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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Original Quill wrote:

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.

Ah well, the argument about who should pay what rages on. Some will say that those who were prudent enough to save up whilst they could shouldn't be penalised for that, and others say that those who have money shouldn't get State help because they can help themselves. This is an issue for many people, especially when people have to sell their house to pay for nursing home fees or whatever. Their offspring often don't like it much either because they lose their potential inheritance.

Re the issue of a government bailing out banks, aren't they really bailing out the people who had money invested in that bank so they don't lose their savings?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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.

Ah well, the argument about who should pay what rages on. Some will say that those who were prudent enough to save up whilst they could shouldn't be penalised for that...

Nor should those who were prudent enough to go and defend their nation...

Raggamuffin wrote:...and others say that those who have money shouldn't get State help because they can help themselves. This is an issue for many people, especially when people have to sell their house to pay for nursing home fees or whatever. Their offspring often don't like it much either because they lose their potential inheritance.

Sorry Raggs, but you are evading the issue.  If the government is going to bail out banks and insurances companies that take the money and give it out in £-million bonuses to officers, etc., then it can afford to support old soldiers in need, without setting them aside and making them pay a penalty.

Raggamuffin wrote:Re the issue of a government bailing out banks, aren't they really bailing out the people who had money invested in that bank so they don't lose their savings?

Unfortunately no.  What the government found after the dust cleared is that the banks were maintaining accounts it its own name, using the funds to speculate on money that would go back into profits.  Banks don't work for the little guy, but they love their own or the big corporation.  The idea is to socialize risk, but privatize profits.

Quill, could you not split my post please? I find it difficult to reply when you do that. Ta.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ah well, the argument about who should pay what rages on. Some will say that those who were prudent enough to save up whilst they could shouldn't be penalised for that...

Nor should those who were prudent enough to go and defend their nation...

So do you take the view that this particular chap deserves more money than someone who didn't fight in a war then?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:...and others say that those who have money shouldn't get State help because they can help themselves. This is an issue for many people, especially when people have to sell their house to pay for nursing home fees or whatever. Their offspring often don't like it much either because they lose their potential inheritance.

Sorry Raggs, but you are evading the issue.  If the government is going to bail out banks and insurances companies that take the money and give it out in £-million bonuses to officers, etc., then it can afford to support old soldiers in need, without setting them aside and making them pay a penalty.

Your reply had nothing to do with what I said. My point is that if someone has their own money, should they get public funds? If you think they should, does that only apply to people who you think "deserve" to keep their own money more than others do? Furthermore, do you think that the offspring of old soldiers have more right to inherit their father's money than others?

Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately no.  What the government found after the dust cleared is that the banks were maintaining accounts it its own name, using the funds to speculate on money that would go back into profits.  Banks don't work for the little guy, but they love their own or the big corporation.  The idea is to socialize risk, but privatize profits.

The Bank of England bailed out Northern Rock, in which I had savings. A lot of people took their savings out, but I did not. If they had not done that, would I not have lost my savings?

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-09-14/crisis-at-northern-rockbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, could you not split my post please? I find it difficult to reply when you do that. Ta.

No. Sorry, but I find it advantageous to do that. Remember, your post is to do with as you wish. And my post is is to do with as I wish. Your post is for your thoughts and ideas, and my post is for my thoughts and ideas.

I take a part your post in quotation precisely because it makes my point much better that way. If we settle on a word or definition, I may make my point on that subject and you may make your point on that subject. Likewise, a phrase or a passage.

As for the method of breaking a quote down, it is in the long-respected style of analysis (analysis: the identification or separation of ingredients of a substance; separation of a whole into its component parts). It helps everyone understand what is being addressed so they may better understand what is being said.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, could you not split my post please? I find it difficult to reply when you do that. Ta.

No.  Sorry, but I find it advantageous to do that.  Remember, your post is to do with as you wish.  And my post is is to do with as I wish.  Your post is for your thoughts and ideas, and my post is for my thoughts and ideas.  

I take a part your post in quotation precisely because it makes my point much better that way.  If we settle on a word or definition, I may make my point on that subject and you may make your point on that subject.  Likewise, a phrase or a passage.

As for the method of breaking a quote down, it is in the long-respected style of analysis (analysis: the identification or separation of ingredients of a substance; separation of a whole into its component parts).  It helps everyone understand what is being addressed so they may better understand what is being said.

Well don't blame me if I don't reply to your posts if you have split my previous post then. I don't like it because I have to start deleting bits and rearranging the quote.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately no.  What the government found after the dust cleared is that the banks were maintaining accounts it its own name, using the funds to speculate on money that would go back into profits.  Banks don't work for the little guy, but they love their own or the big corporation.  The idea is to socialize risk, but privatize profits.

