BBC - On Monday, the former Labour peer requested a leave of absence from the Lords, but sources had suggested he did not plan to quit.
It’s taken 4 days for them to acknowledge Lord Sewel was for 16 years a Labour peer, but they got there in the end. Now, about that little slip by Andrew Marr?
They had no meaningful relationship for a long time it seems, the daughter is an adult, what obligation is there to provide for her? A moral one, perhaps, I just question if that should be a legal obligation.
I don't see why we should allow people to be arseholes in circumstances where they themselves are beyond even the most ethereal detriment from the courts intervening to stop them. Why can't we convert moral obligations into legal obligations in such circumstances? .
Is there a moral obligation to leave any of your estate to your kids though ?
The normal way of the world, maybe - and the natural rules of intestacy ... but why is it a moral obligation ?
Edit: I think there is a moral obligation to provide for your son/daughter to the age of 18, anything past that is choice not obligation...
Mum & Dad if you're ever reading this, I love you dearly
I'd like a House of Lords, shawn of its hereditary andspiritual members, where on appointment as a life peer you can sit for 15 years. After that time, we are happy to say "you've done your duty". Give current members of more than 15 years' standing a few more (if they want it) and reduce over to 600, at 45 or so appointments a year.
Up to about 20 years ago the Tories had always had a permanent majority in the second legislative chamber based on the hereditary principle. Appalling when you stop to think that the Tories had no problem with such a blatantly undemocratic situation right up to the end of the 20th Century (only in the UK!) and defended it to the death even then. They, strangely, never had a problem with how the Lords operated when Labour was in power. The hypocrisy and sense of entitlement is breathtaking at times.
They had no meaningful relationship for a long time it seems, the daughter is an adult, what obligation is there to provide for her? A moral one, perhaps, I just question if that should be a legal obligation.
I don't see why we should allow people to be arseholes in circumstances where they themselves are beyond even the most ethereal detriment from the courts intervening to stop them. Why can't we convert moral obligations into legal obligations in such circumstances? .
Is there a moral obligation to leave any of your estate to your kids though ?
The normal way of the world, maybe - and the natural rules of intestacy ... but why is it a moral obligation ?
Yes I do see a moral obligation here. Her own child, who had tried to establish a relationship with her but had failed for reasons that were largely the mother's fault, is in real need of money. In those circumstances, it is immoral for the mother simply to turn her back on her child completely in her will.
I completely take Cyclefree's point that it is unedifying for middle-aged children to be hovering like vultures around their parents' deathbed.
Personally, I hope my own parents enjoy every last penny they have themselves.
The idea of the HoL getting any bigger is deeply dispiriting. Perhaps there should be an incentive scheme to encourage over represented parties to find "volunteers" to stand down.
I really think the time has come to abolish it and replace it with something useful like an English Parliament dealing with devolved matters.
Alternatively they could perform an orange-bra check. That seems to be the current method of leaving the HoL these days. A bit like joining the Chiltern Hundreds but considerably racier...
I'd like the Lords to stay, and all new pols appts to be restricted to those who've haven't been MPs for at least a decade and 90% of new intake to be from the professions/academia/trades/voluntary sectors et al.
With more practical experience of the real world sans politics - I think legislation would be more sensibly scrutinised.
I don't mind a sprinkling of bishops and other silly hats along with a few professional secularists for balance.
I'd like a House of Lords, shawn of its hereditary andspiritual members, where on appointment as a life peer you can sit for 15 years. After that time, we are happy to say "you've done your duty". Give current members of more than 15 years' standing a few more (if they want it) and reduce over to 600, at 45 or so appointments a year.
Up to about 20 years ago the Tories had always had a permanent majority in the second legislative chamber based on the hereditary principle. Appalling when you stop to think that the Tories had no problem with such a blatantly undemocratic situation right up to the end of the 20th Century (only in the UK!) and defended it to the death even then. They, strangely, never had a problem with how the Lords operated when Labour was in power. The hypocrisy and sense of entitlement is breathtaking at times.
The Salisbury Convention saw to most of it. How much of Wilson's legislative programme was held back in the Lords anyway?
People aren't allowed to be arseholes now? They had no meaningful relationship for a long time it seems, the daughter is an adult, what obligation is there to provide for her? A moral one, perhaps, I just question if that should be a legal obligation. Perhaps the courts should have stepped in while she was alive and ordered her to mend her relationship with her daughter.
I don't see why we should allow people to be arseholes in circumstances where they themselves are beyond even the most ethereal detriment from the courts intervening to stop them. Why can't we convert moral obligations into legal obligations in such circumstances?
It seems highly significant to me that the court attributed the fault for the crappy relationship to the mother. I doubt a prodigal daughter who had had her mother tearing her hair out in distress at her antics would get the same indulgence.
That is what concerns me however. I do not see why it is the responsibility of or desirable for the law to pass judgement on who is most to blame with family dramas, particularly when one party is unable to put their side of the story in the detail expected in a legal case. She provided reasons to her lawyers, but she was supposed to lay out a defence for the objective reasonableness of them not getting along or something, not just explaining they did not?
I grant the deceased is under no detriment from the courts addressing what might be seen as a spiteful act, and I am usually not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but there seems scope for all sorts of changes to wills we could justify on the basis that X was an arsehole, so we're ignoring their wishes - the fact daughter is an adult and in no way dependent, so it seems, is ciritical for me, as it makes the decision not about providing for a need that it was unfair for the deceased to ignore as they still had a responsibility over someone or something, but just passing judgement on a dead person. Harmless to them, sure, but when no need, as far as I can see, was not provided for, did the law need to be involved?
Im surprised at how angry this is making me, I fear I may have been bitten by some libertarian bug and see the state interferring all around me.
I don't see why we should allow people to be arseholes in circumstances where they themselves are beyond even the most ethereal detriment from the courts intervening to stop them. Why can't we convert moral obligations into legal obligations in such circumstances?
It seems highly significant to me that the court attributed the fault for the crappy relationship to the mother. I doubt a prodigal daughter who had had her mother tearing her hair out in distress at her antics would get the same indulgence.
I can't really comment on your own circumstances but let me give an example from my extended family which may be helpful. I know two sisters, A and B, whose mother is dead. Their stepfather is in his mid-80s and lives on his own. He has four children from another previous marriage. One of his own four children visits once in a blue moon but the others never come. Stepdaughter A visits as often as she can (she lives a long way away from him) and cooks him dinners for freezing and later eating whenever she visits. Stepdaughter B lives 10 minutes away and never visits.
Five out of six of the younger generation are expecting equal shares when he dies. However, I understand that he has secretly made a will leaving half of the money to A because he takes the view that she's the only one of the pack of them that actually gives a damn about him.
This is going to cause uproar when he eventually dies but I don't blame him at all. And I doubt a court would intervene in those circumstances.
