Richard 1234

3 hours ago, Gavmar said:

Great idea. I will be doing that tomorrow.

Also put a bit of heat on it. A blowtorch or heat gun. Just for a few seconds it will bring any air bubbles to the top helping it fill but mainly for getting rid of the bubbles. Which are either a pain or impossible to remove depending how deep they are.

Tip for you. Go all around the edges of the cracks with a snake of plasticine before you pour epoxy. It keeps it in like a dam. Or use some silicone sealant to do the same job.stops those falls happening in the fist place. Just overfill using the barrier and it will sink back into the gap as it moves.

On 18/02/2022 at 12:06, john87 said:

You will be fine. If/when he is discharged from S3 then S117 is automatic providing a person has an ongoing care need which i presume he will, so no worries there. As for how long S117 lasts though, how long is a piece of string..

 

Some people start off on S117 and later are deemed to get a bit better and not to need care.. Next time they need care they are told the S117 has expired if you like, other people it seems to go on for ever.. Suppose it depends on where you live..

 

Here is what you need to be careful of.

 

Now, all social workers are liars. Maybe not by nature, but they are forced to lie by their bosses. Instead of a sectioning order under the MHA there is an alternative, that is, DoLs, which is "deprivation of liberty safeguards" which has the same effect, a person is detained, but instead of it being under the MHA, it is under the "mental capacity act"

 

Social workers are all for this and when questioned will tell you that; [and they will use these exact words] "it is the least restrictive way of detaining a person] Utter bollocks!! You are either detained or you are not!!

 

They are mad keen to use the MCA and NOT the MHA, as then, they can charge you, as no S117.. it is no accident, trust me..

 

You will have two people in EXACTLY the same position, one on DoL's having to pay the full cost of their care, and the other on an MHA section followed by S117, not having to pay a penny..

 

There was someone across the road from me, they owned a house worth about £275,000 another house worth about £200,000 and they sold their flat in london for nearly £500,000 too. God knows what money they already had. Anyway, they became ajudged to be unable to care for themselves, [despite taking themselves on a 300 mile round trip and organising the sale of the flat] and had home care for about 12 hours a day, every day. This went on for YEARS [until they died]. As they had once been sectioned, they did not have to pay a bean, thanks to S117, despite the fact that they were almost certainly a millionaire..

 

john..

They were talking about the mental capacity act instead of section to begin with. They said it was easier/quicker to do. That’s about my knowledge on that one. 
the care sector really should be swallowed up by the nhs and paid by the usual taxes that would need to go up a bit. But they could keep NI contributions going into retirement on pensions maybe. (and I actually hate the idea in some respects as the nhs is too big to work properly now but at least it would all be under one accountable body) 

it would free up money that would circulate in the economy as well. As all these houses and bank accounts that are currently taken to pay for care would then become available to use on other things

Well a third of my fence has decided to have a lie down……….

I know what my weekend involves now🤣

2 hours ago, john87 said:

I know it is upsetting, of course it is, but if there is ONE thing i know about it is the care system. My mother is in a care home and, as it happens, i also work for the NHS.

 

Fact of the matter is, unless you are placed in a care home for VERY strictly limited health needs and qualify for CHC [google "the Coughlan case"] you WILL be means tested, and if you have assets of more that £23,000 you WILL, be paying the full cost yourself..

 

Read this, the most important case concerning CHC...

The Coughlan Case For Care Funding

CARETOBEDIFFERENT.CO.UK

---

The Coughlan Case is a landmark legal case whereby Pamela Coughlin challenged the NHS and won Care Funding - Read...

 

In ANY other case, INCLUDING if you are forcibly detained in a care home by means of DoLs, [by virtue of operation of the mental capacity act] you will be means tested and if you have assets of more than £23,000 paying yourself.

 

HOWEVER.

 

If you are forcibly detained there by means of a sectioning order, [by virtue of operation of the mental health act] you will be entitled to S117 aftercare which is free, and therefore you will not have to pay at all..