The Bank of England bailed out Northern Rock, in which I had savings. A lot of people took their savings out, but I did not. If they had not done that, would I not have lost my savings?

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-09-14/crisis-at-northern-rockbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

I do not know anything about Northern Rock. The reason why we talk about similarities among banks is that they are all governed by the same laws and regulations, and thus behave similarly. Bank runs are something that was experienced before the Great Depression. Here, the banks went directly to potential closure, had the governments not bailed them out.

No doubt, the two are related. But concentrate: we are not discussing what would happen had the catastrophe been permitted to happen; we are discussing how cavalierly the banks handled that risk. It is a classic example of how the wealthy use the system...and here—back to the OP—we are discussing a veteran who must take food off his table before the government will give him a dime.

It's shameful.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No.  Sorry, but I find it advantageous to do that.  Remember, your post is to do with as you wish.  And my post is is to do with as I wish.  Your post is for your thoughts and ideas, and my post is for my thoughts and ideas.  

I take a part your post in quotation precisely because it makes my point much better that way.  If we settle on a word or definition, I may make my point on that subject and you may make your point on that subject.  Likewise, a phrase or a passage.

As for the method of breaking a quote down, it is in the long-respected style of analysis (analysis: the identification or separation of ingredients of a substance; separation of a whole into its component parts).  It helps everyone understand what is being addressed so they may better understand what is being said.

Well don't blame me if I don't reply to your posts if you have split my previous post then. I don't like it because I have to start deleting bits and rearranging the quote.

Don't be disgruntled. It's the rules of fair comment. If you choose not to reply, most people will think it is because your adversary's point withstands any further comment.

You can't put words in another person's mouth, nor can you put ideas in another person's head. How one presents his or her ideas is as important as the words used. It's not your prerogative, merely because your passage introduced or carried on the subject.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Bank of England bailed out Northern Rock, in which I had savings. A lot of people took their savings out, but I did not. If they had not done that, would I not have lost my savings?

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-09-14/crisis-at-northern-rockbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

I do not know anything about Northern Rock.  The reason why we talk about similarities among banks is that they are all governed by the same laws and regulations, and thus behave similarly.  Bank runs are something that was experienced before the Great Depression.  Here, the banks went directly to potential closure, had the governments not bailed them out.

No doubt, the two are related.  But concentrate: we are not discussing what would happen had the catastrophe been permitted to happen; we are discussing how cavalierly the banks handled that risk.  It is a classic example of how the wealthy use the system...and here—back to the OP—we are discussing a veteran who must take food off his table before the government will give him a dime.

It's shameful.

Northern Rock was just an example because I had savings with them, and they kind of went bust. It could apply to any bank or building society though. Why should people lose their hard-earned savings?

Anyway, this thread isn't about banks. I don't know enough the subject tbh.

The veteran in question has had to do nothing of the kind. It seems that he's been getting financial assistance, despite having savings. I queried that because I read that people with savings over a certain amount do not qualify for home assistance - ie, they can afford to pay for it themselves, at least until their money runs out. It's the same with certain benefits, like housing benefit - ie, it's means tested.

This is a subject which is hotly debated in the UK - those who were careful and saved up often get less from the State than those who never bothered to save a penny, or never even had a job in their life.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well don't blame me if I don't reply to your posts if you have split my previous post then. I don't like it because I have to start deleting bits and rearranging the quote.

Don't be disgruntled.  It's the rules of fair comment.  If you choose not to reply, most people will think it is because your adversary's point withstands any further comment.

You can't put words in another person's mouth, nor can you put ideas in another person's head.  How one presents his or her ideas is as important as the words used.  It's not your prerogative, merely because your passage introduced or carried on the subject.

They won't think that because I'll reply and say why I'm not replying to you. I was pretty polite with my request, but you quite rudely just refused because it would "inconvenience" you. Well you splitting my posts inconveniences me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I do not know anything about Northern Rock.  The reason why we talk about similarities among banks is that they are all governed by the same laws and regulations, and thus behave similarly.  Bank runs are something that was experienced before the Great Depression.  Here, the banks went directly to potential closure, had the governments not bailed them out.

No doubt, the two are related.  But concentrate: we are not discussing what would happen had the catastrophe been permitted to happen; we are discussing how cavalierly the banks handled that risk.  It is a classic example of how the wealthy use the system...and here—back to the OP—we are discussing a veteran who must take food off his table before the government will give him a dime.

It's shameful.

Northern Rock was just an example because I had savings with them, and they kind of went bust. It could apply to any bank or building society though. Why should people lose their hard-earned savings?

