.  Just because he came out of a certain woman's birth canal doesn't mean he has any special obligation to be his brother's (or in this case, his father's) keeper.  When you think about it, that's about as arbitrary as saying the BP Oil should be the old gentleman's caregiver...at least they've got the resources.

Or maybe we should recognize that we all share that burden.  Meh...just an opinion.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's still quite a lot if they have two carers.

How do you know all that about the son? If he's so concerned, he'll find a way.

Are you a socialist?  What about the son's rights to spend his money as he sees fit, and to go his own way, by himself, and for himself.  Just because he came out of a certain woman's birth canal doesn't mean he has any special obligation to be his brother's (or in this case, his father's) keeper.  When you think about it, that's about as arbitrary as saying the BP Oil should be the old gentleman's caregiver...at least they've got the resources.

Or maybe we should recognize that we all share that burden.  Meh...just an opinion.

Wow, good thing the father did not take that attitude raising his son, thinking it is his money and to spend it as he sees fit. Yes he does have a bloody obligation to repay back the kindness given to him by his father in raising him. Yes we should share that burden as this is what I eluded to before today where children do not care for their parents when they need help. It is a cycle in life, one we should all respect to pay back those who helped raise us.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you a socialist?  What about the son's rights to spend his money as he sees fit, and to go his own way, by himself, and for himself.  Just because he came out of a certain woman's birth canal doesn't mean he has any special obligation to be his brother's (or in this case, his father's) keeper.  When you think about it, that's about as arbitrary as saying the BP Oil should be the old gentleman's caregiver...at least they've got the resources.

Or maybe we should recognize that we all share that burden.  Meh...just an opinion.

Wow, good thing the father did not take that attitude raising his son, thinking it is his money and to spend it as he sees fit. Yes he does have a bloody obligation to repay back the kindness given to him by his father in raising him. Yes we should share that burden as this is what I eluded to before today where children do not care for their parents when they need help. It is a cycle in life, one we should all respect to pay back those who helped raise us.

You hit the nail on the head right there. Leave the children out of it...it's all of our obligation. You, didge, owe that man's father for his part in making the world a better place to grow up in, providing education, food, transportation, communication and a better way of life. Pay up!

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Wow, good thing the father did not take that attitude raising his son, thinking it is his money and to spend it as he sees fit. Yes he does have a bloody obligation to repay back the kindness given to him by his father in raising him. Yes we should share that burden as this is what I eluded to before today where children do not care for their parents when they need help. It is a cycle in life, one we should all respect to pay back those who helped raise us.

You hit the nail on the head right there.  Leave the children out of it...it's all of our obligation.  You, didge, owe that man's father for his part in making the world a better place to grow up in, providing education, food, transportation, communication and a better way of life.  Pay up!

No the children are very much part of leading in providing a better way of life to those who spent a fortune on raising us. So the children are the most responsible for doing this. Yes we all share a responsibility, but the main responsibility comes from the children. Its is the cycle of life one we must all share the burden of in helping others. Not everything has a price to it and helping those who raised us should never be valued in money as it was for when parents raised us. Love does not cost anything

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You hit the nail on the head right there.  Leave the children out of it...it's all of our obligation.  You, didge, owe that man's father for his part in making the world a better place to grow up in, providing education, food, transportation, communication and a better way of life.  Pay up!

No the children are very much part of leading in providing a better way of life to those who spent a fortune on raising us. So the children are the most responsible for doing this. Yes we all share a responsibility, but the main responsibility comes from the children. Its is the cycle of life one we must all share the burden of in helping others. Not everything has a price to it and helping those who raised us should never be valued in money as it was for when parents raised us. Love does not cost anything

Prove it.  Sounds suspiciously metaphysical to me...like some religious edict.

In the absence of proof that it falls to the son, the answer is simple: it falls to all of us.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

No the children are very much part of leading in providing a better way of life to those who spent a fortune on raising us. So the children are the most responsible for doing this. Yes we all share a responsibility, but the main responsibility comes from the children. Its is the cycle of life one we must all share the burden of in helping others. Not everything has a price to it and helping those who raised us should never be valued in money as it was for when parents raised us. Love does not cost anything

Prove it.  Sounds suspiciously metaphysical to me...like some religious edict.

