IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

12 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 11 > »   
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!
Squelchy
post Oct 1 2013, 10:20 PM
Post #161


Advanced Member
***

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



Well, one has tried to offer an alternative view, but it seems that more is needed.

My advice is for people to screen capture this as it may not last too long on the thread, but it is written after checking with Mike's mum and brother.

Mike had lived on the streets since the age of 14, he suffered from T.B and pneumonia and smoked like a trooper. He was taken to hospital suffering from pneumonia and it is that he succumbed to.

He had been taken to court for arrears on many occasions and still owes the water board nigh on £2000. He was, as they say, 'known to the police' as a result of his liking for others people's property, (especially bicycles). None of us felt safe when he was around.

Some years ago we were all told that the flats were coming down and we'd be entitled to some sort of relocation grant. Mike died before he got his. He wasn't relocated. Our landlords don't owe him any money therefore.

He was living in our 'guest room' when he as taken to hospital and been there for months.

When his mother and the court probate officer turned up she expressly forbade Howgate to attend.

As Mike was dying in hospital Howgate turned up and tried to get him to sign a form declaring that Howgate was acting for Mike. Until this time Mike had never seen or heard of Howgate. I cannot speak for the landlords or council but since there were still next of kin about there would be no way they could do that. Indeed, I understand Mikes mum actually said to ignore it. No public body would dare to suddenly start talking to Howgate about private matters under those circumstances. Howgate has since been back to try and rally support from us and was sent away sharpish with a flea in his ear.

Howgate is happy to be called a 'charity worker' yet when pushed he admits to not actually working for any charity, only that he works for free. Big difference.

He has been asked to leave at least one church group. In fairness to him it would be unfair to publicly say why. But he knows the truth.

Our MP has mugged him off, our landlords won't discuss anything with him and WBC ignore him. The NWN in an article called him a 'charity worker' and photographed him standing outside the Loose Ends building. The implication was clear. Loose Ends immediately set about telling everyone he was not on their payroll and just 'helps out from time to time'.

If you read one of Howgates first posts it's actually all about him. He tells us he's as about as highly qualified in personal finance as it's possible to get. Of course he fails to tell us what professional qualifications he's got (so we can check) and what the top qualifications are. He also seem to think that it not a small world. It is. And I remember him and his antics from our student union days. (I'll draw a veil over that as it not relevant here) suffice to say he's got previous.

The guy is just another incompetent do-gooder who is only interested in the cult of his own personality. He's using the death of another to advance his cause.

A period of quiet dignity would surely be in order?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Oct 1 2013, 10:38 PM
Post #162


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,809
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



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....
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 27 2013, 07:14 PM) *
What antics?
And even if he was, what does that prove, and what is it you hope to achieve by this announcement? As OTE has already suggested with other examples, I would imagine there was a time when people who spoke out against slavery were accused of just being self-serving busy bodies.

If you think he has done something wrong I would ask you spit it out, instead of your spiteful innuendo. It's not making your position any more agreeable. Unless you are just out to spoil someone's reputation.

rolleyes.gif wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Oct 1 2013, 11:14 PM
Post #163


Advanced Member
***

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



Well THAT'S interesting. biggrin.gif

And certainly turns things around.
I can't see why it would be removed - Nothing blatantly defamatory about what's written, obviously some insider information going on here.

Truth be told however I'm still confused.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 2 2013, 12:00 AM
Post #164


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,878
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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....

You and Squelchy are two people I have never knowingly met either, so why should I give you two any more credence than he?

We comment in good faith, and where possible I have inserted 'allegedly' where appropriate. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I still maintain that you and others just spat bile without putting anything of real value in this until it was rather too late (just like the council).

In truth, and taking the comments of one or two 'new' posters into account, I was strongly suspicious of some people's impartiality and motives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 2 2013, 06:17 AM
Post #165


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 1 2013, 11:20 PM) *
................
The guy is just another incompetent do-gooder
...............


This seems key - we appear to have rather a lot of these, and if this is any illustration, the whole system / approach we are taking with these people is broke. As you said, the problems with the individual concerned have been manifest since his youth, clearly nothing, nothing at all has worked. On the wider issue, we certainly need a national debate; the underlying problem exists and not just in Newbury. This becomes difficult when the first casualty becomes the truth.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 2 2013, 06:24 AM
Post #166


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (motormad @ Oct 2 2013, 12:14 AM) *
Well THAT'S interesting. biggrin.gif

And certainly turns things around.
I can't see why it would be removed - Nothing blatantly defamatory about what's written, obviously some insider information going on here.

Truth be told however I'm still confused.


I think that's right; this is a serious public issue, in fact a very big one and the danger starts when information, for whatever reason, its withheld. You are not alone in your confusion!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Oct 2 2013, 08:48 AM
Post #167


Advanced Member
***

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



laugh.gif


So is this Eye How Gate a genuine bloke or not?

Or is the story real? It's certainly plausible.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Oct 2 2013, 04:54 PM
Post #168


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,809
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 2 2013, 01:00 AM) *
...I still maintain that you and others just spat bile without putting anything of real value in this until it was rather too late

If you can be bothered to trawl through this thread (and I wouldn't blame you if you couldn't be ar$ed tbh rolleyes.gif ) you'll see that I've hardly commented at all, never mind 'spat bile'....

I'm hurt.... truly hurt.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 2 2013, 06:04 PM
Post #169


Advanced Member
***

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



Having had a quick scoot through this thread, I can confirm that the council knew the patient was dying. I'm not going to get involved in this thread or go into any detail, other than confirm that I did ask David Lowe what was going on well before the story made print and he lost the plot with me. That's all I'm saying.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Oct 2 2013, 06:25 PM
Post #170


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 2 2013, 07:04 PM) *
I did ask David Lowe what was going on well before the story made print and he lost the plot with me. That's all I'm saying.