But how can the man in your example have any faith that his will will be allowed to stand? As far as I can see from the reporting of the current case, the will was made correctly, while the woman was of sound mind, with reasoning (although I don't see why that should be necessary) and it was still overturned.
Why on Earth should it matter whose fault the breakdown in the relationship was (especially since the mother is not around to put her side of the story!)? It was her property to dispose of as she wished - that's surely the whole point of a will. I can see the point that dependants should be provided for to prevent costs to the state, but the daughter in this case is a chancer, not a dependant.
If you want to argue that once people die they have no use or possession of their former belongings so they should be apportioned by judges that is at least a logical argument. Saying that people can write whatever will they want but some of them will be disregarded post mortem does not seem to be a sensible way to go.
No, at it's heart it is an extension of the existing Childrens' Panel for legal process into the heart of social and education provision. Given that the Childrens's Panel is often held up as the Gold Standard worldwide for child legal process, then it has a very good basis to start with.
When you also consider the long term outcomes in countries with VERY hands on state intervention in child development (the most obvious being those in Scandinavia) it is, as I said, potentially the most important and beneficial legislation in the UK in over 50 years.
If the current Children's Panel is indeed held up as some sort of "Gold Standard", then why change it?
I'm glad you are a true believer, perhaps you can answer my previous question?
I'm not a "true believer", there's a number of laws the SNP have passed in Holyrood I think are bad. Offensive Behaviour at Football Act is utterly ludicrous, broken and likely will prove expensive when it is struck down by the ECJ.
GIRFEC is not one of them, it is a very important law both to help improve child outcomes, give children the ability to join in with decisions over their future, allow them then traditional freedom from being "parental property" which has contaminated Scotland from it's Union with England and Wales.
I may have missed your question, if it was the one about what happens when you tell the Named Person to take a flyer, I suspect you don't really understand the legislation or what the Named Person is and would do.
Up to about 20 years ago the Tories had always had a permanent majority in the second legislative chamber based on the hereditary principle. Appalling when you stop to think that the Tories had no problem with such a blatantly undemocratic situation right up to the end of the 20th Century (only in the UK!) and defended it to the death even then. They, strangely, never had a problem with how the Lords operated when Labour was in power. The hypocrisy and sense of entitlement is breathtaking at times.
just like the current leadership business, labour failed to moderate their views to suit the electorate
"Labour's shadow chancellor, Chris Leslie, told the BBC that Mr Osborne was "being very complacent".
"Our economic growth really should be much stronger than this, especially with some of the mounting instability in the European economies, China, worldwide. We haven't seen the rebalancing of the recovery that we should have seen by now," he said."
I really want to slap the guy with an enormo-haddock.
Mr Leslie, throughout the last term of your Labour Govt., growth was at a less than sparkling 0.0%.
Not a sausage.
Bugger all.
Our economic growth should have been much stronger than 0.0%. Given that boom and bust had been abolished.
They had no meaningful relationship for a long time it seems, the daughter is an adult, what obligation is there to provide for her? A moral one, perhaps, I just question if that should be a legal obligation.
I don't see why we should allow people to be arseholes in circumstances where they themselves are beyond even the most ethereal detriment from the courts intervening to stop them. Why can't we convert moral obligations into legal obligations in such circumstances? .
Is there a moral obligation to leave any of your estate to your kids though ?
The normal way of the world, maybe - and the natural rules of intestacy ... but why is it a moral obligation ?
Edit: I think there is a moral obligation to provide for your son/daughter to the age of 18, anything past that is choice not obligation...
Mum & Dad if you're ever reading this, I love you dearly
As I understand it, there is a LEGAL obligation not to leave your ward as a burden on the state (even when they are adults). This is what gave the courts the grounds in this (and many, many other previous cases).
No, at it's heart it is an extension of the existing Childrens' Panel for legal process into the heart of social and education provision. Given that the Childrens's Panel is often held up as the Gold Standard worldwide for child legal process, then it has a very good basis to start with.
When you also consider the long term outcomes in countries with VERY hands on state intervention in child development (the most obvious being those in Scandinavia) it is, as I said, potentially the most important and beneficial legislation in the UK in over 50 years.
If the current Children's Panel is indeed held up as some sort of "Gold Standard", then why change it?
I'm glad you are a true believer, perhaps you can answer my previous question?
I'm not a "true believer", there's a number of laws the SNP have passed in Holyrood I think are bad. Offensive Behaviour at Football Act is utterly ludicrous, broken and likely will prove expensive when it is struck down by the ECJ.
GIRFEC is not one of them, it is a very important law both to help improve child outcomes, give children the ability to join in with decisions over their future, allow them then traditional freedom from being "parental property" which has contaminated Scotland from it's Union with England and Wales.
I may have missed your question, if it was the one about what happens when you tell the Named Person to take a flyer, I suspect you don't really understand the legislation or what the Named Person is and would do.
I don't think there's any principle of English law that establishes that children are their parents' property.
They had no meaningful relationship for a long time it seems, the daughter is an adult, what obligation is there to provide for her? A moral one, perhaps, I just question if that should be a legal obligation.
I don't see why we should allow people to be arseholes in circumstances where they themselves are beyond even the most ethereal detriment from the courts intervening to stop them. Why can't we convert moral obligations into legal obligations in such circumstances? .
Is there a moral obligation to leave any of your estate to your kids though ?
The normal way of the world, maybe - and the natural rules of intestacy ... but why is it a moral obligation ?
Yes I do see a moral obligation here. Her own child, who had tried to establish a relationship with her but had failed for reasons that were largely the mother's fault, is in real need of money. In those circumstances, it is immoral for the mother simply to turn her back on her child completely in her will.
I completely take Cyclefree's point that it is unedifying for middle-aged children to be hovering like vultures around their parents' deathbed.
Personally, I hope my own parents enjoy every last penny they have themselves.
The "child" is an adult who is married, with children of her own, five of them. She is hard up because of her own life decisions. Her mother is not obliged to keep her, either during her life - once she turned 18 - or after her death.
If the law is going to concern itself with "morality", then we might well question the morality of someone having children she cannot afford to keep - and plenty of other things beside.
The Act was brought in to deal with specific cases where there was already some provision being made during life or some service being rendered to the parent in circumstances where it would be inequitable not to make some sort of provision out of the estate. Neither of these two conditions seem to obtain here and I don't see why it is the court's business to opine on whether the mother has been a cow, especially when she is not there to put her side of the story.
Im surprised at how angry this is making me, I fear I may have been bitten by some libertarian bug and see the state interferring all around me.
I suppose I come at this from a different angle because of my career. In my line of work, I often see pension scheme trustees having to make this type of calculation. They distribute death benefits under discretionary powers (for tax reasons), guided by nomination forms completed by the members. Usually the matter is utterly straightforward, as you would expect, and the trustees follow the members' wishes with only the briefest of reviews.
