Police Officer sues Victim

[PJ S]

singlecoil said:

PJ S said:

I disagree with your moral

I haven't addressed the moral issues of the situation, so don't know how you could disagree.

Your moral, not morals!
In other words, the conclusion or as you put it, "moral of the story".

[singlecoil]

PJ S said:

singlecoil said:

PJ S said:

I disagree with your moral

I haven't addressed the moral issues of the situation, so don't know how you could disagree.

Your moral, not morals!
In other words, the conclusion or as you put it, "moral of the story".

I see. I really don't know how you can disagree about a property owner having insurance in case someone gets injured. Are you sure about that? In fact, I have a feeling that public liability insurance might even be obligatory for premises that the public have access to.

[Digga]

singlecoil said:

Digga said:

singlecoil said:

Moral of the story is to have insurance in place to cover injuries that might occur to anyone when they are on your property.

You are completely missing the bigger picture - that anyone and everyone will be litigating against every kerb in the country.

Well, that's what courts are for. If the circumstances surrounding the trip suggest that it was entirely the tripper's fault, then the claim won't succeed. The lawyers won't bother with such cases, so there will be no such litigation.

I beg to differ.

The law should take a stance IMHO in order to 'head-off' daft claims before they even reach court. All this sort of nonsense costs the public umpteen times over - in additional insurance premiums, in public and private legal fees, court time, daft rules (no hanging baskets etc. etc.) which result, breathing space for ambulance chasers.

Personally, I see a better use of what is still the best (for now) justice system in the world than the displacement of blame for the misfortunes of dumb, gormless and clumsy people.

[PJ S]

singlecoil said:

I see. I really don't know how you can disagree about a property owner having insurance in case someone gets injured. Are you sure about that? In fact, I have a feeling that public liability insurance might even be obligatory for premises that the public have access to.

Can't think of many places that wouldn't have PLI, least of all a filling station.
My point was the moral of this story is whether the WPC has any morals at all, as the overwhelming view is most folk in a similar situation would've just shrugged it off as lesson learned through clumsiness.
Happens all the time as a child, once the pain has eased and the tears stopped, there's very rarely a repeat incident.
Obviously there are those out there who never seem to connect the two, so continue to make the same or similar mistakes, repeatedly.

[singlecoil]

Digga said:

singlecoil said:

Digga said:

singlecoil said:

Moral of the story is to have insurance in place to cover injuries that might occur to anyone when they are on your property.

You are completely missing the bigger picture - that anyone and everyone will be litigating against every kerb in the country.

Well, that's what courts are for. If the circumstances surrounding the trip suggest that it was entirely the tripper's fault, then the claim won't succeed. The lawyers won't bother with such cases, so there will be no such litigation.

I beg to differ.

The law should take a stance IMHO in order to 'head-off' daft claims before they even reach court. All this sort of nonsense costs the public umpteen times over - in additional insurance premiums, in public and private legal fees, court time, daft rules (no hanging baskets etc. etc.) which result, breathing space for ambulance chasers.

Personally, I see a better use of what is still the best (for now) justice system in the world than the displacement of blame for the misfortunes of dumb, gormless and clumsy people.

I differ too. I believe that the courts, the civil courts in this case, are there to decide cases which I daresay many people feel should not exist, the case we are discussing would be one of them. The fact that you feel that the case should not be brought is not good enough reason for denying her a hearing, in my view.

Unlike you, though, I am not able to judge the matter from what little about it I have read, nor am I so willing to judge people from appearances. I agree that the woman is unattractive and overweight, but I have no knowledge of whether or not she is dumb, gormless and clumsy. I suspect that she is none of these things, the fact that she was able to become a police constable suggests that she is not.

Be all that as it may, I am more interested in the principles that this case highlights than the specifics of this particular incident and claim. It has much to say about morale in the police, and it also has quite a bit to say about the media that involve themselves in this sort of thing, as well as politicians and others who like to jump on the bandwagon.

[baldy1926]

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

[XCP]

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

Maybe she had two jobs.

[singlecoil]

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

You missed this bit

"But the Eastern Daily Press understands that her loss of earnings claim comes through the fact she would not have been able to claim for police allowances such as overtime, night duty and working on Bank Holidays, as she was off ill."

