# ACA last night



## snakeluvver (Jul 22, 2011)

Anyone see ACA last night? Where its about how a man died and his "ex girlfriend" came back to claim money she doesnt deserve? Well that womans daughter is my friend and I just want everyone to know that her mum is not the gold digger she was portrayed as.
What happened is the man who died is my friends stepfather, and my friends mother was engaged to him and when he died she wanted to claim money. However, the stepfathers own children, who never liked my friend and her mum, went to ACA to portray her as this monster. 
I'd just like to give justice to my friends family, so you can see that this story is complete bull.


----------



## kawasakirider (Jul 22, 2011)

Mate you're 12.. Regardless of what you have heard from your friend, you can't definitively say what her mothers motives were or weren't, or if the family is indeed unjustly making her out to be a gold digger.

The sad thing out of all this isn't the fact that people are being portrayed as gold diggers. It's the fact that people are picking over the bones of a deceased man that wouldn't have wanted it. Both parties need to stop and try to come to an amicable solution.

Just my opinion.


----------



## snakeluvver (Jul 22, 2011)

Its more than just whats been said by my friend, her whole family has been trying to get justice.
And they werent "picking over his bones" she simply wanted to prove they were engaged.

I see your point though. I hope this thread doesnt go downhill


----------



## vampstorso (Jul 22, 2011)

isn't death and Wills a funny thing?

In a Law class, we were taught to leave everyone we could think of $1, that way they can't dispute that they weren't "considered" and take money/possessions you'd intentionally left to someone else.

In my opinion, as long as the Will (if there was one) was honored, that's what counts. That's where the "not deserving" the money would come into play in my mind: IF he had personally chosen what he wanted done with his possessions and she voided it.

however, I'm guessing they were probably rather young, and so Wills etc probably weren't in place.

and so, only herself and the deceased will ever know if this was right or not.


didn't see it on ACA though, because...I don't need my mind melting any further.


----------



## Pinoy (Jul 22, 2011)

No one with an opinion worth hearing really believes that rubbish anyway lol. 
ACA is garbage, plain and simple.


----------



## Australis (Jul 22, 2011)

Only the really guilable believe whats aired on ACA... it will blow over.


----------



## snakeluvver (Jul 22, 2011)

The problem with the will is he never made one.


----------



## CrystalMoon (Jul 22, 2011)

From what I am told it is not cheap to contest a will, so the end has to justify the means so to speak. I am a firm believer that a will is left to bequeath(sp)all that is left from the deceased to those he CHOOSES. I feel for your friend and her Mother, however I wonder 
if any-one but those directly concerned will ever know the real story? we know media even ACA hype facts up to sound more exciting/juicy etc I just find it sad when people quibble over dead people's belongings/wealth etc.....


----------



## vampstorso (Jul 22, 2011)

snakeluvver said:


> The problem with the will is he never made one.



I did say that  that there probably wasn't one...which is why I added that only her and the deceased know if what she did was right.


----------



## Wally (Jul 22, 2011)

So much weight on such young shoulders snakeluvver. Go easy young fella, you'll have more than enough to contend with in years to come.


----------



## CrystalMoon (Jul 22, 2011)

vampstorso said:


> I did say that  that there probably wasn't one...which is why I added that only her and the deceased know if what she did was right.



Ohhh no will.... that'll teach me for not sleeping for a couple of nights..... That is trusting it all in the lap of the Gods then isnt it?
you can only hope people are honorable in these cases.....Death can bring out the best and worst in people.... Sorry for not reading the post properley  Snakeluvver 
Crystal


----------



## Renenet (Jul 22, 2011)

vampstorso said:


> In a Law class, we were taught to leave everyone we could think of $1, that way they can't dispute that they weren't "considered" and take money/possessions you'd intentionally left to someone else.



That's hilarious. Although, having spent plenty of time around the legal profession, it doesn't surprise me. The law is a donkey. (I'd use the three-letter term except that APS thinks I'm swearing.) The sad thing is that the only people who generally win out of will disputes, especially the ones that go to court, are the lawyers. The asset pool quickly drains into their pockets; all the contenders are left with is the acrimony they had to begin with, magnified, plus all the bruising that comes with having been wrung through the legal process.



vampstorso said:


> didn't see it on ACA though, because...I don't need my mind melting any further.



:lol: Ain't that the truth.

Don't worry, Snakeluvver. A lot of people know that ACA stories are a beat-up.


----------



## mad_at_arms (Jul 23, 2011)

Pinoy said:


> No one with an opinion worth hearing really believes that rubbish anyway lol.
> ACA is garbage, plain and simple.



Here here, They portrayed a mate of mine as some dirty old creep. He really was just a victim of circumstance. 
"Reporting" at its lowest denomination best describes ACA


----------



## ekipkcorb (Jul 23, 2011)

‪CNNNN A Chaser Affair‬&rlm; - YouTube


----------



## euphorion (Jul 23, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> Mate you're 12.. Regardless of what you have heard from your friend, you can't definitively say what her mothers motives were or weren't, or if the family is indeed unjustly making her out to be a gold digger.
> 
> The sad thing out of all this isn't the fact that people are being portrayed as gold diggers. It's the fact that people are picking over the bones of a deceased man that wouldn't have wanted it. Both parties need to stop and try to come to an amicable solution.
> 
> Just my opinion.



Mate you're 19... What's your point exactly? You lose credibility by bringing someone's age (or apparent lackthereof) into your preceding statements. Finally by summing up with "just my opinion", it's almost like you're trying to excuse yourself from being rude. Just let the kid vent, no need to go sticking your nose in making assumptions and topping it off by trying to bring him down.

But back on track with the thread; i actually caught myself looking at a 'couples will' package yesterday. Really have to get on to that :/ never done anything like it before!


----------



## kawasakirider (Jul 23, 2011)

shooshoo said:


> Mate you're 19... What's your point exactly? You lose credibility by bringing someone's age (or apparent lackthereof) into your preceding statements. Finally by summing up with "just my opinion", it's almost like you're trying to excuse yourself from being rude. Just let the kid vent, no need to go sticking your nose in making assumptions and topping it off by trying to bring him down.



I wasn't bringing him down at all. The fact is, he IS 12, and he is getting information from the womans DAUGHTER who is also a young kid. How much of the truth is being fed to the daughter, and how much is lost in translation when she passes the story on?

He's not old enough to be worrying about stuff like this. He does have the mental capacity to do so (read his posts, he's very smart) but that doesn't mean the information he is getting is gospel truth.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 25, 2011)

I must concur with shooshoo’s opening comments with respect to age. In this particular context it simply does not matter. 



kawasakirider said:


> ….you can't definitively say what her mothers motives were or weren't….


 Snakeluuver clearly explained the relationship and therefore the basis on which his friend’s mother sought to be included as a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate. I would suggest that you are shooting from the hip with such a statement, for one of two possible reasons. You may not have read the post carefully enough and missed the statement “my friends mother was engaged to him and when he died she wanted to claim money”. Alternatively, you may have watched the relevant ACA program(I did not) and have chosen to accept the information given there which I assume says that the woman was not engaged to the dead man. You might choose to question the truth of Snakeluuver’s statement, but are hardly enough in the know to question his ability to determine motives under the circumstances.

I don’t like having to go through what I have just done. I did so in the hope that you might appreciate that it is better to concentrate more on what is said in posts and less on who said it. Despite your age compared to mine, I still read your posts thoroughly and, like I do with others, take what is of value from them. 

There is no question that amicably settling the distribution of the estate would be far and away the most desirable alternative. However, the reality is that it tends to bring out the absolute worst in people. Even where there is a will, it is not uncommon for it to be contested. This has been known to tear families apart. So what chance is there with a previous wife’s children and a new lover that don’t get on (an all to common scenario), particularly given that the individual has died intestate? It is about as likely to happen a nobody ever trying to make money again out of dodgy reptile sales. It would be nice if….. 

A couple of contributing factors are the amount of money and the nature of personal relationships. Each person feels their relationship with the deceased was special – and that may well be the case. The problem is they expect that to translate to a “special” slice of the estate. There is also the amount of money involved. You can be looking a whole year’s wages that would take you 20 years worth of working to save up. You don’t really want to see that go to someone who you do not consider deserves it. For example, if you have had a close relationship with the deceased for twenty years and someone else has been there one year, it’s not hard to work out what you reckon the other person deserves (and that’s if you like them!).

Blue


----------



## kawasakirider (Jul 25, 2011)

I read the statement. What I'm trying to say is there are most definitely mitigating factors that wouldn't be explained to the child that snakeluvver is getting his information from, whatever information he is receiving is more than likely tailored to suit whoever is telling the story, and things get lost in translation (especially when considering it is coming from a daughter who is understandably bias, and when children often omit details, or exaggerate them, or don't fully understand them). Who is to say this woman ISN'T out for more than she should be entitled to? Who is to say she IS? No one really knows.

It doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong, all I was saying is that I highly doubt everything is as it seems at first glance. The 12 year old comment is in relation to me thinking that snakeluvver has probably not considered this, because it isn't likely to cross a young childs mind who is also biased (as the story is from a friend of his), AND it is too much on the shoulders of a young kid.

I also emphasised the fact that the saddest part of the whole situation is not who gets what, but rather the people that were in this mans life are picking over his bones (how ever you like to dress it up, it is exactly what is happening) and not resolving things amicably. I'm sure the bloke would not have wanted that.

I don't watch ACA unless they're reporting on pressing issues like the best value muffin mixes, so I didn't see the episode in question.


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (Jul 25, 2011)

Wow you guys are literally arguing on something you have no idea about it. 
It's like going to the pub and listening to people talk crap. The only person who has an actual idea is Snakeluvver over there.

ACA = horrible news made to shock people, cause fear that the government can't do.


----------



## Bradchip (Jul 25, 2011)

It's pretty much the code of all these current affair shows to make someone the bad guy. If they wanted a nice balanced argument showing both sides then they wouldn't get the ratings. 

I have no idea about all the details, but know things like the contesting of a will get incredibly nasty (on both sides). 

I don't think there's a single person out there that would take ACA or Today Tonight as credible journalism, and if they do, then they're completely naive. Everything is a ratings grab


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 28, 2011)

Snakeluvver2 said:


> Wow you guys are literally arguing on something you have no idea about it.
> It's like going to the pub and listening to people talk crap. The only person who has an actual idea is Snakeluvver over there.
> 
> ACA = horrible news made to shock people, cause fear that the government can't do.


I take great exception to the clear implication that what I have said is “crap” and that I have no idea about what I am talking about. If you want to make defamatory comments like that then you should be able to clearly illustrate with examples. I challenge you to back up your words right here and now.

I don’t write down the first thing that comes into my head as others sometimes do. Nor to do I skim through posts without engaging myself mentally in what is being said. Far and away my posts are carefully considered. I might add here, I am also a firm believer in attacking the content and not the author. That is why I am careful and do my best to avoid descriptive or qualitative judgements that are a direct and derogatory reflection on the writer.