Whatever does that gem translate to.?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Oct 2 2013, 06:50 PM
Post #171


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 1 2013, 11:20 PM) *
A period of quiet dignity would surely be in order?

I think you're right - I think that's it for Howgate-gate.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 2 2013, 08:32 PM
Post #172


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,878
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (spartacus @ Oct 2 2013, 05:54 PM) *
If you can be bothered to trawl through this thread (and I wouldn't blame you if you couldn't be ar$ed tbh rolleyes.gif ) you'll see that I've hardly commented at all, never mind 'spat bile'....

I'm hurt.... truly hurt.....

I appreciate you didn't so I take that back.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 2 2013, 08:38 PM
Post #173


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,878
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Exhausted @ Oct 2 2013, 07:25 PM) *
Whatever does that gem translate to.?

Fired a few f**ks into him, I suspect.

Personally I don't know who to believe. It is all hearsay, except to say that both sides have 'form', but the council could have done themselves a lot of favours just buy refuting the calms in a more timely manner. Unless, of course, they needed time to 'research', but then why not say so? Any way you look at this, they don't come out of this with any 'glory'.

Public relations must do better, and they need a more effective way of dealing with complaints, whether vexatious, or otherwise. Mind you, I suspect vexatious is applied too readily.

Eh-up, a soon as Richard Garvie pipes up, we get user23! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Oct 3 2013, 03:36 PM
Post #174


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 2 2013, 09:38 PM) *
Fired a few f**ks into him, I suspect.

Personally I don't know who to believe. It is all hearsay, except to say that both side have 'form' in this matter, but the council could have done themselves a lot of favours just buy refuting the calms in a more timely manner. Unless, of course, they needed time to 'research', but then why not say so? Any way you look at this, they don't come out of this with any 'glory'.

Public relations must do better, and they need a more effective way of dealing with complaints, whether vexatious, or otherwise. Mind you, I suspect vexatious is applied too readily.

Eh-up, a soon as Richard Garvie pipes up, we get! user23tongue.gif


The problem is the way many have been treated by WBC, including myself, there is not much you would not believe they would be capable of!

Yes when Garvie arrives on the Forum red lights and bells flash at headquarters and User is ordered to counter attack immediately - usually without a lot of thought too! rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nothing Much
post Oct 3 2013, 04:28 PM
Post #175


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,690
Joined: 16-July 11
Member No.: 6,171



I am not keen on being charitable to my fellow man or woman, especially when displaying a cross and armed with a staffie.
But I can certainly imagine a council extracting a pound of flesh from a static target as well.

One thing that continues to puzzle is the written authority ignored by the council. After a brief period in hospital
I was told by doctors that a Lasting Power of Attorney would be a good idea to have in place.
It would make it easier for a 3rd party to act on my behalf should I become stroke damaged or beset by other troubles.
It isn't exactly cheap, but the basic online paperwork + a registration with the Office of the Public Guardian is about £130.00.
If you have nothing, well you're stuffed anyway. Not knowing the legality of any authorisation signed by Mr Smith, I can see that an authority such as WBC could not accept a non-relation acting on his behalf. What would be WBCs worst sanction?

Whatever happened to #161. Felix and University capers in 1987 seems a long time ago.
mellow.gif ce.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HJD
post Oct 3 2013, 05:31 PM
Post #176


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 5-September 09
Member No.: 322



Am I the only one that finds it strange why after 9 pages there has been a complete absence of the usual defenders of the council from this thread huh.gif .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 3 2013, 06:11 PM
Post #177


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,878
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (HJD @ Oct 3 2013, 06:31 PM) *
Am I the only one that finds it strange why after 9 pages there has been a complete absence of the usual defenders of the council from this thread huh.gif .

I said that a few pages ago, although I think they or others might have manifested themselves with other identities.

What I don't get is why did it take the council a month to say: 'we have never pursued anyone in hospital', or even say: 'we have launched an internal investigation and will report back in two weeks', or whatever. That makes me suspicious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gazzadp
post Oct 3 2013, 07:34 PM
Post #178


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: 29-March 12
Member No.: 8,684



So who has deleted post161 and if so what was the grounds (politely out of interest)!

Been following this thread with interest and I am pleased to say that I am happily sat on the fence, even if my backside is getting sore from being impartial!


--------------------
Obnoxious possiby, VEXATIOUS definitely not.

*****

www.notellingyou.not
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 3 2013, 08:10 PM
Post #179


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,878
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Gazzadp @ Oct 3 2013, 08:34 PM) *
So who has deleted post161 and if so what was the grounds (politely out of interest)!

Been following this thread with interest and I am pleased to say that I am happily sat on the fence, even if my backside is getting sore from being impartial!

I suspect the OP, maybe under 'advice'. It refuted the claims made by ihowgate using people's names who were close to the deceased. I too am undecided about who to believe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lolly
post Oct 4 2013, 01:23 PM
Post #180


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 28-June 12
Member No.: 8,763



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 3 2013, 09:10 PM) *
I suspect the OP, maybe under 'advice'. It refuted the claims made by ihowgate using people's names who were close to the deceased. I too am undecided about who to believe.


I have also been watching this thread with interest, and the post that has now been removed contained rather more than a rebuttal of ihowgate's claims - it was a complete character assassination.The poster expected it to be 'taken down' but it remained there for a couple of days - sufficient to cast doubt on ihowgate's motives and distract from some fairly serious issues regarding the alleged conduct of West Berkshire Council and Sovereign Housing.

It would be good if 'admin' could confirm the reason for removal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 11 > » 
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: 14th November 2019 - 08:57 PM