To the man that banged his head on the camera in Hallamshire carpark

[Aliens]

Hmmm yet you still decided to post a reply, must have caught a little of your attention? Hehe

 

 

I can barely be bothered to reply to your highly original comment. bored am i

[diggerdigger]

Just out of interest to the man who banged his head on a car park camera-Did you manage to get a photo ?!!

[Flowersfade]

what an idiot why do people insist on spewing profanities in a public place they should be fined!.

[Bloomdido]

Things try to attack me all the time. I have cut my head open on road signs. Branches try to gouge out my eyes. People put up christmas displays with the intention of making me walk in to them and door frames are a constant concern.

[foxydebs]

People are too quick to try and pass the blame. There's no excuse, watch where you're going!

 

These Compo adverts on the TV annoy me too.

"I tripped on plastic strapping"

Watch where you're going?

 

"I was fitting a fire alarm and I fell off the ladder because it was the wrong one."

If you're fitting fire alarms, you're probably aware of what ladder to use. You thought you'd chance it and get a big compo payout.

 

Im glad im not the only one who thinks like that when they see the compo chasing adverts.

 

Or when him who used to be on the bill says we are injury lawyers for you - No you're not, you're an actor

[Rupert_Baehr]

This is to the man that was in the multi-storey car park at the Hallamshire today, who complained to staff about hitting your head on the tv monitor.

Firstly I would like to thank you for interrupting my conversation and shoving me to one side - very nice of you.

Secondly what is wrong with you? The attendant explained clearly (twice) that he was only contracted to the carpark and could not help you, however he politley explained exactly what you needed to do.

You then continued to ruin my day by beginning to hurl profanities, for no apparent reason.

So I hope in reading this you will realise how much of a moron you came across as, and I can only hope banging your head will knock an ounce of sense into your pathetic mind.

 

"I'm a ******** Touretter and I don't give a **** **** **** about you or your **** **** ****."

 

(Please excuse the poor spelling, I'm dyslexic.)"

[Rupert_Baehr]

Im glad im not the only one who thinks like that when they see the compo chasing adverts.

 

Or when him who used to be on the bill says we are injury lawyers for you - No you're not, you're an actor

 

I agree with you about the adverts and (IMO) the system would benefit from some changes, but if you don't like the present system of Tort Law in England and Wales, what would you propose as an alternative?

 

(btw, I'm not and never have been a tart lawyer )

 

Tort lawyers will argue that without them (acting in the interests of the people) wrongs would go un-righted and victims would be denied compensation. They argue that in a system controlled by the state, the state would have the ultimate say and victims would lack any voice at all.

 

That's one viewpoint and it does have its merits.

 

Another viewpoint is that we (the people) elect the government and they do what we wish. The government should be responsible for deciding 'who gets what' when it comes to compensation and we - those who are governed - should take what we are given and be grateful. It's cost-effective.

 

That viewpoint has its merits, too.

 

In an ideal world, where money was unlimited, anybody who was injured would always receive adequate compensation. We don't live in an ideal world.

 

New Zealand is a 'no fault' legislature. If you have a car accident in New Zealand you can't sue the person who caused it. The State will pay.

 

Well, it would if it had unlimited funds, but is doesn't so you get what you are given. - And there isn't enough money to provide full compensation for everybody, so there is a chance that you will get rather less than you need to compensate you.

 

There's got to be a reasonable 'middle way' - but nobody seems to have found it.

 

Claims such as: 'I work as a window cleaner, I was using the wrong ladder so I fell off and somebody else should pay' do seem to be ludicrous (yet all to often they succeed.) (perhaps the 'reasonable man' the man on the Clapham Omnibus (per Lord Denning) could come up with a solution.)

 

On the other hand, if it wasn't for Tort lawyers, people who suffered (and died) from Asbestosis would've been ignored.

 

It isn't always the fault of the lawyers. I was involved in an RTA on 11 Jan 2001. I was driving down a road (60mph limit) doing about 50-55. The driver of a car heading in the opposite direction (following a lorry doing about 45mph) was in a hurry, pulled out (crossing solid white lines), saw me, swerved back, came out again and hit me head on - at just under 100mph relative speed.

 

A spectacular accident. My tank (a Volvo 240) was pushed off the road and shortened by nearly 2ft. We all (4 children - it was a school run - and me) got out on our feet. An assortment of broken bones, but we did walk away from it.

 

The driver of the other car survived ... just. It was 4 months before he was fit enough to appear before a court and he was convicted.

 

We sued for damages. The concept of compensation requires that the injured party should be 'put back (as far as possible) into the same financial position as he was in prior to the accident.' Sounds fair enough. I received about £200 for 'pain, suffering and loss of amenity'. (I would rather have not have had the accident, but I didn't get a choice.) My employers received a refund of the sick pay they paid me, I received £500 'costs' (clothing, rental car [when I was fit to drive, taxis where absolutely necessary until then] and the costs of getting a new car.) I wasn't made wealthy - but then again, compensation is supposed to compensate, not to enrich.

 

I accepted what I got.

 

My son (14 yrs old) had a number of (fairly) minor injuries. The lawyer acting for us submitted a claim which was consistent with the 'going rate' for my son's injuries.

 

The lawyers for the defendant (and as he'd already been convicted of a criminal offence, he'd lost my case before he started) challenged the sum. They offered £50 less than we were asking. We rejected their counter-offer and they then required us (at their client's expense, because as we knew they were going to lose the claim they would be liable for costs) to travel to see an A&E consultant to re-assess my son's injuries.

 

The hospital we were sent to was the hospital we'd been taken to after the accident, so my son saw the same A&E consultant (they didn't have two.)

 

Unsurprisingly, that doctor confirmed his previous findings ... and submitted a hefty bill (rather bigger than the disputed sum of £50.)

 

Our travel costs were more than £50. (I didn't have a car, wasn't yet fit to drive, there was no public transport and a taxi there and back cost £60.)

 

The Insurance company didn't give a damn. I was told that Insurance companies will often challenge medical diagnoses, even if they know the challenge will cost more than they would've paid had they accepted the original.

 

Why should the Insurance companies give a damn? - After all, it's the punters who pay the premiums.

[Ha3el]

might have been easier to say something to him at the time while he was there to hear it, than post on here on the offchance. You know, if you actually did want to get the message accross..

[melthebell]

I'm personally conviced that the world is designed by dwarves to specifically spite normal sized folk. Every trip out of my house is like a visit to Hobbiton

i am a giant midget

[melthebell]

Things try to attack me all the time. I have cut my head open on road signs. Branches try to gouge out my eyes. People put up christmas displays with the intention of making me walk in to them and door frames are a constant concern.

me too, lamposts, trees

 

i mean who the hell leaves a tree hanging round in a wood? stupid place to leave a tree if you ask me grrrrrrrrr

i didnt see it cos of all the other trees surrounding it