Moral and ethical obligation, as a species we have an innate ability to help others, which you see very much throughout human history and many species.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's still quite a lot if they have two carers.

How do you know all that about the son? If he's so concerned, he'll find a way.

Are you a socialist?  What about the son's rights to spend his money as he sees fit, and to go his own way, by himself, and for himself.  Just because he came out of a certain woman's birth canal doesn't mean he has any special obligation to be his brother's (or in this case, his father's) keeper.  When you think about it, that's about as arbitrary as saying the BP Oil should be the old gentleman's caregiver...at least they've got the resources.

Or maybe we should recognize that we all share that burden.  Meh...just an opinion.

Well he appears to be concerned about what happens to his father. If he doesn't care, maybe he should keep out of it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you a socialist?  What about the son's rights to spend his money as he sees fit, and to go his own way, by himself, and for himself.  Just because he came out of a certain woman's birth canal doesn't mean he has any special obligation to be his brother's (or in this case, his father's) keeper.  When you think about it, that's about as arbitrary as saying the BP Oil should be the old gentleman's caregiver...at least they've got the resources.

Or maybe we should recognize that we all share that burden.  Meh...just an opinion.

Well he appears to be concerned about what happens to his father. If he doesn't care, maybe he should keep out of it.

Perhaps.  But he is in it to see that the state fulfills its obligation.  Nothing wrong with that.

As an attorney I serve in that function all the time.  Just because I serve a client, doesn't mean I have an obligation to support them.  The gentleman is helping in that sort of capacity.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well he appears to be concerned about what happens to his father. If he doesn't care, maybe he should keep out of it.

Perhaps.  But he is in it to see that the state fulfills its obligation.  Nothing wrong with that.

As an attorney I serve in that function all the time.  Just because I serve a client, doesn't mean I have an obligation to support them.  The gentleman is helping in that sort of capacity.

The State is fulfilling its obligation. The council pays a certain amount towards the old chap's care, but they can't pay the whole lot - it would amount to about £50,000 per year, and they have others who need care as well.

Oh, and he's not being evicted from his home either, so that's misleading.

I would think that the son wouldn't have enough earnings to pay that sort of money and if he's out working help would still be needed when he's not there.

This guy fought the Nazi's to leave a legacy for others where people could have a home of their own and he deserves support so that he can live in his for as long as he wants to stay there. His country owes him that much.

Irn Bru wrote:I would think that the son wouldn't have enough earnings to pay that sort of money and if he's out working help would still be needed when he's not there.

This guy fought the Nazi's to leave a legacy for others where people could have a home of their own and he deserves support so that he can live in his for as long as he wants to stay there. His country owes him that much.

I daresay a lot of people have contributed to society, but they can't pay out huge amounts of money for years on the strength of that. The council have not cut his money - he used to pay for some of the care himself, and now he can't. They're not picking on him - it's the same rules for others too.

I wonder if they could cut down on the amount of care he needs - maybe family and friends could help out more.

Would you mind if I asked Rags?   Do you have children or parents you have to look after as well as juggling a job and other responsiblities? Obviously you don't have to tell me if you don't want to.

risingsun wrote:Would you mind if I asked Rags?   Do you have children or parents you have to look after as well as juggling a job and other responsiblities?  Obviously you don't have to tell me if you don't want to.

I don't discuss my private life on forums.

Fine, that's your prerogative after all.

risingsun wrote:Fine, that's your prerogative after all.

They are paying him £350 a week, which is a large amount, and they do have other old and disabled people who also need help. He owns the house, so there's no question of him being evicted. If they made exceptions for everyone, they'd have to cut the money which others got. I have read that they would not make him sell the house to go into a home, so it sounds like they have already made an exception for him. It's not clear why him going into a home would save money though.

