Man has heart attack after Baliff takes him to cash machine

[chris600uk]

No it's not acceptable.

 

The bailiffs astonishing behaviour would have had a traumatic effect upon a fit and healthy person, the family will be torn apart by this, and some people might never come to terms with the mindless pettiness that in my view lead to Mr Millers death.

I believe the bailiff is directly responsible for this, it must have been obvious that he was dealing with a very sick and elderly man.

 

In this case the bailiff is very fortunate that that wasn't my relative. He would have good reason to regret his actions because I doubt that I would be able to help myself, I'm not sure I could rest until he'd paid for his actions, and if I served on a jury, I would acquit anyone who took the law into their own hands under these circumstances.

 

My reaction may sound extreme - but just try to imagine the sense of powerlessness and humiliation Mr Miller will have gone through, and the fear that the bailiff will have put in him to force him to go with him to a cash point.

 

And if anyone still has doubts - imagine being scared into going with a criminal who forces you to take money out of a cashpoint, and then imagine what would happen if you were old and ill, with a damaged heart.

Kidnap, demanding money with menaces and robbery, leading to the death of the victim.........

 

What is justice then?

[chris600uk]

You may be right, but I don't believe it, anyone who has has a stroke and spent time in a coma, and has a heart problem, and has spent time in hospital doesn't look well, the guy was 78 years old - and when we get to that age we need to be treated with a bit of care.

 

As for your possible scenario of nice helpful bailiff giving an OAP a lift - well it's vaguely possible, but I don't believe it for a minute.

Anyway, bailiffs have no business taking people to cash points, or following people to cashpoints.

[chris600uk]

Lets comment on facts not pure blinkered speculation.

 

Maybe this is just a sad chain of events which ended in tragedy for the man in question and his family.

 

Os, that's all anyone has got because the dead man can't tell us his side.

We have to make assumptions based on our knowledge of human behaviour, we are all experts in that respect because we are all human.

[chris600uk]

Os, lets go with you a little way down that road and imagine that the bailiff popped round whistling as he walks up the path, and cheerily said,

 

B:Hi Mr Miller, just come for your fines money, rotten weather isn't it.

 

M says: Oh yes I've been waiting for you, look I've got to go to the cashpoint in the town centre, could you be so kind and wait.

 

B says: Why don't I give you a lift and save you the walk, it's awfully cold Mr M.

 

M: You are a kind lad, yes lets do that.

 

Now do tell...........

[chris600uk]

I'm not trying to take the **** Os, but you have to admit, it is a bit unlikely isn't it?

[chris600uk]

Why was he driving the man to the cash machine?!

 

Was it because, as his son said, he was too poorly and confused to drive himself?

 

Exactly

[chris600uk]

I wonder if the Bailliff had a good old rummage in the poor mans pockets before the police turned up to rescuscitate him.

 

That's pure speculation - I can't go along with that

 

a) because it could be unfair, the bailiff was still near enough to make himself known to the police that attended

b) because it takes time, and he'd have been seen doing it

 

 

I agreed with the rest of that post though

Edited January 16, 2009 by chris600uk
missed "it"

[chris600uk]

My guess is, he probably knew the old man was in trouble from the start he spent long enough in the car with him to know.

He may have been watching to see what happened next - perhaps a little twinge of conscience, or maybe just curiosity, or maybe he went into Costa coffee to buy himself a brew to warm himself up on a cold day.

 

 

 

Amongst other things I've been a cabbie, I've seen most things people do, good and bad - and that is probably the most likely.

[chris600uk]

The way things are, people will become desperate and if these idiots go in like a bull in a china shop they will get what they deserve if people set about them. I am not condoning violence but we have to accept that many people involved with debt collecting are nothing more than low-life **** and they come up against people similar to themselves. It is only a matter of time before one of them gets blown away.

 

 

Anyone, who has had to deal with the public on their own, especially at night and when they're drunk, will have seen what frightening things are possible from the mildest most innocuous looking individuals.

 

They will learn to "read" people - to quickly identify those (and they come from all walks of life) who are likely to turn nasty (possibly dangerous) if they feel they are wronged (men or women).

These are the people who have an extremely defensive response to fear once they are scared enough, fear that can build up invisibly and turn into sudden violence with little obvious warning. It's true that can apply to some criminals - but lots of non-criminals are exactly the same.

 

When the bailiffs, who are often ex-bouncers, identify these, they'll tiptoe up to the houses when hand delivering letters so as not to cause undue stress or alarm, and will be glad to return to the relative safety of their vehicle (a van provides good protection, a car does not).

