/ The voice of reason speaks - rediculous police claim

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 02 Apr 2013
Gordonbp - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Bloody ambulance-chasing "personal injury" specialists....
balmybaldwin - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordonbp:

I think I would rather this wasn't withdrawn, but went to court and got thrown out.... it would set a precedent then
dale1968 - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: needs to find a job where getting injured, is not the norm
gethin_allen on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
You have to wonder what sort of person thinks that pursuing such a claim is going to be positive and worthwhile to her future in the police force?

I for certain would think twice about giving her a job in any position, but she probably thinks that she could sue her way around that too.
Ramblin dave - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
My gut reaction is the same as everyone else's, but I would be interested to hear the other side of the story, ie what they claim is a reasonable general standard of behaviour that the garage owner was negligent in not following...
dale1968 - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave: he should have held her hand, and pointed out the kerb
Mr_Yeti - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

These personal injury claims do my fruit. I work at an insurance brokers and we have one of the large retailers as a client. Sadly these claims are all too common.

People tripping over curbs or getting knocked by trollies are daily claims. We had one person who banged her foot when she was reaching up for something on a top shelf. The claim was upheld on the basis that if you are reaching up for something you shouldn't need to be aware of what is below... what ever happened to personal responsibility?

When you drive you have to have good situational awareness or you get clobbered for undue care and attention so why not when shopping?!

What does annoy me is the huge wedge that the solicitors get. If this is paid out the police officer may only get a grand but the solicitor will get about x4 that and in answer to the chap on radio 4 yesterday this is not why we have insurance, to pay out idiots for spurious idiotic claims, insurance is supposed to be there for the genuine claims. This is why everyone's insurance is going up! Thank the solicitors!

<breath>
GrahamD - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Its not actually a police claim is it ? its a single policewoman. It doesn't sound as though she has much backing for her actions from the rest of the force.
New POD - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Why is her employee NOT liable. If she injured herself in the line of duty (however lame -sic, that might be), I'm sure her employer should be liable.
Wiley Coyote - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Well it was dark. When did the police stop carrying torches?
off-duty - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to New POD:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Why is her employee NOT liable. If she injured herself in the line of duty (however lame -sic, that might be), I'm sure her employer should be liable.

Yeah that was my first thought. (Well my second one actually ;-))
I would think she should have the requisite ppe to be allowed out in the dark, and presumably the required skills to risk assess and investigate a burglary in the dark.
Maybe she missed the"Using your torch course".....
In reply to off-duty: Does she need it scrunched or folded?
Ridge - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Well it was dark. When did the police stop carrying torches?

Although one shouldn't judge on appearances, I suspect the torch, together with any other equipment, had been ditched in favour of Ginster's pasties, bags of crisps and bars of chocolate to see her through the night shift.

http://www.newshour24.com/UK/74vquvqzb/Call-Police-They-Sue-You-Wpc-Demands-50000-From-Petrol-Statio...

I bet off-duty has a warm glow knowing, that if it all goes pear shaped and he's surrounding by a baying mob, that back-up consists of a heffalump unable to negotiate a 4 inch kerb.
off-duty - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to Ridge:

Lol.

Unfortunately within one month afterwards two other female police officers attended a routine burglary with much more unforeseen circumstances :-(
Paul F - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to off-duty:

The news article seems to indicate she was on her own. Why was she responding single crewed to a burglary at 00.20 hrs ? Maybe this is why she is making the claim.
Ciderslider - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to Ridge: How right you are, most of them are a bit tubby - and as for the PCSOs most of them make teletubbies look anorexic !
highclimber - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: Do they not issue PC's with torches or feed them carrots or somesuch?
off-duty - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> The news article seems to indicate she was on her own. Why was she responding single crewed to a burglary at 00.20 hrs ? Maybe this is why she is making the claim.

Yeah fair point. That's still a late shift in a few places rather than nights. I'd have thought the claim would be against the force then though.
Paul F - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Depends on the force policy. Looks like the Fed are backing her, so who knows?
off-duty - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Depends on the force policy. Looks like the Fed are backing her, so who knows?

