1208 users online (199 members and 1009 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 127 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1900
  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,189
    The weather that's pushed the sentencing to 11am - Storm Doris.

    Boris is back to ensure this bstard reaps the whirlwind.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    314
    Florrie, do you mean an hour beyond 11 am (listed on Courtserve), or was the move from 10 to 11 the delay?

    ETA Cottonweaver's answered my query.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    245
    Can I just say that this forum has given me an astonishing number of new ways in which to describe piles. You are all geniuses lol.


    "Chalfonts"; "Arsegrapes" and my personal favourite "Buttock McNuggets"

    Inspired.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,911
    I thought it always was 11 am ?


    Tara Cox‏@TaraCoxCN 7m7 minutes ago

    Ian Stewart's sentencing is now listed for 11am. Talk that travel disruption has affected many journeys to the court

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by LozDa View Post
    I agree with you. But I was more talking about the legalities of the fact that they can, in fact, still be beneficiaries - as it was suggested they couldn't be in the previous thread.

    They can still be named beneficiaries, even if they refuse and it goes to a contingent. That side of things, I can't predict or suggest how it will go - and I wouldn't want to.

    In my opinion, and from what I've seen and heard from JB, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the boys were named as beneficiaries. What happens from that point on is between them...
    Sorry LozDa, I should have made it clearer given we are on a new thread! I presupposed you were just adding clarity to the discussion around the legalities so it didn't occur to me. Then again, I am a bloke!

    I think you're right about JB but I wonder if, going back to what I said about the son's reluctance to inherit under these circumstances, Tony might be better off leaving them out altogether and just leaving it up to JB to sort out in due course.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,911
    Storm Doris has delayed the sentencing of Ian Stewart for the “cold and calculating” murder of his fiancé and Royston author Helen Bailey.

    Trees have fallen on rail lines causing delays to those set to attend St Albans Crown Court today for the judge’s sentencing of Stewart.


    The court was set to commence at 10am but has now been delayed for an hour until 11am


    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...iller-12644635

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nirvana
    Posts
    3,419
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRisenBishop View Post
    From my experience, notwithstanding any possible legal challenges to the discretionary trust as administered by Tony Hurley, those beneficiaries inheriting under such circumstances (Jamie and Oliver) would be highly reluctant to take anything at all.

    Irrespective of the legalities and Hurley's powers as a trustee, their Father preyed upon Helen and engineered the setting up of the trust for his own nefarious reasons. Morally, because of how he acted, their relationship was/is null and void and so too should be any inheritance due to his sons.

    I might be wrong but I cannot see the sons being comfortable with inheriting under such circumstances.
    I think the trustee would be "obliged" to exclude them if they are not named beneficiaries. I do think it is a possibility that Helen's brother might try to help them out with a roof over their head. The murder was nothing to do with them and now they are homeless. I think Helen's family are genuinely lovely people and I can see them being benevolent under these circumstances.


  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Moll View Post
    Florrie, do you mean an hour beyond 11 am (listed on Courtserve), or was the move from 10 to 11 the delay?

    ETA Cottonweaver's answered my query.
    That was my thought Moll. Tara is tweeting that it has been set back to 11am, but it always was 11am, so am thinking the 10am hearing will begin at 11am, which could put IS back to midday. Not that it matters for him, sitting in his cell, not having to travel anywhere

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    314
    I was surprised the papers had a photo of the first page of Helen's will (re earlier will discussions).

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRisenBishop View Post
    Sorry LozDa, I should have made it clearer given we are on a new thread! I presupposed you were just adding clarity to the discussion around the legalities so it didn't occur to me. Then again, I am a bloke!

    I think you're right about JB but I wonder if, going back to what I said about the son's reluctance to inherit under these circumstances, Tony might be better off leaving them out altogether and just leaving it up to JB to sort out in due course.
    Haha, I think I probably should have made it clear I was talking legally as opposed to what I think should happen. My own views are pretty different and marry up with your view entirely!

    I definitely think it should (and probably will) just go to JB to arrange how he wishes.

    Either way really, IS doesn't get anything, so...


