www.kidzclaimz.co.uk
16 May 2008, 10:02 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
www.kidzclaimz.co.uk
Now i've seen it all, this is possiblely the most disgusting sort of advert i have ever seen!
I am in a really pissy mood right now as i have to get ready for work in 10minutes and I really think that all these Claim because you and you children are ****ing idiots companies really **** me off!
See when i was 13 i went into a building site and fell. I split my chin open and now i have a nice scar across it. Now back then i got a slap for being a wee **** and sneaking into a building site. In todays society it wouldnt have been my fault because the building site should have prevented me from getting in and i would have got a big claim for wreaking my beautiful face!
Its actually criminal in my humble opinion!
I am in a really pissy mood right now as i have to get ready for work in 10minutes and I really think that all these Claim because you and you children are ****ing idiots companies really **** me off!
See when i was 13 i went into a building site and fell. I split my chin open and now i have a nice scar across it. Now back then i got a slap for being a wee **** and sneaking into a building site. In todays society it wouldnt have been my fault because the building site should have prevented me from getting in and i would have got a big claim for wreaking my beautiful face!
Its actually criminal in my humble opinion!
16 May 2008, 10:05 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the line of fair legal representation has been far over stepped these days.
Its only right that if a company messes up and puts you in danger, that compensation should be considered. However for the simplest of things that were once common sense, is taking it too far.
Its only right that if a company messes up and puts you in danger, that compensation should be considered. However for the simplest of things that were once common sense, is taking it too far.
16 May 2008, 10:12 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with the above
it seems that all that matters these days is to know your rights and ignore your responsibilities.
we are heading head-long into this culture and it is a downward spiral.
it seems that all that matters these days is to know your rights and ignore your responsibilities.
we are heading head-long into this culture and it is a downward spiral.
16 May 2008, 10:13 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely if the court finds in your favour, by default, you were right to pursue legal action?
Of cours,e if I child goes into a building site that is clearly marked and has danger signs all over the place, then the compnay is not liable.
However, whgat happens if, say, you and your child are at the park, you push your child on the swings, the chain snaps, and your child goes face first into the roundabout. Do you not think you should have some form of recourse?
I don;t agree with legal action at the drop of a hat, however, I think we have quite a good balanc ein this countey - We don't give ridiculous sums of money as per the states, and when someone tries to sue for the coffee being too hot, it gets thrown out.
Were there is genuine negligence we should have legal recourse.
Of cours,e if I child goes into a building site that is clearly marked and has danger signs all over the place, then the compnay is not liable.
However, whgat happens if, say, you and your child are at the park, you push your child on the swings, the chain snaps, and your child goes face first into the roundabout. Do you not think you should have some form of recourse?
I don;t agree with legal action at the drop of a hat, however, I think we have quite a good balanc ein this countey - We don't give ridiculous sums of money as per the states, and when someone tries to sue for the coffee being too hot, it gets thrown out.
Were there is genuine negligence we should have legal recourse.
16 May 2008, 12:27 PM
#6
Surely if the court finds in your favour, by default, you were right to pursue legal action?
Of cours,e if I child goes into a building site that is clearly marked and has danger signs all over the place, then the compnay is not liable.
However, whgat happens if, say, you and your child are at the park, you push your child on the swings, the chain snaps, and your child goes face first into the roundabout. Do you not think you should have some form of recourse?
I don;t agree with legal action at the drop of a hat, however, I think we have quite a good balanc ein this countey - We don't give ridiculous sums of money as per the states, and when someone tries to sue for the coffee being too hot, it gets thrown out.
Were there is genuine negligence we should have legal recourse.
Of cours,e if I child goes into a building site that is clearly marked and has danger signs all over the place, then the compnay is not liable.
However, whgat happens if, say, you and your child are at the park, you push your child on the swings, the chain snaps, and your child goes face first into the roundabout. Do you not think you should have some form of recourse?
I don;t agree with legal action at the drop of a hat, however, I think we have quite a good balanc ein this countey - We don't give ridiculous sums of money as per the states, and when someone tries to sue for the coffee being too hot, it gets thrown out.
Were there is genuine negligence we should have legal recourse.
Pete, thats not what is at issue, its the practice of goading people to try and make a claim via advertising, the clueless and lazy sat at home after a new telly, well why not claim for the kid tripping over at mcdonalds or the nursery not giving the right kind of biscuits, people get the idea then talk whatever small wrong they have been done into a bigger one, using key phrases to make it sound better and then approach one of these claims companies.
Remeber, sometimes when you trip up, its YOUR fault, ok if a lump of scaffolding lands on you when you walk past a building site then you have a case, if you trip up over a tree root then resolve to be less clumsy in future.
Its all part of this countries culture of someone elses problem "They" need to sort it, who are "They", "They" is us, you, if something bothers you, then do something about it, dont sit at home bleating.
16 May 2008, 12:33 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete, thats not what is at issue, its the practice of goading people to try and make a claim via advertising, the clueless and lazy sat at home after a new telly, well why not claim for the kid tripping over at mcdonalds or the nursery not giving the right kind of biscuits, people get the idea then talk whatever small wrong they have been done into a bigger one, using key phrases to make it sound better and then approach one of these claims companies.