You can see cases with no nomination forms or with out-of-date nomination forms or cases where the member has clearly not thought fully about his or her moral obligations, where to follow the nomination form would lead to a deep unfairness. Sometimes the nomination form seethes with malevolence ("anyone except my ex-wife" was one I recall), sometimes there are multiple families to consider.
My experience is that trustees are pretty good at coming up with sensible decisions. I expect judges to be at least as good at weighing up competing interests. Which explains, I guess, why I am relaxed about this case.
... but there seems scope for all sorts of changes to wills we could justify on the basis that X was an arsehole, so we're ignoring their wishes - the fact daughter is an adult and in no way dependent, so it seems, is ciritical for me,
...
Im surprised at how angry this is making me, I fear I may have been bitten by some libertarian bug and see the state interferring all around me.
To me it is like any other argument and it has two sides to it. If the live person feels wronged by the dead person are you seriously saying that no right of redress should exist? Especially if, to a reasonable person (the good old officious bystander perhaps), the living person can demonstrate a reasonable claim.
People aren't allowed to be arseholes now? They had no meaningful relationship for a long time it seems, the daughter is an adult, what obligation is there to provide for her? A moral one, perhaps, I just question if that should be a legal obligation. Perhaps the courts should have stepped in while she was alive and ordered her to mend her relationship with her daughter.
I don't see why we should allow people to be arseholes in circumstances where they themselves are beyond even the most ethereal detriment from the courts intervening to stop them. Why can't we convert moral obligations into legal obligations in such circumstances?
It seems highly significant to me that the court attributed the fault for the crappy relationship to the mother. I doubt a prodigal daughter who had had her mother tearing her hair out in distress at her antics would get the same indulgence.
That is what concerns me however. I do not see why it is the responsibility of or desirable for the law to pass judgement on who is most to blame with family dramas, particularly when one party is unable to put their side of the story in the detail expected in a legal case. She provided reasons to her lawyers, but she was supposed to lay out a defence for the objective reasonableness of them not getting along or something, not just explaining they did not?
I grant the deceased is under no detriment from the courts addressing what might be seen as a spiteful act, and I am usually not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but there seems scope for all sorts of changes to wills we could justify on the basis that X was an arsehole, so we're ignoring their wishes - the fact daughter is an adult and in no way dependent, so it seems, is ciritical for me, as it makes the decision not about providing for a need that it was unfair for the deceased to ignore as they still had a responsibility over someone or something, but just passing judgement on a dead person. Harmless to them, sure, but when no need, as far as I can see, was not provided for, did the law need to be involved?
Im surprised at how angry this is making me, I fear I may have been bitten by some libertarian bug and see the state interferring all around me.
Not just you - I am absolutely astounded by it - as far as I can tell it is plainly and utterly wrong for the court to interpret the law in this way. The deceased was clearly of sound mind, and whilst living had no responsibilities for the daughter (unlike if she was a minor for example) - it seems plain as day to me that the deceased's will should stand.
Mrs J's taken the young 'un to meet his grandparents in Turkey, and I stayed at home to do all the little jobs that have built up over the year. Including painting his room a nice shade of blue.
It is my understanding that the courts normally award say £10k, in recognition of the obligation to the child, but largely accepting the deceased's right to choose.
Without having looked at the judgment, I assume the fact that the beneficiaries were unrelated charities (rather than the claimant's siblings, say) was important. And apparently it was the mother's conduct that led to the split, so the claimant had clean hands.
Surely the issue is straightforward. Whose money is it? The dying person or the state? If it's my money, can I not spend it on wine, women and song? It may be unhealthy but so what?
If a dying person left it to the Green party, we could argue that they clearly weren't of sound mind. Who decides? Perhaps the only living relative was the a keen Ukip supporter. Who decides where the money should go? How about the will being honoured?
Mrs J's taken the young 'un to meet his grandparents in Turkey, and I stayed at home to do all the little jobs that have built up over the year. Including painting his room a nice shade of blue.
A will written by a person of sound mind must be respected in its entirety. That has always been the position in this country. For judges to overrule that principle is simply incredible.
It seems to be a parent appointed by the state to supercede the biological parents. In every family.
A tartan Pohl-Pot sort of thing
Of course there is a good reason Plato, do get with the programme. What extreme left socialist government would not want a spy in every home? Get Everyone Spying To Attack Parental Oblgations
I don't see why we should allow people to be arseholes in circumstances where they themselves are beyond even the most ethereal detriment from the courts intervening to stop them. Why can't we convert moral obligations into legal obligations in such circumstances?
It seems highly significant to me that the court attributed the fault for the crappy relationship to the mother. I doubt a prodigal daughter who had had her mother tearing her hair out in distress at her antics would get the same indulgence.
Five out of six of the younger generation are expecting equal shares when he dies. However, I understand that he has secretly made a will leaving half of the money to A because he takes the view that she's the only one of the pack of them that actually gives a damn about him.
This is going to cause uproar when he eventually dies but I don't blame him at all. And I doubt a court would intervene in those circumstances.
But how can the man in your example have any faith that his will will be allowed to stand? As far as I can see from the reporting of the current case, the will was made correctly, while the woman was of sound mind, with reasoning (although I don't see why that should be necessary) and it was still overturned.
Why on Earth should it matter whose fault the breakdown in the relationship was (especially since the mother is not around to put her side of the story!)? It was her property to dispose of as she wished - that's surely the whole point of a will. I can see the point that dependants should be provided for to prevent costs to the state, but the daughter in this case is a chancer, not a dependant.
If you want to argue that once people die they have no use or possession of their former belongings so they should be apportioned by judges that is at least a logical argument. Saying that people can write whatever will they want but some of them will be disregarded post mortem does not seem to be a sensible way to go.
There are cases in which it would be unconscionable to allow complete testamentary freedom. Would we uphold the right of a testator to leave a blameless spouse, a minor, or a handicapped child, absolutely nothing? Or suppose an adult child gives up a job to look after ailing parents, or run the family farm for pocket money? Those are all cases in which Courts will make provision for unfairly excluded beneficiaries, either under the 1975 Act, or on the basis of equitable estoppel.
This is slightly greyer, but it does appear that the Claimant was pretty destitute, and was only awarded one third of the estate in any case.
The attempt by Hetty Baynes (Ken Russell's ex-wife) to overturn the will of a woman who'd brought her up as her daughter crashed and burned, because she was chronically selfish. There's no real danger of undeserving adult beneficiaries being able to overturn wills.
It seems to be a parent appointed by the state to supercede the biological parents. In every family.
A tartan Pohl-Pot sort of thing
Of course there is a good reason Plato, do get with the programme. What extreme left socialist government would not want a spy in every home? Get Everyone Spying To Attack Parental Oblgations
Unfortunately, governments of both colours have been very happy to extend government surveillance into personal lives.