I don't think you understand at all Rags, either the position of the old gentlement, who because he was in a POW camp would loathe to be in a home, and was in that POW camp FOR US, the position of the son who is probably going nuts trying to juggle lord knows how many things, or the fact that this country owes men like this gentleman a debt that no amount of money could ever pay.   He survived, lord knows how, the 1,000 mile 'death march'.   Perhaps if you read up on that and what happened to them, you might just understand how much we owe him. Our duty is to let him spend his final short time in a place he loves and feels safe in.

risingsun wrote:I don't think you understand at all Rags, either the position of the old gentlement, who because he was in a POW camp would loathe to be in a home, and was in that POW camp FOR US, the position of the son who is probably going nuts trying to juggle lord knows how many things, or the fact that this country owes men like this gentleman a debt that no amount of money could ever pay.   He survived, lord knows how, the 1,000 mile 'death march'.   Perhaps if you read up on that and what happened to them, you might just understand how much we owe him.

A care home is nothing like a POW camp. He has two children apparently, and four grandchildren who are adults. He also says he has family nearby. If they all helped, he wouldn't need so much care, or they could help to make up the shortfall which is needed.

I just don't think that public money can be allocated on an individual basis on the grounds of what anyone is "owed". Would you agree to some other poor disabled person getting less money so that he can get more?

Sorry Rags, but you really don't understand about people who have been in places where they have been imprisioned and tortured and their hatred of any confinement in strange places. A move would kill him. Apart from that, do you think a proud granfather would want his grandchildren cleaning him up and bathing him etc. Pointless to carry on. We owe him, big time. You wouldn't be here without people like him, and neither would I.

risingsun wrote:Sorry Rags, but you really don't understand about people who have been in places where they have been imprisioned and tortured and their hatred of any confinement in strange places.  A move would kill him.   Apart from that, do you think a proud granfather would want his grandchildren cleaning him up and bathing him etc.  Pointless to carry on.  We owe him, big time.   You wouldn't be here without people like him, and neither would I.

Please do not talk down to me - it makes you sound arrogant.

All that was 70 years ago! He has a massive family, so what are they doing to help? His son is just pointing the finger at the council the whole time, and he's already getting a great deal of money. The public purse is not a bottomless pit. They want nearly a £1,000 a week FFS. They could move him to a smaller house or something, and use the profit to pay for the rest of the care. You're always complaining about cuts in public funding, and now you want them cut even more so he can have more than anyone else.

Who is talking down to you.   We owe him, we wouldn't be here without people like him and it should never be forgotten and NO price is too high to pay for him. And I don't give a bugger whether it was 70 or 700 years ago. We would not be here to have had the 70 years without people like him.

risingsun wrote:Who is talking down to you.   We owe him, we wouldn't be here without people like him and it should never be forgotten and NO price is too high to pay for him.

You are talking down to me with all this "you don't understand" stuff. I understand about public funding, and that's what we're talking about. There are many, many deserving people in this country.

You can donate to his fund you know. Here you go.

http://www.gofundme.com/l7vuio

I'll be happy to, can't think of a more deserving cause at the moment. When I said you don't understand, I wasn't talking about funding, I was talking about the debt we owe him and what it would do to him to be moved. But there you go, I'll leave you to it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:I would think that the son wouldn't have enough earnings to pay that sort of money and if he's out working help would still be needed when he's not there.

This guy fought the Nazi's to leave a legacy for others where people could have a home of their own and he deserves support so that he can live in his for as long as he wants to stay there. His country owes him that much.

I daresay a lot of people have contributed to society, but they can't pay out huge amounts of money for years on the strength of that. The council have not cut his money - he used to pay for some of the care himself, and now he can't. They're not picking on him - it's the same rules for others too.

I wonder if they could cut down on the amount of care he needs - maybe family and friends could help out more.

If we can't afford to help people who are in dire need of it based on cost alone then our society is broken.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I daresay a lot of people have contributed to society, but they can't pay out huge amounts of money for years on the strength of that. The council have not cut his money - he used to pay for some of the care himself, and now he can't. They're not picking on him - it's the same rules for others too.

I wonder if they could cut down on the amount of care he needs - maybe family and friends could help out more.

If we can't afford to help people who are in dire need of it based on cost alone then our society is broken.