 

Suggest all those that think they know best read this [carefully]

WWW.AGEUK.ORG.UK

---

 

 

Trust me, the local authority will grab every penny they can. A persons home is included in their assets too, and in fact, even if a child of the person concerned actually lives in their parents house, unless they are under the age of 18, or are disabled, or are a partner or relative aged over 60 of the parent, the house will still be sold from under them to pay for the care costs UNLESS, the person in care qualifies for CHC, [and this is reviewed from time to time] OR they are sectioned under the MHA and therefore S117 applies..

 

A lot of people might not like this, but that is the way it is.

 

Anyone care to disagree???? Go find evidence that i am wrong.. Good luck with that one..

 

When it comes to transferring ownership of a house to avoid having it taken as part of "assets" people will tell you a lot of rubbish about "It needs to have been done more than 6 years ago" This is a lot of nonsense.. There IS no time limit, the deciding factor is whether, at the time the property was transferred, the person concerned knew or suspected that they would need care. It is irrellevant if this was last week or 20 years ago. If the court decides the transfer was with the intention of avoiding care costs the court will simply reverse it. [Same applies if it were not a proper transfer, [transferred but remained living there etc]

 

john..

Section 117 is what I’m aiming to get dad on if they ever let him out of section 3. And the ongoing care cost is the main reason to try and make sure they don’t wriggle out of it. That will save a massive bill if care home time comes.

2 hours ago, john87 said:

Yes, but it does not matter how much money you have got, you would have to be TERRIBLY rich.. My mum has a private pension of about £2500 a month.. Social services take every penny from her apart from £30 a week, so unless you have about £500,000 you do not mind spending....

 

john..

The care cost cap will help from next October. It’s shit that it’s not been capped before now. My grandad had to pay about £150k before he died. That was 25 years ago. It also depends if it’s care or nursing you need from what I remember. If it’s actual nurse care you need costs are scary.

3 hours ago, john87 said:

Good... Nearly happened to me..

 

john..

Yes it could be a problem if cash wasn’t available to pay for care it’s true.

2 hours ago, john87 said:

Hi there, I know nothing  of your situation, but any property in your dads name needs transferring a bit quick. Never mind inheritance tax, that is the least of your worries. If your dad ends up needing to receive any sort of care or to be in a care home, social services will take the LOT to pay for his care.. The fact you live there means nothing, you will be evicted and the property sold..

 

john..

No that won’t happen.

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Have you had proper advice on inheritance / capital gains tax? I’m sure you will have - I was under the impression - not at all first hand knowledge - there were significant advantageous conditions:

 

Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax Planning for Farmers | Simmons Gainsford LLP

WWW.SGLLP.CO.UK

 

The accountant and solicitor dad uses are actually very good. I didn’t really question him much about it as I was quite pleased when he dropped the idea. As I said I don’t really see the farm as money I see it as home (more than my own home now) and ideally will move back there at some point. It’s something that needs looking at sooner than later now I suppose. He’s gone from being a strong 78 to losing 4 stone and a lot of muscle mass in 4 months. It’s frightening how quickly he’s gone downhill.

On 15/02/2022 at 16:48, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I didn't have chance to come back to you on these points yet Richard.

 

I was trying to find a previous thread where the farm subsidy thing was discussed in detail.  It might have been this one - but I'm not sure that is the one I was thinking of.  Either way, some great names we don't see so often anymore in there.

 

I have always felt that, if a subsidy should be paid, then it should be paid to the 'hands on' farmer rather than the absentee land owner.

 

I also have some skin in the game since the c*nts at HMRC define a business as that which is capable of making a profit.  

 

Therefore, any farm that relies upon subsidy and would otherwise not be a viable business - cannot, by definition (of HMRC) be a business.  

 

It should naturally follow therefore, if you can't be a (ag) business then you also can't claim the unbelievably and often overlooked plethora of additional 'business' benefits afforded to the ag sector - reduced planning constraints, reduced council tax, rebated diesel, reduced driver age, relaxed inheritance tax etc etc etc...  The list is truly staggeringly advantageous when compared to just about every other industrial sector.

 

I know it's been done before. but couldn't resist the opportunity...

 

 

 

Final question...

 

"....he bought the farm years ago to hide some money I’m guessing? In 2008 I think he said..."

