Is it me or has compensation culture gone crazy ?

[Moby-Dick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4741579.stm

I can see that the indecents on the 7th of July caused a lot of bereavment and hurt , but I'm not so empatic about the "compensation payout"

That would imply blame - and its not Actually the governments fault is it ?

surely this is the kind of thing the life insurance is for ?

or are people not bothering with it these days and just waiting for handouts ?

[Grey M@a]

Moby this whole I'm suing you for spilling my pint lark is out of hand. You see in the paper this morning the woman in Russia suing NASA for knocking that comet on a different flight path apparently destroying her astrology chart. I think people like that need a trip to the padded cell.

The thing that really grates on me is the door to door compensation hunters. I give them a right old lecture how they are causing more trouble that they are worth and preying on the people of this country to sue over the most trivial of things in order to make a living and silly amounts of profit. They never call back after that.

I don't see how people can sue their work place for most of the accidents, for example "I was up a ladder fixing a light and the ladder fell over and I hurt myself." So let me get this right, you think you have the right to sue your workplace for your lack of common sence and checking equipment before you carried out the job. You don't see electricians play with the mains without turning off the juice do you, so why can't they just check their gear before they use it.

In conjunction with that news report on the BBC, sorry anyone affected by this, but I don't see why the Government is paying out compensation. How could the Government of prevented what has happened on July 7th.

[Moby-Dick]

I think the whole "claims direct" thing is a direct result of a) no-win no fee lawyers b) as you say lack of common sence - people used to be just uncoordinated, now they are "Victims"

Those familes ( but not friends presumably ) who have suffered a berevement in the attacks in July are unfortunate in the extreeme , but why should they deman payouts on the scale of those received in the US , which where IMO out of this world.

[Grey M@a]

There is always two sides to the story, they will see the Government at fault for not stopping this but its almost like calculating how long a piece of string is. I am an everyday person most wouldnn't think twice if they saw me in the street but whats to stop me if I really wanted to, jump in my car and playing Grand Theft Auto for real in the playground in town, nothing.

I feel for the families who have lost loved ones and friends but I don't think the Government is the one to foot the bill. They are not responsible for what people do to this nation. The bombings are unfortunate but I don't think they could of been stopped, to do this you hhave to become a nation of distrust. Trust no one and suspect everyone, it doesn't create a good society

[5lab]

in this country you can only sue if someone can be proved to have been negligent. ie if you were up the ladder on your own because a) you hadnt been trained to have someone below you or b) there was no-one willing to help you then you are intitled. however if you were trained and just couldnt be arsed, that is your fault

whats going on here is a bit different - the govenrment cant be seen to be negligent, its more that they are paying out to those families without life insurance (not everyone can afford it remember) to ensure no-one goes thru further hardship due to the incidents. £11k doesnt go very far, which is why the extra money is added on for dependancies..

[iranu]

It's criminal injuries compensation. I had a friend who was badly assualted (the police treated it as attempted murder) and as a result ended up with epilepsy. He automatically got a sum of money. He didn't sue or ask for teh cash or argue that he wanted more.

So the compensation is automatic. In this case it looks like 11k. What is so bloody galling is it looks like the families who are affected are not crowing for more cash but it's the "Victims of Crime Trust" that are bleating on.

I'd like to line all these so called do gooders who follow there own political agender rather than ask the people the supposedly represent up against the wall.

[nichomach]

It should be noted that the CICB isn't there to provide full compensation; it's still the job of the civil courts to award damages where someone has been negligently or deliberately harmed by someone else - the CICB process pays out to offset hardship caused by injury caused by a criminal act. The people receiving the £11k still have the option of suing the estate of the bombers (not that that's likely to get them very much), and the UK in general has better support systems for people in financial hardship (although a long way short of a lot of the rest of Europe) than the US.

And the quote from the VCT woman is just b*ll*cks. "Open-ended legal aid for compensation" my hairy bottom...

edit: Incidentally, I don't know the circs of your friend or their attacker, iranu, but did he investigate whether it was worth bringing an action for damages against the attacker? May well not have been if the attacker was Mr Giro, but it's a pretty clear-cut intentional tort.

[Clingy]

Please dont knock "no won no fee". Without it, the costs of the legal system are beyond ordinary people and become the preserve of the rich (and also, bizarrely, the poor).

[Lee H]

Please dont knock "no won no fee". Without it, the costs of the legal system are beyond ordinary people and become the preserve of the rich (and also, bizarrely, the poor).

They're not knocking the "legal aid" system but when footballers get legal aid when they earn 40K a week ( see here ) then it seems rich people can abuse this system which is designed to help the POOR.

[nichomach]

Hang on; it might leave a sour taste, but there's all the difference in the world between legal aid for defending yourself against a criminal charge and legal aid for pursuing a civil claim for damages. In the first case (as in the case of El-Hadji Diouf), you have no option but to be in court in the first place; the state is obliging you to be there, and the consequences of inadequate representation are more severe. In the second case you are pursuing a legal action by choice from which you expect to gain, so you factor in the cost of pursuing the action.

No win-no fee is a completely separate argument from legal aid, since as Clingy points out it extends the capacity to bring a civil action for damages far beyond the limited scope afforded by legal aid, and is provided by private companies for profit.

[iranu]

as an aside the police new who the attacker was from the discription my friend gave but without independant witnesses then nothing would hold up in court. Little b*****d was with a group but noone from the esate/towerblock saw anything. There is a happy ending as he is now happily living in the states and about to get married. The epilepsy seemes to have abated too (this 10 years ago) so he leads a normal life

[nichomach]

I'm glad your friend's epilepsy has largely sorted itself, and that life's looking better for him, and sorry that the nasty little scrote who did it didn't get nicked.

[eloquence]

There's a couple of things that should be mentioned here. Compensation claims aren't exploding in the UK... although the number of adverts promoting no-win no-fee services has done. Secondly, with regards life and health insurance, most include specific exclusions for acts of war or the like, so in all likelihood, even if someone did have life insurance, the insurance would count for naught in certain situations, and I wouldn't be surprised if most if not all insurance companies would not pay out for terrorist-related injuries.

[toadoftoadhall]

someone in the US has been awarded $250million for being blinded by taking prescription drugs.
while it souldnt happen to your worst enemy, the award is rediculous


toad

[Taz]

someone in the US has been awarded $250million for being blinded by taking prescription drugs.
while it souldnt happen to your worst enemy, the award is rediculous
toad

That's the Vioxx case. You'll see thousands of UK users also lining up to get their millions from Merck. It's a shame really as drug makers need to be able to carry out research on illnesses that haven't got a cure at the moment. I fear that drug makers will 'play it safe' and only produce drugs for easy to cure illnesses in which their is virtually no risk of the drug causing adverse affects.

I think that anyone who takes a prescription medicine should be made to sign a declaration stating that they have read the leaflet enclosed and understand the risks and will indemnify the manufacturer should they have any side effects. That's the only way that drug companies can forge ahead in their research to produce medicines to help all of us.

[Norky]

"**** happens"

Simpler times