 

But when they identify those they CAN intimidate - and that applies to most people - for the bailiff, the fun begins, and the stress is applied to the victim in whatever way the bailiff finds most effective, and for the twisted ones, most gratifying.

 

Stress can be applied subtly to a debtor or any person, because the effect is magnified inside the mind of a frightened victim - there is nothing more frightening than another human that intends to do you harm, and if the debtor perceives the bailiff as such, their experience will be traumatic.

 

Using perceived threats to cause fear follows the same mechanisms at work in robbery, rape and extortion, the psychological dynamics are exactly the same - only the stress varying in intensity from person to person.

 

 

Bottom line.........?

 

Bailiffs know exactly what they are doing - with years of practice they become expert.

[chris600uk]

I don't want to sound cynical - but there is a wider perspective.

 

Playing cowboys and indians around the globe is phenomenally expensive, so is running a country in a recession, especially when you've really cocked up. So the last thing you'll be interested in is taking less tax.

 

That's the point really - the civil servants who draw up these laws know there will be abuses, only a tiny few will bother to add lines of law to protect the vulnerable. So long as a govt minister can say that the checks and balances are working it won't bother them in the slightest.

 

The only thing that matters to them is VOTES, if MP's think they might be voted out of their cushy jobs, they'll do something about it.

 

Look at the extra runway farce - did anyone seriously think that it would be stopped when it's been planned for 10 or possibly 20 years? The civil servants at the top know exactly how big it's going to be eventually.

 

Or the 2nd Iraq war, that was already agreed with the US and the WMD circus was just propaganda to scare the electorate into thinking the war was just. I'm not saying it wasn't, but his honesty cost Dr Kelly his life because he was off-message, the fact that there weren't any WMD got in the way.

 

I could go on and on...............................but I think you get the point

Edited January 17, 2009 by chris600uk
spelling

[chris600uk]

How many more have to die before the penny drops?

 

 

Er, a member of an MP's family, otherwise quite a few

[chris600uk]

My point FP, is that they foresaw some problems when the law was written, and will resist any suggestion that they are responsible for whats happening now.

 

So they'll do nothing and say the system is working, and that this was just one isolated tragic incident in which no blame can be attached to anyone, so nobody did anything wrong - it's official.

 

So if you are naked in your home, and hear a noise and encounter an armed policemen, bend over and kiss your **** goodbye, cos he knows he can shoot you and get away with it, cos nobody did anything wrong - it's official.

 

And you get promotion for brazilian electricians, especially if your name is Toyota Richard, because nobody did anything wrong - it's official.

 

Cynical, possibly - but I'd like to think I take a realistic view.

[chris600uk]

That's what I think too.

 

I believe the only thing that will change this bad law, is if people complain to the MP's and the party headquarters in sufficient numbers for the statisticians to see it as a significant issue.

 

I've seen collection figures when councils do a Bailiff Review, they're on the internet for some of them and they show (just as tomtubby said) that only about 1% of council tax is not collected each year.

 

Now I think we're all grown up enough to know that if any council really wants to, it can find a million quid out of a budget of 80 - 90 million for fact finding in nice sunny locations, and redecorating the town hall, or the mayors house, on top of the money they get from central government, or twinning with some village thousands of miles away where they wouldn't know how to pronounce Accrington in the Borough of Hyndburn, the bailiffs probably work for either the taliban or the serbian mafia, and they couldn't care less anyway.

 

1% isn't much for all the misery that's caused for vulnerable people and folk who've fallen on hard times through no fault or rashness of their own.

They've created an industry that actually takes money that should be paying the 1% arrears off, and instead lines the pockets of Equita, JBW, Marstons, Newlyns..........................and so on.

 

 

I love a good rant!

Edited January 18, 2009 by chris600uk
grammar

[chris600uk]

I didn't think bailiffs worked in NI, so I suppose only the Police could do that.

[chris600uk]

Jack Straw may be a very nice bloke, and an able politician but I doubt that anything will affect the outcome of his enquiry - if my understanding of government process and typical behaviour is right, the outcome of the enquiry has already been decided and was most likely to have been agreed in a discussion in the cabinet office over a tiny glass of dry sherry - which probably took about ten minutes as soon as the news broke, it may even have been agreed over the phone.

 

The outcome of the new airport runway enquiry was probably agreed within 20 minutes, cos not everyone agreed to begin with and two glasses of sherry, you'll find it took place in about 1985.