    “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
    ~ Martin Luther King Jr.


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by LozDa View Post
    I agree with you. But I was more talking about the legalities of the fact that they can, in fact, still be beneficiaries - as it was suggested they couldn't be in the previous thread.

    They can still be named beneficiaries, even if they refuse and it goes to a contingent. That side of things, I can't predict or suggest how it will go - and I wouldn't want to.

    In my opinion, and from what I've seen and heard from JB, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the boys were named as beneficiaries. What happens from that point on is between them...
    I would not want to be in Tony Hurley's position of trying to carry out Helens wishes regarding the will. I personally don't think the sons should benefit at all from this. My feelings are that the original will instructions ought to be carried out. I think in this situation it would be better to revert back to this, in terms of Helen not ever meeting Ian.

    It is obvious that he was only interested in her financial position and carried out the deed to gain from this. The sons will benefit eventually from Ian and his parents and perhaps even Dianes parents wills. They will also benefit from the proceeds of the house sale if Ian is prepared to part with this.

    In respect of the house sale we know that Ian put in 40% and any profit should be based on this amount, rather than gain anything more. I have been wondering also that if the house has to be sold at less than the true market value due to the horrible situation, would Ian have to stand that loss? I believe strongly that he should, because he created the situation. Does anyone else have any idea about this please.

    Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,911
    Quote Originally Posted by LozDa View Post
    I agree with you. But I was more talking about the legalities of the fact that they can, in fact, still be beneficiaries - as it was suggested they couldn't be in the previous thread.

    They can still be named beneficiaries, even if they refuse and it goes to a contingent. That side of things, I can't predict or suggest how it will go - and I wouldn't want to.

    In my opinion, and from what I've seen and heard from JB, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the boys were named as beneficiaries. What happens from that point on is between them...
    I doubt they are.

    There was a note somewhere, in one of the many articles, that said there were 15 beneficiaries.
    My guess is that most of these will be people who are receiving a small bequest - cash or item - and then the residue ( which will be the bulk of the estate ) goes to JB and the stepchildren on a percentage basis.
    Which is as it should be imo.

    Am sure Helen - under her final Will and wishes re IS - would have expected IS to take care of his own family.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by Alyce View Post
    That was my thought Moll. Tara is tweeting that it has been set back to 11am, but it always was 11am, so am thinking the 10am hearing will begin at 11am, which could put IS back to midday. Not that it matters for him, sitting in his cell, not having to travel anywhere
    I'm a bit confused - not for the first time in this trial. And I don't want to do what I did yesterday, go out for an hour and miss the crucial moments.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    434
    I'm not sure why we are speculating and discussing the will and what people are going to get or what we think they should get tbh. It's none of our business and not anything to do with us.

    Sorry. I'm just uneasy with the chat about not thinking the sons should get anything etc. It's absolutely nothing to do with any of us. Let the family sort it out as they will do what's best and right for them.

    Basically I think as long as IS gets nada, which is definitely going to be the case we should all be leaving it at that. IMO


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    I see the police say that IS only became a suspect in June - but one supposes this is merely to protect them legally when they were speaking to IS informally.

    Seeing him in those interviews, one suspects he was a hot suspect right from the start
    And yet, just as he inspired South Africa as the Blade Runner, maybe this fallen hero can forge a new role - as an inspiration to Domestic Abusers everywhere, and even to the next generation of children who will grow up and look to his example of how a man can accidentally blow off the head of his domestic partner in peculiar circumstances

    Mark Williams Thomas, ITV, 2016

Page 5 of 127 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 105 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #10
    By michelle230 in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 1142
    Last Post: 02-22-2017, 08:22 PM
  2. GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #9
    By tlcya in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 1261
    Last Post: 02-20-2017, 05:20 PM
  3. GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #3
    By tlcya in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 1305
    Last Post: 01-31-2017, 05:01 PM
  4. GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #2
    By tlcya in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 1055
    Last Post: 01-25-2017, 08:01 PM
  5. GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #1
    By MelmothTheLost in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 2658
    Last Post: 01-21-2017, 05:14 PM

Tags for this Thread