Blue


----------



## dangles (Jul 28, 2011)

Bluetongue1 said:


> I take great exception to the clear implication that what I have said is “crap” and that I have no idea about what I am talking about. If you want to make defamatory comments like that then you should be able to clearly illustrate with examples. I challenge you to back up your words right here and now.I don’t write down the first thing that comes into my head as others sometimes do. Nor to do I skim through posts without engaging myself mentally in what is being said. Far and away my posts are carefully considered. I might add here, I am also a firm believer in attacking the content and not the author. That is why I am careful and do my best to avoid descriptive or qualitative judgements that are a direct and derogatory reflection on the writer. Blue


I'm sure they would reply if their account wasn't suspended


----------



## sookie (Jul 28, 2011)

Nothing like a death to bring out the bad feelings in a family.believe me i know from experience.everyone should have a will,and update it regularly.especially if you have kids......it's a weird thing to do,but a good thing to do.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jul 28, 2011)

In my experience wills don't mean ****.


----------



## kawasakirider (Jul 28, 2011)

Makes stuff harder to contest, though.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jul 28, 2011)

Which causes longer suffering and depletes estates only to line lawyers pockets and often financialy cripples those who fight not for money but a moral stance.


----------



## Jen (Jul 28, 2011)

On topic (maybe) when my bf was killed he had just filed a legal will leaving me, his girlfriend, his life insurance, which was a considerable amount. Despite his will, the insurance company refused to give me anything, and instead elected to give it to his parents. Why? We weren't married. So they basically ignored his will. (His parents transferred the money to me as soon as they could, and since it was then their money, the insurance company couldn't do anything about it.)


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jul 28, 2011)

For some reason this is also the case with superannuation despite naming your benificiary for some reason the fund retains the right to distribute your hard earned money to whom they feel it should go.

Jen Nice to hear your BF's parents did the right thing under hard circumstances. 
Unfortunately I think wills being contested is often an attempt for grieving people to focus on something other than their grief, resulting in behaviour that is uncharacteristic of usually level minded people. Once the lawyers come into it with an opinion on law and not morals, the grieving seem to be able to justify their actions based on what they can get away with in the courts.
This is personal experience and not an opinion on the OP's circumstances. With a couple of family deaths since 1999 over half that decade has been spent waiting for legal outcomes, both times wills were involved. 
What a way to get on with your life, NOT


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 28, 2011)

Jen,

Sounds to me like the insurance papers were still in his parents’ names and not yours. Is that correct?




dangles said:


> I'm sure they would reply if their account wasn't suspended


It is probably better this way.

I must say that I am very disappointed that the individual I went into bat for, albeit my decision and not at his request, saw fit to support the comments made. I am not overly sensitive and can live with the lack of appreciation of my efforts. But to support ridicule of them… 

I won’t be making that mistake twice. 




Elapidae1 said:


> Which causes longer suffering and depletes estates only to line lawyers pockets and often financialy cripples those who fight not for money but a moral stance.


 All I can say is that things definitely get a lot messier if you do not leave a will. There are some good reasons why the law allows wills to be contested, most which are not part of the real reasons people contest them. I think it is true to say in general that clever lawyers have weakened the intent of so many laws that you have to wonder if we still have an effective regulatory system.

Blue


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jul 28, 2011)

Mike, The way I read it snakeluvver was not neccassarilly supporting ridicule of your comments, and despite being rather mature is quite young.


----------



## kawasakirider (Jul 28, 2011)

Bluetongue1 said:


> I must say that I am very disappointed that the individual I went into bat for, albeit my decision and not at his request, saw fit to support the comments made. I am not overly sensitive and can live with the lack of appreciation of my efforts. But to support ridicule of them…
> 
> I won’t be making that mistake twice.
> Blue



Because you are getting two users mixed up. The user you supported was snakeluvver, the user that made the comments you were dissatisfied with was snakeluvver*2*.


----------



## Freeloader (Jul 28, 2011)

Why don't we let the courts of law rule in this mattrer and not some reptile forum. You people take yourselves way too seriously.


----------



## notechistiger (Jul 28, 2011)

Kawasakirider said:


> Because you are getting two users mixed up. The user you supported was snakeluvver, the user that made the comments you were dissatisfied with was snakeluvver*2*.




Overexaggerated, unneccesary posts when you're in the wrong just make you look silly, btw . You just should stop talking now.