Surely the issue is straightforward. Whose money is it? The dying person or the state? If it's my money, can I not spend it on wine, women and song? It may be unhealthy but so what?
If a dying person left it to the Green party, we could argue that they clearly weren't of sound mind. Who decides? Perhaps the only living relative was the a keen Ukip supporter. Who decides where the money should go? How about the will being honoured?
For forty years the courts have had a limited power to intervene in inheritances that dispose of the estate unfairly. I agree that the courts should start with a presumption that the will should be honoured, all other things being equal.
Mrs J's taken the young 'un to meet his grandparents in Turkey, and I stayed at home to do all the little jobs that have built up over the year. Including painting his room a nice shade of blue.
How tory of you
I would say it was Mrs J's choice, but her interest in decorating extends about as far as my interest in cricket. I put some sample colours on the wall and she was not really interested in picking, which means it's my fault if it's wrong when she comes back.
Perhaps she'd have paid more attention if I'd painted the samples in equations or circuits ...
Mrs J's taken the young 'un to meet his grandparents in Turkey, and I stayed at home to do all the little jobs that have built up over the year. Including painting his room a nice shade of blue.
How tory of you
I would say it was Mrs J's choice, but her interest in decorating extends about as far as my interest in cricket. I put some sample colours on the wall and she was not really interested in picking, which means it's my fault if it's wrong when she comes back.
Perhaps she'd have paid more attention if I'd painted the samples in equations or circuits ...
I'd have thought an award of £10,000 to allow the claimant to get back on her feet financially (And stop being a state burden) would be appropriate here.
Perhaps pay her state benefits from a pot kept as a ward of the court till as time as she's off benefits or dead and then pass the rest to the charities ?
I guess £164k doesn't sound like alot of money in judge-land though...
Mrs J's taken the young 'un to meet his grandparents in Turkey, and I stayed at home to do all the little jobs that have built up over the year. Including painting his room a nice shade of blue.
How tory of you
I would say it was Mrs J's choice, but her interest in decorating extends about as far as my interest in cricket. I put some sample colours on the wall and she was not really interested in picking, which means it's my fault if it's wrong when she comes back.
Perhaps she'd have paid more attention if I'd painted the samples in equations or circuits ...
Im surprised at how angry this is making me, I fear I may have been bitten by some libertarian bug and see the state interferring all around me.
I suppose I come at this from a different angle because of my career. In my line of work, I often see pension scheme trustees having to make this type of calculation. They distribute death benefits under discretionary powers (for tax reasons), guided by nomination forms completed by the members. Usually the matter is utterly straightforward, as you would expect, and the trustees follow the members' wishes with only the briefest of reviews.
You can see cases with no nomination forms or with out-of-date nomination forms or cases where the member has clearly not thought fully about his or her moral obligations, where to follow the nomination form would lead to a deep unfairness. Sometimes the nomination form seethes with malevolence ("anyone except my ex-wife" was one I recall), sometimes there are multiple families to consider.
My experience is that trustees are pretty good at coming up with sensible decisions. I expect judges to be at least as good at weighing up competing interests. Which explains, I guess, why I am relaxed about this case.
I can't agree on this similarity - an expression of wish is deliberately and usually flexible to allow for changing circumstances and perhaps IHT friendly decisions - it is also able to be changed at any point merely by writing a letter to the trustee- it also just relates to that single asset - the pension death benefit.
Writing a Will is formally setting out means of an entire estate being distributed and differing scenarios covered off as well as to how monies are to be distributed.
I think the court decision is an outrageous interference in the right of the individual as to how they leave their wealth.... it is also a shame whoever drafted the will didn't see whether any monies could be left to the grandchildren at least and skip the daughter for some part of the estate perhaps.... I've seen that done.
Im surprised at how angry this is making me, I fear I may have been bitten by some libertarian bug and see the state interferring all around me.
I suppose I come at this from a different angle because of my career. In my line of work, I often see pension scheme trustees having to make this type of calculation. They distribute death benefits under discretionary powers (for tax reasons), guided by nomination forms completed by the members. Usually the matter is utterly straightforward, as you would expect, and the trustees follow the members' wishes with only the briefest of reviews.
You can see cases with no nomination forms or with out-of-date nomination forms or cases where the member has clearly not thought fully about his or her moral obligations, where to follow the nomination form would lead to a deep unfairness. Sometimes the nomination form seethes with malevolence ("anyone except my ex-wife" was one I recall), sometimes there are multiple families to consider.
My experience is that trustees are pretty good at coming up with sensible decisions. I expect judges to be at least as good at weighing up competing interests. Which explains, I guess, why I am relaxed about this case.
It is one thing for other people to have to come to an arrangement where the deceased has not provided the necessary arrangements. It is quite another to directly interfere against the expressed wishes of the person that left the money. Where does this end? If my wishes of how my property is dispersed when I die can be ignored, can the state start interfering in how and to whom I distribute my money when I am alive?
There should be a basic philosophy underpinning the legal system that people should be trusted to make their own decisions wherever feasible. That is a mark of a free society. This judge has decided his own class are better placed to make decisions than individuals are.
A will written by a person of sound mind must be respected in its entirety. That has always been the position in this country. For judges to overrule that principle is simply incredible.
I'd have thought an award of £10,000 to allow the claimant to get back on her feet financially would be appropriate here.
I guess £164k doesn't sound like alot of money in judge-land though...
If I have understood the report correctly, the initial award was for £50K – However that was overturned when the claimant went back to court in an attempt to increase it. The subsequent case brought to court was to overturn that decision, much to her profit.
at some deep, deep level, Salmond and those who think like him have not yet accepted the result. Not really, not in their heart of hearts. That is, they do not think it was an honest result or the product of what the Scottish people actually want. Or would want if only they could see what was best for them.
I mean, you know, if Gordon Brown had not saved the day and if The Vow had not hoodwinked the plain people of Scotland everything would have been different. And if the BBC – and its allies in the Unionist press – had not so thoroughly talked Scotland down at every opportunity and if Project Fear had not terrified easily-startled pensioners with false stories about pensions and the pound and all the rest of it then, well, things would have been very different. If the people had been allowed to see clearly they would have recognised that, objectively, independence is not only the best option for Scotland, it is, really, when you get down to it and take a proper look at things, the only option. We was cheated, you understand.
So, a mulligan. We need to do it all again. September’s result, remember, was only a flesh wound.
The problem with your 20x median salary system is that it can easily be worked around by outsourcing.
Secretaries dragging your median salary down? Don't worry, call Adecco and get 'temps' who are off the book.
IT support pulling down the number? Don't worry. you can outsource it.
Cleaning or security? Some other firm can do it for you and you can get those low paid staff off your books and onto someone else's.
surey just a case of needing someone halfway competent to draft the legislation?
It's more complicated than that, though.
The CEO of Goldman Sachs would be able to pay himself £20m a year, because there are lots of expensive bankers working for that firm.
