Will overuled by judge
Discussion
wolves_wanderer said:
Breadvan72 said:
Read the decision! It's written in plain English.
How are we supposed to stay angry and ignorant if we do that??!!!!111one"Mrs Jackson left a will in which, subject to a legacy of £5,000 in favour of the BBC Benevolent Fund, she left her entire estate to be divided between The Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("the Charities"). The appellant was the only child of Mrs Jackson. She and her mother had been estranged for some 26 years and the appellant knew that Mrs Jackson intended not to leave her any of her estate in her will."
Still angry
Breadvan72 said:
If a person gets angry because someone they do not know gets some money from a dead person (also unknown to the angry person), I wonder what the angry person would do if anything actually important and unpleasant happened to them.
Get angry again presumably. Nowt wrong with a bit of righteous indignation on behalf of someone else. I often get a bit miffed if I read summink and perceive someone I've never met has been slighted in some way. Like if some tinker keyed your motor, for example.
It's the internet innit bruv. We is all empafisin wiv our soshul meeja mates.
hornetrider said:
Breadvan72 said:
If a person gets angry because someone they do not know gets some money from a dead person (also unknown to the angry person), I wonder what the angry person would do if anything actually important and unpleasant happened to them.
Get angry again presumably. Nowt wrong with a bit of righteous indignation on behalf of someone else. I often get a bit miffed if I read summink and perceive someone I've never met has been slighted in some way.
It's the internet innit bruv. We is all empafisin wiv our soshul meeja mates.
Oakey said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The daughter eloped with the mother's then partner. They hadn't spoken for 26 years afterwards. The mother disowned her. The law is an ass.
Is that true or did you make it up? Is it in the judgement?It seemed the daughter did try to reconcile;
Bailii said:
22.The appellant and Mrs Jackson were estranged. There were three attempts at reconciliation, all of which failed. On the last occasion, it failed because Mrs Jackson took offence that the fifth child had been given the name of the appellant's paternal grandmother, whom Mrs Jackson did not like.
She sounds like a nasty old witch.
Breadvan72 said:
Keep up at the back! The Judges in the Court of Appeal (and the High Court before that) simply applied a Statute dating from 1975. Parliament in 1975 thought it a good idea that in certain limited circumstances close family members could seek reasonable provision from the estate of a close relative. What right does a Judge have to do this, you ask. The answer is that a Judge has a power given to the Court by the elected legislature. The Act has been around for forty years, and society hasn't disintegrated because of it.
Fuvk you and you reasoned analysis based on a thorough understanding of the law. This is PH. Where is your sense of outrage FFS?? These are strangers lives we're talking about. Strangers lives I tell you!!Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 28th July 08:10
Jasandjules said:
What a person wishes to do with their money is a matter for them. I do not feel the state should interfere (save for exceptional circumstances such as coercion).
100%Warren Buffet's children need not fear as I remember him saying in a documentary that he'll leave them nothing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff