How daft does it have to get?

[Paul Kennedy]

Another one for you to consider:

 

"A man who complained that a head injury at work led to his sex drive running out of control today won more than ?3 million damages at the High Court.

 

Stephen Tame, 29, became "sexually disinhibited" after suffering the severe injury but is now ?3,166,054 better off.

 

The committed Christian said that the blow, when he fell from a gantry while working at a cycle warehouse in Wickford, Essex, threw his marriage on to the rocks.

 

His personality transformed from a happily married man into frolicking with a prostitute, using pornography and cheating on his wife.

 

He became abusive and aggressive and was forced to spend time in a mental hospital, the court heard."

 

Here is the full article, with a not very flattering picture of Mrs Tame, but as they say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

?3m for work injury that sent sex drive out of control

 

PS Seems from the Mail reader's comments at the end of the article, they are not convinced by the merits of this case either.

[AdrianR]

Lets for a minute consider what is involved here. The sums indicate a serious brain injury. We would be looking at assessment by a neurolgist and a neueopsychiatrist. Each party (employee and employer) would have their own experts probably giving conflciting opinion and judging by the legth of the trial (5 days) have the expert witnesses present. Additionally the barristers used (known to me) are very experienced and therefore I am confident that the damages awarded are likley to be consistent with the injuries claimed.

 

I suspect we are looking at selective media coverage here, focusing on the element that will fire the continued myth of a comopensation culture.

 

[ 19.12.2006, 16:14: Message edited by: Adrian ]

[little fella]

It is consistant with the moving towards a system of litigation for everything. Does it not matter that it could be user error that the accident happened in the first place?

I choked on a piece of food the other day which caused me discomfort, should I take proceeding against my wife for providing the food??

Utter rubbish..

[Paul Kennedy]

I'm with Little Fella rather than Adrian on this one. I think this chap and his legal team have "worked the system" for all they can.

[observer]

Believe a guy just got ?3million for brain damage that has caused an uncontrolled inhibition - thought that might be a bonus?!

[Peter T]

I wonder how the topic proved his case and what supporting evidence he used? :confused:

[AdrianR]

First point: The leagal team was the Official Solicitor, so not some high street ambulance chasers as I suspect most of you think.

 

Second Point: The courts do not hand out ?3m without proper due dilligence. Bearing in mind some damages dished out, this was clearly a SERIOUS brain injury with no prospect of a full recovery. As said prerviously the press have picked up on one part of it and not reported the other parts. When I get the legal report through perhaps I will post it here (copyright permitting) and you'll see the real reason fro the judgement.

 

Incidentally the UK has one of the lowest compensatory systems in the EU and massively less than the US.

 

Third point: Every employee is protected by legistation dating back over 30 years in some cases. Successive governments have introduced increased safety legisaltion to protect workers. As a result deaths and injuries at work are falling but take a look at the Health & Safety Executive website to see how many were killed last year at work never mind injured and I'm sure your view might well change

 

Sorry but if you take what is written in the Daily Mail as the whole story then I despair.

 

[ 20.12.2006, 11:39: Message edited by: Adrian ]

[Paul Kennedy]

Similar reports on the same topic were in the Times and the Daily Telegraph, no doubt the Sun had its own way of reporting the story.

[AdrianR]

May well have been, but the focus has been on the slightly unsavoury aspect of the brain injury rather than the fact that the employers negligence lead them here in the first instance.

 

Cheap shots at the guy when this wasnt his fault smacks of desperate / sensational journalism

[Paul Kennedy]

True, but then I think some people look at the money paid to him and then look at how widows of servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are treated, or indeed how badly injured servicemen are treated.

[observer]

Very true Paul.

[AdrianR]

Where do we stop the comparisions though? How about how victims of crime get treated as their damages are controlled by the Criminal Injuries Compensation board who have tarriffed settlements significantly below court awards.

 

This money however has not come from government funds, but will be paid for out of the insurance taken out by his employers.

 

The money for the troops comes out of central taxation. perhaps insurance is the answer?

 

As for the sum awarded,this has to provide for life and will be discounted significantly to take account presumed investment rates. the money will be spent on professional care with only a small amount actual compensation for the injury.

 

In this respct the vast majority of the money will be plowed back into the economy by way of payment for the specialist care needed. Its not as if he is gettign a lump sum and then can spend it frivourously.

 

[ 20.12.2006, 12:14: Message edited by: Adrian ]

[observer]

At the end of the day "the money" comes out of us; either through more tax or higher insurance premiums etc.

