Gift to the nation?

[Rupert_Baehr]

What happened to that State which used to be called 'The Battersea Dog's Home'?

[geared]

This is just about the first instance I can recall of someone doing something that I believed in when I was 18 years old. I was of the opinion that everyone should by law have to leave the whole of their fortune to the state.

What a fool I must have been.

 

It didn't go to the state tho, it went into the coffers of two political parties, their main aim is to get elected and stay in power - so they've gotta spend loads of cash on campaigning.

 

I just think the old hag lost her marbles, a charity could have really done some good with half a million quid.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Are you living in a time warp, Geared?

 

Did you atually bother to check what was happening to the money before you re-wrote the facts?

 

(Clue: It was on the National and International News for most of the day.)

[Mister M]

It didn't go to the state tho, it went into the coffers of two political parties, their main aim is to get elected and stay in power - so they've gotta spend loads of cash on campaigning.

 

I just think the old hag lost her marbles, a charity could have really done some good with half a million quid.

 

Not a nice way to speak of Lady Thatcher , though a charity would have been well pleased with the 3 million quid it cost the taxpayer for her send off

[Obelix]

oh, so now it's all somebody who is politically neutral fault?

 

But I'll lay odds that if this had been donated to the Labour party you'd have been crowing all over it and wouldn't see a thing wrong with it.....

 

In case you hadn't realised if someone leaves you a bequest you either get to accept it on their terms, or you can refuse it. You can't generally accept it and then use it contrary to their wishes.

 

It seems that she made this decision of sound mind, and the will is valid. That should be all there is to it, apart from the whiney Left....

 

---------- Post added 15-08-2013 at 00:49 ----------

 

Obviously she wasn't of sound mind when she wrote the will, otherwise she'd have stipulated what the money was to be used for.

 

Was she content for a fascist government to use her money "as they saw fit" euthanising old ladies or shooting Jews?

 

Or maybe she just had a naive and gullible view that the Government Of The Day would always seek to do the best for the nation. Poor dear.

 

She clearly was of sound mind.

 

My will states that some monies go to the University of Sheffield for example. They don't state what it is to be used for. Does that make me of unsound mind?

[Rupert_Baehr]

...

My will states that some monies go to the University of Sheffield for example. They don't state what it is to be used for. Does that make me of unsound mind?

 

Of course not! - But had you bequeathed money to another institution without the proviso that it should not be use to sponsor a monumental Pi88 up people might wonder.

[Ridgeway84]

oh, so now it's all somebody who is politically neutral fault?

 

How awful for you. It might not be a plot by the evil Tories, Cameron laughing in his top hat as he grabs the money and kicks a poor orphan child.

 

---------- Post added 15-08-2013 at 02:44 ----------

 

Obviously she wasn't of sound mind when she wrote the will, otherwise she'd have stipulated what the money was to be used for.

 

Was she content for a fascist government to use her money "as they saw fit" euthanising old ladies or shooting Jews?

 

Or maybe she just had a naive and gullible view that the Government Of The Day would always seek to do the best for the nation. Poor dear.

 

As opposed to the naive and gullible view that leads people to hate the government/s regardless of what it does because its all a con trick by lying elected dictators?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Obviously she wasn't of sound mind when she wrote the will, otherwise she'd have stipulated what the money was to be used for.

 

...

 

Put your money where your mouth is. If you are convinced she was not of sound mind, are you not obliged (morally, at least) to put the case (at your expense) before the Court of Probate?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

MS Edwards' solicitors have said that they spoke to her about her bequest and they are of the opinion that she meant the money to go to the funds of whichever political party/parties were in power.

 

If that's so, then the government did nothing wrong. Their donation of the money to the treasury - who will spend it 'for the good of the people' - is generous to a fault, IMO.

 

There is, however, no shortage of people on this forum (and elsewhere) who would hate to see any political party getting any money from anybody.

I agree. "The Government" means the political party/parties comprising it.

So the executors rightly paid it to the two Coalition parties.

[Obelix]

I agree. "The Government" means the political party/parties comprising it.

So the executors rightly paid it to the two Coalition parties.

 

I'd have said that the government is that which wields executive power, which means the Queen-in-Council, so that to my mind would be to divide it according to the representation on the Privy Council, ie the Cabinet committee.

 

IT is however a very odd request, and illustrative of the fact that a will has to be legal. It doesn't have to make sense!