Tony F Dordogne

Maybe Gay but that doesn't detract from the fact that the child is supposed to be in school here in France, dad's location, place of work and state of his marriage etc is immaterial.  There is no way that the DWP have paid this benefit as easily as that, they're fighting tooth and nail to stop payments, ignoring both European law, UK law and case law, Judges directions etc etc. This just isn't the way things are done - I suspect I know how this has happened but I'll keep my counsel on that I think.

Ame, that's not the point unfortunately.  The claimant is the child (tho a parent lives and works in the UK and I suspect that may have been used as a device in this instance) and she lives in France and therefore cannot meet the criteria for reinstatement of DLA for a number of reasons which are being used by the DWP to block claims.  I think that as DR says, there is much more  going on here because thos involved in the campaign and the preparation of the legal arguments KNOW for a certainty that this cannot have happened as easily as Guile is indicating.  Guile, you seem to know so much about the system, where the letters are from, all the things that people involved in the campaign or around the campaign know but not how this benefit was reinstated - have we spoken before somewhere else?  

Ummmm, had that information from elsewhere but thanks anyway. What would be useful is to understand how the person claiming got round the 26 week, past presence rule becasuse that is what the DWP is using to prevent people getting their benefit.  As this person left the UK prior to the EDCJ judgement, she must have had to get over that hurdle and that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.

Guile, it would be really helpful if you could answer my questions, the answers may help a lot of people and will help to stop the DWP twirling people.

That's the real problem with this whole thread Ernie, it's one biased side telling a story when the other equally biased side isn't in a position to have any reply!

Sorry Will, that isn't quite true.  It has long been the law - and as far back as the 50s that I know of - that a child under the age of 13 is regarded as being incapable of either being able to have sexual intercourse (not with some of todays youngsters obviously) and more importantly, that a child under 13 could not give consent to a sexual act, so technically children under 13 have always been raped tho the offence has been, in my experience, usually been something else when charged because it's easier to prove. And as J and I prove, abuse doesn't have to be a life sentence, it's something that you always carry with you but as somebody else said above, it can help you to grow up - far too quickly, what happened to having a 'proper' childhood which many sexual abusers steal from the abused child - and grow to have an appreciation for the real or potential damage that abuse can do to people. As for the blackmailer, the abuser was lucky in some ways, the blackmailer could have taken much more direct action.  Both as bad as each other tho in the grand plan, the abuser is to me, the lowest form of life and whilst I totally opposed the red top's campaign of a few years ago, I would support a Megan's/Sarah's law approach if it weren't for the ability of the more intellectually challenged in our midst, whether newspaper reporters/editors or people in local communities, to deal with it in an appropriate way, hence wholly innocent people being hounded.  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to deal with child sex offenders - the offenders register is easily avoided and doesn't cover everybody - and giving any abuser a caution because of their age is just a nonsense.

Guile, could you ask your chum if you can pass contact details on please.  Clearly, the person in question would not have passed one of the tests that the DWP are imposing if she/her family moved to France in 2006 and may not have passed the second test, both of which are being used to block current reinstatement cases.  Her age and her father's place of work are immaterial. It would be interesting to see how the family managed to sidestep the tests which are being imposed on other people.

[quote user="maconnaise"]I'm sorry, some people have missed the point. Racial discrimination shows prejudice! As EU citizans, not french, we are code 70 no matter if retired, handicapped or any of their other codes afforded to a French person. Under code 70 the CPAM pay nothing. I am not talking about my husband's hospital stay, that is covered by Axa. I checked Axa and they pay 15 euros a day if you 'accompany' your relative which they interpret as staying in the same hospital room! Good get-out on that one.[/quote] As I and Norman said previously, it's not because you're not French, it's because you haven't paid in to get the full cover in France. And it also sounds as tho you've made a mistake with choosing AXA as your mutuelle and you're looking for help to pay the bill for your stay with your husband.  Unless you can get help somewhere else you're going to have to pay the rest of the bill yourself - you could ask at your Mairie whether there is some help from a social fund but I doubt it.  You could also try to plead special circumstances to your local CPAM office. The French health system is not prejudiced against you at all - you could speak to the UK government tho because it's them that pick up your health bill from your E121 and if you think the French are discriminating against you, speak to your MP for your last constituency, I'm sure he or she will be interested in  your case of discrimination or prejudice. But why should the French pay for your stay in hospital, for reasons that we all understand, when you haven't paid anything into their health system through working here and they don't pay for your healthcare anyway?  Sounds like you should have chosen a more comprehensive mutuelle to be honest and calling the French prejudiced is just taking out your frustration on a system that cannot respond to you and isn't responsible for your situation.

