A new low for claims firms

[Paul Harris 5]

Just seen another new low for the claims firms on a TV add

It went along the lines of

Have you had an accident

Have you made a claim and been paid out

All is not lost, let us claim even more by checking that the claims firm you used got enough for you.

Now they are claiming off themselves, a new low even for these bottom dwelling scum suckers.

Whats the difference between a Lawyer and a catfish

Ones a bottom dwelling scum sucker and the other is a fish (To quote Michael Connelly)

[Ben Kenobi]

There is altogether too much 'blame / claim' filtering in from the US - what happened to good old common sense force people to be responsible for their own actions - trip on a pavement, try looking where you're going etc etc

I accept the need for 'some' instances where willful negligence results in somebody never being able to work again etc but it is out of control and pushing insurance premiums through the roof.

To some extent the litigation potential has seriously messed up the hobby of flying things, when I got started you just found an open space and flew - nobody gave a damn, the only harm I caused was a little noise, the only damage was me turning a model to matches - but today there is so much BS.

[Spice Cat]

The recent Court judgement where two women won the right to have their divorce settlements reexamined made me smile. The only winners here will be the solicitors. One of the wives did make chuckle though when she said it was not about the money. Yeah right!

[John Privett]

I'm reminded of a spoof radio commercial I heard somewhere some time ago. It went something like this;

[Calm voice] "Have you had a trip or a fall at work and are wondering what to do next?"

[Shouting] "Well pick your feet up and look where you're going, you dozy so-and-so!"

 

If only it weren't a spoof...

Edited By John Privett on 17/10/2015 13:42:50

[Rick Tee]

Posted by Spice Cat on 17/10/2015 13:41:40:
The recent Court judgement where two women won the right to have their divorce settlements reexamined made me smile. The only winners here will be the solicitors. One of the wives did make chuckle though when she said it was not about the money. Yeah right!

She is right its not about the money, its about making sure her ex is totally broke and broken.

[Tim Mackey]

Errr, getting a bit nasty here ?

[Ben Kenobi]

Nope - ever been through it - the lawyers that are behind the 'blame' culture are the same ones that poison what could otherwise have been 'amicable' all in the name of generating costs, every letter they write increases costs, the only people that benefit are the lawyers.

[Pete B]

Post deleted, Ben - I appreciate you may have strong feelings about the matter but this forum isn't the place to express them, ta....

Pete

ps You're right, by the way - the lawyers win, whatever the result....

[Ben Kenobi]

No worries, for the record in my case the lawyers actually engineered the situation - which is exactly what they do re the content of the original post - I guess I made my point in the wrong way.

The lawyers have only one motivation, they appeal to greed which is pretty easy and then sit back and cream off the top, the longer they can drag it out the more they make.

The problem is that the greed they produce is becoming embedded in the way people think, how they behave, it's becoming the norm.

Edited By Ben Kenobi on 17/10/2015 17:00:51

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Spice Cat on 17/10/2015 13:41:40:
The recent Court judgement where two women won the right to have their divorce settlements reexamined made me smile. The only winners here will be the solicitors. One of the wives did make chuckle though when she said it was not about the money. Yeah right!

Yes, but the difference here was that the Husbands deliberately mislead the courts into how much money they had.

[Spice Cat]

About how much money the wives could get....😉

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 17/10/2015 18:10:00:

Posted by Spice Cat on 17/10/2015 13:41:40:
The recent Court judgement where two women won the right to have their divorce settlements reexamined made me smile. The only winners here will be the solicitors. One of the wives did make chuckle though when she said it was not about the money. Yeah right!

Yes, but the difference here was that the Husbands deliberately mislead the courts into how much money they had.

The men in question committed perjury to influence the decision in their favour - in one case to the tune of several hundred million pounds - justice cannot be served when its foundation is lies - the Supreme Court was totally correct in my view to order a review

The real culprit in my view is the "no win no fees" sharks - It does not make justice more affordable and available, it sounds like it should but these firm only take on the cases where a win is 99.9% certain and charge the claimant far more than the costs would be if the employed a normal lawer

[cymaz]

Didn't Billt Connelly do a film once about a man who tried to sue God ?

[ted hughes]

I think this takes the biscuit (from todays Telegraph):Taxpayers are facing a bill of almost £150 million to defend British soldiers who are being sued by enemy fighters for breaching their “human rights”.

More than 2,000 separate compensation claims and judicial review cases have been prepared by lawyers in the aftermath of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Suspected Taliban bomb-makers and insurgents captured by British troops on the battlefield are among those who have begun legal action against the government.

Experts fear the growing litigation culture means that shooting an enemy fighter in the heat of battle could be enough for a British soldier to be found in breach the European human rights laws.

[Dave Hopkin]

Sadly governments have used the European Human Rights Act as a whipping post for many of their own failures and propagated many myths and half truths regarding the act and its implementation - a good review is here

**LINK**

As far as legal claims against British Soldiers goes, this is nothing new, there were many cases brought under Human Rights Legislation arising from incidents and procedures used in Northern Ireland dating back to the late 70's yet these were never publicised in the many agenda driven manner and anti EU spin

Also please note that EHR is not EU legislation but an international agreement of far wide geographical scope then the EU - yet it is so frequently used in anti EU rhetoric even though leaving the EU would not affect the EHR or UK Human Rights Act one iota!

