You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A 96 year old War Hero and ex POW, has spent almost all of his life savings to pay for 24-hour care at his home in Burnt Oak, North London. Now the veteran, who was one of the British soldiers who survived Hitler’s 1,000-mile death march across Europe in 1945, only has enough money to last another three months.
If anyone feels like supporting this petition, link is here. Thanks.
I'm not really sure I'm well placed to help make decisions about care provision for a man with challenging requirements who I've never met - irrespective of the life which he's lived.
No be better asking for donations instead of signatures ❓
💡 Why sell your home to pay for care in a care home (which he doesn't want), when you could release the equity in the home to pay for carers within his home.
Playing devils advocate here...
But if they listed a bunch if treatments and procedures for, say, children, that would have to be scrapped in favour of the desired outcome of this petition, would you still sign it?
DrP
But if they listed a bunch if treatments and procedures for, say, children, that would have to be scrapped in favour of the desired outcome of this petition, would you still sign it?
Could you give us a brief precis of the childrens' war records?
I'm not really sure I'm well placed to help make decisions about care provision for a man with challenging requirements who I've never met - irrespective of the life which he's lived.
This.
And if his family are so supportive are they willing to provide the care needed?
The care cost is £1000 a week. The council have offered to pay £450 a week towards him staying at home so they would have the meet the other £550 to keep him at home.
The family have said they might have to consider re-mortgaging the house to pay for the rest. [b]IF[/b] they had already done this and were looking to the tax payer as a last resort - I would be the first person chipping in. Otherwise doesn't it just sound like a campaign for them to keep their inheritance?
He's a hero. He deserves better.
He's a hero.
An over-used over-emotive word if ever there was one. Nobody remembers the heroes who didn't pick up a gun.
Hero or not, a debt is owed.
Nobody remembers the heroes who didn't pick up a gun.
Emotive nonsense.
Is there a published scale of hero-ness? I'm just wondering how, for instance, nurses or MRT members might fit into this.
[i]Nobody remembers the heroes who didn't pick up a gun.[/i]
Like Winston Churchill you mean?
The dude is 96, his kids are probably already in care homes !
No be better asking for donations instead of signatures
I agree with @seosamh. I gave some money for the Newcastle man attacked (his attacker was jailed today BTW), £300,00 was raised in total. Budget choices have to be made.
Hero or not, a debt is owed.[i]Nobody remembers the heroes who didn't pick up a gun. [/i]
Emotive nonsense.
And is being paid, he's being given care isn't he? They are even willing to meet halfway. There are options that would allow him to carry on as he has but at the end of the day it is not one rule for some and another for the rest.
Why emotive nonsense? Why are all ex-forces automatically referred to as heroes but doctors, paramedics, firemen etc. just glossed over? Why is their selflessness worth any less?
Instead of signing a useless petition, why not vote for a political party that is committed to the proper provision of long-term healthcare for the elderly and is open about raising the taxes necessary to pay for it?
[i]Why are all ex-forces automatically referred to as heroes but doctors, paramedics, firemen etc. just glossed over? Why is their selflessness worth any less?[/i]
Eh? Where's it say that then?
Why are all ex-forces automatically referred to as heroes
Because without the 'hero' status attached, getting yourself shot or blown up for 20k a year, for whatever spurious justification the politicians come up with, looks like a pretty idiotic thing to do?
Eh? Where's it say that then?
In the Great British book of Pedantry, I'm sure you'll easily find it in the copy you're obviously enthusiatically indexing.
Excuse me for expressing an opinion, I'm sure 'our lads' will appreciate your support despite you completely missing my point.
How we treat our elderly with serious medical issues is going to be something as a country we need to deal with.
sad situation for all concerned. But in all honesty "it would remind me of being a prisoner of war"...Is a bit daft.
How we treat our elderly with serious medical issues is going to be something as a country we need to deal with.