Sorry Guile, I'm totally confused now.  When did this girl leave the UK because that would have determined whether her DLA was stopped.  If it was stopped in 2006, before the ECJ judgement of October 2007, that's what the UK should - in error of law - have done whilst they were working under their old rules.

I do sympathise with your situation but if CPAM pick up 70% - or even 35% - and your mutuelle pick up the rest of the bill, I don't see what the problem is.  If you present your Carte Vitale and details of your mutuelle to the hospital, it's likely that they will just bill the mutuelle direct which is what's happened to other people I know in a similar situation though of course you are with the well know exclusion clause company AXA. As for legalised racial prejudice, no it's not, you're not a different race, you're just from a different country and there are rules to deal with etrangers from the EU who are treated differently from non-EU and non-French claimants.  No, we're not treated the same as the French, if you're on an E121, remember that the UK government still pay a good part of your health bill every year - somebody else will know whether they pick up the bill for spousal/familial hospital stays, if they don't then are you expecting the French government to pay for the stay when you've not contibuted to the health service?  

Same in this part of 24, evenings are drawing in, had to change the timers for the watering system, not having to water so often, heavy dew most mornings and as somebody said, there's an almost imperceptable something in the air, change is coming - and many fewer tourists tho St Cyprien was full of Brit holidaymakers today!

[quote user="e-griff"] A young french guy has offered to do some odd (unskilled) jobs around the garden (clearing brambles, cutting hedges, etc) plus some outside painting and woodcutting. He's the friend of a friend and I want to reward him with a gift equivalent to a fair price for his work. Can anyone tell me what the going rate is for such help? by hour or day, whatever, so I can work out what sort of reward to give? [/quote] John, you pay him the rate for the job and Will has, as usual, explained the system exactly.  If you mean by your message that you want to give him a gift in lieu of payment, that isn't going to work because it's earnings in kind - better to pay him the rate for the job.

[quote user="jacquie"]I believe it is discriminatory not to allow us the same entitlement as those in receipt of E121s to which the UK pay the French a levy. We are EU citizens living in an EU country & should not be 'dumped' into a  category that includes people under 65 who do no want to work or chose to retire.  Bob[/quote] If you think that the case is discriminatory, I think you need to speak to your legal people in the UK because the only way you can change it is through Europe I think or through a case at the Equalities Commission and I think your chances with either are slim to nil. I hate to be picky but you also chose to retire early because you knew when you joined the job what the circumstances of your retirement would be or if the rules were changed whilst you were in the service, you could have left and taken work that meant you would be covered if you moved to Europe. I know several retired police officers near me - and I was in the police service also tho pleased to say left early and went on to do other things - and all of them are happy with their index linked pensions. To be honest, taking the tone you have in the quote isn't going to get you much help or sympathy here - you chose a job which allowed early retirement therefore you chose to retire early and chose to live in France with all that comes with it - you want to change the law, I'm sure that there will be a lawyer somewhere happy to take your money from you.

Just the same as the accident that happened here a few years ago in which I was involved (the aftermath) when four were killed - overloaded (4 adults and 4 children in a Jeep Cherokee) most of the people didn't have seat belts on. The driver in this case will be lucky not to be prosecuted for manslaughter if somebody died for both the overcrwding and the seat belt offences, the driver in the local case faces 13 counts of manslaughter relating to the seatbelt x 4, the overcrowding x 4 and the excess alcohol x 4 plus 1 instance for speeding. I think the insurance company did exactly the right thing in this recent instance.  Interestingly the insurance companies all paid out on the various claims from 2006 but they're suing the nuts off the driver!

Just picked this up from a round robin letter from a UK MP, may be of interest or useful to some among out happy band: EXTRACT Non-residents (`ex-pats`) UK nationals who are resident abroad and who do not have an address in the UK sometimes experience difficulties in gaining access to domestic banking services.  There are no legal or regulatory barriers to banks providing services to non-residents, but many banks and building societies have decided not to do so, on commercial not regulatory grounds.  I understand that they are driven chiefly by concerns about fraud prevention and additional administrative requirements in dealing with people living abroad.  The number of banks and building societies prepared to offer services is small. Consumers may find it helpful to know that while the Government cannot offer a referral service to help non-residents, the British Bankers Association has begun to offer an account finder service through its website at www.bba.org.uk. It is intended to help those who have difficulty in finding a suitable onshore account. Money-laundering (identification) checks It is reported that some customers continue to experience difficulties meeting identification requirements. It is important that banks should identify their customers for their own commercial purposes as part of the fight against financial crime.  We also recognise that the measures taken need to be proportionate to the risks posed and avoid unnecessary intrusion, as well as being effective. The requirements on firms to identify customers were originally introduced by the Money Laundering Regulations 1993. Those requirements were updated by the money laundering Regulations 2003, and were further updated in 2007. However, the Regulations are not prescriptive, instead setting high-level objectives for businesses to meet. It is for them to decide how to interpret the Regulations.  Each will have their own policies on identification, and on the circumstances in which other checks should be undertaken. Government does not prescribe those detailed policies. To help banks and other financial firms make such policies they are assisted by the availability of guidance.  For the financial institutions, this is the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG) guidance notes. The Chancellor approved a revised set of these notes at the end of 2007. The Government encourages financial institutions to adopt a risk-based approach to customer checks and to follow the JMLSG Guidance Notes, or, where appropriate, other guidance. The JMLSG Guidance Notes encourage firms to act reasonably where, for example, customers do not have passports or driving licenses, or where customers experience difficulties in managing their own affairs. Driving licenses and passports are useful, and banks and other institutions may ask for them as they are the most commonly encountered documents, but our Regulations do not require banks to demand sight of them, and the guidance encourages them to consider a wide range of other evidence. Under the signature of Sarah McCarthy-Fry, MP 11th August 2009. Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury  

