Police Officer sues Victim
Discussion
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 previously explained I think she will be getting her p45 very shortly if this is true
Claiming for loss of earnings while receiving Ocupational Sick pay (OSP) is perfectly normal - as the OSP is then repaid to the employer and the episode of absence discounted for further OSP calculations and reduced or discounted for attendance monitoring purposes - as the employer has been indemnified it's excess costs in covering sickness absence ( while you can;t get an Agency / bank BiB nearly every other job could be covered)
Brite spark said:
Nothing but a parasite IMO. How the hell was she recruited in the first place, the incompetent cow?singlecoil said:
Good question. Just one of many points that the article doesn't make clear, just tries to give the worst possible impression in order to boil the piss of the gullible.
Or highlights the use of the compo culture by the BIB. Take your choice and pick which one does it for you.You often find the truth is somewhere in between and maybe not all mail readers are that gullible some may simply be concerned about things.
Still a generalisation is better than facts and this woman is unlikely to be representative of the true rank and file though having met some police people in my time some are simply hopeless some are very good and some are neither one or the other. But whatever this womans true facts she has dealt a serious blow for her police forces public relations and IMHO damaged her own colleagues standing.
daveydave7 said:
Or highlights the use of the compo culture by the BIB. Take your choice and pick which one does it for you.
The bigger question here is the poor morale that now exists in the police. And policemen being required to sue property owners if they are injured in order to preserve their job benefits is just one example of the conditions in which they now have to operate.singlecoil said:
The bigger question here is the poor morale that now exists in the police. And policemen being required to sue property owners if they are injured in order to preserve their job benefits is just one example of the conditions in which they now have to operate.
When's the whip round ?daveydave7 said:
singlecoil said:
The bigger question here is the poor morale that now exists in the police. And policemen being required to sue property owners if they are injured in order to preserve their job benefits is just one example of the conditions in which they now have to operate.
When's the whip round ?Had a conversation with a serving officer about this incident on Saturday.
He mentioned a number of other officers in his force, including one who fell through a roof onto a car, another who slipped on poorly maintained flooring in a (lit) car park, plus a few more, all of whom had sued the owners of the land they were on when they were injured. Most of these were fairly recent cases.
He reckoned that now forces are trying to save money by cutting benefits for officers, as well as trying their luck and making officers fight for claims where they know the force is liable, so officers are looking elsewhere for loses incurred whilst working. And just to irritate the Mail readers, this chap reckoned that officers are claiming from the Job for loss of earning from second jobs when suing their forces.
He reckoned that most officers have lost £000s pa in take-home pay in his force and are struggling to make ends meet. I mentioned PH and said that some posters reckon officers should take it on the chin. From his response I don't think he sympathised with that view. His most printable response was: Like they would I suppose?
The government has changed the relationship between forces and officers. Welcome to the new, post Cameron, police force.
In addition, I have since remembered that one of my WPCs was dealing with an RTA when the driver of another car, rubbernecking the paramedic treating the injured in the first incident, hit her. She claimed from the other driver.
Another WPC was sitting in her patrol car when another car smashed into the back of her car. She never came back to work after breaking her back in two places. She claimed from the other driver.
A civilian slipped on a slippery surface in the nick, one being cleaned but without signs saying so, severely injuring her knee. She didn't sue the job but they gave her an ex-gratia payment in compensation for her injury.
As has been said: this sort of thing has been going on for years. Why the sudden fuss now? If there has been an increase in these cases, which is something entirely different, then the cause is probably the loss of earnings of officers. Further, and outrageously, the CC of the force in question knows that officers have been suing the negligent when they have been injured but that didn't stop him spouting off and briefing against her. Poor show there but typical it seems of the new style of high rankers.
When my job threatened to cut my pay by half after 6 months (this in 2004) after being injured on duty I went to a solicitor (not the federation one) to see what could be done. One letter, pointing out their negligence in a whole series of health and safety matters soon put them right. I was shocked when the job tried to make me pay for their incompetence but, it seems, this is the norm now.
Further, they must have known that they were liable but this did not stop them trying it on with someone who, at that time, had enough on his plate. The suggestion, from the brief, was that the mere delay in paying me my wages helped save them money.
I'm told that there was an inquiry into the failures in my case and that they had to institute changes in systems (as I passed my solicitor's comments to the Federation and they in turn approached the force) because if another officer suffered similar injuries they would have been liable to punitive damages. So by failing to support me it cost my force quite a lot in changes, investigation and there was the potential for a lot more. I'd like to say: That'll learn 'em. But it won't.
Get used to it. If the forces see an officer injured on duty as a way of cutting costs then the victim will look to recoup his losses.
He mentioned a number of other officers in his force, including one who fell through a roof onto a car, another who slipped on poorly maintained flooring in a (lit) car park, plus a few more, all of whom had sued the owners of the land they were on when they were injured. Most of these were fairly recent cases.
He reckoned that now forces are trying to save money by cutting benefits for officers, as well as trying their luck and making officers fight for claims where they know the force is liable, so officers are looking elsewhere for loses incurred whilst working. And just to irritate the Mail readers, this chap reckoned that officers are claiming from the Job for loss of earning from second jobs when suing their forces.