[eccles]

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

As with many jobs, she may well have missed out on shift allowances and overtime.
My Mrs is a nurse and was injured at work by a patient and couldn't work for a year. She's got a claim in for the injury and various (shift and danger) allowances and an average of the overtime she worked.

[Norfolkit]

singlecoil said:

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

You missed this bit

"But the Eastern Daily Press understands that her loss of earnings claim comes through the fact she would not have been able to claim for police allowances such as overtime, night duty and working on Bank Holidays, as she was off ill."

£50,000 worth of allowances? Rather a lot of overtime, she does work hard.

[singlecoil]

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

You missed this bit

"But the Eastern Daily Press understands that her loss of earnings claim comes through the fact she would not have been able to claim for police allowances such as overtime, night duty and working on Bank Holidays, as she was off ill."

£50,000 worth of allowances? Rather a lot of overtime, she does work hard.

Who said she was claiming £50,000? Don't tell me, let me guess....... it was a tabloid newspaper based on their reading of the solicitors' website where it listed the maximum claimable for various injuries. Am I right?

[Norfolkit]

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

You missed this bit

"But the Eastern Daily Press understands that her loss of earnings claim comes through the fact she would not have been able to claim for police allowances such as overtime, night duty and working on Bank Holidays, as she was off ill."

£50,000 worth of allowances? Rather a lot of overtime, she does work hard.

Who said she was claiming £50,000? Don't tell me, let me guess....... it was a tabloid newspaper based on their reading of the solicitors' website where it listed the maximum claimable for various injuries. Am I right?

Widely reported as that, believe I first saw it in our local daily and that's certainly not tabloid in nature (it is in size), still being reported as such.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thetford_policew...

[singlecoil]

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

You missed this bit

"But the Eastern Daily Press understands that her loss of earnings claim comes through the fact she would not have been able to claim for police allowances such as overtime, night duty and working on Bank Holidays, as she was off ill."

£50,000 worth of allowances? Rather a lot of overtime, she does work hard.

Who said she was claiming £50,000? Don't tell me, let me guess....... it was a tabloid newspaper based on their reading of the solicitors' website where it listed the maximum claimable for various injuries. Am I right?

Widely reported as that, believe I first saw it in our local daily and that's certainly not tabloid in nature (it is in size), still being reported as such.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thetford_policew...

It just say "widely reported". That doesn't make it true. It might be true or it might not. I believe it first came from a tabloid with wide circulation, that would qualify as "widely reported". The letter that was printed doesn't mention an amount.

[Norfolkit]

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

You missed this bit

"But the Eastern Daily Press understands that her loss of earnings claim comes through the fact she would not have been able to claim for police allowances such as overtime, night duty and working on Bank Holidays, as she was off ill."

£50,000 worth of allowances? Rather a lot of overtime, she does work hard.

Who said she was claiming £50,000? Don't tell me, let me guess....... it was a tabloid newspaper based on their reading of the solicitors' website where it listed the maximum claimable for various injuries. Am I right?

Widely reported as that, believe I first saw it in our local daily and that's certainly not tabloid in nature (it is in size), still being reported as such.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thetford_policew...

It just say "widely reported". That doesn't make it true. It might be true or it might not. I believe it first came from a tabloid with wide circulation, that would qualify as "widely reported". The letter that was printed doesn't mention an amount.

Strangely the story has just been on our local news (BBC Look East), someone is now saying (didn't catch who) that "it's nowhere near the £50,000 reported", we'll see

[eccles]

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

You missed this bit

"But the Eastern Daily Press understands that her loss of earnings claim comes through the fact she would not have been able to claim for police allowances such as overtime, night duty and working on Bank Holidays, as she was off ill."

£50,000 worth of allowances? Rather a lot of overtime, she does work hard.

Who said she was claiming £50,000? Don't tell me, let me guess....... it was a tabloid newspaper based on their reading of the solicitors' website where it listed the maximum claimable for various injuries. Am I right?

Widely reported as that, believe I first saw it in our local daily and that's certainly not tabloid in nature (it is in size), still being reported as such.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thetford_policew...

It just say "widely reported". That doesn't make it true. It might be true or it might not. I believe it first came from a tabloid with wide circulation, that would qualify as "widely reported". The letter that was printed doesn't mention an amount.

