Liverpool Lou

Teachers.

No it is not exclusive to british, but it is preponderant Really? You must have some statistics to back up your accusation, so please post them.

That's the Asean Now posters' way!

You used to invent stories about teachers' sexual impropriety with you and reported them?

But prosecution is much less likely as bank will likely not be out any money so no need to do so. You're assuming that the bank and the beneficiary could be the only parties to such action. If a third party's claim was successful, both the bank and the party who received the assets irregularly could be penalised

Being married to the deceased does not give permission to access the deceased's sole bank account after his death before the proper process has been completed neither does the law give wives immunity from fraudulent activities with the estate's assets. Fraud is fraud.

Wonder why? Perhaps the bank knows that what they are recommending does not comply with the law! Why not ask your bank to put that in writing to you on bank letterhead, then watch the manager squirm. If he does give you an official confirmation/instruction, then post it, redacted, here!

He was not filming them, they intruded on him being filmed by his assistant. If he asked them to move away from his camera position (that was not moveable) in order not to be filmed, they should have complied.

Why? He was already filming himself when they approached him and put themselves on video. They should have agreed to move away from his camera.

So you agree that he was sitting in a car and not in any danger to his life? No, I do not agree, he had the right to defend himself if he felt that his life was in danger.

Yes, way out of his jurisdiction. He was in his car at the time and could of driven away from the confrontation any time he wanted to. He could not have driven off, he was not the driver, he was the passenger in the other man's car. Do you understand that?

And it certainly does NOT give the policeman the right to draw his gun and kill someone. It DOES give him the right to self-defence if he considered that his life was in danger!

Seems it wasn't Ann's father that fired the shot, rather his colleague who was sitting in the vehicle. It was the police Sergeant Major who shot him.

And a simple clause in a Will can sort that out. Wills can be contested and a court can decide on the share of the assets.

Obviously not, people are prosecuted for doing illegal things, not legal acts.

Not quite "spot on"...POAs cease on the death of the donor.

There sure could be penalties if it turns out that the assets were distributed incorrectly and illegally (which is called fraud)!

Anyone who wants to claim that they are also a beneficiary, that's who! A will isn't necessarily the be all and end all that's why the estates of the deceased have to be administered legally and if she is, indeed, appointed the administrator, then she gets access to the account. It's very simple, there are two ways to do it, the legal way and the illegal way, potential beneficiaries can choose and accept any possible consequences.

Wasn’t her father… I know. The men who were there may have been there at the request of the father, that's what I said.

A Senior Sergeant Major.

Why is he even involved in an issue like this? It is not his business at all... HE SHOULD HAVE BUTTED RIGHT OUT. That doesn't give the boyfriend the right throw bottles and and angrily approach him brandishing a knife. If he was asked to intervene by the girl's father, it would have been his business.

They better recruit some more "poorly trained staff" if there's a shortage!

So how did this happen? If you bothered to read the full report, where it is explained, you'd know

He was approached by the angry victim threatening with a knife after hurling a bottle at him...do you understand that?

Way out of his jurisdiction.... Even though the victim threw a glass bottle at him and then came at him with a knife?