But Tesco? Because they have lots of staff (some of whom are part time) earning £15,000 a year, well he's only going to get £300,000. (He'd probably prefer to be Goldman Sach's Tesco analyst instead.)
People should be paid according their economic value.
Limiting remuneration based on a firm's median wage would discourage anyone from opening a factory in the UK. Better to open it abroad, where those low paid factory staff don't drag down your average.
They had no meaningful relationship for a long time it seems, the daughter is an adult, what obligation is there to provide for her? A moral one, perhaps, I just question if that should be a legal obligation.
I don't see why we should allow people to be arseholes in circumstances where they themselves are beyond even the most ethereal detriment from the courts intervening to stop them. Why can't we convert moral obligations into legal obligations in such circumstances? .
Is there a moral obligation to leave any of your estate to your kids though ?
The normal way of the world, maybe - and the natural rules of intestacy ... but why is it a moral obligation ?
Edit: I think there is a moral obligation to provide for your son/daughter to the age of 18, anything past that is choice not obligation...
Mum & Dad if you're ever reading this, I love you dearly
As I understand it, there is a LEGAL obligation not to leave your ward as a burden on the state (even when they are adults). This is what gave the courts the grounds in this (and many, many other previous cases).
Except the daughter was not a ward. She was an adult with 5 kids of her own.Her mother had no legal control over her and no responsibility for her.
And the court decision and inheritance award was specifically framed in such a way that it would not impact on the daughter's benefits - so leaving her still as a burden on the State but one with a nicer house.
Interesting that two of our legal eagles, @Antifrank and @Sean_F are in broad agreement over this although having wildly differing political views. Is there something in the water when being taught law that causes one's definition of moral obligations to go native ?
A will written by a person of sound mind must be respected in its entirety. That has always been the position in this country. For judges to overrule that principle is simply incredible.
I'd have thought an award of £10,000 to allow the claimant to get back on her feet financially would be appropriate here.
I guess £164k doesn't sound like alot of money in judge-land though...
If I have understood the report correctly, the initial award was for £50K – However that was overturned when the claimant went back to court in an attempt to increase it. The subsequent case brought to court was to overturn that decision, much to her profit.
It is my understanding that the courts normally award say £10k, in recognition of the obligation to the child, but largely accepting the deceased's right to choose.
Without having looked at the judgment, I assume the fact that the beneficiaries were unrelated charities (rather than the claimant's siblings, say) was important. And apparently it was the mother's conduct that led to the split, so the claimant had clean hands.
Unrelated charities does seem to have been the case, but the conduct seems irrelevant. I don't agree with cutting people off for the reasons reported, but I'd probably disagree about o lot of what she did with her money, it's still not mine, the state's or an estranged dependent's money.
The problem with your 20x median salary system is that it can easily be worked around by outsourcing.
Secretaries dragging your median salary down? Don't worry, call Adecco and get 'temps' who are off the book.
IT support pulling down the number? Don't worry. you can outsource it.
Cleaning or security? Some other firm can do it for you and you can get those low paid staff off your books and onto someone else's.
surey just a case of needing someone halfway competent to draft the legislation?
It's more complicated than that, though.
The CEO of Goldman Sachs would be able to pay himself £20m a year, because there are lots of expensive bankers working for that firm.
But Tesco? Because they have lots of staff (some of whom are part time) earning £15,000 a year, well he's only going to get £300,000. (He'd probably prefer to be Goldman Sach's Tesco analyst instead.)
People should be paid according their economic value.
Limiting remuneration based on a firm's median wage would discourage anyone from opening a factory in the UK. Better to open it abroad, where those low paid factory staff don't drag down your average.
Is that what we are trying to encourage?
ok, then presumably some different kind of measure is preferable. it surely isn't impossible to come up with something that will encourage the desired behaviour
The problem with your 20x median salary system is that it can easily be worked around by outsourcing.
Secretaries dragging your median salary down? Don't worry, call Adecco and get 'temps' who are off the book.
IT support pulling down the number? Don't worry. you can outsource it.
Cleaning or security? Some other firm can do it for you and you can get those low paid staff off your books and onto someone else's.
surey just a case of needing someone halfway competent to draft the legislation?
It's more complicated than that, though.
The CEO of Goldman Sachs would be able to pay himself £20m a year, because there are lots of expensive bankers working for that firm.
But Tesco? Because they have lots of staff (some of whom are part time) earning £15,000 a year, well he's only going to get £300,000. (He'd probably prefer to be Goldman Sach's Tesco analyst instead.)
People should be paid according their economic value.
Limiting remuneration based on a firm's median wage would discourage anyone from opening a factory in the UK. Better to open it abroad, where those low paid factory staff don't drag down your average.
Is that what we are trying to encourage?
The last Tesco CEO wasn't worth more than about thruppence ha'penny a year judging by the share price.
As a thought experiment, what about banning base salaries for CEOs, requiring them to be based on the average share price of their tenure and five years after leaving the role?
Interesting that two of our legal eagles, @Antifrank and @Sean_F are in broad agreement over this although having wildly differing political views. Is there something in the water when being taught law that causes one's definition of moral obligations to go native ?
There's nothing new about the principle of allowing family members to sue an estate that fails to make reasonable financial provision for them (this was established by the Inheritance Act 1938, extended in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975). It's a very long time since there has been absolute testamentary freedom in England and Wales (and going back to medieval times, we had a system of forced heirship, similar to many continental counties, which guaranteed shares of the estate to widows and children).
And, there is good reason for this. It would be unjust to let testators make completely capricious decisions that resulted in their dependants becoming a burden on the State.
I haven't read this judgement yet, so I can't say if it's sensible or not. But, adult beneficiaries who are capable of earning a living will generally find it very hard to bring a successful claim.
If we didn't have Family Provision legislation in place, almost certainly Courts would be far more willing to set wills aside on grounds of lack of capacity, undue influence, proprietary estoppel etc. than they are at present.
Beat me to it. The case turns entirely on the construction of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which the judiciary are obliged to give effect to, and was passed by Parliament precisely to qualify a testator's otherwise all but unfettered freedom to dispose of his property capriciously. The Court of Appeal are not asserting that there is jurisdiction at law or in equity to rewrite a will on the grounds of fairness (which would be heresy), and nor could they, since there is binding authority to the contrary. A testator may, for example, validly provide that any person converting to popery shall lose his inheritance (Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397 (HL)).
I'm not a lawyer but surely there are loads of talented people around who could do better? how about banning all stimulants not synthesized before an arbitrary date, say 1900?
Beat me to it. The case turns entirely on the construction of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which the judiciary are obliged to give effect to, and was passed by Parliament precisely to qualify a testator's otherwise all but unfettered freedom to dispose of his property capriciously. The Court of Appeal are not asserting that there is jurisdiction at law or in equity to rewrite a will on the grounds of fairness (which would be heresy), and nor could they, since there is binding authority to the contrary. A testator may, for example, validly provide that any person converting to popery shall lose his inheritance (Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397 (HL)).
