Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Newbury News
|
|
'Ruthless' Council Pursue Dying Man for £35.00 Bill, a call was put through to hospital as patient lay in coma! |
|
|
|
Oct 6 2013, 01:34 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 6 2013, 01:56 PM) Squelchy's report is Real Ministry of Truth stuff I am actually in the process of reading the book. It's been on my "must read" list for ages.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 6 2013, 02:30 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 6 2013, 02:34 PM) I am actually in the process of reading the book. It's been on my "must read" list for ages. Let us know how you found it, would be good to have an up to date perspective.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2013, 04:53 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 6 2013, 01:56 PM) Squelchy's report is Real Ministry of Truth stuff - it's been deleted so it says what he wants it to say! Who are the suckers? Taps side of nose...I love big brother. You were advised to get a screen-grab. Hardly my fault if you didn't. Turns out all my figures are indeed correct, so the post is back up again. Unaltered. Unedited.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2013, 05:07 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 8 2013, 05:53 PM) You were advised to get a screen-grab. Hardly my fault if you didn't.
Turns out all my figures are indeed correct, so the post is back up again. Unaltered. Unedited. I'm pleased to see you've had second thoughts and restored the post; not sure why you or even Admin would have wanted to delete it in the first place. I'm sure you'll appreciate given the story so far, actually suggesting that the post was likely to be deleted had connotations. Suggesting a screen grab simply adds to the subterfuge. The figures aren't particularly relevant and you could have said they were an estimate or approximate. You have offered no explanation for the deletion until now; yet you must have seen the responses.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2013, 05:55 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 8 2013, 06:50 PM) Well pardon me for not being at your beck and call.
I'll post when I can (thank you). And yet you expect to be taken seriously......
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2013, 06:38 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 8 2013, 05:53 PM) You were advised to get a screen-grab. Hardly my fault if you didn't.
Turns out all my figures are indeed correct, so the post is back up again. Unaltered. Unedited. To be fair, I don't think we need to know the intimate details, only that the family are not as close to Mr Howgate as he suggests. While it might be that Mr Howgate 'had issues' it does not help when the council behave like they did. They took a month to refute the claims of pursuing anyone in hospital. I know they have a policy of not discussing individuals, but they could have offered a broad statement that they do not contact people ill in hospital. They could have at least said they were investigating (like Mr Benyon said he would) and would make a statement refuting the claims if the claim was unfounded.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2013, 06:42 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 8 2013, 06:55 PM) And yet you expect to be taken seriously...... There's none so blind as those who will not see. Given the style of the Howgate posts, which are clearly those of a self centered individual, I believe that Squelchy has it 100% correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2013, 09:57 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 28-June 12
Member No.: 8,763
|
QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 8 2013, 05:53 PM) You were advised to get a screen-grab. Hardly my fault if you didn't.
Turns out all my figures are indeed correct, so the post is back up again. Unaltered. Unedited. We still haven't had an explanation of who took the post down and why. The Council have also not denied that they refused to let Mr Howgate represent the deceased. I doubt the NWN would have printed the claims without checking the evidence, although they might have covered themselves with "he said". The article hasn't appeared online, so I can't refer back.....
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2013, 10:12 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Oct 8 2013, 07:42 PM) There's none so blind as those who will not see. Given the style of the Howgate posts, which are clearly those of a self centered individual, I believe that Squelchy has it 100% correct. I don't agree, and it was not until Squelchy eventually put some details forward did that become more apparent. We post in good faith and there is little that has been posted where anyone could claim the right to be believed. It seems to me that you and Squelchy have 'insider knowledge'. Also, it has not been explained why the council took so long to make a statement.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2013, 09:02 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47
|
Couple of things here. (Just add to the mix)
The Council and landlords were dealing with the next of kin, that's all they can deal with. They didn't so much refuse Howgate as ignore him.
Everyone from here always gets taken to Swindon hospital.
So, work through this shall we? Does anyone really think that WBC have a hospital admissions monitoring section, a team sat around ringing hospitals on the off-chance that one of their community charge payers gets admitted? Does anyone think that hospitals have departments that ring round all local authorities to give them the names of the recently admitted? West Berks deny making a money chasing phone call. Mr Howgate is adamant that one was made. Columbo coats on lads. Mike, wasn't taken to Swindon he was taken to North Hants. This is incredibly unusual. Mr Howgate is adamant he knows a call was made to this hospital. Can anyone begin to sleuth why this should be? What scenario covers both stories? What scenario would allow WBC to deny a call and Howgate to confirm one? Certainly Howgate has a axe to grind, certainly he has run-ins with WBC, certainly he would want them to appear bad, and certainly he went to the press, (as a charity worker). So, how about this? Howgate is adamant North Hants got a call because he made it. He pretended or implied that he was or was connected with the Revenues and Incomes department of WBC. That would account for the call, account for it going to the right hospital, and account for his insistence that the hospital received one. It would also account for WBC's denial. Wouldn't it?
Covers all the bases. Makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2013, 09:27 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 9 2013, 10:02 AM) Covers all the bases. Makes perfect sense. West Berks making the call and then denying it makes sense too. Not saying so at the time of the allegation doesn't make sense, even if only to say they didn't and don't as policy pursue people in hospital. At the end of the day this is all speculation, even yours. Such is the strength of your protest, it makes me wonder why the extraordinary interest in this person or case. I therefore also question the impartiality of your position too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|