Indeed, we should place them in some sort of institutions where they can be provide with round the clock care. Has no-one thought of doing this for this poor chap?
Wouldn't happen in Scotland - just saying.
I've had many a conversation with elderly people about looking at now getting care in a home rather than trying to get by at home. I have a duty of care to do this, it's not an easy thing to do. By the very nature of their age many have been war vets. I've also just had conversations to set up care at there home to allow them to stay at home. Many don't even want that as they see it as quiting, some don't understand the risk they are at.
I know absolutely nothing of this case other than the hyperbole posted on the petition page. I really can not possible know what is best for him and finding it disturbing that due to bunch of strangers he may not get the best of care for him.
as above, remortgage the house and use that money. Unfortunately this is what happens when you are old to lots of old folks. Not ideal, but cant see why this chap is any more deserving.
And is being paid, he's being given care isn't he?
He's buying care as far as I can tell.
Why emotive nonsense? Why are all ex-forces automatically referred to as heroes but doctors, paramedics, firemen etc. just glossed over? Why is their selflessness worth any less?
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=hero+firefighter&tbs=ctr:countryUK|countryGB&cr=countryUK|countryGB
There is no glossing over as far as I can tell. It's just different levels. Being fired at 7 days a week for 6 months gives a lot more opportunities for brave people to be brave. A paramedic (who may well be equally brave) might not get that many chances to demonstrate it, and even if they do it's unlikely to be in as perilous a situation.
Regardless, the crappy situation of a chap whos suffered tremendously in the name of Britian is not the ideal place to communicate your personal distaste of soldiers.
Regardless, the crappy situation of a chap whos suffered tremendously in the name of Britian is not the ideal place to communicate your personal distaste of soldiers.
Quite, freedom of opinion only applies to those who worship the war machine.
Regardless, the crappy situation of a chap whos suffered tremendously in the name of Britian is not the ideal place to communicate your personal distaste of soldiers.
I think I may have come across wrong; I have no distaste for any forces personnel but rather take a dim view of an unspoken two tier system where some people believe that they should be held on a pedestal and given special treatment at the cost of others who are just as deserving. Of course he deserves the best possible treatment, I would say we all do as citizens of this country, but what he (and others) wants may not necessarily be what he needs. As I said if his family want him to stay at home then they are free to contribute to the costs or care for him themselves.
A hero is a hero in my book, we have many ways to honour them but it should never be at the cost of the rest of society nor should the term be cheapened in the way it so often has been.
There aren't too many chaps who served in WW2 left to thank in person for our freedom to talk rubbish on the internets. Provided his family do their best, I have no problem with making the odd special case.
This tends to be where those who have served and who haven't diverge in opinion, due to a lack of perspective I suppose.
If it was my father Im sure I would make the necessary sacrifices and look after him.
There aren't too many [b]chaps[/b]
Again, illustrating my point perfectly.
I have no problem with making the odd special case.
Would you still have no problem with it if it was an elderly relative of yours that was told this:
"Yes, we know you have care needs and these are eligible for our funding, but I'm afraid we've spent that money on someone else's care. They were a special case. Bye."
?
Instead of signing a useless petition, why not vote for a political party that is committed to the proper provision of long-term healthcare for the elderly and is open about raising the taxes necessary to pay for it?
@dazh - the local authority have offered to provide him the care he needs at a cost of £450 a week. He would prefer to remain at home but that doesn't mean that should be the outcome, budget choices have to be made as as Dr J says what else would you cut back on. At some point you have to draw a line. The care costs of the elderly is a huge political issue and a practical problem because the costs are spiralling per head and the number of elderly is rising dramatically. In many societies the elderly live with their kids, that's the norm for care. We don't have such a system but the cost of our version is very high.
communicate your personal distaste of soldiers
I'm struggling to see where anyone's done this?
The reality of it is care is expensive. Really expensive. The family can make the top ups if they choose.