I make a very clear distinction between decisions made and actions taken in the heat of a contact and those made in the relative safety of a base camp - We surely cannot expect a young soldier with no legal training operating under the current rules of engagement (the "Yellow Card" **LINK**)

But where clear breaches of law have been made then action has to be taken if not the use of armed force looses all legitimacy and simply devalues itself to a free for all war of aggression, perhaps some leeway should be given to those making minor breaches in the heat of action than to those who commit them in secure base locations BUT under no circumstances if the execution, maltreatment or torture of prisoners acceptable - dont forget if you condone that expect the enemy to apply the same rules

[Peter Miller]

The enemy don't apply the same rules anyway. Why can't we take them to court?

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Peter Miller on 18/10/2015 09:44:50:

The enemy don't apply the same rules anyway. Why can't we take them to court?

Using the excuse that the enemy dont apply the sames rules is simply not valid, there were various executions of British Prisoners in the days prior to Dunkirk (Wormhoudt for one) so are you saying that all German POWs should have been executed?

 

We have.... The Nurenburg Trails, many IRA/PIRA/CIRA members imprisoned for various offences and much more recently Milan Bibic, Haradin Bala, Predrag Banovic and many others have been prosecuted at International level

Edited By Dave Hopkin on 18/10/2015 09:53:03

Edited By Dave Hopkin on 18/10/2015 09:56:40

[Ben Kenobi]

Just proves that the lawyers are out of control - they need their wings clipped - how can a soldier on active service be expected to worry about such nonsense. That the legal system even allows it is the defect in this scenario - soldiers should be subject to military rules, soldiers should be accountable only within the military system.

[Olly P]

Posted by Ben Kenobi on 18/10/2015 10:16:51:

Just proves that the lawyers are out of control - they need their wings clipped - how can a soldier on active service be expected to worry about such nonsense. That the legal system even allows it is the defect in this scenario - soldiers should be subject to military rules, soldiers should be accountable only within the military system.

As a serving Officer - I have to disagree here, otherwise the military justice system would be overloaded, it is clear there should be Civil and Military offences, and that these are distinct and prosecuted via different streams, and they should be.

I don't really wont to go into depth here, but feel free to PM and discuss.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Ben Kenobi on 18/10/2015 10:16:51:

Just proves that the lawyers are out of control - they need their wings clipped - how can a soldier on active service be expected to worry about such nonsense. That the legal system even allows it is the defect in this scenario - soldiers should be subject to military rules, soldiers should be accountable only within the military system.

All members of the Army are subject to the Army Act 1958 and subsequent amendments (The RAF,Navy and Marines will be subject to either the Army Act or a parallel piece of legislation, I am not sure which) In the Army Act there are clearly defined jurisdictions where Military Law and Civil Law touch, Primacy is given to Civil Law but the principals of Civil Law are enshrined within Military Law (with a few notable exceptions eg Death Penalty still available to a Courts Martial to impose but it would be very hard to see a case where the Government would ratify the sentence)

If in your scenario Soldiers were only subject to Military Law, then they would be excluded from adhering to vast swathes of Law - They could not be prosecuted for Motoring Offenses, Financial Crime, Rape or murder of a civilian etc etc etc - So unless you intend to totally bog parliament down in pointless legislation updating the Army Act every time ANY legislation was passed its a non starter!!!!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Totally agreed but the courts should not be able to bypass the chain which they currently do, if a soldier does wrong it should be for the military to decide initially - as you say there is alignment in what is right and wrong as far as the 'laws'. If the military say no case then that should be the end of it.

If the soldiers seniors decide there's a case to answer then the soldier is thrown to the wolves.

A soldier is only a 'soldier' when on active service / duty so anything he does as a 'civilian' is exposed as we all are.

[Daithi O Buitigh]

The TV ad for 'no win, no fee' that sticks in my mind was of a very overweight female having a chair collapse and successfully suing for damages. To me it was entirely her own fault for being so fat

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Ben Kenobi on 18/10/2015 10:56:32:

Totally agreed but the courts should not be able to bypass the chain which they currently do, if a soldier does wrong it should be for the military to decide initially - as you say there is alignment in what is right and wrong as far as the 'laws'. If the military say no case then that should be the end of it.

If the soldiers seniors decide there's a case to answer then the soldier is thrown to the wolves.

A soldier is only a 'soldier' when on active service / duty so anything he does as a 'civilian' is exposed as we all are.

A member of the Army is subject to Military Law 24x7 365 regardless of what he/she is doing

Senior Officers do not act like the CPS, they do not decide who should be prosecuted, as a Troop Commander there were a range of minor offences I could hear and adjudicate on, always subject to the soldiers confirmation that he accepted my award or if he wished to take it higher, but there were offenses that I was not empowered to hear but had to pass upwards to my Squadron Commander if the case was beyond his jurisdiction then it went to Regt - At that point Army Legal Services would appraise the case and determine the next steps Courts Martial or Civil Prosecution, of course that all went by the board if the police executed an arrest warrant, in that case the offender was dealt with by the civil authorities

I think what you misunderstand is that a) the civil power has primacy over Military Law (except in the case where Martial Law has been decreed under Emergency Powers) and that b) the two legal codes exist in parallel not in series, so prosecution by the Civil Power is not in anyway bypassing Military Law

[Ben Kenobi]

Not disagreeing on any aspect but the times have moved on, I think that the military and other branches of crown service need to be afforded some better form of protection from spurious ambulance chasing lawyers.

Sorry but things have been allowed to go too far if a soldier can be sued by the family of the terrorist he shot - or even the terrorist if 'it' survived. If a pilot is ordered to strike a particular building but the intel was wrong - who gets sued then.

The state of war is a different thing, he problem is that with the likes of ISIS etc such states are pretty hard to define.