Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Conseratives go to court to try and take £10 million off a insane man

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2662376.ece

What do you think about this story?

I certain wouldn't vote for a party that tried to take money off a man who might be insane. Bit shocked to read this story and the fact they'd take the money in the first place.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2662376.ece

    What do you think about this story?

    I certain wouldn't vote for a party that tried to take money off a man who might be insane. Bit shocked to read this story and the fact they'd take the money in the first place.

    You've put a pretty special spin on the story.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well the official policy is that if there is even the slightest doubt about the origins of the money that they should not accept it - however that's probably only for little amounts - £10 million and they think twice ..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2662376.ece

    What do you think about this story?

    I certain wouldn't vote for a party that tried to take money off a man who might be insane. Bit shocked to read this story and the fact they'd take the money in the first place.

    Oh cut the crap DG, we all know you wouldn't vote for the Tories anyhow; regardless of this.

    Besides, who's to say there isn't a devilish organisation of bestial monsters studying human weakness? Ever here of the Office for National Statistics? The General Register Office? Cbeebies? The list is endless!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The title of this thread is misleading- thats not what happened at all

    However, I think its pretty shit that they took the money in the first place. Their 'policy' about refusing donations if there is doubt about the donor's capacity is clearly a load of shit
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It don't matter which party was left the money - they shouldn't have accepted it in the first place.

    if someone wants to give you that kind of money first thing they should check is where the money came from, who is making the offer and for what reasons.

    I don't care if he left the money to labour, conservatives or the green party. The fact it had to go to court in the first place is shocking enough ..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    he hated his family and even though he was insane the judge still awarded the money to his family. nice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    he hated his family and even though he was insane the judge still awarded the money to his family. nice.


    The judge reinstated his previous will which was made in 1974 at a time when there was no doubts about his sanity. Not quite the same thing .. but that will did leave the money to his son ..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Labour aren't exactly fussy about who they take money off. Bernie ring a bell? There might not have been enough evidence to charge Lord Levy but anyone who believes the Labour Party's version of events is somewhat gullible. And the LibDem's former biggest donor, a particularly shady character is now doing time. Democrats and Republicans in the States will take money off anyone...

    Unless you're going to spoil your ballot it's pretty pointless to say you won't vote for a party/candidate based on how they get their money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well wasn't it the conservatives that where making waves about the level of inheritance tax - you can't get higher level of tax then taking someone's inheritance off them totally.

    If this case has been going on for 2 years then seems funny they should use it as an election winner knowing this case is happening in the background..

    I'm just disappointed any party wouldn't have looked at it and said this money is tainted and in huge dispute - let just leave it alone
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is a very poor attempt at slamming the Tory party IMHO
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even by your standards, DG, this is a pretty pisspoor thread.

    When the Conservative Party were made aware of the donation, there wasn't any sign of mental illness (other than his professed love of Maragaret Thatcher). And I don't see why they should disregard his will just because the son reckons his father was mentally ill, especially as the benefactor had become estranged from his family long before the mental illness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is a very poor attempt at slamming the Tory party IMHO

    I know. There's plenty of better shit we could slam them for than this. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If I had hated my kids for most of 25 years, i'd be pretty upset that a judge overturned my will. regardless of what you think of the tories, it's quite obvious that his son is a shit who could quite obviously have done more to help his father but chose not to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Even by your standards, DG, this is a pretty pisspoor thread.

    When the Conservative Party were made aware of the donation, there wasn't any sign of mental illness (other than his professed love of Maragaret Thatcher). And I don't see why they should disregard his will just because the son reckons his father was mentally ill, especially as the benefactor had become estranged from his family long before the mental illness.


    In which passage does it say he fell out with his family before he lost his sanity? I don't see anything which establishes that time line?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know. There's plenty of better shit we could slam them for than this. :p

    Exactly.

    We could start with their Health Policy which will "save the NHS" but isn't actually any different from current Labour policy...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    If I had hated my kids for most of 25 years, i'd be pretty upset that a judge overturned my will.

    :confused:

    TBH If your will was being divided up, I don't think that being "upset" would rate highly in your list of priorities. "Not breathing" & "no heart beat" would be higher, don't you think?

    ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know. There's plenty of better shit we could slam them for than this. :p

    I'm not really that concerned with whether it was the Tory's, Libs, or Labour that took the money .. just the fact any party would take it in the first place and see it through to going to court.

    And of course this is reality ... a real amount of money and real actions .. whilst a party is NOT in power they can make up any policy they want - do whatever it takes to win an election... I'm sure they all say what they think voters want to hear.

    I thought this was an interesting example of something very real ... I don't think many people are getting that point - what happens when an organisation is given a huge amount of money - do they take the moral ground or do they take the cash? Do they play is safe or do they not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :confused:

    TBH If your will was being divided up, I don't think that being "upset" would rate highly in your list of priorities. "Not breathing" & "no heart beat" would be higher, don't you think?

    ;)


    raflmao
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :confused:

    TBH If your will was being divided up, I don't think that being "upset" would rate highly in your list of priorities. "Not breathing" & "no heart beat" would be higher, don't you think?

    ;)



    I'd be cursing you from hell :p

    Seriously though, people make wills for a reason, to see them honoured. To have it overturned by a greedy family member who has had nothing to do with you for 20 years is a bit low imho.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I'd be cursing you from hell :p

    Seriously though, people make wills for a reason, to see them honoured. To have it overturned by a greedy family member who has had nothing to do with you for 20 years is a bit low imho.


    How do you know he is greedy and / or had nothing to do with him for 20 years?

    His illness could have made him totally unapproachable .. I'm sure if he had done so well in business he'd have been a strong minded individual to begin with.

    You'll have to wait and see what he does with the money to determine if he's greedy. Maybe he'll distribute it amongst the family?

    Also if you do some research and look at other reports he is said to have locked up his own wife, sprinkled her with powder to show she was on cocaine.

    accused his sister trying to poison him;

    Said his mother was part of a satanic conspiracy,

    and said his son tried to drown him by tempting him to walk along a beach at St Andrews, Scotland, on a windy day.

    He also drew up a list of 93 people - including bankers, pharmaceutical directors, solicitors, accountants - all of whom were part of " an international sex-vice ring" which was trying to drug or poison him.

    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,2192062,00.html



    Again I just agree with the comments at the end of that article that the matter even got as far as the courts..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    In which passage does it say he fell out with his family before he lost his sanity? I don't see anything which establishes that time line?

    Read the Guardian's report of the same events, which goes into it in much more detail.

    The son became estranged from his father in 1982, by the son's own admission. The will was made in 1986, ten years before the benefactor died (in 2005).

    The will that the Court have reverted to is from 1974.

    I don't have all the facts so I don't want to comment on the decision, but from what I've seen the Conservatives are quite right to try and argue that they have a right to the will.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    £10 million wins an election
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm with Kermit on this one. If anything it is good that the party are supporting the rights of the mentally ill.
Sign In or Register to comment.