Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by fly_past, Feb 25, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Read it and weep!
Thats bluddy stupid! People like that make me angry.
She was climbing a rock, what did she friggin expect.
I dunno wether I was in a mood before but this has made me mad :S
Yet another case of the blame culture that is spreading in the UK.
As much as we bemoan the MoD, this is one case I hope they win.
She obviously needs to win so she is not classed as 'thick' by her friends which she obviously is.
Hang on. How can the instructors foresee a natural occurance such as rockfall?? If i'm correct from my 5 years of teaching groups climbing in Wales, Peak, Scotland etc i seem to remember that the crag has to be risk assessed for hazards before the group can go anywhere near it. The fact that she should hopefully have been briefed by the training staff on "actions on" seems to fall by the wayside on this. And as for claiming the Â£62 from the ambulance service.......my blood is boiling!!
Contradicting myself slightly though, have you ever seen the way the Army teach climbing and outdoor pursuits in general?? Kinell i wouldn't let my kids out with an Army instructor with my background knowledge
It is reasonably obvious that anybody else would duck and move out the way if a warning for a falling rock was heard!
Might have improved looks if she is an army bint!
Some of those ladies are rough! :violent2:
Wait and see!
Topaz - it seems she was not actually climbing but waiting at the foot of the climb. She should not have been where she was and so yes although pertly to blame, the instructers should have moved her, kept people back etc.
Is this a case of the blame and claim culture - yes of course it is. She is claiming for her clothes but why was she not wearing uniform?
Yes, in "our day" it would not have gone to court and yes, it will probably mean that less people will give up their time to help kids, and yes, the MOD will probably stop these adventure type weekends. All of which is sad, bad and wrong because I believe these activities are worthwhile.
In this particular case though while the "victim" is undoubtably partly to blame there should have been enough instructors to keep people clear of potential risks.
Moving out of the way whilst scared and on a top rope/bottom belay might be an issue if the individual is young, scared and inexperienced. But the Actions on when working with groups were
* When someone is climbing you sit with the rest of the group away from the crag
* If any object from the top of the crag is dislodged then the instructor will shout "below" or a shortened version such as "rock" the briefing would state what you would do if such an event occured. This would include moving into the rockface and making sure you head was level with the crag to avoid contact on anything other than the helmet.
Common dog and it isnt called adventure training for nothing. It's just sad that a young girl has sustained maxfax injuries.
Thank you cloggie you hit the nail on the head whilst i was posting my last reply. If she was indeed in a place where she should not of been then she was asking for trouble. However the instructors should have made this clear in the initial briefing and then reinforced this during the session when she was standing in the line of fire.
"She said she instinctively looked up when a warning was shouted from above and was struck by a rock which had fallen 30ft."
I would say she was 'instinctively' stupid and needs a good kick in the cvnt.
Devils advocate. I have seen scared young people act in a variety of strange ways when either climbing or waiting for their turn. Such chesnuts included a lad who bit my wrist and then proceeded to piss down my leg during a tandem abseil. And another lad who wanted to see how well helmets withstand impacts by placing it on the floor and dropping a big fcuk off rock on it. We billed him for the damage although he was a speshul lad from a speshul school so maybe that was his way!!
Yes - there is that point as well!
Unfortunately though being stupid does not count in court (on either side) and it could be argued that if she was known to be stupid the instructors should have been even more careful with her because her inate stupidity put her at a greater risk!
A risk assessment would have showed that as being particuarly stupid and likey to look up at falling rocks she should have been kept right at the back or possibly told to stay in th minibus until everything was clear.
Compensation culture has usurped political correctness, welfare cheats, single mothers and new age travellers as the rightâ€™s new bogeyman-in-chief. According to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Conservative Party and just about every newspaper columnist in Britain, it threatens very soon to bankrupt the country.
That there is no evidence to support such a claim, is, as always, irrelevant. Despite the legalisation in 2000 of â€œno win, no feeâ€ lawsuits, the total cost of compensation cases in Britain has remained, in real terms, static since 1989 (The Better Regulation Task Force, May 2004. "Better Routes to Redress". http://www.brtf.gov.uk/docs/pdf/betterroutes.pdf). The two biggest claims marketing companies - the great beneficiaries of compensation culture - have both gone bust. (These are: The Accident Group and Claims Direct.). In 2004 the number of accident claims fell by 9.5%. (Clare Dyer, 11th November 2004. "Ambulance-Chasing Claims Firms Get Last Warning to Self-Regulate". The Guardian.). The governmentâ€™s Better Regulation Task Force, which at other times has taken the part of big business, bluntly reports that â€œthe compensation culture is a mythâ€.
None of this should surprise us. It is no easier to win a case brought under the no win, no fee system than it was to win a case brought with the help of legal aid. You still have to convince the judge that the other person had a duty of care towards you, that they were at fault, and that they should have foreseen the risk. Because awards are made by judges, not juries, thereâ€™s very little chance of winning one of the vast settlements people seem to secure in the US for bumping into a lamp post or setting fire to their own hair. Under the new system, the claimantâ€™s lawyers get stung for all the bills racked up by both sides if he loses. They are not going to take his case to court unless itâ€™s pretty certain to succeed.