Perhaps you should campaign for everyone to pay more tax then.

I know people who need a lot of help, and they don't get £960 a week.

risingsun wrote:I'll be happy to, can't think of a more deserving cause at the moment.   When I said you don't understand, I wasn't talking about funding, I was talking about the debt we owe him and what it would do to him to be moved.   But there you go, I'll leave you to it.

Well this is about funding isn't it? If 125,000 people have signed the petition and they all put a quid in ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

risingsun wrote:I'll be happy to, can't think of a more deserving cause at the moment.   When I said you don't understand, I wasn't talking about funding, I was talking about the debt we owe him and what it would do to him to be moved.   But there you go, I'll leave you to it.

Well this is about funding isn't it? If 125,000 people have signed the petition and they all put a quid in ...

Well any one of the people that signed the Tory letter that some appear to have been duped into doing then £120k would hardly be missed.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well this is about funding isn't it? If 125,000 people have signed the petition and they all put a quid in ...

Well any one of the people that signed the Tory letter that some appear to have been duped into doing then £120k would hardly be missed.

Sorry, you've lost me there ...

Look, I have the greatest respect for anyone who has been in a war, but are we to have a sliding scale of benefits depending on what someone has done for this country? How do you define the worth of what they've done in financial terms?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well this is about funding isn't it? If 125,000 people have signed the petition and they all put a quid in ...

Well any one of the people that signed the Tory letter that some appear to have been duped into doing then £120k would hardly be missed.

Sorry, you've lost me there ...

Look, I have the greatest respect for anyone who has been in a war, but are we to have a sliding scale of benefits depending on what someone has done for this country? How do you define the worth of what they've done in financial terms?

I don't define the worth of someone based on monetary costs, I base it on the needs of a human being living a decent life especially in a country like ours which is one of the richest in the world.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sorry, you've lost me there ...

Look, I have the greatest respect for anyone who has been in a war, but are we to have a sliding scale of benefits depending on what someone has done for this country? How do you define the worth of what they've done in financial terms?

I don't define the worth of someone based on monetary costs, I base it on the needs of a human being living a decent life especially in a country like ours which is one of the richest in the world.

But this is about funding, as I've said. Where do you think the money comes from? It doesn't get plucked from a tree. If everyone said that they deserved more because of their contribution to this country, it would be bankrupt and nobody would have anything in the end.

You're saying he deserves more money, yes? So you are thinking about it in financial terms.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sorry, you've lost me there ...

Look, I have the greatest respect for anyone who has been in a war, but are we to have a sliding scale of benefits depending on what someone has done for this country? How do you define the worth of what they've done in financial terms?

I don't define the worth of someone based on monetary costs, I base it on the needs of a human being living a decent life especially in a country like ours which is one of the richest in the world.

But this is about funding, as I've said. Where do you think the money comes from? It doesn't get plucked from a tree. If everyone said that they deserved more because of their contribution to this country, it would be bankrupt and nobody would have anything in the end.

You're saying he deserves more money, yes? So you are thinking about it in financial terms.

No, it's quite clear that I'm thinking of it in the terms of human need not financial terms.

This country is rich and I don't define it on what contribution people have made to society in their life. You can stick a price label on the price of someone's life if you want to but count me out of that sort of thinking - it stinks.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But this is about funding, as I've said. Where do you think the money comes from? It doesn't get plucked from a tree. If everyone said that they deserved more because of their contribution to this country, it would be bankrupt and nobody would have anything in the end.

You're saying he deserves more money, yes? So you are thinking about it in financial terms.

No, it's quite clear that I'm thinking of it in the terms of human need not financial terms.

This country is rich and I don't define it on what contribution people have made to society in their life. You can stick a price label on the price of someone's life if you want to but count me out of that sort of thinking - it stinks.

Well what about other people who also need full time care? Do you think they deserve it less than him? Where are the petitions for them?

I think some people have misunderstood this issue. Reading some of the comments on the donation site, people seem to think he's being chucked out of his house or being made to pay money back. He's not. He gets a certain amount, like others who need a similar level of help do, and if he wants more, he has to pay it himself - or others have to pay it. It's the same for anyone if they need care at home.