There is at least change on the horizon with the contributions cap of 72k being introduced.
He's a good man I have no doubt. He's probably a brave man. The men who farmed the land and dug for coal where also good men. Quite possibly also brave. I don't see much difference.
If you want change vote or make a change.
I think what a lot of people are saying is that they revere soldiers but oppose conflict.
Quite, freedom of opinion only applies to those who worship the war machine.
It may be news to you, but there's a difference between freedom of opinion and common decency.
It may be news to you, but there's a difference between freedom of opinion and common decency.
As said, what you read and what was said are two completely different things. Nobody has attacked forces personnel in this thread.
I find it commonly indecent to judge a persons contibution to ascertain the care they should receive, or maybe if the law should apply to them. If you find it a special case it should highlight the need for higher taxation to provide care for everyone, not the cherry picking of care to those deemed worthy this week.
How would someone like Colin Parry fit on your scale of worthiness, to the best of my knowledge he has never fired a gun in anger, but is a far greater hero than 99.9% of those who have.
Who should decide this differential worthiness, the government, you, me or the Sun?
It may be news to you, but there's a difference between freedom of opinion and common decency.
I must have missed something. Since when did voicing an opposition to the waging of war become an affront to common decency?
This is what you get when you cut benefits and council grant. It's shit isn't it?
There's actually a really good way to fix this. It's coming up on the 7th May.
Just saying.
Can I just check - those people who are suggesting he is a special case because he went to war (like most men his age), does that mean you're not so bothered about a woman the same age in the same situation?
I have no idea if this guy was / is a hero or not, just becuase he was called up in WW2 does not mean he did anything "Heroic". Its another of the modern media's over-used and devalued terms. He may have done all sorts of brave and noble things, he may not, I have no idea.
I also have no idea what this guys care needs are. My nan was amazingly independant and was able to stay in her own home for a long time, but there came a point when it couldn't carry on.
Why does everything have to be so clear cut? Life isn't like that.
Can I just check - those people who are suggesting he is a special case because he went to war (like most men his age), does that mean you're not so bothered about a woman the same age in the same situation?
Er, my Nan and her sister went to war (nurses on Gibraltar, one was decorated for her service).
Not sure what point you are making, that women didn't contribute to WW2? Great things done at home by women (and men) in places like Bletchley too.
Your idea that the only people regarded as heroes from WW2 were combatants is not widely shared. I'm ex-army and even I don't take that view.
It's not my idea.
That was his point.
Apportioning care because somebody is labelled a war hero is a bad way of deciding if it is merited or not. Many people (especially of that generation) made many sacrifices and made great contributions, they should be cared for because they need care, not because of some symbolic label attached to their contribution.
The petition should be about increasing care provisions for all, his case could highlight the kind of people who we are failing, and the solution is to improve the system for everyone.
nickc - Membersad situation for all concerned. But in all honesty "it would remind me of being a prisoner of war"...Is a bit daft.
Must have been a pretty unusual POW camp. Everyone spoke tagalog instead of german and they had tai chi after lunch.
Very sympathetic but pragmatically, is his home the best place? My grandma would have loved to stay in her house but she needed constant care and emergency support, it could have been provided at gigantic cost but that's just not realistic. War veteran or not. The issue isn't "he should be cared for"- nobody's denying him care. It's just a question of reasonableness.
It is [b]wrong to force[/b] him to go to the care home if he does not want to.
DezB - Member
"Nobody remembers the heroes who didn't pick up a gun."Like Winston Churchill you mean?
He was at the pointy end of some very nasty stuff in his military career.
"Apportioning care because somebody is labelled a war hero is a bad way of deciding if it is merited or not. "
Yeah but that's the complete opposite of what is happening. He isn't getting special treatment despite of his "hero" status. I would be in favour of giving him special treatment (After the family have exhausted their options).
It doesn't mean I favour a two tiered system, which of course we have anyway with unlimited private healthcare for those who can afford it.