Bluetongue1 said:


> I must say that I am very disappointed that the individual I went into bat for, albeit my decision and not at his request, saw fit to support the comments made





> saw fit to support the comments made





> support





(snakeluvver liked snakeluvver*2*'s post).


----------



## Wally (Jul 28, 2011)

No doubt kr will have a supporting argument though.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 28, 2011)

Elapidae1 said:


> Mike, The way I read it snakeluvver was not neccassarilly supporting ridicule of your comments, and despite being rather mature is quite young.


 
Thanks Elapidae. I would want to hope so too. However the comment begins “Wow you guys...” There are two issues here.

Firstly he may have unthinkingly supported the statement given the nature of KR’s ramblings. However, by doing so I have clearly been included by the way the comment is structured. Secondly, the nature of the comment is, I believe, unacceptable. 

He needs to take these things on board, as part of learning about life, and then make a decision as to whether they remain as is or he does something about it. That decision must come from him. Rest assured that my attitude is not set in concrete but simply dependent on what does or does not happen. 

Blue


----------



## Jen (Jul 28, 2011)

Bluetongue - no, the papers were in his name. He was 26. The insurance company refused because we were not married or living together. His parents still - 6 years later - regard me as their daughter, but despite having been together for 6 years, the insurance company did not comply with his will.


----------



## nirofett (Jul 28, 2011)

i stopped trusting anything ACA when i heard a story about an Islamic store not hiring white people, and they labelled it "reverse racism"


----------



## snakeluvver (Jul 28, 2011)

I wasnt supporting him mocking you, I just agreed with this part of the post.


Snakeluvver2 said:


> ACA = horrible news made to shock people, cause fear that the government can't do.


Sorry if you took it the wrong way Blue.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 28, 2011)

Jen said:


> Bluetongue - no, the papers were in his name. He was 26. The insurance company refused because we were not married or living together. His parents still - 6 years later - regard me as their daughter, but despite having been together for 6 years, the insurance company did not comply with his will.


Thanks Jen,

I know life insurance requires that the insured party has to nominate a beneficiary. Unless that has been changed by the person who took it out then it has to go whoever the nominee(s) is/are. I think you will find that legally, life insurance is not considered part of the estate and as such does not come under the jurisdiction of the will. Just trying to explain what at first glance seems a really bizarre thing to have happen.

Blue



Jen said:


> Bluetongue - no, the papers were in his name. He was 26. The insurance company refused because we were not married or living together. His parents still - 6 years later - regard me as their daughter, but despite having been together for 6 years, the insurance company did not comply with his will.


 


snakeluvver said:


> I wasnt supporting him mocking you, I just agreed with this part of the post.
> Sorry if you took it the wrong way Blue.


Snakeluvver,

Thanks. I am pleased to know that. You have restored my faith you.

I have been faced with the same dilemma at times of wishing to show support for part of a post but at the same time there is part which I object to. In these cases I either generate and post a comment to that effect or just leave it. Unfortunately a “Like” does not distinguish between various sections of content and as such it is seen to be supporting the whole post.

Blue


----------



## euphorion (Jul 28, 2011)

what a load of silly comments by all of us don't you think? it's good to vent, maybe we should just stick to support when that is all that is sought rather than try to hash it our when we simply don't know the facts?

thinking of you, your friends and their family mate. hope things work out for the best.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 28, 2011)

I absolutely agree - and more fool me for attempting to address some of those "silly comments".


----------



## kawasakirider (Jul 28, 2011)

Wally76 said:


> No doubt kr will have a supporting argument though.



What of it, mate?

You're wrong though. I didn't realise Alex liked the post.

Blue - the way you got so upset over Alex (a child) liking a post is pretty ridiculous. You act as if people should feel privileged to read the posts that you grace the forums with. 

We can't all agree mate, no reason for you to label my posts as ramblings, or notechis to tell me I should shut up because I missed something.