 

One dead pensioner does not decide the outcome of an election, and is therefore very unimportant to politicians - no matter what the politicians say for the camera's, keeping the golden square mile happy matters much more.

[chris600uk]

I agree with what Chris600uk says but we must make an effort otherwise plenty of others might die as an indirect/direct result of these thugs.

 

That's absolutely true, and I hope I haven't put anyone off making the effort with my cynicism.

 

The problem seems to be the general lack of honesty in politicians, they all talk about open government and accountability, until they get into government, and then that is the very last thing they want.

 

It's almost incredible, we are governed by the people who desire power the most and tell the most credible lies - we often sneer at the obvious corruption in other countries less fortunate - but our system is exactly the same because there is no accountability or transparency - we depend on whistleblowers who pay a heavy price for their principles.

 

I personally believe that democracy in this country has been lost; our rights are rapidly being diminished by the Government and the opposition seem powerless to oppose what Brown and his cronies decide. Take the issue this week over MPs expenses that Brown wants to keep secret. What in hell's name are they afraid of?

 

We never had a democracy - this is a Kingdom, and we are subjects, you can only have citizens in a republic.

Secret Expenses! Well they are busy protecting themselves from any embarrassment and it must be embarrassing for them to want to keep it a secret.

 

Then there is the other issue (not concerned with this thread I admit ... so sorry) about the need for Government to maintain all of our e-mails. I am certain postings on this site are under scrutiny.

 

You can be certain of it - up until now there has been a cosy arrangement where the US monitored the UK public and the UK monitored the US public, then they would swap the info.

Anyone who doesn't believe it simply needs to phone a friend and say all of the key words the spooks are looking for - I won't mention them here because I don't want such attention in our currently paranoid world - I've seen what happens when our "I" services (a contradiction in terms in my view) get interested, and it leaves you with a very odd feeling of insecurity.

 

 

If things continue in ths vain I believe anarchy is not too far away.

This may sound cynical but I am getting on in years and have seen the decline of this country and I don't like it.

 

Anarchy? Personally I don't think that's possible without a catastrophic breakdown in our infrastructure - what's more likely in my view is a slow slide into an open police state which can at any time be misused, especially if a change in government lets an even worse bunch in than the lot we've currently got.

Have you listened to Question Time? It sounds like a bunch of schoolkids - they're in charge!!!!

1933 is not so long ago - they got in using the democratic process and are still politically active in their various re-constituted guises.

 

 

So paradoxically I'm glad of Jack Straw and his associates, because although my late father-in-law knew some of the "current lot" personally and would be horrified to see how weak the young men he liked and respected have turned out be - they are better than the alternative who are always waiting in the wings.

[chris600uk]

Well you aren't alone in that view V, and I can see why.

 

To be fair to the supporters of both possible scenarios, whether we agree with one or the other (and I've made it clear which one I believe); the fact is there are good reasons why regardless of their age, and perhaps their gender, a bailiff should not be transporting people to cashpoints to collect money.

 

Either to avoid the accusation of abuse against a decent bailiff just doing his job - or to avoid the risk of abuse from one of the **** who really belong behind bars.

 

There's no way out of that, the man shouldn't have been in the bailiffs car to begin with.

[chris600uk]

I would treat anything written by the SUN with great caution - I may be scouse and therefore slightly biased against them (they still don't sell papers in this city in any great quantity after the lies they printed about Hillsborough) - but gutter journalists generally aren't really interested in the truth, which is never as newsworthy as fiction.

[chris600uk]

Actually I remember someone did once - although it wasn't for that reason.

 

A jobs a job and bailiff work is no different - someone has to do it and it's stressful for the people on the receiving end. That's not the bailiffs fault.

 

The problem comes from the lowlifes who allowed dodgy bailiffs into the business in the first place - and keep them there so they can continue lying, cheating and by that method effectively stealing from the people who can least afford it.

 

These disgusting creatures consider themselves to be among the great and the good, vote themselves generous financial rewards in secret, reward their cronies with various titles and medals, and abuse the trust ordinary people place in them.

 

I wonder if you can guess who they are?..............................

[chris600uk]

Surely this will be a turning point for the bailiff industry? Its floundering and blundering into mistake after mistake.

 

There WILL be debtors.

 

There WILL be people who CANNOT pay.

 

Am I the only one seeing this?

 

As far as the politicians are concerned, that is your councillors, your MP.....Yes !

 

Because they don't see it at all - they don't want to.