I was listening to Rado 2 today and they were talking about the 'Compensation Culture' and how people wll sue for the slightest thing these days.

There were some really stupid claims going in. Here's a terrible trio of them.

A prison inmate somewhere (can't remember) set himself on fire in an attempt to commit suicide or injure himself or whatever. He was rescued by the staff on-hand and survived. He then tried to sue the organisation for letting him set himself on fire and apparently won his case!!!! :loopy:

A couple in the UK had been burgled a couple of times before and as a result had painted their high garden fence with slippery black paint on one side and put a load of carpet tacks in at the other side to stop the burgulars getting over. However, a couple of morons tried it anyway and got themselves cut to ribbons getting over the fence, then did themselves even more damage when they smashed the patio window trying to enter the house. They were caught and charged but they actually brought legal action against the owners of the house for the damage they sustained to their clothes and themselves on trying to gain entry to the couple's property. Luckily the judge at the proceedings threw the case out of court......but the audacity of them is unbelievable, and what kind of unscrupulous solicitors are out there that would actually take a case like this into court?

And here's the worst one. A paramedic saved a guy's life by artificial respiration after the fella had stopped breathing. 3 months later the paramedic received a letter saying he was being summoned to court because he had apparently caused the guy who's life he'd saved to break a crown in his tooth!. WHAT THE HELL!!! And the para didn't even get a thank you for saving his life.

What kind of people are we breeding??????? :loopy:

Its down to sheer greed and profitablity on the "wheres theres blame theres a claim" type of companies. It was even mentioned on the Radio 2 interview that these companies were targeting people the minute they had been admitted to the A & E dept in hospital. Its about time the government clamped down on these type of companies.

It's a long way across the Atlantic Ocean, and therefore has taken a long time for this particular nasty bit of American culture to wash upon our shores, crawl up our beaches and pollute the whole of these once green and pleasant isles.

well today a friend of mine (adult) has had a bump in his car and he is getting as much out of his work as possible for his 'whiplash' injury!! milker!!


well theres that one where that police woman got £300,000 for slipping on a banana skin and bumping her head

and the two families from the Ian huntley thing they only got £30,000 each!!

where is the justice???

Observe the following carefully:


Nurse & Ryhmes Direct compensation results 2003.


Mr H Dumpty - Personal Injury £5000
Master Jack Horner - Wrongful Conviction £10000
Miss Muffett - Harassment £4000
Mr G Porgie - Harassment £1800
Jack - Personal Injury £3000


Figures compiled by Mr C Robin PI.

Miss Muffett - Harassment £4000

what by?? the spider??

lol :D

To answer the original question..

"Yes"...

Net result... no-one will volunteer their time, help others or accept responsibility...

Nightmare... personally if someone tries that crap with me I'll tell them where to shove it and head off to jail thanks...

NET RESULT ... never do anythnig to help anyone ... ever ... you might get sued.

Originally posted by Fletch
and the two families from the Ian huntley thing they only got £30,000 each!!

where is the justice???

But why should they receive anything at all either?

All this ambulance chasing stuff is sickening. It's time that the government did something about it.

For me one of the sadest things is that some schools are doing away with educational visits for fear of litigation. How sad to think that people just won't accept that accidents can and do happen and the only people in this scenario who are loosing out are the children.

It's a sad fact of the times we live in that pretty much everything comes down to money and how much you can get out of any situation, regardless of the effect it may have on other people, guilty of wrong-doing or not.

We live in a greedy world. :(

Up until 2 years ago I was a serious mountain biker. The downhill kind, very dangerous, risky and fast.

I've hurt myself more times than I care to remember whilst riding, but it is one of the hazards of such a dangerous sport. You live with it, it's your choice, if you hurt yourself it's your fault.

I recently heard that some local trails regularly used by mountainbikers were destroyed by the authorities because some rider had fallen, broken his leg and had to go to hospital. So he decided to sue the particular authority in charge of the land he was on.

The dumbass piece of s**t saw that he could get a few hundred quid out of HIS OWN STUPIDITY so went for it, thus destroying everybody elses fun in the process.

Now, as soon as trails or jumps appear anywhere, they get flattened because the land owners/local autorities feel they would be responsible for any injury sustained by anyone on the land.

Ambulance chasing REALLY gets on my nerves. Fee-earning trash solicitors are the legal equivelant of the tabloid press. They exist for the chavs. Real people dont bother with them.

Another sad example of how greed destroys happiness.

Pretty much along the same lines as Mo's post about no more school trips. :(

Originally posted by Mo
How sad to think that people just won't accept that accidents can and do happen...