Are the actually backing her or did they just refer her on to injury-lawyers-4-u? The anti fed spin nicely plays into the hands of ACPO, Mitchell, and Winsor.
Still with a 49% turnout we can't even ASK about industrial rights let alone actually go on strike.
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Paul F)
> [...]
>
> Are the actually backing her or did they just refer her on to injury-lawyers-4-u? The anti fed spin nicely plays into the hands of ACPO, Mitchell, and Winsor.
> Still with a 49% turnout we can't even ASK about industrial rights let alone actually go on strike.

Can't get made redundant either. Swings and roundabouts.
JSA - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to New POD:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Why is her employee NOT liable. If she injured herself in the line of duty (however lame -sic, that might be), I'm sure her employer should be liable.

I'm a Joiner, does this mean if I hit my thumb with my hammer my employer is liable?
off-duty - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Can't get made redundant either. Swings and roundabouts.

Except when they start shortening the swings and sawing up the roundabout.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to JSA:
> (In reply to New POD)
> [...]
>
> I'm a Joiner, does this mean if I hit my thumb with my hammer my employer is liable?

Cant hurt to try, after all no win, no fee!
stroppygob - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: Fat chance of her catching Crims if she cannot even see the pavement!
argyle_dude - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Wiley Coyote)
> I bet off-duty has a warm glow knowing, that if it all goes pear shaped and he's surrounding by a baying mob, that back-up consists of a heffalump unable to negotiate a 4 inch kerb.

In todays current climate of forced retirement and officer number reductions he'd probably just be pleased if there was back up and it wasn't 20 minutes away or tied up dealing with something that isn't a police because no one else will go.

I like climbing - on 02 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
How very embarrassing for the Police.
KellyKettle - on 03 Apr 2013
In reply to JSA:
> (In reply to New POD)
> [...]
>
> I'm a Joiner, does this mean if I hit my thumb with my hammer my employer is liable?

Depends, have they signed you off as trained and competent to use a hammer... If not were you being supervised by a person who is so trained...

In all seriousness, I worked for a window manufacturer doing (amongst other things) bespoke joinery for bay windows & the like and due to staffing issues was temporarily transferred to the dispatch dept which is in a separate building on the same site.

I was cutting some straps to size with my Stanley knife and one of my new colleagues goes "you've gotta have your cut-proof gloves on, it's a disciplinary if you're caught without"... So I go to the supervisor to get a pair issued and I'm refused because "I don't have any record of you being trained to handle sharps"! We then discussed the fact that I'd been using a selection of razor sharp, personally owned tools to make windows, without gloves, in the building across the road for the past year and eventually just walked out laughing, put the knife in my pack-up box, and proceeded to be awfully inefficient, needing a second person to do all my cutting... They sent me back to the production side where the H&S bloke was too busy making sure genuinely dangerous things were kept safe to worry about training people which end of a Stanley knife was sharp; thankfully after only a few days!
birdie num num - on 03 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I think the rozzers have cottoned on to all the compo that the Num Num's have been claiming for years and now they are jumping onto the bandwagon. Num Num is furious, these folk, who should, incidentally, know better, are in danger of messing up the compo culture for folk such as Num Num who is, and remains discrete in his fraudulent and exorbitant claims. The whole of the UK police force should hang their heads in shame. A national disgrace.
stroppygob - on 03 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:In the building I work in, they are doing renovations on the third floor. (I work on the second.) In the lift there is now a list of H&S regulations for using the lift, including, and I kid you not, one section which states;
"Persons who are authorised to operate this lift.
Joe Bloggs
Dai Dimwit
John Droopycock.*”

I wonder how long the “lift operator” H&S course is for a three floor lift.
Utter insanity.

(*Ok, may not be the actual names.)
Jim Fraser - on 03 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You do realise, don't you, that she is about to be retired on a disability pension on account of her proven blindness.

This option, at vast public expense, will undoubtedly be favoured because no public sector organisation acknowledges the existence of a condition widely know in other quarters as stupidity. This subject is covered in this week's New Scientist.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729103.000-time-to-get-smarter-about-stupidity.html

Apparently stupidity is too important to ignore. Duh!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.