[AdrianR]

Maybe but premiums are rated according to risk (especially commercial polices). The more claims a firm has the more the premium will be and I much rather make a claim from an insurer than the government.

 

HSE confirmed over 200 died last year due to accidents at work. Injuries run tot he 10's of 1000's. Do people, what ever trade or service they are in, have an expectation not to be killed or injured at work (war situatiosn excepted?)? if so do you then propose that the state pick up the tab?

 

In this instance the benefits claimed by this person will be recovered by the state from the insurer. No cost to the tax payer at all as the courts are run as financial neutral i.e. they get back in fees what they incur.

[AdrianR]

 

 

[ 21.12.2006, 12:24: Message edited by: Adrian ]

[Paul Kennedy]

Here is today's from the purveyors of such things, The Daily Mail:

 

"A mother who was criticised by a doctor for nipping out for a cigarette moments before her caesarean operation has won more than ?44,000 for her 'hurt feelings'.

 

The heavy smoker claimed that she developed severe post-natal depression after the anaesthetist told her off.

 

The patient, known only as Mrs G, delayed the operation by leaving the ward in the private clinic to get her nicotine fix.

 

The anaesthetist, referred to as Dr A, claimed her coughing made it difficult to give her an epidural before surgery.

 

After the birth he told her: 'You've seen your daughter born, if you give up smoking you might see her get married too.'

 

The patient, who is in her 20s, complained that the doctor had harassed her and was awarded ?44,500 for 'pain and psychological distress'. Her legal fees were also paid for. "

[observer]

Well she can now afford about 8,000 packets of fags - should keep her going! cough!

[robot]

When I had my motorbike accident, I was told straight by my consultant- "ride another motorbike, and if I had fallen off again, the next thing I would drive would be a wheelchair". With that I stopped trying to delude myself that my immortality was assured, and gave up the bikes- in the end, the desire to see my neices grow up and be there for them was more important than any thrill on a bike! FULL MARKS to the doctor in this case- and if I was that mother Id thank him for cutting through the bovine scatology (hehe) one usually recives by way of medical advice- and giving me the clear and straight choice. I can only think that some ambulance chaser talked this woman into this claim!

[Paul Kennedy]

Good to see that there is so little serious crime about that the police are now able to devote their attention to minor matters, I particularly "like" the second sentence from the end where the police are justifying their actions, "When a crime has been committed we are duty bound to take action, however trivial the matter may appear", alas motorists who get their cars broken into and homeowners who are burgled are unlikely to be able to relate to their comment:

 

"A rambler who picked bunches of berries on a country walk was hunted down by police - and cautioned for theft.

 

Ian Blayney and his wife Bette spotted the rowan berries growing wild and collected a bag-full to turn into jam.

 

But he was also spotted by a security worker at a nearby building, who noted down Ian's car registration plate and called the police.

 

Detectives spent three months tracking Ian down - and then interrogated him during a formal interview at a police station.

 

Stunned Ian, 67, said: "The police who interviewed me were trying to be serious but I think it was as difficult for them as it was for me.

 

"I did consider arguing that the bushes were wild, which would mean I would be within my rights to pick the berries, but I didn't want to waste anymore police time.

 

"The caution means I can't be naughty for a year. "Next time I go blackberry picking in the forest I will have to back my face and wear a balaclava or I could get an ASBO."

 

The ordeal began when Ian and Bette, of Aylburton Common near Lydney, Glos., enjoyed a canalside walk near Macclesfield, Cheshire, in August.

 

They spotted the bush across a field so Ian hopped over a fence and collected several bunches.

 

But a security guard at a nearby business premises - where Ian had parked his Ford Mondeo - spotted him and noted down his registration plate from the CCTV footage.

 

The video was handed to Cheshire Constabulary, who later handed the investigation to their colleagues in Gloucestershire.

 

Ian and Bette thought nothing more of it until officers from Gloucestershire police called at their home three months later.

 

"When you think of all the hours of police time it took the police to track me down, it's unbelievable," said Ian.

 

"You'd think the police up there would have had better things to do than find a pensioner accused of picking some berries. I'd like to know how much it cost." After being interviewed at his local police station Ian was issued with a formal caution for theft.

 

He is now scared of handing out the home-made jam to relatives just in case they are also charged with handling stolen goods.

 

His wife Bette, a mother-of-three, added: "In one way it's quite funny, but I think people are also angry they took this complaint so seriously and wasted all this time and money.

 

"Instead of catching real criminals they got my husband to plead guilty to theft so they could tick off a box which says they have done their job and solved another crime."