Of course, there are malingerers who try to play the system, and of course private companies and public services have to respond to the frivolous suits they bring. But while the newspapers delight in telling us about people who sue the Church for acts of God, they donâ€™t report that in the United Kingdom such cases almost always fail.
But compensation culture is a convenient bogeyman, because it allows big business to associate its victims - such as the 3500 people who die every year in Britain as a result of exposure to asbestos (Rupert Jones, 2nd November 2004. "Surge in British Asbestos Claims Will Cost Billions". The Guardian.) - with scroungers and conmen. It also opens a new front in their perpetual war against regulation.
In 2005 John Sunderland, the president of the CBI, thundered that â€œBritainâ€™s greatness was built on risk-taking.â€ Today, thanks to the compensation culture, we suffer from a â€œreduction in personal responsibilityâ€ and a â€œcollective aversion to risk.â€ We need to learn from China, whose businesses enjoy the same â€œfearlessness about riskâ€ as Britainâ€™s did during the Industrial Revolution.
The CBI President's speech deliberately tried to conflate two kinds of risk: the risk to which we expose ourselves, and the risk to which we expose other people. In the heroic age of industrial accidents, the â€œrisk-taking entrepreneursâ€ might have lost their money if their products did not find a market, but their profits were dependent upon the risks of losing limbs, eyes, lungs and lives they imposed on their workforce.
Chinaâ€™s â€œfearlessness about riskâ€ means that Chinese bosses are allowed to kill their workers. Sunderland called for precisely the â€œreduction in personal responsibilityâ€ he affects to despise. The entrepreneur shall not be held responsible for any of the risks he dumps on other people.
The shadow chancellor gave an almost identical speech to the Centre for Policy Studies at the same time: â€œThe call to minimise risk is a call for a cowardly societyâ€, he said. â€œIf we are to have a courageous society rather than a cowardly society, we need to abandon the rhetoric of risk minimisationâ€. The shadow chncellor failed to explain why it is courageous to expose your workers to asbestos. Or why it is courageous meekly to lie down and die when your lungs have been trashed by your brave employer.
In opposing our mythical compensation culture, the CBI and Conservative Party are creating something much uglier: a risk culture. They are glorifying the risks which the powerful impose on the weak.
The government, to its credit, has refused to join in. The Lord Chancellor once warned that â€œschools, hospitals, local authorities are beginning to feel they are more at risk from litigation than they really areâ€¦ we canâ€™t afford to leave this impression unchecked. As strongly as we resist spurious claims, we should also robustly defend the rights of people to make genuine claims. Rights and responsibilities would be meaningless if they could not ultimately be enforced.â€
This seems odd: the government seldom misses a chance to butter up big business and assist the tabloids in their witch hunts. But there are two interest groups at play here. The Lord Chancellor was a lawyer. So was the Prime Minister. And his wife. And the foreign secretary, and the defence secretary, and the transport secretary, and the chief secretary to the Treasury. Had the Democrats taken power in the US, the world would have been run by these people: both Kerry and Edwards are known lawyers. Itâ€™s unfortunate that our best hope of redress against one set of greedy bastards is to enlist the help of another.
Of course there is another way, and that is to stop big business exposing people to risk in the first place. But the state enforcement of health and safety laws is in the interests of neither businessmen nor lawyers: the money wonâ€™t vote for it. Without regulation, compensation is often the only protection we have.
Wonderful isn't it. Victims of the MOD's illegal human experiments at Porton Down get Â£8K each and she wants Â£20K for a minor, superficial injury. issedoff: Perhaps I can sue her for pissing me off bigtime?
That's the trouble with modern life, stupidity does not kill any more and retards are allowed to pollute the gene pool.
Surely it's a mistake (argument by analogy), Thingy, to compare one case with another, brought under different rules. The fact that the Porton Down people have been swindled says nothing about other claims. The girl's claim may get thrown out anyway. Also, if one receives an offer out of court and tries to sue to make it bigger, and that doesn't work, one is wide open to an order for costs.
As to no-win, no-fee ('ambulance chasing'), I should have thought that in itself was a sufficient discipline since no lawyer would take on such a case unless he felt sure of a win. I believe this was brought in so as to take personal injury claims out of the legal aid minefield where rubbish claims were being pursued regardless of cost to the taxpayer.
Some of our problems stem from public authorities settling with an offer calculated to be less than the legal costs of contesting the claim, even when the authority might not have been at fault.
Let's wait for a result on this one.
I remember not so long back women getting over 100k for getting preggers in HMF, get your leg blown off in NI get next to F. All
If she wins the Cadet force will be down to knitting (Blunt needles of course) and macrame as suitable safe activities, she's 22 will she want her hand holding for the rest of her life.
Perhaps she should have engaged brain "Standing at the bottom of a cliff face while people are climbing if not belaying them...Good idea or not?"
FFS put her out of her misery and slot her.
Yep, typical industrial tribunal case costs about Â£10k to contest, demand up to Â£10k from a local authority/HMG and they will nearly always settle even when it's obvious they would win.
Separate names with a comma.