----------



## Wally (Jul 28, 2011)

I must be psychic.


----------



## kawasakirider (Jul 28, 2011)

Wally76 said:


> I must be psychic.



No, you said I'd argue. I was wrong and conceded that I missed the part where the OP liked the post Blue took offense to. Psychic, or presumptuous, rude and incorrect? I'll give you a hint, it's the latter.


----------



## Wally (Jul 28, 2011)

You conceded in the manner in which I knew you would. With your own ramblings attached to it.


----------



## kawasakirider (Jul 28, 2011)

Wally76 said:


> No doubt kr will have a supporting argument though.



I didn't argue. You guys were right


----------



## Jen (Jul 29, 2011)

Bluetongue - as far as I know- and you have to understand that I was not really in any condition to be going thru paperwork (at one point people were talking of sedating me although that whole period is a complete haze, I was taking no medication until several weeks later when I was put on anti depressants (very reluctantly!) - I was named on the insurance papers, as well as the will.


----------



## Nighthawk (Jul 29, 2011)

Sorry that ACA reported the story the way they did Snakeluvver, it bites big time when the media decide to chomp onto a 'juicy' side of a story rather than reporting any real facts. Regardless of what they are however, it must be hard for your mate and your mates mum at the moment. A similar thing happened to myself and my sister regarding our biological fathers death benefit, despite the fact he'd named us as beneficiaries. Goodness knows why, he never wanted to know us growing up; one could possibly assume belated guilt, who knows? *shrug*
My condolences for their loss, and I hope the matter is resolved maturely and fairly in the future.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 29, 2011)

Snakeluvver,

I second Nighthawk’s sentiments. It is neither fair nor just and is the last thing you need when you have not long lost your loved one. Literally being kicked when you are down. Those involved at ACA should hang their heads in shame. 


Jen,

I can well imagine where you were at. I have lost a brother and a sister, both of whom were very close, one being also my best friend. I lost my first best friend, murdered, at the age of 16. It’s not the same as a partner but does give me some insight. As for the insurance, if that was the case then yes, that sounds really bizarre. You have to wonder why, don’t you? 
I hope I haven’t opened up the memory box too wide in the process. My apologies anyway.


Kawasakirider,

Thankyou for the insight into your motivation. I now understand why you were so keen to laugh at me having made a mistake and to make absolutely certain no-one else missed it.

Just out of curiosity, did you not wonder why no-one did that to you when it was apparent that you had made the mistake? It might be worth reflecting on.


Blue


----------



## snakeluvver (Jul 29, 2011)

My friend hasnt been at school for a while (and I've been off sick recently) so I'll try chat on facebook and see if theyre any closer to solving their problem.


----------



## Snakewoman (Jul 29, 2011)

Snakeluvver2 said:


> ACA = horrible news made to shock people, cause fear that the government can't do.



That was the part of this post that I liked. Hope you didn't think I supported him having a go at you blue. I like your posts


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 29, 2011)

Thanks Tahlia, that’s good know and appreciated.

Just to explain why I made an issue of it.

I was not being touchy or over-reacting. However, I have found the main negative about this site to be the readiness of many users to have a personal go at others. Site Rule No.1 states: “Be nice to other members. Any name calling or general nastiness will not be tolerated”. How often does that get evoked? I think it a sad comment that a user of seven years standing and thousands of posts had to preface a comment with “And I repeat once again, just so I don’t get flamed by everyone out there”…this is how it happened.

You can attack the content of a post without having to attack the poster. I do wonder at times just how many frail egos and socially inept or maladjusted people there are out there. Or maybe there is a gene for nastiness floating around. Whatever the reason, if only they would take a leaf out the book of any of the many genuine, kind and caring people that use the forum. APS would be a more comfortable and pleasant place to spend time. Most of us have to deal with enough crud and angst in our everyday living. We shouldn’t have do so during our recreation.

Blue


----------