As a thought experiment, what about banning base salaries for CEOs, requiring them to be based on the average share price of their tenure and five years after leaving the role?
I've actually been thinking a lot about that. If it's the share price five years after you leave that matters, then the incentive to sweep shit under the carper for the next guy to deal with goes away. (See Tesco and others.)
I'd like something like this to encourage long-term thinking.
As a thought experiment, what about banning base salaries for CEOs, requiring them to be based on the average share price of their tenure and five years after leaving the role?
Such a system would pre-suppose that a company's share price is based upon their performance and success in their given field. Unfortunately this is often not the case and there are many successful companies who see their share price do very badly even though the company itself is doing very well. It is a very long time (if ever) since the share price of a company was a straight reflection of a company's performance or profitability.
Beat me to it. The case turns entirely on the construction of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which the judiciary are obliged to give effect to, and was passed by Parliament precisely to qualify a testator's otherwise all but unfettered freedom to dispose of his property capriciously. The Court of Appeal are not asserting that there is jurisdiction at law or in equity to rewrite a will on the grounds of fairness (which would be heresy), and nor could they, since there is binding authority to the contrary. A testator may, for example, validly provide that any person converting to popery shall lose his inheritance (Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397 (HL)).
presumably not just moving to rome and wearing dresses
Mr Marr's reference to a 'Tory' peer in the paper review when introducing a discussion on Lord Sewel was mentioned in an earlier thread.
The BBC's response to a complaint was 'Andrew misread the headline, he meant to say “Top Peer” instead of “Tory Peer”. It was a slip of the tongue, one of the pitfalls of live television. It had nothing to do with political bias of any sort but we’re sorry for the mistake and hope this goes some way in addressing your concerns.'
Do they have someone responsible for making up unbelievable responses to complaints?
Mr Marr's reference to a 'Tory' peer in the paper review when introducing a discussion on Lord Sewel was mentioned in an earlier thread.
The BBC's response to a complaint was 'Andrew misread the headline, he meant to say “Top Peer” instead of “Tory Peer”. It was a slip of the tongue, one of the pitfalls of live television. It had nothing to do with political bias of any sort but we’re sorry for the mistake and hope this goes some way in addressing your concerns.'
Do they have someone responsible for making up unbelievable responses to complaints?
As a thought experiment, what about banning base salaries for CEOs, requiring them to be based on the average share price of their tenure and five years after leaving the role?
Again, that would simply encourage a flight of listed companies to the private, unlisted sector, essentially leaving pension funds with no option but to use mainly hedge funds and private equity. Not ideal.
As a thought experiment, what about banning base salaries for CEOs, requiring them to be based on the average share price of their tenure and five years after leaving the role?
Again, that would simply encourage a flight of listed companies to the private, unlisted sector, essentially leaving pension funds with no option but to use mainly hedge funds and private equity. Not ideal.
That assumes shareholders support doing such a thing, which wouldn't be clear.
The best way of keeping executive pay down would be to require compensation committees to be elected by shareholders, and for them to have complete control over executive pay.
Beat me to it. The case turns entirely on the construction of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which the judiciary are obliged to give effect to, and was passed by Parliament precisely to qualify a testator's otherwise all but unfettered freedom to dispose of his property capriciously. The Court of Appeal are not asserting that there is jurisdiction at law or in equity to rewrite a will on the grounds of fairness (which would be heresy), and nor could they, since there is binding authority to the contrary. A testator may, for example, validly provide that any person converting to popery shall lose his inheritance (Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397 (HL)).
presumably not just moving to rome and wearing dresses
The church of England continues the claim to be the catholic (normally small c) church.
As a thought experiment, what about banning base salaries for CEOs, requiring them to be based on the average share price of their tenure and five years after leaving the role?
I've actually been thinking a lot about that. If it's the share price five years after you leave that matters, then the incentive to sweep shit under the carper for the next guy to deal with goes away. (See Tesco and others.)
I'd like something like this to encourage long-term thinking.
Make it simpler. Set an arbitrary limit - say £500k - that can be paid in cash, per annum, as remuneration (total - salary and bonus). Anything over that is paid in stock (or better yet, options) that has a 5 year vesting period. Hard to get round, establishes a long term interest.
As a thought experiment, what about banning base salaries for CEOs, requiring them to be based on the average share price of their tenure and five years after leaving the role?
Again, that would simply encourage a flight of listed companies to the private, unlisted sector, essentially leaving pension funds with no option but to use mainly hedge funds and private equity. Not ideal.
That assumes shareholders support doing such a thing, which wouldn't be clear.
The best way of keeping executive pay down would be to require compensation committees to be elected by shareholders, and for them to have complete control over executive pay.
Do you think the rules on remuneration committees for listed companies do nt go far enough to establish their independence?
I would venture the opposite. They are so keen to show their independence they go on market values, and market values are high. If that is because they are myopic, or other market failure, then something else must be done.
Jeremy Corbyn is more or less the same price as the draw in the Test, Andy Burnham slightly less likely than an Aussie win and Yvette Cooper as an England win...
Beat me to it. The case turns entirely on the construction of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which the judiciary are obliged to give effect to, and was passed by Parliament precisely to qualify a testator's otherwise all but unfettered freedom to dispose of his property capriciously. The Court of Appeal are not asserting that there is jurisdiction at law or in equity to rewrite a will on the grounds of fairness (which would be heresy), and nor could they, since there is binding authority to the contrary. A testator may, for example, validly provide that any person converting to popery shall lose his inheritance (Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397 (HL)).
presumably not just moving to rome and wearing dresses
The church of England continues the claim to be the catholic (normally small c) church.
it would be difficult to accuse them of popery tho?
Beat me to it. The case turns entirely on the construction of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which the judiciary are obliged to give effect to, and was passed by Parliament precisely to qualify a testator's otherwise all but unfettered freedom to dispose of his property capriciously. The Court of Appeal are not asserting that there is jurisdiction at law or in equity to rewrite a will on the grounds of fairness (which would be heresy), and nor could they, since there is binding authority to the contrary. A testator may, for example, validly provide that any person converting to popery shall lose his inheritance (Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397 (HL)).
Re Popery: Would it be legal to disinherit someone for leaving any religion? Or joining another? Or alternatively joining a political party?
I think that it was Groucho Marx's oneliner: "Where there's a will, there's a relative!"
Beat me to it. The case turns entirely on the construction of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which the judiciary are obliged to give effect to, and was passed by Parliament precisely to qualify a testator's otherwise all but unfettered freedom to dispose of his property capriciously. The Court of Appeal are not asserting that there is jurisdiction at law or in equity to rewrite a will on the grounds of fairness (which would be heresy), and nor could they, since there is binding authority to the contrary. A testator may, for example, validly provide that any person converting to popery shall lose his inheritance (Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397 (HL)).