Anyway, this thread isn't about banks. I don't know enough the subject tbh.

The veteran in question has had to do nothing of the kind. It seems that he's been getting financial assistance, despite having savings. I queried that because I read that people with savings over a certain amount do not qualify for home assistance - ie, they can afford to pay for it themselves, at least until their money runs out. It's the same with certain benefits, like housing benefit - ie, it's means tested.

If you are saying he broke the law, that is another matter. Discuss it on that basis--i.e., discuss the law and not his circumstances.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is a subject which is hotly debated in the UK - those who were careful and saved up often get less from the State than those who never bothered to save a penny, or never even had a job in their life.

Let's stop with the bleeding heart language: "careful and saved"? More likely they were profligate, but their inheritance was that fortuitous.

I understand the limits on savings and assets that may not be exceeded when receiving assistance. Believe it or not, I work through the Bar Association Homeless Advocacy Project to help people to qualify in our own programs in the US, and I go to court for them if necessary (I have never lost). Just like taxes, most of the time the person has not structured the exemptions properly, because he has not been given benefit of proper advice to do that. Doesn't this simply rephrase the question: the rich have the resources to (1) lobby for the proper laws and regulations to advantage themselves; and (2) they get tax lawyers (on analogy, because they do not need benefits lawyers) to help them through the maze?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Northern Rock was just an example because I had savings with them, and they kind of went bust. It could apply to any bank or building society though. Why should people lose their hard-earned savings?

Anyway, this thread isn't about banks. I don't know enough the subject tbh.

The veteran in question has had to do nothing of the kind. It seems that he's been getting financial assistance, despite having savings. I queried that because I read that people with savings over a certain amount do not qualify for home assistance - ie, they can afford to pay for it themselves, at least until their money runs out. It's the same with certain benefits, like housing benefit - ie, it's means tested.

If you are saying he broke the law, that is another matter.  Discuss it on that basis--i.e., discuss the law and not his circumstances.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is a subject which is hotly debated in the UK - those who were careful and saved up often get less from the State than those who never bothered to save a penny, or never even had a job in their life.

Let's stop with the bleeding heart language: "careful and saved"?  More likely they were profligate, but their inheritance was that fortuitous.

I understand the limits on savings and assets that may not be exceeded when receiving assistance.  Believe it or not, I work through the Bar Association Homeless Advocacy Project to help people to qualify in our own programs in the US, and I go to court for them if necessary (I have never lost).  Just like taxes, most of the time the person has not structured the exemptions properly, because he has not been given benefit of proper advice to do that.  Doesn't this simply rephrase the question: the rich have the resources to (1) lobby for the proper laws and regulations to advantage themselves; and (2) they get tax lawyers (on analogy, because they do not need benefits lawyers) to help them through the maze?

I'll reply as you've only done one split.

I'm not saying he broke the law at all, I'm merely asking what kind of benefits he got if care at home is means tested. Perhaps different councils have different rules, in which case he was lucky.

Are you suggesting that anyone with money has not saved it? The article about this old chap said he had savings, which suggests that he saved from when he worked. In any case, lots of people do actually save out of their earnings for many years. They might have paid a mortgage, with all the stress that often entails, and ended up having to sell the house to pay for their own care, while someone who never paid for a mortgage, or indeed any rent, would not have to pay for their own care.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you are saying he broke the law, that is another matter.  Discuss it on that basis--i.e., discuss the law and not his circumstances.



Let's stop with the bleeding heart language: "careful and saved"?  More likely they were profligate, but their inheritance was that fortuitous.

I understand the limits on savings and assets that may not be exceeded when receiving assistance.  Believe it or not, I work through the Bar Association Homeless Advocacy Project to help people to qualify in our own programs in the US, and I go to court for them if necessary (I have never lost).  Just like taxes, most of the time the person has not structured the exemptions properly, because he has not been given benefit of proper advice to do that.  Doesn't this simply rephrase the question: the rich have the resources to (1) lobby for the proper laws and regulations to advantage themselves; and (2) they get tax lawyers (on analogy, because they do not need benefits lawyers) to help them through the maze?

I'll reply as you've only done one split.

I'm not saying he broke the law at all, I'm merely asking what kind of benefits he got if care at home is means tested. Perhaps different councils have different rules, in which case he was lucky.

Are you suggesting that anyone with money has not saved it? The article about this old chap said he had savings, which suggests that he saved from when he worked. In any case, lots of people do actually save out of their earnings for many years. They might have paid a mortgage, with all the stress that often entails, and ended up having to sell the house to pay for their own care, while someone who never paid for a mortgage, or indeed any rent, would not have to pay for their own care.

