Yes, a hard day's work does indeed kill them, all too often. If the Police are no better than ordinary citizens, aren't they entitled to the same rights as anyone else? The answer clearly is a resounding "No!". If an ordinary person had been making this claim, would it have hit the papers? If an OAP trips on uneven pavement in a poorly lit area, should they sue the Council so that they can get a hip replacement or whatever privately instead of riding the choppy waters of the NHS? What about someone with their whole life ahead of them, should they sue? I don't know all the facts of this case, how badly the PC was injured, the long-term prognosis, etc. I suspect that if I knew the facts, I may feel cynical about the legal action ... but perhaps not. All I do know is that there are two issues here, the one that affects an ordinary citizen and the one that arises from a PC trying to assert her rights as an ordinary citizen.
I have just spent 2 days in the company of a serving Met police officer, he is a good mate and some of the tales he tells regarding some of the arrests he has made, and the injuries suffered, during the "collars", show just how feeble this Wpc is. My mate could probably have retired to the Caribbean had he claimed damages for all his injuries! His take on this claim cannot be put in print, suffice to say he wasn't impressed. As I live within the county that this happened, and know the petrol station and the area it is situated, I'm surprised that there was even a fence and pavement left for this Wpc to trip over! Perhaps Nicky should have claimed when she slipped on a kerb at Tesco last year, damaging ankle ligaments which meant she was off work for 7 weeks on SSP and it is still not fully healed ( takes 18 months on average!)
I've actually claimed compensation arising from an RTC, unrelated to my work. I received a reasonable pay out for it. Should I have done? The person at fault didn't look before pulling a u-turn in front of me. Was it an accident? Was it really her fault? My fault for guessing the wrong way to go to avoid her? No one's fault? When you start to drill down through the issue, is there ever a case for claiming compensation if the person responsible was not acting deliberately? Accidents happen, it goes with the territory, all that jazz. It's how we did things many years ago, is it time to go back to that? Where do you draw the line? Should there be a line? As Pete indicated, a compensation case will be considered if it goes to Court and there it can be determined if the claim has any merit. From the peanut gallery here on the Forum, it looks like the case is a waste of time. If the police staff federation is anything like that of other public workers, it will be footing the bill for the PC's legal costs if the claim fails. Clearly the PC is angry enough, or injured enough, to accept the utter loss of face she has suffered, win or lose.
So you're comparing a wilful or neglectful act which was also unlawful as you describe it, to one where when attending an incident in the dark a trip incident takes place and the person there to protect and serve gets hurt? Sorry Loz, wrong track on this one. And where do the police federation coffers come from?!
I am comparing them, Paul, but I don't suggest they are the same. I'm just suggesting that there is a large grey area between what you might consider to be acceptable and unacceptable grounds. And one man's grey area won't be similar to someone else's. We probably don't differ much in how we both feel about this case but it does raise interesting questions. If you want the sort of comparison I think you're looking for, try the garage incident we are talking about compared to, say, a hole in the ground covered with rotted planks of wood. Had the PC fallen into such a hole, would she have a basis on which to claim, in your eyes? If yes, how do you define the difference between the two scenarios? Common sense? Whose common sense? Police Federation coffers are presumably filled with money from the police who are members of it. Assuming of course that it is set up in a similar way to other public unions/federations. Any member would know the score, or should do, when they join.
Its not grey. If said WPC was wandering accross a lit forecourt and stumbled over a loose slab which had been reported and the owner did nowt, fair play, still not right imo as we all have eyes but no different to any other subject of our illustrious and glorious Queen. but she wasn't. So not grey at all :smile:
So as a member I'd want them to spend my money on backing cases like this would I...or fighting fair pay, equal rights across sexes and races, stamping out the institutional racism us plebs hear of all the time, bring bullying Chiefs to book...and I'm sure there are tax breaks somewhere which mean I contribute in some form
I think the worst thing about this case is she's claiming for tripping over a kerb! If it were a loose slab or something of that nature, and her injuries were a broken arm/wrist/leg/ankle etc then the claim could be considered legitimate but it was a kerb, therefore I can see no basis to claim, if this case results in a success then beware because there will be claims flying in from everywhere against councils for having kerbs on pavements! Where's that going to lead to? Replacing all kerb stones with soft rubber ones? Pavements covered in that stuff they put on playgrounds to stop kids from hurting themselves? The cost to the taxpayer could be horrendous!
They way you describe it, absolutely ... but the way it actually happened - who knows? Totally agree the "we all have eyes" comment though - well, for those of us with eyes, anyway. And she ain't my Queen, I never voted for her. It was dark grey, that's why she couldn't see. As I say, members of a federation or union sign up for the terms and conditions. If you absolutely cannot bear to pay for the union to cover certain kinds of legal expenses*, for yourself or anyone else, don't join. (*Doesn't cover minor motoring offences where you are the defendent or legal fees arising from divorce, etc, btw). And it's not an "either/or" set-up. The union spends the money on both types of activity. And no, the taxpayer does not foot the bill. Union subs are not tax-deductible so be calm :smile:
Always calm...animated and passionate sure, but calm. Play devils advocate all you like, its still wrong to support such a claim
LOL, I know you Bradders, you're mad keen :wink: In this particular case I'm afraid we'll have to agree to agree on it Archer makes a good point, it's possibly the thin end of a very undesirable wedge. Hopefully the case doesn't make it to the courts and doesn't get settled out of it either, for that matter.
I'm going through a compensation scam at the moment. I cyclist claimed I hit them from the rear on the road when they fell on their own in front if me. As I never collided with this person I left the "scene" I got a letter from the police accusing me of dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident. After a few months of stress sorting this out the police went no further as there was no evidence. I thought that it was all over until my insurance company received a letter 7 months later claiming I had collided with this cyclist. I'm waiting to hear the outcome. This was some young Arab cunt in marylebone high street, the guy was on the phone at the time on his push bike. So I know how this guy must be feeling.
Here's hoping for a good result for you Phantom. The current "where there's blame there's a claim" culture that's sweeping this country really gets on my t@@s! If there is a genuine claim to be made like a SMIDSY, then the injured party deserves to be looked after ( I was a victim back in 1980) but it seems now that the most trivial thing will cause someone to make a claim, and a lot of them are for ridiculous sums of money!
Its yet another example of one human beings capability to fu** over another human being over and find it acceptable. That's why I don't like people in general. We are a selfish self centred breed of animal that deludes its self that it is superior.
Seems like she may have withdrawn the claim, it also seems to have transpired that her chain of command were not supporting her actions. Good news. Yorkie
She must have been given some incredibly bad advice by someone, but all the usual sorts of people - her employer, her union, even her Dad - seem to have been against the idea. I hope she exercises better judgement when performing her duties.
This makes me angry. A pedestrian ran in front of me across a pelican crossing when the lights were green for me. He just bolted right in front of me. Nothing I could do. With 2 broken wrists, i dragged him out of the busy Kennington Road at Oval. He was a mess. Totally his fault. Plus I had witness's. Still did not stop him trying to claim against me. I never claimed for my wrists against him as he was a pedestrian. I just claimed against my own insurance. One bent lever and broken mudguard, new rx7 and gloves. Just put it down to experience. But he had several attempts and lost all of them.
