Bassman62 Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 thankfully no, not everyone. My eyes were opened when i repported a nieghbour 7 times in 3 months for hitting his dog. They never turned up once when he was in, just left notes to say they had been. And he still hits his dogs!! Then we get the tv ads. 'the worlds biggest animal rescue' they say. Yeah, right I rescued and raised 3 Blackbird chicks from almost newly hatched after cats had killed the parents. I rung the RSPCA for advice and was accused of nest robbing. Two of the chicks grew to adult hood and I released them into the country having taken them out in the garden each day teaching them to forage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 2, 2010 Author Share Posted December 2, 2010 You seem to have very strong opinions so strong that you would seem to have inside knowledge of the case along with more knowledge of the law than the presiding judge.What makes you say that? Why would I require inside knowledge of the case or require more knowledge of the law than the presiding judge in order to express my opinion on it? Ok, you tell me because I'm stumped- What reason(within his legal jurisdiction)did the judge have to overrule the instructions of the will? Could he be keeping his reason secret because the ruling was enforced following the decision he reached based on his own personal views? Originally posted by Bassman I think fairness won the day here and I hope that the appeal by the RSPCA fails and I certainly don't expect them to come rattling collection cans in my face after spening all the money raised by public donations on an appeal. Unlike you, I have no ill feelings towards either Dr Gill or the RSPCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 2, 2010 Author Share Posted December 2, 2010 Well it was. So <REMOVED> for the rspca. Correction!<REMOVED> the testators wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Correction!<REMOVED> the testators wishes. Makes no odds. Those grasping, money mad people at the rspca have lost. they should just suck it up and accept it. However im inclined to think theyll probably waste more kindly donated money on an appeal they wont win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevski35 Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Unfortunately wills are very rarely legally binding. As the sayin goes "where's their a will there's relatives". The wive works in legal cicrcles and says it is very easy to contest a will. Majority don't get contested as most are usually happy with the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 2, 2010 Author Share Posted December 2, 2010 Makes no odds. <snip> However im inclined to think theyll probably waste more kindly donated money on an appeal they wont win. Which would be yet another injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Makes no odds. How can it makes no odds? The wishes of the deceased people who left the will are the only relevant factor in this case. Everything else is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordonb Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Am I not correct in thinking that every will has to be witnessed. Surely the Judge must have called upon the witnesses to give their opinion regarding the soundness of minds of the deceased. Maybe the witnesses did a deal with the daughter. Perhaps they are dead themselves. Maybe she waited until they were dead before bringing this action. Who knows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 How can it makes no odds? The wishes of the deceased people who left the will are the only relevant factor in this case. Everything else is irrelevant. A bit like the dogs i keep reporting to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Ok, you tell me because I'm stumped- What reason(within his legal jurisdiction)did the judge have to overrule the instructions of the will?I'm not telling you anything you seem to know all the answers already. Could he be keeping his reason secret because the ruling was enforced following the decision he reached based on his own personal views? You seem to do a great deal of Hypothesising, implying at first that you know all about the law more than the judge even The judge found no reason within legal guidelines that could lead him to make the decision he did. If you know different then please enlighten me. The judge's decision was heavily influenced by the unfounded claims that Dr Gills father pressured his wife into leaving their entire estate to the RSPCA. Once again making statements as if you were qualified in legal matters. Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.