No, I am saying that the situation of one person is a different subject from the issue in general. You can't generalize from specifics; you can't say all people with money worked hard and saved.

I make the point that most people with excess money got it from inheritance, merely to put to rest your assumption that they worked hard and slaved for it. You are playing 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and I am addressing the abstract point, regardless of the associations.

The crucial words you use are: "might have..." Your example is a supposition. If you are critical of the regulations and what exemptions they provide, change the law. That was my point about this old man...if he broke the law, that's another subject. So we seem to be jumping around from one subject to the next and we ought to be discussing just one.

The subject here is, they shouldn't be providing £million bonuses to bankers while questioning some marginal person's food allowance or meager savings.

It's nearing noon here and I have a lunch engagement. We can reconnect maybe this evening.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'll reply as you've only done one split.

I'm not saying he broke the law at all, I'm merely asking what kind of benefits he got if care at home is means tested. Perhaps different councils have different rules, in which case he was lucky.

Are you suggesting that anyone with money has not saved it? The article about this old chap said he had savings, which suggests that he saved from when he worked. In any case, lots of people do actually save out of their earnings for many years. They might have paid a mortgage, with all the stress that often entails, and ended up having to sell the house to pay for their own care, while someone who never paid for a mortgage, or indeed any rent, would not have to pay for their own care.

No, I am saying that the situation of one person is a different subject from the issue in general.  You can't generalize from specifics; you can't say all people with money worked hard and saved.

I make the point that most people with excess money got it from inheritance, merely to put to rest your assumption that they worked hard and slaved for it.  You are playing 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and I am addressing the abstract point, regardless of the associations.

The crucial words you use are: "might have..."  Your example is a supposition.  If you are critical of the regulations and what exemptions they provide, change the law.  That was my point about this old man...if he broke the law, that's another subject.  So we seem to be jumping around from one subject to the next and we ought to be discussing just one.

The subject here is, they shouldn't be providing £million bonuses to bankers while questioning some marginal person's food allowance or meager savings.

Well you're the one making claims that most people with savings got it from inheritance, but you haven't backed that up in any way. Perhaps you should have said they "might have" got it via inheritance.

So you do not distinguish between those who went without some things and saved up, and those who got an inheritance or won the lottery?

I don't think the bankers have anything to do with this. It's a separate issue.

This is not about food allowance or meagre savings, it's about one person wanting more from the State than the allocated allowance in his area to pay for a carer or carers in his own home. If this is about fairness, what about all the other disabled people who only get the allocated allowance?

Original Quill wrote:It's nearing noon here and I have a lunch engagement.  We can reconnect maybe this evening.

I'll look forward to that. Enjoy your lunch.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, I am saying that the situation of one person is a different subject from the issue in general.  You can't generalize from specifics; you can't say all people with money worked hard and saved.

I make the point that most people with excess money got it from inheritance, merely to put to rest your assumption that they worked hard and slaved for it.  You are playing 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and I am addressing the abstract point, regardless of the associations.

The crucial words you use are: "might have..."  Your example is a supposition.  If you are critical of the regulations and what exemptions they provide, change the law.  That was my point about this old man...if he broke the law, that's another subject.  So we seem to be jumping around from one subject to the next and we ought to be discussing just one.

The subject here is, they shouldn't be providing £million bonuses to bankers while questioning some marginal person's food allowance or meager savings.

Well you're the one making claims that most people with savings got it from inheritance, but you haven't backed that up in any way. Perhaps you should have said they "might have" got it via inheritance.

Because it is not really relevant  to my argument.  My point is that however the savings are gathered, the banks use the funds to create personal profit.

Raggamuffin wrote:So you do not distinguish between those who went without some things and saved up, and those who got an inheritance or won the lottery?

Not in this discussion.  It's irrelevant.  

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think the bankers have anything to do with this. It's a separate issue.

That's because it is inconvenient to you.  Back to basics: need and resources.  You wish to take marginal crumbs from a man, or his family, while the bankers (or anyone with wealth) take much more, and give back less.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is not about food allowance or meagre savings, it's about one person wanting more from the State than the allocated allowance in his area to pay for a carer or carers in his own home. If this is about fairness, what about all the other disabled people who only get the allocated allowance?

 
Food, crumbs, savings...it's a figure of speech.  It's the comparison that matters.  And it is a comparison, not between the needy, but between the wealthy and the less fortunate.  That's why the way bankers structure things is important.  Oh yes, they do the structuring of all these things through lobbyists and contributions, and at the other end of the system, they take far more than their fair share.  I mean...who ever heard of a welfare recipient getting a £1-million bonus?

BTW...how do you reckon they became the one-percenters?