Right, and unless the claim has genune merit, it won't win. I don't see the problem.
That's why we have courts to decide who's culpable
Trending Topics
16 May 2008, 12:40 PM
#8
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 May 2008, 01:28 PM
#9
Not necessarily in monetary terms no. If there are laid out and acceptable procedures for regular maintanance and the last maintenance was carried out correctly and found no faults, then I believe this is an "accident". I do realise that you could persue everything to the nth degree to find root cause in everything, but accidents do happen for which no one is at fault.
16 May 2008, 01:29 PM
#10
Well my sister (34) has had a stroke and it turns out the stroke was caused by the injections she had when treated for endometriosis (or whatever it is)...
Now in your opinion, is the doctor/hospital at fault?
Now in your opinion, is the doctor/hospital at fault?
16 May 2008, 01:45 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Wickford, Essex - GamerTag - lCE
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What annoys me is that you can claim even though you broke the law to enter the place where you injure yourself. Burglars etc. Just makes me so angry. Why do we as a society protect anyone who breaks the law?
16 May 2008, 02:42 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
We need to add the presumption of personal responsibility to testing whether a claim is even justified. For example, you fall down an open man-hole cover - tough, you should have been looking where you were going!
Dave
16 May 2008, 03:07 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I'm elected PM, I'll introduce the Morons Act.
The Morons Act will state that someone becomes legally defined as a Moron if they commit a Moronic Act and then try to blame someone else for it.
A Moronic Act is, natually, anything which a reasonably intelligent person would deem likely to result in personal loss or injury. But simply committing a Moronic Act in itself wouldn't be enough to make someone a legal Moron - because, after all, we all make mistakes. To become a Moron, a person would have to claim, through the courts, that someone else was responsible for their foolish action, and lose their case.
There would be a national register of Morons, which would be publically available, and insurers, employers and the like would be permitted - even encouraged - to consult it and base decisions on it. A person would remain on the list for a period of, say, three years before being automatically removed from it.
Whilst on the list, people would also lose certain legal rights - so other individuals and companies would be protected from frivolous lawsuits by Morons.
With luck, the list of registered Morons would be a short one indeed. But there would be a very strong incentive to think very carefully before trying to blame someone else for your own gross stupidity
The Morons Act will state that someone becomes legally defined as a Moron if they commit a Moronic Act and then try to blame someone else for it.
A Moronic Act is, natually, anything which a reasonably intelligent person would deem likely to result in personal loss or injury. But simply committing a Moronic Act in itself wouldn't be enough to make someone a legal Moron - because, after all, we all make mistakes. To become a Moron, a person would have to claim, through the courts, that someone else was responsible for their foolish action, and lose their case.
There would be a national register of Morons, which would be publically available, and insurers, employers and the like would be permitted - even encouraged - to consult it and base decisions on it. A person would remain on the list for a period of, say, three years before being automatically removed from it.
Whilst on the list, people would also lose certain legal rights - so other individuals and companies would be protected from frivolous lawsuits by Morons.
With luck, the list of registered Morons would be a short one indeed. But there would be a very strong incentive to think very carefully before trying to blame someone else for your own gross stupidity
16 May 2008, 04:39 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
When I'm elected PM, I'll introduce the Morons Act.
The Morons Act will state that someone becomes legally defined as a Moron if they commit a Moronic Act and then try to blame someone else for it.
A Moronic Act is, natually, anything which a reasonably intelligent person would deem likely to result in personal loss or injury. But simply committing a Moronic Act in itself wouldn't be enough to make someone a legal Moron - because, after all, we all make mistakes. To become a Moron, a person would have to claim, through the courts, that someone else was responsible for their foolish action, and lose their case.
There would be a national register of Morons, which would be publically available, and insurers, employers and the like would be permitted - even encouraged - to consult it and base decisions on it. A person would remain on the list for a period of, say, three years before being automatically removed from it.
Whilst on the list, people would also lose certain legal rights - so other individuals and companies would be protected from frivolous lawsuits by Morons.
With luck, the list of registered Morons would be a short one indeed. But there would be a very strong incentive to think very carefully before trying to blame someone else for your own gross stupidity
The Morons Act will state that someone becomes legally defined as a Moron if they commit a Moronic Act and then try to blame someone else for it.
A Moronic Act is, natually, anything which a reasonably intelligent person would deem likely to result in personal loss or injury. But simply committing a Moronic Act in itself wouldn't be enough to make someone a legal Moron - because, after all, we all make mistakes. To become a Moron, a person would have to claim, through the courts, that someone else was responsible for their foolish action, and lose their case.
There would be a national register of Morons, which would be publically available, and insurers, employers and the like would be permitted - even encouraged - to consult it and base decisions on it. A person would remain on the list for a period of, say, three years before being automatically removed from it.
Whilst on the list, people would also lose certain legal rights - so other individuals and companies would be protected from frivolous lawsuits by Morons.
With luck, the list of registered Morons would be a short one indeed. But there would be a very strong incentive to think very carefully before trying to blame someone else for your own gross stupidity
I'll vote for you!!
Dave