Read this bit:

“However, the problem arises as the care package that Mr Clark is choosing is not affordable to council taxpayers given the constraints of local government funding and the need to be consistent for the 2,900 people we support.”

They support 2,900 people, not just Mr Clark.

Raggamuffin wrote:Read this bit:

“However, the problem arises as the care package that Mr Clark is choosing is not affordable to council taxpayers given the constraints of local government funding and the need to be consistent for the 2,900 people we support.”

They support 2,900 people, not just Mr Clark.

And they should all be provided with the support they need to lead a decent existence without price labelling each of them.

This country can afford it under a parliament afull of MPs and a HoL who award themselves a bonanza of benefits. What was it that a Lord gets for just turning up at the HoL? - £300 quid a day if I remember correctly.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Read this bit:



They support 2,900 people, not just Mr Clark.

And they should all be provided with the support they need to lead a decent existence without price labelling each of them.

This country can afford it under a parliament afull of MPs and a HoL who award themselves a bonanza of benefits. What was it that a Lord gets for just turning up at the HoL? - £300 quid a day if I remember correctly.

This is council money. If they have a certain amount to spend on care, and they give one person much more than others, the others would get less. If they put more money into the care fund, then that would leave less money for other types of funds. People are blaming the council, but they give him money already. As far as I can see, it's the same amount they've always given him - they haven't cut it.

You keep saying it's not about money, and then you talk about money. You also said earlier on that he deserved the money because of what he did in the war, but then you did a u-turn and said it wasn't about that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Read this bit:



They support 2,900 people, not just Mr Clark.

And they should all be provided with the support they need to lead a decent existence without price labelling each of them.

This country can afford it under a parliament afull of MPs and a HoL who award themselves a bonanza of benefits. What was it that a Lord gets for just turning up at the HoL? - £300 quid a day if I remember correctly.

This is council money. If they have a certain amount to spend on care, and they give one person much more than others, the others would get less. If they put more money into the care fund, then that would leave less money for other types of funds. People are blaming the council, but they give him money already. As far as I can see, it's the same amount they've always given him - they haven't cut it.

You keep saying it's not about money, and then you talk about money. You also said earlier on that he deserved the money because of what he did in the war, but then you did a u-turn and said it wasn't about that.

No, you are the one talking about money - I'm talking about the needs of a human being living a decent life in one of the richest countries in the world. Is that too much to ask of our government?

You just want to price label people - I don't.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

This is council money. If they have a certain amount to spend on care, and they give one person much more than others, the others would get less. If they put more money into the care fund, then that would leave less money for other types of funds. People are blaming the council, but they give him money already. As far as I can see, it's the same amount they've always given him - they haven't cut it.

You keep saying it's not about money, and then you talk about money. You also said earlier on that he deserved the money because of what he did in the war, but then you did a u-turn and said it wasn't about that.

No, you are the one talking about money - I'm talking about the needs of a human being living a decent life in one of the richest countries in the world. Is that too much to ask of our government?

You just want to price label people - I don't.

Well in order to live where he wants and have the amount of care he wants, he needs more money. This whole thing is about money. He is asking for more money, and the son is asking for more money. I really don't understand your point tbh.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

No, you are the one talking about money - I'm talking about the needs of a human being living a decent life in one of the richest countries in the world. Is that too much to ask of our government?

You just want to price label people - I don't.

Well in order to live where he wants and have the amount of care he wants, he needs more money. This whole thing is about money. He is asking for more money, and the son is asking for more money. I really don't understand your point tbh.

No, it is about money vs. need.  It doesn't matter if the council is providing it or the national government.  It actually doesn't matter that he is a hero in times past, although that highlights the anomaly of a nation taking, but failing to give back.  Need is need, wherever and however it comes about.

All around the fringes of our society (mine as well as yours) are people who have needs.  What this example offers is this: Our nation doesn't hesitate to call upon people when they need them for defense; the same nation shouldn't hesitate to help them when the people need help back.  In fact, defending the nation often causes the need, and still in this country conservatives and Republicans deny their obligation. or shunt them off to an inadequate Veterans Administration that loses them in red tape.