So the law was correctly followed and interpreted to an absurd conclusion (granted, just one person's opinion, the lawyers on here all seem to disagree), I guess that's better than coming to the same conclusion unlawfully?
The problem with your 20x median salary system is that it can easily be worked around by outsourcing.
Secretaries dragging your median salary down? Don't worry, call Adecco and get 'temps' who are off the book.
IT support pulling down the number? Don't worry. you can outsource it.
Cleaning or security? Some other firm can do it for you and you can get those low paid staff off your books and onto someone else's.
surey just a case of needing someone halfway competent to draft the legislation?
It's more complicated than that, though.
The CEO of Goldman Sachs would be able to pay himself £20m a year, because there are lots of expensive bankers working for that firm.
But Tesco? Because they have lots of staff (some of whom are part time) earning £15,000 a year, well he's only going to get £300,000. (He'd probably prefer to be Goldman Sach's Tesco analyst instead.)
People should be paid according their economic value.
Limiting remuneration based on a firm's median wage would discourage anyone from opening a factory in the UK. Better to open it abroad, where those low paid factory staff don't drag down your average.
Is that what we are trying to encourage?
What is a person's economic value, particularly when we get to board level? The starting point for this was the research in the US which showed no correlation between a CEO's remuneration and the performance of their company. The idea that there are these super-star CEO's to whom we need to pay mega-salaries lest they go elsewhere is actually, in the vast majority of cases, bollocks.
Furthermore the system of corporate governance which aligns the interests of shareholders and directors, let alone the wider community, is broken. Your comment, "The chairman of Goldman Sachs could pay himself ...", is a wonderful illustration of the point. It should not be for the Chairman of any limited company which he/she does not own to pay himself anything, that is a decision to be taken elsewhere (that GS is, I believe, a partnership is a minor quibble). The system of remuneration committees has collapsed into an incestuous farce.
Getting a system of corporate governance that is fit for purpose in the 21st century is not going to be easy. Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, has gone so far as to suggest that it is a holy grail, and thus unachievable. Well, if companies can't come up with a more equitable system then the state must and my 20 times limit might be a crude hammer rather than a sophisticated implement but the nut will be broken nonetheless.
Beat me to it. The case turns entirely on the construction of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which the judiciary are obliged to give effect to, and was passed by Parliament precisely to qualify a testator's otherwise all but unfettered freedom to dispose of his property capriciously. The Court of Appeal are not asserting that there is jurisdiction at law or in equity to rewrite a will on the grounds of fairness (which would be heresy), and nor could they, since there is binding authority to the contrary. A testator may, for example, validly provide that any person converting to popery shall lose his inheritance (Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397 (HL)).
presumably not just moving to rome and wearing dresses
The church of England continues the claim to be the catholic (normally small c) church.
it would be difficult to accuse them of popery tho?
sorry I was being rather too brief. I meant, the language of "popery" is that of the Roman Catholic church, used historically in preference to catholicism because of the Church of England's claim to be the true successor.
Private polling seen by the Daily Mirror shows Mr Corbyn set to top the ballot with 42%, way ahead of Yvette Cooper on 22.6%, Andy Burnham on 20% and Liz Kendall on 14%
Private polling seen by the Daily Mirror shows Mr Corbyn set to top the ballot with 42%, way ahead of Yvette Cooper on 22.6%, Andy Burnham on 20% and Liz Kendall on 14%
If I were Corbyn I'd want 50% in the first round, or as close to it. 42% is probably enough, but not by miles...
Private polling seen by the Daily Mirror shows Mr Corbyn set to top the ballot with 42%, way ahead of Yvette Cooper on 22.6%, Andy Burnham on 20% and Liz Kendall on 14%
If I were Corbyn I'd want 50% in the first round, or as close to it. 42% is probably enough, but not by miles...
Private polling seen by the Daily Mirror shows Mr Corbyn set to top the ballot with 42%, way ahead of Yvette Cooper on 22.6%, Andy Burnham on 20% and Liz Kendall on 14%
"Private polling". i.e. leaked by the Cooper camp.
Comments
It’s taken 4 days for them to acknowledge Lord Sewel was for 16 years a Labour peer, but they got there in the end. Now, about that little slip by Andrew Marr?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33685519
The normal way of the world, maybe - and the natural rules of intestacy ... but why is it a moral obligation ?
Edit: I think there is a moral obligation to provide for your son/daughter to the age of 18, anything past that is choice not obligation...
Mum & Dad if you're ever reading this, I love you dearly
The most bizarre and unbelievable aspect of that story was that one of the escorts apparently accepted a cheque...
I completely take Cyclefree's point that it is unedifying for middle-aged children to be hovering like vultures around their parents' deathbed.
Personally, I hope my own parents enjoy every last penny they have themselves.
With more practical experience of the real world sans politics - I think legislation would be more sensibly scrutinised.
I don't mind a sprinkling of bishops and other silly hats along with a few professional secularists for balance.
I grant the deceased is under no detriment from the courts addressing what might be seen as a spiteful act, and I am usually not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but there seems scope for all sorts of changes to wills we could justify on the basis that X was an arsehole, so we're ignoring their wishes - the fact daughter is an adult and in no way dependent, so it seems, is ciritical for me, as it makes the decision not about providing for a need that it was unfair for the deceased to ignore as they still had a responsibility over someone or something, but just passing judgement on a dead person. Harmless to them, sure, but when no need, as far as I can see, was not provided for, did the law need to be involved?
Im surprised at how angry this is making me, I fear I may have been bitten by some libertarian bug and see the state interferring all around me.
Why on Earth should it matter whose fault the breakdown in the relationship was (especially since the mother is not around to put her side of the story!)? It was her property to dispose of as she wished - that's surely the whole point of a will. I can see the point that dependants should be provided for to prevent costs to the state, but the daughter in this case is a chancer, not a dependant.
If you want to argue that once people die they have no use or possession of their former belongings so they should be apportioned by judges that is at least a logical argument. Saying that people can write whatever will they want but some of them will be disregarded post mortem does not seem to be a sensible way to go.
GIRFEC is not one of them, it is a very important law both to help improve child outcomes, give children the ability to join in with decisions over their future, allow them then traditional freedom from being "parental property" which has contaminated Scotland from it's Union with England and Wales.
I may have missed your question, if it was the one about what happens when you tell the Named Person to take a flyer, I suspect you don't really understand the legislation or what the Named Person is and would do.
Race for Life?
"Labour's shadow chancellor, Chris Leslie, told the BBC that Mr Osborne was "being very complacent".
"Our economic growth really should be much stronger than this, especially with some of the mounting instability in the European economies, China, worldwide. We haven't seen the rebalancing of the recovery that we should have seen by now," he said."
I really want to slap the guy with an enormo-haddock.
