General Chat

I am laughing my head off ...thought it was going to be removed ! :-0

Can't remember how to do a link

Message Board Use - 09.19

Pardon??? well I don't know what that's all about where did you get this info from .................now I do think that is funny!

Haha John, sitting here chuckling away :-D

Wot?

Eh?

huh ?

huh?

huh?

Nolls. I see that this thread has been sent to Genes as an example of good thread practice. Congratulations are in order, I think :-D :-D

TootyFruity and Rose. Both those posts make a lot of sense to me. Yes, I agree it is that simple Rose.

I think we are letting our prejudice and emotion get in the way of the facts. I hate boy racers as much as anybody on Genes, I'm sure. I would string them all up by their toenails. And, no doubt, so would the Daily Mail.

But we have not got all the facts. When police are clocked by a driver, the driver usually pulls in and has a chat. And unless it is a very heinous crime, the penalties are usually very little. Community service, £60 and 3 points, a drugs warning. Something like that.

It appears this lad was in that bracket. But for some reason he took off. They think they can outrun and outsmart the police. There are clear rules now even for those who are highly trained in pursuit not to get too close and panic the getaway driver into making a serious error and hurting himself or others.

I think the original article in The Mail was arguing that we have a compensation culture. We have, and having once literally tapped someone in the rear (in my car :-)) - and being told by my insurance company it was a no damage accident - I was amazed to see she had claimed whiplash and was granted some compensation that affected my premium in future years.

The two examples (£13k for a toe) and £20k for Iestyn are very different examples in my view. Claiming for sore toes is compensation culture gone mad, imho. I would have thought £100,000 for Iestyn was insufficient, but possibly they took into account all the circumstances like "what would his life have been with a father like that?", to arrive at a paltry £20,000.

There are two separate issues, as I see it.

Should the son of the car thief be paid compensation following his father's death whilst carrying out a crime.

Is it any less of a crime because the police did not carry out correct procedure and disobeyed a direct order.

In my opinion compensation should not of been paid to the son of a criminal who died whilst carrying out a crime. His father made a choice. He did not consider his son whilst making that decision. He may of or may not of weighed up the risks but decided that it was a risk worth taking. The outcome was due to his decision nobody elses. If he had decided to be a law abiding citizen then he would of been alive to provide for his son. The responsibility lies here.

The police did not carry out correct procedure and disobeyed a direct order for which there should be disciplinary action. However, this is a effect of the recklessness of the car thief. If the crime had never been committed then the chase would not of happened and the thief would not of died. So again, no compensation should of been paid to the son of the criminal.

The police broke their own rules...if they do that and it leads to an accident death or injury...they pay out.

If they keep their own rules, and it leads to an accident, death or injury...then they don't pay out.

Isn't it actually that simple? You can't change that just to 'fit', it has to be the same rule for all, however unpalatable. imo.

You told me I was talking tosh and you swore, Sue. I think I have put my point of view as fairly as I can. The police agree with me. The Police Complaints Commission agree with me. The family of the dead driver agree with me.

So you seem to be saying we are all talking tosh and you are talking good sense. You even say that it should have been investigated by another police force. I totally agree, but I seem to remember a few years ago that police could investigate within own force - probably when this occurred 4 years ago. And that is probably why the local MP wants to open the investigation to review the level of compensation to the infant son.

No Sue I'm OK and I endorse everything you say however as we are just getting ready to go out (for afternoon tea at Betty's of Harrogate, thanks for a lovely Christmas present - hope it's not too fascist a place for some....sorry not called for! lol) I will be answering when I come back !

And by the way you have put Nolls off of posting anymore and she has been on this site as long as you.

Her first time back in a few years.

John,

The trouble with you is you don't want to see past your own point of view and think you are always right just because it happened in Wales.

As fot the PCC investigating the case I have no problem with that at all.

Of course the family will say a "Lovable Rogue" but even lovable rogues commit crimes which end up either killing someone else or themselves.

And I have NOT attacked you or the young man.

My last word on this subject is look in the REALWORLD.

Sue. Cannot really see logic of what you have written at all. Am trying hard to understand your point.

The Police Complaints Commission reviewed this case, as they do in all cases where a suspect is killed. Is that wrong, in your view?

He was a "loveable rogue" (according to his dad and friends) who stole a friends car, had a can of beer and some amphetamines. Are you seriously saying he would have been put behind bars for that?

The Police admitted they had broken the law and admitted liability. If I understand it, the only question is how much compensation is his innocent and fatherless young son entitled to. How much would you have offered if you had been the local police force legal adviser, Sue?

You seem to want to attack both the dead driver and me. As if it was us who broke internal rules and were found guilty of breaking the law. Both of us are innocent until proven guilty - at least in South Wales.

John,
Where in my post have I insulted the police in any shape or form.


I should think his girlfriend's mother would have reoported the car stolen
to the police and I don't asume anything NOT like you do.

Like you John I wouldn't have all the facts of the case and as for the local police investigating the case against their own police.

Well the case should have been investigated by another police force not their own.

He died because he stole a car that DID NOT BELONG TO HIM and he was driving
no-one else.
Even if the police did stop and not carry on in pursuit he may have still got killed.


Just think of all the offences that he committed and if he had lived he would have gone down for a long time.


Nolls only mentioned 2 cases for compensation.


So why oh why do you have to add other compensation claims that have nothing to do with the thread.

The other half of Nolls OP is about Suffolk Police paying out compensation to their own staff for personal injuries. Over £300,000 in a year. No idea how that compares to other forces or other companies of a similar size.

The biggest successful claim – for £130,845 – came in August 2010 when a member of force staff fell in a store room and fractured a hip.

The Daily Mail (in their inimitable way) picked up a £13,000 award for a big toe hurt in H & S training.

I have seen examples of NHS 50 years ago giving huge compo to somebody who slipped on a wet floor and broke her hip and could not work again at age of 50. The compo more or less gave her half pay till she would have retired at age of 60.

The facts might prove these police compensation claims were all fair (they were presumably all "settled"). But that would not stop the Daily Mail digging up long buried stories to provide dramatic and emotional headlines :-(