We can get over the limit withdrawls but we have to make a special arrangement and give 5 days notice, €3000 max.

Well, after snoozing for a few weeks - well, actually doing a lot of the work in the background - it appears as tho some of the 'complex issues' being argued by the DWP/ExpoTeam have been resolved by their seniors and they are sending out decisions to claimants and have been doing so for a few weeks. If you get a letter, allowing or disallowing and you've not already do so, please go to the decicated website where you may be able to get help. We have some interesting legal arguments and lots of other stuff still going on in the background.

[quote user="Braco"]An interesting article. What will never ever be discussed is who had the greatest capability to execute this crime and reap the greatest benefits (keeping their dumb puppets in line). Take a bow Mossad.[/quote] Braco, your hard evidence rather than conspiracy theory that Mossad was involved is what and where?

Sue, nothing new, this was happening in the 60s and 70s when I was a young policeman, frequently got attacked like this especially when trying to arrest people. Bike chains are an old weapon, much favoured by teddy boys and then by 'rockers'.

OK, I know that a lot of people ignore this law but there's some sort of push on about it relating to the long periods of hot and dry weather.  The following has just been circulated to all the Communes in 24 and also in our communal letter.   It''s not a local thing, it's a national law and can be imposed if the Commune wishes to, so no dodging on the grounds of 'it doesn't apply to this Departemente or Commune'. Been down to the Mairie this afternoon and obtained all three pages of the actual regulation, Maire says it's a guaranteed cure for insomnia! Translated for those who may struggle and it's only a snippet but this is the important bit. "As an owner of land which is built on, you are affected by the need to cut brush. It is necessary to maintain a minimum radius of 50m around the building (house) and 10m clear of all other channels of access to the house. The obligation of clearing and upkeep are required in areas less than 200m from wood, heathland, heathland, planting or reforestation."   I'll scan the actual leaflet and will keep it in case anybody wants something a bit more graphic.  

Oh dear Chris and just when you seemed to be doing so well.  OK, you don't care for Obama (probably too far to the left for you) but where are the Marxists in the UK Government?  You obviously know how to spot a Marxist so perhaps you could share that insight with us? I was at Uni with a substantial number of the current Commons (and some of the Lords) and there were very few of them even in the Labour Group because it was far too left wing and although the Uni had a serious reputation for left wing activism, most of the people there were Tories.  And for sure, after a lifetime of support for what could be described as the hard left, I don't recall seeing many of the current leaders at any seriously left wing rallies for many years tho a few may have been more actively left wing in their youth.  For sure, many of them are hardly Socialist now, let alone Marxist. And when those little rascals in those evil capitalist banks brought the world's economy to its knees, did the UK Government nationalise the lot?  No, they temporarily bought stakes, some larger than others, in some of the banks with a view to selling them back asap but if they were really Marxists that would have been the time to take firm action to actually undermine the capitalist system.  So Chris, how do we spot them - I know, they go to the Groucho Club because if any of the current UK Government are Marxist or even hard line Socialists, the majority of them follow the Marx Brothers politics, not dear departed Karl.  

And it was reported that these two little rascals are 'law students' - whoops. Think that if Mum has made any insurance claims over the past couple of years, any enterprising insurance company she is with may be looking at their data base :)

My Lai, refusing to sign up so US soldiers can be prosecuted for war crimes in either Gulf War or Afghanistan (overturned by Obama), Guantanamo Bay. Pots and kettles come to mind and as mentioned, there are already substantial grounds for thinking this guy may actually not be guilty.

Read them both and thought that they were both really well written, well researched - basically, brilliant!

Its a barn, an agricultural building, not registered or taxed as a habitation. Trip to the Marie seems in order.