May I suggest that maybe the moneysavingexpert site is the place to help everyone now.

I fail to see how the site you suggest is in any way relevant!
As I stated when I set up this site its basic function "is to assist those claiming continuing NHS care by providing a venue to enable those who had succeeded to explain HOW and those who had failed, to clarify WHY".
The recently introduced 'Debating Chamber' enables forum members to discuss general issues appertaining to the continuing care funding issue.
Members whose posts are offensive, abusive, personal and way off topic are banned and/or the topic deleted.

Esquires wrote:I fail to see how the site you suggest is in any way relevant!
As I stated when I set up this site its basic function "is to assist those claiming continuing NHS care by providing a venue to enable those who had succeeded to explain HOW and those who had failed, to clarify WHY".
The recently introduced 'Debating Chamber' enables forum members to discuss general issues appertaining to the continuing care funding issue.
Members whose posts are offensive, abusive, personal and way off topic are banned and/or the topic deleted.

Blimey, no wonder hardly anyone is visiting the forum anymore. They will be afraid to have a voice, speak the truth or deviate off any topic for fear of being banned. And I thought this was the land of free speech !! Steve, I think you are taking it a bit too far. Some people who visit the board come here not just to advise re FFCC but to let off a little steam and have a bit of light hearted banter to relieve their situations. They will be 'frightened' to post anything now that you may deem is offensive,is personal or is off topic I have never seen any forum that I have visited that doesn't have a bit of 'banter' on it, that doesn't stray off of the topic that was set and on some occasions offensive, but I am big enough and old enough to understand that this is a core element of forum posting.There should be a warning system in place, and only after warnings have been issued and the posters continually refuse to toe the line then drastic action should be taken, but only after warnings have been issued.

PC: Surely the recent VM/FM/Mick squabble arose because I delayed banning these members, who despite warnings, persisted with postings to which several members took exception!
Also of course I have recently locked a couple of topics which had digressed way off course whilst others I have attempted to steer back onto topic with varying degrees of success. Steve.

Steve, the VM/FM/Mick 'squabble' arose purely because you would not do anything about FM's disgraceful behaviour regarding the vindictive postings from him. I know for a fact you never warned VM at all, you just banned her full stop, no warning no nothing! It's very plain to see that the forum has suffered now as a consequence of your actions. Very sad indeed.

Hello Pussycat

Couldnt agree more the forum is certainly suffering now because of this.

It would be interesting to note how this all started. FMs first attacks were not made at VM at all, but me, and the reason being that I said that the 1946 Health Act had been repealed. Let me say that before I joined this forum and .. for a short while afterwards I fully believed that the 1946 NHA was in full operation.

I realise that the core principles of that act have been recorporated in all subsequent NHS acts. So that while the 1946 health act has been repealed, the health act hasnt.

It was this statement of mine that sent FM off on his rants with the now famous " crap " comment which was aimed at my opinion and research, which I have a right to hold. VMs responses to this was mild, initially more stunned than anything. FM went on to further attack me regarding my truthfullness and professional integrity over CHC cases that I have been and are involved in.

VMs responses were mild.Alright perhaps she called him a "plonker" w.hich get real Steve is hardly offensive today, and comments about not being a baby, hardly banning material.

Then we had the Huge James challenge which again was aimed at me. Now I dont personally care about what FM said, but when he made those two sick and disgusting posts aimed at VM implying that she resided in a care home.
Then he should have gone, no ifs and buts, you cant defend that sort of behaviour. I made a powerful post aimed at him, stronger than anything VM had said up to that time. STEVE why did you not pull me up for this?

I have to ask the question what was the real motive for FM behaviour. HE WASNT like this before.Yes, he was bitter about his experiences with solicitors, but I dont hold that against him. But to suddenly change into a monster out of all proportion to what we was responding to was unbelievable. HE should have gone then.

Not VM, there are special circumstances where half a dozen of one and half a dozen of the other dont apply./
A judge would weigh up the balance and decide if indeed only one person should be banned in view of the circumstances.

Steve you appear now to be saying ( and I hope I have got it right ) " that you were wrong in not banning them .

both sooner. Yes, well thats half right, you definitely should have banned FM, but not VM. Then you wouldnt have had the problem you have had and the problems you now have.

Steve you said in a post on the topic now blocked that I was now calling you a liar.? I wasnt, I was going by what you had written. Steve over the years I have checked many scientific articles and more than one subject book, as well as working with one of the greatest first world war historians, Granville Oldroyd.

So if someone is writing something in a way and manner that indicates it is that persons own opinion I have to assume that is correct. That it came from a confidential source certainly wasnt clear. I am not in the least interested in knowing who that source because I hold confidentiality to be a very serious matter.

In one of the posts that you blocked Steve I made reference to forming our own National framework for challenging CHC disputes and also made the suggestion that proper statistical analysis be made before decisions are taken on any given action .. These were important points that would help us all, you included in your own personal cases, to win cases. For that reason that topic should not have been blocked. Its very easy to just take out any posts that are offensive and leave those that are of value.

Like Pussycat I am concerned that the right to free speech is being eroded on this forum. We have all a right to our own opinions, just like you do Steve and just because we dont like them doesnt mean they should be blocked or deleted.

Very kind regards Ian