Strangely the story has just been on our local news (BBC Look East), someone is now saying (didn't catch who) that "it's nowhere near the £50,000 reported", we'll see

It also said on Look East that she claiming for lost allowances and lost overtime.

[anonymous-user]

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

You missed this bit

"But the Eastern Daily Press understands that her loss of earnings claim comes through the fact she would not have been able to claim for police allowances such as overtime, night duty and working on Bank Holidays, as she was off ill."

£50,000 worth of allowances? Rather a lot of overtime, she does work hard.

Who said she was claiming £50,000? Don't tell me, let me guess....... it was a tabloid newspaper based on their reading of the solicitors' website where it listed the maximum claimable for various injuries. Am I right?

Widely reported as that, believe I first saw it in our local daily and that's certainly not tabloid in nature (it is in size), still being reported as such.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thetford_policew...

It just say "widely reported". That doesn't make it true. It might be true or it might not. I believe it first came from a tabloid with wide circulation, that would qualify as "widely reported". The letter that was printed doesn't mention an amount.

Strangely the story has just been on our local news (BBC Look East), someone is now saying (didn't catch who) that "it's nowhere near the £50,000 reported", we'll see

Odd. I saw a solicitor from the firm representing her, last week saying that the claim would be between 30 and 50k in response to being asked to confirm the 59k report. That was before the case was dropped and then reinstated.

[singlecoil]

REALIST123 said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

Norfolkit said:

singlecoil said:

baldy1926 said:

The EDP the local paper is reporting that she was on full pay whislt off but is claiming for loss of earnings.
I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true

You missed this bit

"But the Eastern Daily Press understands that her loss of earnings claim comes through the fact she would not have been able to claim for police allowances such as overtime, night duty and working on Bank Holidays, as she was off ill."

£50,000 worth of allowances? Rather a lot of overtime, she does work hard.

Who said she was claiming £50,000? Don't tell me, let me guess....... it was a tabloid newspaper based on their reading of the solicitors' website where it listed the maximum claimable for various injuries. Am I right?

Widely reported as that, believe I first saw it in our local daily and that's certainly not tabloid in nature (it is in size), still being reported as such.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thetford_policew...

It just say "widely reported". That doesn't make it true. It might be true or it might not. I believe it first came from a tabloid with wide circulation, that would qualify as "widely reported". The letter that was printed doesn't mention an amount.

Strangely the story has just been on our local news (BBC Look East), someone is now saying (didn't catch who) that "it's nowhere near the £50,000 reported", we'll see

Odd. I saw a solicitor from the firm representing her, last week saying that the claim would be between 30 and 50k in response to being asked to confirm the 59k report. That was before the case was dropped and then reinstated.

Strange. I saw a solicitor from that firm (it's a large firm) and he said that they were asking £7K for the claimant plus their costs.

[General Bilko]

singlecoil said:

in fact what's happening is that the solicitors are suggesting that the garage owner pays her some compensation for the injury that they say he is largely to blame for.

He will have pulic libility insurance to protect himself from such claims, so in fact it is the insurance company that will deal with it.

If the ins co doesn't think he was liable then it could be tested in court, but it is unlikely to get that far.

What is actually happening is the solicitors see an opportunity to present a claim that has little or no merit, in the hope it will be settled out of court by the insurance company, who calculate it's cheaper to pay out than instruct their defence lawyers, the cost of settlement being covered by increased premiums.

[singlecoil]

General Bilko said:

singlecoil said:

in fact what's happening is that the solicitors are suggesting that the garage owner pays her some compensation for the injury that they say he is largely to blame for.

He will have pulic libility insurance to protect himself from such claims, so in fact it is the insurance company that will deal with it.

If the ins co doesn't think he was liable then it could be tested in court, but it is unlikely to get that far.

What is actually happening is the solicitors see an opportunity to present a claim that has little or no merit, in the hope it will be settled out of court by the insurance company, who calculate it's cheaper to pay out than instruct their defence lawyers, the cost of settlement being covered by increased premiums.

Until the matter is tried, and all the evidence is heard, we don't actually know if it's a claim that has little or no merit. That may well be the case, or it may not. Not enough information yet (as is pretty much always the case when the media sees a chance for a piss-boiler, more info tends to spoil it).

[daveydave7]

What is actually happening is that she is really pissing off a lot of people and is doing her colleagues little service you know the ones who deal with real st