IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

12 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> 'Ruthless' Council Pursue Dying Man for £35.00 Bill, a call was put through to hospital as patient lay in coma!
motormad
post Oct 5 2013, 10:17 PM
Post #181


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



It's OK, I doubt the admins will respond.
Outside of banning decent forum members in silence.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rowley Birkin
post Oct 6 2013, 10:59 AM
Post #182


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 5-May 12
Member No.: 8,717



QUOTE (spartacus @ Oct 1 2013, 11:38 PM) *
Well after that bit of back-story I'd be surprised if we hear from Mr H on here for a while.... laugh.gif

It seems that the Daily Mail 'investigative reporters' were taken for mugs.


And having read Squelchy's version of events I'm inclined to think that it's not only the Daily Mail reporters that were suckered by Mr H, with some of this site's regulars taking the bait hook, line and sinker and putting up a strenuous defence of someone they'd never met....

rolleyes.gif wink.gif
daily mail reporters dont seem to be any good with stories about the dead or dying
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 6 2013, 12:56 PM
Post #183


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Oct 6 2013, 01:34 PM
Post #184


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 6 2013, 02:30 PM
Post #185


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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Oct 8 2013, 04:53 PM
Post #186


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 8 2013, 05:07 PM
Post #187


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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Oct 8 2013, 05:50 PM
Post #188


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



Well pardon me for not being at your beck and call.

I'll post when I can (thank you).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 8 2013, 05:55 PM
Post #189


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...... laugh.gif


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 8 2013, 06:38 PM
Post #190


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Oct 8 2013, 06:42 PM
Post #191


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...... laugh.gif


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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 8 2013, 07:47 PM
Post #192


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



I feel sorry for Ian, he has been completely right about a number of things, including Two Saints and it will be very interesting to see what comes out in the next few weeks on that score. With regards to the subject of this thread, lots of people keen to stick the knife in, but do they know the facts? Be careful what conclusions you jump to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lolly
post Oct 8 2013, 09:57 PM
Post #193


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.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 8 2013, 10:12 PM
Post #194


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Oct 9 2013, 09:02 AM
Post #195


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 9 2013, 09:27 AM
Post #196


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Oct 9 2013, 09:39 AM
Post #197


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



Don't get me wrong, I have sod-all time for WBC and it's fvck-witted minions, BUT, in this case, one I know a little bit about, I'm trying to be fair. This is far more about Ian Howgate than anything or anyone else. If I can do anything to help nail that self-publicising shroud-waver to the floor, then I will. (within the bounds of legal decent and honest).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Oct 9 2013, 09:41 AM
Post #198


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



I totally believe that WBC would pursue anyone through any means for 5p if they could, having dealt with the department there numerous times, I struggle to imagine a worse set of human beings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Oct 9 2013, 11:05 AM
Post #199


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



I'm sceptical about ihowgate's motivation, but that's as much because of what ihowgate said than what Squelchy posted, though it does rather confirm the impression. It wouldn't surprise me that WBC had also managed the situation poorly, but it doesn't now look like an outrage, and they may actually have managed a difficult situation well.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 9 2013, 12:38 PM
Post #200


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I think the biggest loser in all this is NWN's readership and the paper's apparent lack of good journalism. WBC could have been quicker to deny the allegations too, but public relations has never been one of their stronger features.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 02:10 PM