I quite agree. Why is it people are always looking to blame someone? It's as if accidents aren't allowed to happen any more. This whole compensation culture thing really gets my goat and I wish it could be curtailed somehow but I guess that's not going to happen now it seems so endemic. It's ok if there has been gross negligence of course but not for a lot of the claims you hear about.

I once heard someone successfully sued McDonalds (or someone like that) for burning themselves on a takeaway coffee. It may not actually be true but I wouldn't be at all surprised. Are people completely stupid? Well, maybe not so stupid if they can get some clever dick lawyer to argue their case and make money out of it. All down to selfishness and greed I think.

The one that really got me was that guy last week who's suing the NHS because a 'fridge broke down and 80% of his frozen sperm was destroyed. It was stored because he was due to have treatment for the big C which would affect his sperm and now, several years down the line, he has decided that if, and I mean if, he wants to breed in the future his chances have been diminished.

His life has been saved by the medical profession and he wants to take money out of the system because of an unforeseen error.

Give me strength.

PS I think the coffee case went to appeal in the US and damages were reduced from several million to a few thousand which just about covered the lawyers' fees. Surprise, surprise.

An email doing the rounds a few weeks back had a list of these sort of stupid succesful lawsuits in America.

One of the top five was a guy who sued the Winnebago Motor Home people because he set off driving down the road, switched cruise control on, and then went into the back to make a cup of coffee... Of course, it crashed with him in it. So he sued.
Naturally, the dumb tw*t won his case.

Or the one where the woman's kid spilt coffee on the floor in McDonalds and she then got up and slipped on it.. sued, and won the case.

Or the woman that sued the microwave company because she tried drying out her dog in there and it blew it up..?

Along those lines.. pathetic :loopy:

I would like to point out that i was in trouble the other day for drink driving and I had the best solictor ever - Sandra Mullan from Mullans solicitors - they are based at the old Alfredos barbers shop! Sorry that it is not that relevant but if you are in bother give them a call!!

I had only 2 pints but crashed into a lamp post! I was just over but she did a great job

Well I hope you didn't get off

Thats how the law works in America, those that can afford the best lawyers get off... maybe its getting like that here??

yeah! she got me off after having made a big thing of a point of law or something.

You must be very proud of the fact you drunk and drove and got away with..Count yourself very lucky you only hit a lampost. :loopy:

Back to topic
I seem to remember that this all started when the Tory government deregulated the law system back in the early 90's. Before that, solicitors were not allowed to advertise or ambulance chase etc.
Personally, I think anyone who brings a stupid case and loses should be made to pay all the costs, multiplied by a factor of ten. This would soon dampen the compensation culture. Also to blame are the solicitors. Is there anything that some solicitors wouldn't do for money ????

i'm pretty sure that if you put most of those stories along with the word hoax into google you'll find that they are urban legends.

I do think compensation is too readily sort and that society in general is becoming overly risk adverse though.

Originally posted by trevor
yeah! she got me off after having made a big thing of a point of law or something.

Congratulations! That's such good news... maybe it will be a person you hit next time instead of a lamp post! :shakes:

It's really set in the idea that somebody else is to blame... lack of personal responsibility... knowing your rights... get 'them' to do something... etc... etc... etc.

You see it in lots of things, from speed cameras to cleaning up outside your own house. It's always someone else who is to blame.

sometimes it's yourself (drink driving), sometimes it is someone else (negligence) and sometimes no one is to blame (accident).

Anyway, off to train/teach. Hope no sues me if they make a mistake and break an arm!

I don't have a problem with people claiming compensation for a genuine wrong-doing, but I do get a bit fed up of seeing the vulture-esque Accident Claim people in town and going from door to door trying to get people to claim for trivial things that they would never have thought of claiming for! Where do they think the money all comes from in the end?.... The everyday-person's insurance policy increases!

Originally posted by Mo
All this ambulance chasing stuff is sickening. It's time that the government did something about it.

For me one of the sadest things is that some schools are doing away with educational visits for fear of litigation. How sad to think that people just won't accept that accidents can and do happen and the only people in this scenario who are loosing out are the children.


Too true, taking a bunch of kids abroad thesedays is a nightmare. I have been involved in a few school trips abroad but they are just not worth the hassle anymore, because of the work and the time consuming nature of arranging everything so that your back is totally covered.

I used to work (note the past tense) for a litigation firm, genuine claims included someone wanting compensation for lung damage caused by smoking, because when they started smoking there were no warnings on packets so they didn't realise, apparently, that smoking was a health hazard.

