Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
davieG

Crazy Compensation costs us all!

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Asha

Asha

Posted
Posted
And you lot moan about insurance premiums.

ps what is ECOMPENSATION doing on here?

Bugger off ECOMPENSATION.

Leech.

He's been a member almost a month, and has finally posted.

I think he's just been camped out in General Chat praying for a discussion on Compensation to arise.

This is his moment.

Asha

Asha

Posted
Posted
This is his perfect moment, Martine McCutcheon style.

What have I done??

Ruined his reason for living. His destiny.

I realise he's named the website after himself. :unsure:

Still, it's a lot better than DB11.com

Thracian

Thracian

Posted
Posted
From the Mockery.

INTRUDER AWARDED THOUSANDS

BY IAN WISHART

EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT

10:30 - 17 July 2007

A boy who broke into a primary school and injured himself swinging on a gate was received £5,700 in compensation.

The secondary school pupil, who was trespassing at night on school grounds, was hurt when the gate collapsed.

Leicestershire County Council had to pay money to the boy because they say they could not prove the gate had been maintained properly.

Coun Kevin Feltham, the councillor in charge of finance at County Hall, said the money amounted to a "reward for breaking the law".

He said: "We couldn't prove the gate was secured properly, even though he was swinging it off the hinges. It does seem rather silly that you can trespass and then take money away from taxpayers when we need this money more than ever.

"He's being rewarded for breaking the law but there's nothing we can do about it. What makes it worse is that we are funding the lawyers."

A county council spokesman said the boy was not a pupil at the school. The scale of his injuries was not revealed.

He said: "The pupil was trespassing at night at a local primary school and was injured swinging on a large gate when the hinges gave way and the gate collapsed.

"The pupil attended one of our secondary schools. As we were unable to prove the gate had been maintained, compensation of £5,700 was paid to the pupil."

Pauline Town, secretary of the Leicestershire branch of the National Union of Teachers, said: "Whether the building was secure or not, he clearly shouldn't have been there in the first place.

"There's quite a clear imbalance here, which doesn't send out a very good message.

"It does raise lots of questions - like what about those responsible for keeping an eye on him?"

A city school head teacher said no-win, no-fee insurance claim companies were targeting schools, leading to rocketing insurance premiums.

He said: "Within the first week of starting to work at my school I was told to look back at a case where a boy had been injured seven or eight years ago and was trying to get compensation.

"There was another incident where the council wanted to pay out about £5,000 to a child who had fallen in the playground.

"It was only a minor injury and we'd dealt with it really well. If we start paying out that kind of compensation we are opening up the floodgates to compensation in the smallest of cases such as grazed knee or broken fingers."

It emphasises yet again why I have so little respect for or faith in the law, nor the people who administer it.

  • 3 weeks later...
Benji

Benji

Posted
Posted

Having just spent a year studying this long winded stuff I'll just concur with Lisa. You always know the journalists have done a good job when a reaction like this can be created by an article with little substance.

Note that there are two Parliamentary Acts for liability of occupier's, one for injury caused to those who are lawful guests, and one for ""trespassers"". The tests in each reflect the fact that one shouldn't be there. The boy would have got a hell of a lot more if he was allowed there (although swinging on the gate might make him a trespasser....) so as with everything it's all relative.

Yes he has got money for breaking the law, but do you think the council should have got away with it if the incident killed him? I'm all for tough punishment but that's a little far...and what would happen if in this case he got nothing!

DJ Barry Hammond

DJ Barry Hammond

Posted
Posted

Why doesn't the school sue the boy's parents for damages to the gate - and insist that due to his trespassing they've also had to upgrade security systems to a cost of say, around £5700 or whatever the damages were???

True, the only people that would 'win' after this would be the lawyers, but at least it would get the smug look of the kid and his parents!

Benji

Benji

Posted
Posted
Why doesn't the school sue the boy's parents for damages to the gate - and insist that due to his trespassing they've also had to upgrade security systems to a cost of say, around £5700 or whatever the damages were???

True, the only people that would 'win' after this would be the lawyers, but at least it would get the smug look of the kid and his parents!

I could be wrong but I don't think they can. That argument would have come up as a defence to the kid's accusation, and would have been taken into account upon deciding damages.

As I say, the money he received was relative, the sum awarded could have had an extra few zeros on the end!

DJ Barry Hammond

DJ Barry Hammond

Posted
Posted

I'm sure if they made a new case (and note that the boy has admitted trespassing and 'causing the gate to break') surely that would have to be heard on those grounds. If i remember rightly, the problem with trying to defend compensation claims is that you have to prove you're not at fault as opposed to the claiments proving why it was the fault of the defendents?

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
Muslim twins win £10m claim against City employers, after accusing bosses of race and religious discrimination

perhaps they'll give a bit to injured ex servicemen and women :whistle:

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite...ticleController

First of all, it was settled out of court. Secondly, it would never have been settled for such a sum if there wasn't good reason. Thirdly, the settlement will be for potential loss of earnings (did you see the bit about them earning a 6 figure wage? Doesn't say anything about bonuses either. And there are two of them).

I would like to think we live in a society where employers aren't allowed to treat their employees like shit, or allow their employees to be treated like shit.

James.

James.

Posted
Posted
First of all, it was settled out of court. Secondly, it would never have been settled for such a sum if there wasn't good reason. Thirdly, the settlement will be for potential loss of earnings (did you see the bit about them earning a 6 figure wage? Doesn't say anything about bonuses either. And there are two of them).

I would like to think we live in a society where employers aren't allowed to treat their employees like shit, or allow their employees to be treated like shit.

Not to mention the fact that brokers like Tradition have quite a lot of arseholes working for them. They probably had a perfectly reasonable case.

Zingari

Zingari

Posted
Posted
First of all, it was settled out of court. Secondly, it would never have been settled for such a sum if there wasn't good reason. Thirdly, the settlement will be for potential loss of earnings (did you see the bit about them earning a 6 figure wage? Doesn't say anything about bonuses either. And there are two of them).

I would like to think we live in a society where employers aren't allowed to treat their employees like shit, or allow their employees to be treated like shit.

perhaps you could apply the same reasoning to the likes of ben parkinson :thumbup:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2343929.ece

he may never have the chance to earn 6 figures sums in his life

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
perhaps you could apply the same reasoning to the likes of ben parkinson :thumbup:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2343929.ece

he may never have the chance to earn 6 figures sums in his life

I don't see how you can compare two completely different career paths. You're not going to pull my heart strings just because somebody has chosen a career that puts you at a greater risk of permanent injury or death.

Head Honcho

Head Honcho

Posted
Posted
Another classic example of political correctness gone wrong. There should be a law to say that if you are comitting an offence and something goes wrong that you are not entitled to compensation. No doubt the campaigners for Human Rights would be against this type of law but I think it is about time we told these people to **** off before they completely screw up the country. :protest:

In the eyes of the law if the kid wasn't convicted of anything then he "wasn't" committing an offence.

Bullshit I know but that's the law :frusty:

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Trespass isn't an offence (generally speaking). :thumbup:

Zingari

Zingari

Posted
Posted
I don't see how you can compare two completely different career paths. You're not going to pull my heart strings just because somebody has chosen a career that puts you at a greater risk of permanent injury or death.

congratulations :thumbup: you'll make an excellent lawyer

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...