And yes...if money is needed, raise taxes.  If we have enough money to start wars and pay those astronomical costs, or give tax breaks to oil companies and insurance conglomerates over and above their purely economic needs—or bail out profligate banks and pay their officers £-million bonuses—there is plenty left around to fulfill our moral responsibilities.  A society that doesn't recognize this basic equivalency is still living in the dark ages.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well in order to live where he wants and have the amount of care he wants, he needs more money. This whole thing is about money. He is asking for more money, and the son is asking for more money. I really don't understand your point tbh.

No, it is about money vs. need.  It doesn't matter if the council is providing it or the national government.  It actually doesn't matter that he is a hero in times past, although that highlights the anomaly of a nation taking, but failing to give back.  Need is need, wherever and however it comes about.

All around the fringes of our society (mine as well as yours) are people who have needs.  What this example offers is this: Our nation doesn't hesitate to call upon people when they need them for defense; the same nation shouldn't hesitate to help them when the people need help back.  In fact, defending the nation often causes the need, and still in this country conservatives and Republicans deny their obligation. or shunt them off to an inadequate Veterans Administration that loses them in red tape.

And yes...if money is needed, raise taxes.  If we have enough money to start wars and pay those astronomical costs, or give tax breaks to oil companies and insurance conglomerates over and above their purely economic needs—or bail out profligate banks and pay their officers £-million bonuses—there is plenty left around to fulfill our moral responsibilities.  A society that doesn't recognize this basic equivalency is still living in the dark ages.

The councils have to pay for many things out of a limited budget - they don't have access to limitless funds, so they can't put all the money into just paying for one thing. They have to be seen to be fair on all the people they look after, so they can't say that one person is entitled to a certain amount and another is not.

I've just been looking at info on this. I'm surprised that he got financial assistance at all with his amount of savings. According to the sites I've read, if you have more than £23,250 you don't qualify for financial assistance for care at home.

I dunno - does anyone know about any of this stuff?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, it is about money vs. need.  It doesn't matter if the council is providing it or the national government.  It actually doesn't matter that he is a hero in times past, although that highlights the anomaly of a nation taking, but failing to give back.  Need is need, wherever and however it comes about.

All around the fringes of our society (mine as well as yours) are people who have needs.  What this example offers is this: Our nation doesn't hesitate to call upon people when they need them for defense; the same nation shouldn't hesitate to help them when the people need help back.  In fact, defending the nation often causes the need, and still in this country conservatives and Republicans deny their obligation. or shunt them off to an inadequate Veterans Administration that loses them in red tape.

And yes...if money is needed, raise taxes.  If we have enough money to start wars and pay those astronomical costs, or give tax breaks to oil companies and insurance conglomerates over and above their purely economic needs—or bail out profligate banks and pay their officers £-million bonuses—there is plenty left around to fulfill our moral responsibilities.  A society that doesn't recognize this basic equivalency is still living in the dark ages.

The councils have to pay for many things out of a limited budget - they don't have access to limitless funds, so they can't put all the money into just paying for one thing. They have to be seen to be fair on all the people they look after, so they can't say that one person is entitled to a certain amount and another is not.

The answer is quite simple. There should be a mechanism for the British government to compensate councils like this for expenses related to need. If they want to be fair, cut back on the financial advantages given to banks, insurance concerns and oil companies, and the like, and make money for poor souls in real need.

Raggamuffin wrote:I've just been looking at info on this. I'm surprised that he got financial assistance at all with his amount of savings. According to the sites I've read, if you have more than £23,250 you don't qualify for financial assistance for care at home.

I dunno - does anyone know about any of this stuff?

Doesn't this merely highlight how shocked, and even angry, we should be when the government bails out a bank or insurance company, and two months later it hands out £-million year-end bonuses?  It jumps right out at us.

Laws are engineered, not written in stone.  If you see someone isn't abiding by some regulation or other, you have two options: abide, or change the regulation.  Poor pensioners who are war veterans don't have influential lobbyists, nor the money to pay them, so err on the veteran's side.