Mr Leslie, throughout the last term of your Labour Govt., growth was at a less than sparkling 0.0%.
Not a sausage.
Bugger all.
Our economic growth should have been much stronger than 0.0%. Given that boom and bust had been abolished.
If the law is going to concern itself with "morality", then we might well question the morality of someone having children she cannot afford to keep - and plenty of other things beside.
The Act was brought in to deal with specific cases where there was already some provision being made during life or some service being rendered to the parent in circumstances where it would be inequitable not to make some sort of provision out of the estate. Neither of these two conditions seem to obtain here and I don't see why it is the court's business to opine on whether the mother has been a cow, especially when she is not there to put her side of the story.
You can see cases with no nomination forms or with out-of-date nomination forms or cases where the member has clearly not thought fully about his or her moral obligations, where to follow the nomination form would lead to a deep unfairness. Sometimes the nomination form seethes with malevolence ("anyone except my ex-wife" was one I recall), sometimes there are multiple families to consider.
My experience is that trustees are pretty good at coming up with sensible decisions. I expect judges to be at least as good at weighing up competing interests. Which explains, I guess, why I am relaxed about this case.
The problem with your 20x median salary system is that it can easily be worked around by outsourcing.
Secretaries dragging your median salary down? Don't worry, call Adecco and get 'temps' who are off the book.
IT support pulling down the number? Don't worry. you can outsource it.
Cleaning or security? Some other firm can do it for you and you can get those low paid staff off your books and onto someone else's.
It is my understanding that the courts normally award say £10k, in recognition of the obligation to the child, but largely accepting the deceased's right to choose.
Without having looked at the judgment, I assume the fact that the beneficiaries were unrelated charities (rather than the claimant's siblings, say) was important. And apparently it was the mother's conduct that led to the split, so the claimant had clean hands.
Ah ha! The article I read described it as orange. It sound like the "What colour is this dress" thing all over again.
Pink it is!
Surely the issue is straightforward. Whose money is it? The dying person or the state? If it's my money, can I not spend it on wine, women and song? It may be unhealthy but so what?
If a dying person left it to the Green party, we could argue that they clearly weren't of sound mind. Who decides? Perhaps the only living relative was the a keen Ukip supporter. Who decides where the money should go? How about the will being honoured?
What extreme left socialist government would not want a spy in every home?
Get Everyone Spying To Attack Parental Oblgations
http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2015/02/27/bd5f63ce-8616-4c21-84d8-edd04b5a2ef0/thumbnail/620x350/20aa1c79b7d3ab16d20a621e51c48041/black-blue-white-gold-dress.jpg
Or we'd still be discussing the matter come doomsday.
This is slightly greyer, but it does appear that the Claimant was pretty destitute, and was only awarded one third of the estate in any case.
The attempt by Hetty Baynes (Ken Russell's ex-wife) to overturn the will of a woman who'd brought her up as her daughter crashed and burned, because she was chronically selfish. There's no real danger of undeserving adult beneficiaries being able to overturn wills.
Perhaps she'd have paid more attention if I'd painted the samples in equations or circuits ...
Number Theory anyone?
Perhaps pay her state benefits from a pot kept as a ward of the court till as time as she's off benefits or dead and then pass the rest to the charities ?
I guess £164k doesn't sound like alot of money in judge-land though...
Writing a Will is formally setting out means of an entire estate being distributed and differing scenarios covered off as well as to how monies are to be distributed.
I think the court decision is an outrageous interference in the right of the individual as to how they leave their wealth.... it is also a shame whoever drafted the will didn't see whether any monies could be left to the grandchildren at least and skip the daughter for some part of the estate perhaps.... I've seen that done.
There should be a basic philosophy underpinning the legal system that people should be trusted to make their own decisions wherever feasible. That is a mark of a free society. This judge has decided his own class are better placed to make decisions than individuals are.
wouldn't it be possible just to make a list of permitted stimulants?
@AndyJS - Well said.
The CEO of Goldman Sachs would be able to pay himself £20m a year, because there are lots of expensive bankers working for that firm.
But Tesco? Because they have lots of staff (some of whom are part time) earning £15,000 a year, well he's only going to get £300,000. (He'd probably prefer to be Goldman Sach's Tesco analyst instead.)
People should be paid according their economic value.
Limiting remuneration based on a firm's median wage would discourage anyone from opening a factory in the UK. Better to open it abroad, where those low paid factory staff don't drag down your average.
Is that what we are trying to encourage?
And the court decision and inheritance award was specifically framed in such a way that it would not impact on the daughter's benefits - so leaving her still as a burden on the State but one with a nicer house.
An appalling decision that I hope is overturned.
Ok, I'll shut up about this now.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/797.html&query=Melita+and+Jackson&method=boolean
And, there is good reason for this. It would be unjust to let testators make completely capricious decisions that resulted in their dependants becoming a burden on the State.
I haven't read this judgement yet, so I can't say if it's sensible or not. But, adult beneficiaries who are capable of earning a living will generally find it very hard to bring a successful claim.
If we didn't have Family Provision legislation in place, almost certainly Courts would be far more willing to set wills aside on grounds of lack of capacity, undue influence, proprietary estoppel etc. than they are at present.
Risible.
I'd like something like this to encourage long-term thinking.
The BBC's response to a complaint was 'Andrew misread the headline, he meant to say
“Top Peer” instead of “Tory Peer”. It was a slip of the tongue, one of the pitfalls of live television. It had nothing to do with political bias of any sort but we’re sorry for the
mistake and hope this goes some way in addressing your concerns.'
Do they have someone responsible for making up unbelievable responses to complaints?
The best way of keeping executive pay down would be to require compensation committees to be elected by shareholders, and for them to have complete control over executive pay.
The graphic and headline appear divergent.
Governments come about due to MPs, not share of the vote.
I would venture the opposite. They are so keen to show their independence they go on market values, and market values are high. If that is because they are myopic, or other market failure, then something else must be done.
Jeremy Corbyn is more or less the same price as the draw in the Test,
Andy Burnham slightly less likely than an Aussie win and
Yvette Cooper as an England win...
I think that it was Groucho Marx's oneliner: "Where there's a will, there's a relative!"
Furthermore the system of corporate governance which aligns the interests of shareholders and directors, let alone the wider community, is broken. Your comment, "The chairman of Goldman Sachs could pay himself ...", is a wonderful illustration of the point. It should not be for the Chairman of any limited company which he/she does not own to pay himself anything, that is a decision to be taken elsewhere (that GS is, I believe, a partnership is a minor quibble). The system of remuneration committees has collapsed into an incestuous farce.
Getting a system of corporate governance that is fit for purpose in the 21st century is not going to be easy. Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, has gone so far as to suggest that it is a holy grail, and thus unachievable. Well, if companies can't come up with a more equitable system then the state must and my 20 times limit might be a crude hammer rather than a sophisticated implement but the nut will be broken nonetheless.