 

A spokesman for Gloucestershire police said: "We can confirm a 67-year-old man from Lydney was cautioned under the Theft Act on November 13.

 

"We were acting as agents for Cheshire Constabulary in this matter and our only involvement was bringing about its disposal at their request.

 

"When a crime has been committed we are duty bound to take action, however trivial the matter may appear.

 

"It is worth bearing in mind that events that may seem insignificant can have a very significant impact on the injured parties involved and that they may have more to them than it appears at first."

 

Dail Mail 26/12/06

 

[ 26.12.2006, 11:06: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ]

[Peter T]

When a crime has been committed we are duty bound to take action, however trivial the matter may appear.

 

Strange how it doesn't apply to more serious crime.

[Paul Kennedy]

Here's another one from the Daily Mail:

 

"Businesses have been warned by a Government watchdog they must individually quiz every member of staff on gay rights - or risk being sued for discrimination.

 

Industrial relations quango Acas has spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money drawing up a detailed 18-question test to establish whether workers are being unfair to any homosexual colleagues.

 

Employers are advised to use the so-called 'audit tool' on all staff, then check their answers against a special score sheet to ensure staff do not have a bad attitude.

 

A poor score earns a 'STOP' warning, which, according to Acas, means the company is at risk of being sued for discrimination.

 

Questions range from knowing how many gays live in the UK, to whether the business displays a 'rainbow flag' - a symbol of homosexual rights - on the premises.

 

Poor scores are awarded for, for example, any 'jokes or banter' relating to gay or bisexual people.

 

Acas said it was part of the 'Government's drive to promote good practice' on the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.

 

Any firm which is alarmed by its results can ask for two free days consultancy, from Acas, paid for by the taxpayer. "

 

Businesses face legal action for failing to give staff 'gay rights quiz'

[Paul Kennedy]

Now this is seriously daft in the true sense of the topic:

 

" Sales pandemonium erupted before dawn today, the biggest shopping day of the year. Angry scuffles marred the start of the first full day of the sales as huge crowds of bargain hunters jostled for the massive discounts on offer.

 

About 5,000 shoppers queued through the night for the 4.30am start of the Next sale at Brent Cross Retail Park in north London.

 

 

Onlookers described scenes of mayhem-as security staff attempted to police the crowds and pull queuejumpers out of the line.

 

 

One witness said: "You just cannot move, the car park can't cope, every one is just double-parked in the street, it's ridiculous. There are a lot of people trying to push in. It's pandemonium."

 

Brawls over the bargains: punch-ups on biggest sales day of the year

[Peter T]

It just shows the greed of mankind.

If the price hadn't been reduced, they wouldn't have thought about buying the article/s.

The "ME" society is alive and thriving.

 

As for the previous one, does that mean Elton John comments are verboten?

[Paul Kennedy]

Seems it has extended to job interviews:

 

"DIY giant B&Q came under fire today after candidates at job interviews for van drivers were asked to dance and pull funny faces.

 

Several jobseekers attending an interview at the firm's store in Norwich faced the bizarre request to dance.

 

The Jackson 5's hit Blame It On The Boogie was played and some were photographed by managers.

 

One of those interviewed said he felt like an "idiot" as well as being embarrassed by the unusual request.

 

Ed Blissett, an official of the GMB union, which has members at B&Q, said: "This is utterly bizarre. It seems to reduce jobs our members do to some kind of joke."

 

"It is time that B&Q stops this nonsense." "

 

B&Q accused of humiliating job interviewees with face pulling

 

I rather agree with the union official, maybe a test of the interviewees driving might have been more appropriate. I recall that when I had a final interview for my first job at 18, because I was going to be provided with a company car, the regional manager asked me to take him for a short drive. It also might be worth mentioning that B&Q is struggling at the moment, and whilst I accept there is a decline in the DIY market, maybe its management style is also the problem.

 

[ 03.01.2007, 08:14: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ]

[Paul Kennedy]

Think this fits the bill:

 

"One of the Government's biggest education quangos was accused last night of wasting more than ?100 million in just six years on staff redundancies and a series of internal re-organisations.

 

The Learning and Skills Council ? which was set up to ensure young people have the skills to find work ? was criticised after it emerged that it has managed to spend ?54.4 million making its own staff redundant since it was created in 2001. A further ?61.9 million of taxpayer's money was spent in the year before its launch winding up its predecessor, the national network of Training and Enterprise Councils, bringing the total bill to more than ?116 million since 2000."

 

Skills quango 'wasted' ?100m in six years