I don't see the harm of every now and again giving someone a leg up in recognition of contribution or sacrifice. Most people don't, except communists, totalitarians and some folks on the interwebz.
It doesn't mean I favour a two tiered system, which of course we have anyway with unlimited private healthcare for those who can afford it.
Yes it does. You can't simultaneously advocate giving some people preferential care and say that you're not in favour of treating some people preferentially.
edit: well you can, it's just incoherent.
It isn't what is happening, it is what is being asked for.
It doesn't mean I favour a two tiered system,
I don't see the harm of every now and again giving someone a leg up in recognition of contribution or sacrifice
???
Which brings me back to
Who should decide this differential worthiness, the government, you, me or the Sun?
Would Alan Turing have been worthy? would Colin Parry? how exactly do we classify who is worthy and who isn't. If we make special cases then we by definition are excluding others from the same care.
Most people don't, except communists, totalitarians and some folks on the interwebz.
...and those capable of coherent rational thought.
Also quite arrogant of you to insult people who don't agree with you.
I'd give the guy a break, you wouldn't. I often give to charities too and have the temerity to decide which I think is most worthy, rather than dividing the donation equally between all charities.
I must be really arrogant / insane. I will seek help, thanks for pointing it out. God bless the internet.
I'd give the guy a break, you wouldn't.
Nope, I'd treat him the same as everyone else, no better and no worse.
I often give to charities too and have the temerity to decide which I think is most worthy, rather than dividing the donation equally between all charities.I must be really arrogant / insane. I will seek help, thanks for pointing it out. God bless the internet.
The arrogant comment was in reference to the way that you insulted people who didn't agree with you by calling them "...communists, totalitarians..." unless of course you meant those terms as a compliment! I'd have expected anyone with a reasonble degree of intelligence to be able to tell the difference between a calling a single act arrogant and calling a person arrogant in general. Apparently I was wrong in that regard!
I would give the guy a break too, by supporting a system that provides the care needed according to the care needed, not by making making special cases for some, and denying it to others. If that that makes me a totalitarian communist, I will wear that label with pride.
Let me put it another way, should the attack on Alan Barnes have been treated as a lesser crime than if he had served in the forces. Should the police prioritise crimes against ex servicemen?
GF - your the poorest troll I've read today. You need to work on your pedantry. F-.
MSP - I know, I get it. You don't agree with making any special cases for "emotional" reasons. I just don't agree with you. I doubt my expressing this opinion will bring about the collapse of the NHS or civilization as we know it.
Newsflash - "Ex-squaddy thinks WW2 vet should be given a break with his care funding". Wow. No way.
Hey you are the one that thinks people should be treated differently based on their background, not me. As for a troll, no just a different opinion to yours and a desire for equality for all.
MSP - I know, I get it. You don't agree with making any special cases for "emotional" reasons. I just don't agree with you. I doubt my expressing this opinion will bring about the collapse of the NHS or civilization as we know it.
Expressing you opinion will clearly break nothing, but implementing it would. Apportioning "care" for any arbitrary reason other than the need for care, and the financial ability to provide that care for everyone equally, would clearly break the core tenant of its existence.
Expressing you opinion will clearly break nothing, but implementing it would.
Personally I love the idea of some from the council apportioning my level of healthcare based on how worthy they consider me. I think that there is absolutely no way in which that could ever have any negative consequences.
I think your eyes are too close together, next case please 😉
Surprised that most think it's the state that should provide for people in thier old age and that their family has no role to play financially or with care? It's irelevent what thier background was.
Pawsy_Bear - MemberSurprised that most think it's the state that should provide for people in thier old age
I think the state should. And that's exactly what they're offering to do. But the state shouldn't be obliged to fork out for someone to get a much more expensive service due to their personal preference, especially when they could pay for it themselves.