He reckoned that most officers have lost £000s pa in take-home pay in his force and are struggling to make ends meet. I mentioned PH and said that some posters reckon officers should take it on the chin. From his response I don't think he sympathised with that view. His most printable response was: Like they would I suppose?
The government has changed the relationship between forces and officers. Welcome to the new, post Cameron, police force.
In addition, I have since remembered that one of my WPCs was dealing with an RTA when the driver of another car, rubbernecking the paramedic treating the injured in the first incident, hit her. She claimed from the other driver.
Another WPC was sitting in her patrol car when another car smashed into the back of her car. She never came back to work after breaking her back in two places. She claimed from the other driver.
A civilian slipped on a slippery surface in the nick, one being cleaned but without signs saying so, severely injuring her knee. She didn't sue the job but they gave her an ex-gratia payment in compensation for her injury.
As has been said: this sort of thing has been going on for years. Why the sudden fuss now? If there has been an increase in these cases, which is something entirely different, then the cause is probably the loss of earnings of officers. Further, and outrageously, the CC of the force in question knows that officers have been suing the negligent when they have been injured but that didn't stop him spouting off and briefing against her. Poor show there but typical it seems of the new style of high rankers.
When my job threatened to cut my pay by half after 6 months (this in 2004) after being injured on duty I went to a solicitor (not the federation one) to see what could be done. One letter, pointing out their negligence in a whole series of health and safety matters soon put them right. I was shocked when the job tried to make me pay for their incompetence but, it seems, this is the norm now.
Further, they must have known that they were liable but this did not stop them trying it on with someone who, at that time, had enough on his plate. The suggestion, from the brief, was that the mere delay in paying me my wages helped save them money.
I'm told that there was an inquiry into the failures in my case and that they had to institute changes in systems (as I passed my solicitor's comments to the Federation and they in turn approached the force) because if another officer suffered similar injuries they would have been liable to punitive damages. So by failing to support me it cost my force quite a lot in changes, investigation and there was the potential for a lot more. I'd like to say: That'll learn 'em. But it won't.
Get used to it. If the forces see an officer injured on duty as a way of cutting costs then the victim will look to recoup his losses.
Derek Smith said:
As has been said: this sort of thing has been going on for years. Why the sudden fuss now?
Because the Daily Mail have taken the opportunity to incite a witch burning. It's perfect for them, they've got pictures of an unattractive, overweight woman, a picture of a kerb taken in broad daylight, a 'victim', and a large number of readers who are inclined towards hysteria and who are unlikely to want more facts, or ask pertinent questions, before lighting the fire.Get used to it? What a country!
A police officer claims after car was slammed into the back of hers and she never came back to the force. Ok, that's fine. Sue other driver. Why not?
BUT to call 999, get no inkling about a claim until months later for something 'minor' is hardly comparable to the case(s) you outlined Derek.
As for 'like they would' comment, I wouldn't and nor would most.
I was delivering our local rag this week, and one property has a new owner (including a dog the size of a great Dane that decided he didn't like the look o' me! I got out the gate just in time but not before getting a hell of a graze on my hand from the latch as I slammed it. Sue? I wouldn't even dream of it. I got a graze and cut. It's life! You know what, a plaster worked wonders.
The guy actually apologised in the local post office to me and said the dog had come round from the back garden without his knowing. He said he should have had a beware sign and will be doing so, but he's only been in the house for less than a week. These things happen. It's life!
Kelly Jones tripped over a kerb, like I cut my hand. However, she should have been prepared... she's a copper!
There are hazards the moment you wake up. Sadly, there is also now money to be gotten from everyday minor hazards.
s
t country becoming sttier by the minute.
Just like the US, litigate here, litigate there. Pathetic!
As for get used to it, I have no doubt we will.
Nothing, but nothing surprises anymore.
Like the new 'experienced' 17 year old police commissioner.
You REALLY couldn't make it up!
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/17yearold-youth-...
A police officer claims after car was slammed into the back of hers and she never came back to the force. Ok, that's fine. Sue other driver. Why not?
BUT to call 999, get no inkling about a claim until months later for something 'minor' is hardly comparable to the case(s) you outlined Derek.
As for 'like they would' comment, I wouldn't and nor would most.
I was delivering our local rag this week, and one property has a new owner (including a dog the size of a great Dane that decided he didn't like the look o' me! I got out the gate just in time but not before getting a hell of a graze on my hand from the latch as I slammed it. Sue? I wouldn't even dream of it. I got a graze and cut. It's life! You know what, a plaster worked wonders.
The guy actually apologised in the local post office to me and said the dog had come round from the back garden without his knowing. He said he should have had a beware sign and will be doing so, but he's only been in the house for less than a week. These things happen. It's life!
Kelly Jones tripped over a kerb, like I cut my hand. However, she should have been prepared... she's a copper!
There are hazards the moment you wake up. Sadly, there is also now money to be gotten from everyday minor hazards.
s
t country becoming sttier by the minute. Just like the US, litigate here, litigate there. Pathetic!
As for get used to it, I have no doubt we will.
Nothing, but nothing surprises anymore.
Like the new 'experienced' 17 year old police commissioner.
You REALLY couldn't make it up!
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/17yearold-youth-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff