The NHS.

[Softus]

Now you anwer the questions I asked Softus.

No.

Says it all really doesn't it? You won't answer because you can't answer.

It does indeed say it all - that's exactly what I intended. "No" was intended to mean "No". I won't answer because I refuse to answer, and I gave you the reason, abundantly clearly, for that refusal. In a nutshell, it's because explaining the facts to you involves an enormous amount of time and many tedious posts such as your last one.

If you're so right, and I'm so wrong, then surely it must strike you as odd that nobody else on the forum agrees with you

You've said that you know nothing about law in this context, and I have no interest whatsoever in seeing you contradict me from a position of no knowledge. My concern on this topic was always that you were giving people misleading advice, and now that you've demonstrated so concisely how little you know, my work here is done.

Good day.

 

[joe-90]

Stop avoiding the questions I've asked of you.

If an employee is off duty and injures someone because they chose to continue working in an unofficial capacity - who is liable?

If the employee is injured doing work that is not authorised by their employer are they covered by workers compo?

Would the Unions allow workers to work without pay?

Well?


joe

 

[Softus]

Stop avoiding the questions I've asked of you.

I'm not avoiding any questions, I'm simply ignoring you because you're tedious.

 

[Thermo]

well its certainly that way with the police, any officer who deals with an incident off duty is covered both in terms of employers liability and any compensation issues.

As for unions allowing things most industries dont have a union that has a monopoly on what can and cant be done. That practice was outlawed in the 1980s

Never trust a barrack room lawyer

 

[joe-90]

Doesn't a Police Officer have the capability of 'signing himself on duty'?

Can he claim payment for the extra hours that incurs?


joe

 

[JulieL/B]

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what the law states. However, common sense means that I am right and you know that I am right.


joe

It's not good enough to say that you are right just cause you think you are right!
You should be able to back up your comments with research based evidence or reference of law otherwise it's not acceptable - you don't ever do this Joe - you would earn more respect and be listened to if you provided the supporting evidence............otherwise you just look stupid

Produce the evidence to support your statements

Geddit yet?

He won't

Answer these Julie. (she won't/can't)


If an employee is off duty and injures someone because they chose to continue working in an unofficial capacity - who is liable?

If the employee is injured doing work that is not authorised by their employer are they covered by workers compo?

Would the Unions allow workers to work without pay?

Well?

I'll answer your questions when you supply me with the research to back up your statements - as you are the one telling me I can't work without pay in emergency situations - and unsubstantiated comments made by you is really going to make a difference to my practice ........err I think not!

So come on.....if you're so sure......where's the evidence to back up your statements?

He won't supply it

Cos he can't supply it

It doesn't exist

 

[pickles]

Stop avoiding the questions I've asked of you.

If an employee is off duty and injures someone because they chose to continue working in an unofficial capacity - who is liable?

If the employee is injured doing work that is not authorised by their employer are they covered by workers compo?

Would the Unions allow workers to work without pay?

Well?


joe

The employer would be liable under the principles of Vicarious liability. this makes the employer liable for anything their employee does within the scope of their employment. What this means is that unless a person does something they are not employed to do, eg if the nurse tried to fix an electrical fault and hurt someone or an electrician tried to treat a patient, they wouldn't be personally liable for a mistake.

In this context, ie a hospital the nurse would still be on the work premises and acting within the scope of his or her employment. The fact that they were not getting paid for it would be a separate matter between them and their employer and not relevant to the issue of liability between the hospital and it's patient if the nurse acted negligently. The hospital would owe a duty of care to the patient and the fact that the nurse wasn't getting paid would probably increase the liability of the hospital because it could be argued that by failing to adequately staff and run it's wards the hospital increased the risk to the patient

The nurse if injured doing work that was unauthorised, eg fixing a leaking pipe wouldn't be entitled to compensation because it is outside the scope of her employment. However working unpaid overtime because of understaffing is not unauthorised work. The nurses professional duty to the patients probably overrides her obligations to the hospital to leave at the end of her shift. In fact by forcing the nurse to remain on duty the hospital might increase it's liablity to the nurse for any injury. She would argue that the hospital had failed to create a safe working enviroment by forcing her into a situation where the risk to the patients prevented her leaving thus creating a situation where due to her fatigue she was more likely to have an accident. That would be in addition to any other evidence of liability on the hospitals part, ie a double whammy

So to summarise, everyone would sue the arse off the hospital. The nurse and patient would retire to the Bahamas (or more likely Skegness) with their compensation and the tax payer would foot most of the bill

 

[joe-90]

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what the law states. However, common sense means that I am right and you know that I am right.


joe

It's not good enough to say that you are right just cause you think you are right!
You should be able to back up your comments with research based evidence or reference of law otherwise it's not acceptable - you don't ever do this Joe - you would earn more respect and be listened to if you provided the supporting evidence............otherwise you just look stupid

Produce the evidence to support your statements

Geddit yet?