I spent a wee while in hospital getting my leg unbroken. THe state paid the tab; seems reasonable. If I'd insisted on having the surgery in my garage, the state would have told me to bugger off, regardless of how many STW quote wars I'm a veteran of.
The only person who seems to arguing that is accusing people who don't agree with him and think otherwise of being communists. Which is odd.
Surprised that most think it's the state that should provide for people in thier old age and that their family has no role to play financially or with care? It's irelevent what thier background was.
Well you would hope that family's who can afford to look after their aged relatives would do so. But life isn't always that simple. What if our aged war veteran had rich kids who couldn't give a flying ****. I wouldn't want to see him die on a cold winter street just because his kids are tossers.
Weird thread. I like the term 'quote wars' though.
Well you would hope that family's who can afford to look after their aged relatives would do so
Experience tells me that this is the last thing that people want to do.
[i]Weird thread[/i]
Innit.
I hope him and his family can come to some agreement with the local council.
regardless of how many STW quote wars I'm a veteran of.
WIN - nw, when your time comes you qualify for additional cash benefits to have 24 hour 5* care wherever you want
[quote=Northwind ]regardless of how many STW quote wars I'm a veteran of.
Ah, but are you a hero or a villain? History is written by the victors. You didn't think it was unimportant whether or not you win on STW did you?
He wants to live in his own home, not in a profit making home for some greedy home owner, money is found every week to fund prisoners in prison for menial crimes to full blown evil murderers, jsut perhaps some of that cash should be swopped and some prisoners released on tag or community service.
[quote=project ]jsut perhaps some of that cash should be swopped and some prisoners released on tag or community service.
Good idea. We could start with anybody who's been unfairly locked up for killing a cyclist with a car.
There really are some morally bankrupt people on this site.
Apportioning "care" for any arbitrary reason other than the need for care, and the financial ability to provide that care for everyone equally, would clearly break the core tenant of its existence.
Yeah, although it makes a good straw man I wasn't advocating scrapping the system of care where it's needed. Just using discretion in cases where there is a strong compassionate case to do so. I dunno, I'm probably one of those blokes in china who doesn't snitch on his neighbours wife when she's looking a bit preggers. Rules are great and all but they all needed breaking sometimes.
Or, in other words, we wouldn't have a welfare state or health system if the likes of him hadn't won the war so it feels wrong to deprive him on it's benefits.
Or, maybe I'm just a big softy and wish I was has hard nosed as y'all.
peakyblinder - MemberOr, in other words, we wouldn't have a welfare state or health system if the likes of him hadn't won the war so it feels wrong to deprive him on it's benefits.
Nobody wants to deprive him of the benefits of the welfare state though. He's been offered that, he just doesn't want it.
[quote=peakyblinder ]Yeah, although it makes a good straw man
You're right, nobody is suggesting apportioning care for any reason other than the need for care.
Just using discretion in cases where there is a strong compassionate case to do so.
😆
Actually I can't resist this one either:
[quote=peakyblinder ]Rules are great and all but they all needed breaking sometimes.
What, all of them?
You've missed the early tedious exchanges NW. To round up, I am actually arguing his family should be forgoing their inheritance to pay for this anyway. I think the deal he has been offered is totally fair. I just happened to mention if the family had spent all the cash and there was no options left THEN I would not object to him getting a break.
It was at this point that STW smelled blood...
Haven't missed that at all but you're still saying things like "depriving him of his benefits" which just seems to be ignoring the point- the state is providing for him, he's just rejecting what's offered.
I assumed we were discussing the hypothetical point where the family have run out of resources - otherwise what beef? Up to that point I don't see we disagree.
When it comes to care, here's an interesting thought exercise...
'Everybody' (well, not everybody...) expects free care for the elderly even if they have the means to pay for it , but bar a few hours free care, we don't expect the same for the very young (childminders, pre school etc).
If you're below a financial threshold it's state funded in either sense..
Is important to differentiate social care with medical needs too.
DrP