With the introduction of no win no fee, conditional fee agreements etc. people will claim for anything now, because they are in a no lose situation. Either they don't get taken on and it hasn't cost them anything, or they get taken on, win the case (companies won't take no win no fee cases on unless they are 99.9% certain of victory obviously) and the third party insurer foots their solicitors bill. It is turning us into a nation of hypochondriacs. So what if you trip over 'a jagged bit of pavement that shouldn't have been there?'. Get up and get on with it! I have no problem with some claims, there are always instances when people have been genuinely wrong-footed and deserve compensation, but some of the claims are so spurious and pathetic it beggars belief. People obviously don't realise that everyone pays for it in the end through insurance!

The other big scam with this stuff, is firms you see like Claims direct, who don't actually employ legally qualified staff. They're simply middlemen which is why on the ads they always say 'we'll put you in touch with a specialist solicitor'. There is absolutely no need for any middlemen to be involved, there are plenty of solicitors who you can contact directly and will deal with your claim, but people just see these firms like Claims Direct and Injury lawyers for you, or whatever they're called on TV, and give them a call. It's all gone way too far.

Originally posted by Cols
. Also to blame are the solicitors. Is there anything that some solicitors wouldn't do for money ????

"yeah! she got me off after having made a big thing of a point of law or something." ( Trevor)

It make me sick to think that there are solictors that will argue on points of law to get drink drivers off the hook.

Trevor you were in the wrong but so was your solicitor. If I had been her I would have hung you out to dry.

P.S. A bit of advice. dont come on something like this and bragg about how stupid you are !!!

look, i am not bragging what i did was wrong! However, i only had 2 pints of carling. The police said that if it was over a period of 3 hours i still would have been under. It's just that it was a hot day and i downed 2 pints in 25 mins. I did not hit the post drunk, i swerved to miss someone who stepped out in the road by mistake! Thus proving that i was totally in control and not blind drunk! This is not as bad as people smoking or eating at the wheel. The law has a limit on drink if you are over you are over but it is different for everyone. I am 6ft 5 and 18 stone so for me to have two pints is different to someone who is 5ft 2 and 7 stone!

I did not hit the post drunk, i swerved to miss someone who stepped out in the road by mistake! .Thus proving that i was totally in control

If you had been taking correct observations of what was happening ahead, you might have seen the person about to step out. Therefore you were not in 'total control', as you put it. Try to anticipate the errors of others - its called defensive driving!!

Drink driving DOES impair reaction times, no matter how little

so if a person intends to run in front of a car, is the driver to blame for not observing quickly enough? If this is the case the driver would be prosecuted every time there was an accident for driving without due care etc!

In regards to the law:Liberty is the right of doing whatever the laws permit.

Originally posted by trevor
look, i am not bragging what i did was wrong! However, i only had 2 pints of carling. The police said that if it was over a period of 3 hours i still would have been under. It's just that it was a hot day and i downed 2 pints in 25 mins. I did not hit the post drunk, i swerved to miss someone who stepped out in the road by mistake! Thus proving that i was totally in control and not blind drunk! This is not as bad as people smoking or eating at the wheel. The law has a limit on drink if you are over you are over but it is different for everyone. I am 6ft 5 and 18 stone so for me to have two pints is different to someone who is 5ft 2 and 7 stone!
It is peoples ignorance of just what alcohol actually does and its effects that gets my goat . As soon as it hits the system within 10-20 mins you start to absorb it into your bloodstream affecting your reaction speed for one. Your body doesn't suddenly click on after 2 pints and start to be affected..you are affected straight away even if you don't feel it. You are correct in saying that this country has limits and you are very lucky to get away with it..in most other countries there is a zero tolerance on it...no units of alcohol allowed. It makes me laugh when people trawl out the 'I've eaten something' or 'It affects me different because I weigh more' Let me tell you that it is utter gonads. I can imagine little alcohol microbes floating about in your stomach saying "hold on lads..we got a fat one here..lets hold off for 20 minutes..there's too much blubber to fight through":loopy:

of course the size of the person has an effect, as does eating, drinking other liquids and other factors including liver function and tolerance to alcohol.

If you weren't actually over the limit trevor then no foul no harm. That's why we have a limit.
If you were you should have been punished no matter what excuses you came up with.

If the solicitor did as suggested and "hung him out to dry" he would have been entitled to a retrial and the solicitor could have been fined and disbarred. So not a very bright idea.

Good point and it was not that my solicitor was bent - the point is is that she helped the magistrate with the law and justice was done. You are also correct in saying that the size and the fact that some people can drink more depending on their individual levels of tolerance. It has nothing to do with microbes in your stomach speaking to each other????

Drinking + Driving = Idiot.

End of story.