 

Did you mean your dad or Clarkson??  😂

 

On the inheritance thing I think that’s one of the reasons that dad hasn’t sold up.

he did look at selling and buying somewhere about a quarter the size as he still wanted land. Trouble is those places are overpriced due to city bankers and the like wanting a big house with 40/50 acres.

capital gains would have eaten most of the difference in price making it unviable (well poor anyway) as the farm is making money now even though he has contractors do 90% of it as he’s old now. If he doesn’t get better it will have to get sold I guess as I won’t be able to afford to buy my sister out. Might be able to sell most of the land and pay her off that way. It really depends on how much tax that will create I suppose.

capital gains does piss me off as it was bought not as an investment but as a home for my grandad and family and afterwards/during and up to know as a home that obviously made a living. But that’s all it was a living. It never made huge money

7 hours ago, william127 said:

No not at all as that still doesn't take the cost of the land into account.

That’s true as well though probably not for clarkson in the fact that it’s probably paid for outright. You couldn’t rent or buy and make any money. Well like others have said you need a hell of a big pile of cash to start. Which begs the question why would you bother!

4 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I didn't have chance to come back to you on these points yet Richard.

 

I was trying to find a previous thread where the farm subsidy thing was discussed in detail.  It might have been this one - but I'm not sure that is the one I was thinking of.  Either way, some great names we don't see so often anymore in there.

 

I have always felt that, if a subsidy should be paid, then it should be paid to the 'hands on' farmer rather than the absentee land owner.

 

I also have some skin in the game since the c*nts at HMRC define a business as that which is capable of making a profit.  

 

Therefore, any farm that relies upon subsidy and would otherwise not be a viable business - cannot, by definition (of HMRC) be a business.  

 

It should naturally follow therefore, if you can't be a (ag) business then you also can't claim the unbelievably and often overlooked plethora of additional 'business' benefits afforded to the ag sector - reduced planning constraints, reduced council tax, rebated diesel, reduced driver age, relaxed inheritance tax etc etc etc...  The list is truly staggeringly advantageous when compared to just about every other industrial sector.

 

I know it's been done before. but couldn't resist the opportunity...

 

 

 

Final question...

 

"....he bought the farm years ago to hide some money I’m guessing? In 2008 I think he said..."

 

Did you mean your dad or Clarkson??  😂

 

Yes loads of small and surprisingly big farms would go bankrupt without the subsidies.

I know of a 2300 acre farm that was sold a couple of years back as the owners (who owned the land outright) were sick and tired of all the work the hassle the red tape. The list goes on. To only make money when the subsidy was taken into account. Big kit massive bills. One of the quad tracks went into forth year service. £14k. Dyson bought it to add to his collection.
as for the hiding money yes to both I guess. Clarkson will have done for sure.

my dad bought neighbouring fields when they came up for sale. But the reason was to put money in the ground where it won’t ever lose value over the longer term

13 hours ago, william127 said:

That's what they claimed in the final episode but anyone with a bit of common sense could see that is TV bullshit-  the way that figure was put across would mean he was buying a new tractor, cultivator etc every year! So he did make 50 grand or so- still bugger all for the millions of pounds worth of land and the hours worked but it is an entertainment programme,  not a company accounts report so its probably not 100percent accurate! 

 

Farmers seem to have had a positive reaction to it from what I've read/heard.

 

It's certainly a  better show of farming than the vegan friendly drivel that Countryfile has become, or the BBCs wheelchair and headscarf festival as Clarkson referred to it in his newspaper column 😅😅😅

Yes of course it was probably closer to £100k after buying all the kit and all the building works probably more.

but from 2000 acres it’s still not brilliant is it.

35 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Is that a bit like Trump then? The only way he’d end up with a million is if he started out with 2?

 

Clarkson - reported £48 mil personal wealth, paid heaven only knows how much for a farm - and a ridiculously over spec’s tractor - drew down a shed load of tax payers money (quite properly (if you think the subsidy system ‘proper’)) and turned an £85 profit after a year?

 

There’s a discussion running about how silly it is to work on a Sunday and folks’ business acumen been questioned (only joking Mick) but folks here want to present Clarkson as a paradigm of industry?

 

I’m completely unable to take that at face value....

 

Others may disagree. 

No one said he was any good at it! It does show how shit it can be though.

the subsidies would be paid regardless so that’s a poor argument. Should they be there? I’d say probably not. My dad hasn’t bothered filling the forms in for the last few years. Too much hassle as he doesn’t produce anything anymore.

he bought the farm years ago to hide some money I’m guessing? In 2008 I think he said

19 minutes ago, AWarb00 said:

And there you said it, if you had actually watched Clarksons farm you might have realised how much good it's done for British farming

 

 

 

Nobody likes a know it all.....

On the whole I enjoyed clarksons farm and it did raise good points.

on the subsidy yes he got it like everyone else but if I remember rightly he made £85

from the 2000 acres that first year. It was some silly figure like that.

17 hours ago, eggsarascal said:

If Russia get stuck into Ukraine (which I don't think/hope they will) 

we will have to get involved and Sanction them, then the brown stuff will hit the spiny round thing. How long is 'fast tracking'?

 

 

Not sure I’d have to find the article again. Some north east of England MP it was in an interview or statement

5 hours ago, Woodworks said:

Looks like its a definite no to fracking. If we do need more gas surly North Sea reserves would cleaner to extract? 

Fracking firm Cuadrilla to permanently abandon UK shale gas sites | Fracking | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Firm sets out plan to seal two shale gas wells in Lancashire two years after government shutdown order

 

That might still depend on Russia / Ukraine. If that goes to war. Sanctions will turn into the gas being turned off from Russia either as a direct result of sanctions or a retaliation.

I did read somewhere that 6 North Sea fields are looking to be fast tracked. They are old licences that haven’t been used yet or something 

Just now, eggsarascal said:

Mining caused subsidence, we needed in then and we need our own gas now. What do you suggest we do?

I suggest we do fracking and open more oil and gas fields as soon as possible.

build some storage space for the gas. Do it as a government thing so it belongs to us. We could then be energy secure and sell any left over if it’s there.

In the meantime build 20 nuclear plants or something like that. Make hydrogen with the excess electric and use that for heating! 
wouldn’t work obviously but just a thought

11 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

You're a whippersnapper, go now if you want a change. Put your big boys pants on and go, our kids after us going to Australia, I'm not sure yet.

 

Try it you might like it. You can always come back. If it wasn’t for the kids being the age they are with school. I’d be off trying somewhere new again. I think I’d try America though as I went Far East working last time. To old to try and learn a language now.

1 minute ago, eggsarascal said:

You wouldn't get raped anywhere, no one in their right mind would touch you with a barge pole..

Unless he managed to get himself locked up in Miami. I’m sure they would like him in there

9 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

They look lush 

They are brilliant, I gave mine away to a young lad who was a good lad in the kitchen when I gave up cheffing. Sometimes wish I hadn’t but it felt good at the time.

https://www.yorkcatering.co.uk/chefs/gustav-emil-ern-knives

used these for years when I was a chef. Not cheap but good

just to add German or Japanese knives generally best. Apart from global. Far too soft and easy to damage unless they have changed.

4 hours ago, Woodworks said:

Unless you live somewhere hot and now use more AC

 

And even if you dont live somewhere hot

A tenth of UK electricity used for air conditioning

WWW.CIBSEJOURNAL.COM

 

It was a joke by the way

54 minutes ago, peds said:

That’s good means we can turn the heating down. Less emissions 👍

14 hours ago, Macpherson said:

Ok, I was just curious as to the perennial appearance of tatties everywhere that they've been previously planted and how commercial growers avoid this when rotating crops.

 

I got round it by growing in black bags which is fine for me but obviously not any use commercially, it would seem that my question was answered... and it's the use of herbicides which would defeat the purpose of growing my own.

 

Also I find it fascinating that if I plant a really crap supermarket tattie that's chitted in the kitchen it grows into a much nicer thing all together, cheers.

The machines don’t miss any if driven properly they are working on de-stoned ground and the machine is wide and cuts deep enough not to miss any. And as said if there is any they will be killed off on normal herbicide spray next season.