He won't

Answer these Julie. (she won't/can't)


If an employee is off duty and injures someone because they chose to continue working in an unofficial capacity - who is liable?

If the employee is injured doing work that is not authorised by their employer are they covered by workers compo?

Would the Unions allow workers to work without pay?

Well?

I'll answer your questions when you supply me with the research to back up your statements - as you are the one telling me I can't work without pay in emergency situations - and unsubstantiated comments made by you is really going to make a difference to my practice ........err I think not!

So come on.....if you're so sure......where's the evidence to back up your statements?

He won't supply it

Cos he can't supply it

It doesn't exist

In an emergency you would be entitled to 'sign on' ie terrorist strike.

Now answer my questions.


joe

 

[joe-90]

Stop avoiding the questions I've asked of you.

If an employee is off duty and injures someone because they chose to continue working in an unofficial capacity - who is liable?

If the employee is injured doing work that is not authorised by their employer are they covered by workers compo?

Would the Unions allow workers to work without pay?

Well?


joe

The employer would be liable under the principles of Vicarious liability. this makes the employer liable for anything their employee does within the scope of their employment. What this means is that unless a person does something they are not employed to do, eg if the nurse tried to fix an electrical fault and hurt someone or an electrician tried to treat a patient, they wouldn't be personally liable for a mistake.

In this context, ie a hospital the nurse would still be on the work premises and acting within the scope of his or her employment. The fact that they were not getting paid for it would be a separate matter between them and their employer and not relevant to the issue of liability between the hospital and it's patient if the nurse acted negligently. The hospital would owe a duty of care to the patient and the fact that the nurse wasn't getting paid would probably increase the liability of the hospital because it could be argued that by failing to adequately staff and run it's wards the hospital increased the risk to the patient

The nurse if injured doing work that was unauthorised, eg fixing a leaking pipe wouldn't be entitled to compensation because it is outside the scope of her employment. However working unpaid overtime because of understaffing is not unauthorised work. The nurses professional duty to the patients probably overrides her obligations to the hospital to leave at the end of her shift. In fact by forcing the nurse to remain on duty the hospital might increase it's liablity to the nurse for any injury. She would argue that the hospital had failed to create a safe working enviroment by forcing her into a situation where the risk to the patients prevented her leaving thus creating a situation where due to her fatigue she was more likely to have an accident. That would be in addition to any other evidence of liability on the hospitals part, ie a double whammy

So to summarise, everyone would sue the a**e off the hospital. The nurse and patient would retire to the Bahamas (or more likely Skegness) with their compensation and the tax payer would foot most of the bill

I don't agree. Under emergency (terrorist strike) they would be expected to 'sign on'. You cannot just do what you like just because it suits you.

As I said earlier, if a train driver decided to take out a train for a missing colleague - then he would be charged by the police upon his return.


joe

 

[Thermo]

what would he be charged with then?

 

[Softus]

To anyone reading joe-90's posts, who might be tempted to take what he writes as fact, on the basis that he seems very sure of himself, please be aware that he's not known ever to have been right on any point of law, and is presenting his view of what the law should be, not what it actually is.

So....

I don't agree. Under emergency (terrorist strike) they would be expected to 'sign on'.

This is vague. And nonsensical. In fact, it's just some vague nonsense.

As I said earlier, if a train driver decided to take out a train for a missing colleague - then he would be charged by the police upon his return.

I can see it now - train driver reverses the train back up the track from whence it came...neatly parks the train exactly where he found it...removes key from console....steps down out of the cab....and hears the snick of the 'cuffs before he knows what's happened. "You're nicked my son, on a charge of being wrong according to joe's law".

 

[Thermo]

lol: lol:

 

[joe-90]

what would he be charged with then?

No wonder they kicked you out of the force. HE STOLE A TRAIN.

 

[joe-90]

To anyone reading joe-90's posts, who might be tempted to take what he writes as fact, on the basis that he seems very sure of himself, please be aware that he's not known ever to have been right on any point of law, and is presenting his view of what the law should be, not what it actually is.

So....

I don't agree. Under emergency (terrorist strike) they would be expected to 'sign on'.

This is vague. And nonsensical. In fact, it's just some vague nonsense.

As I said earlier, if a train driver decided to take out a train for a missing colleague - then he would be charged by the police upon his return.

I can see it now - train driver reverses the train back up the track from whence it came...neatly parks the train exactly where he found it...removes key from console....steps down out of the cab....and hears the snick of the 'cuffs before he knows what's happened. "You're nicked my son, on a charge of being wrong according to joe's law".

He stole a train. He was unauthorised to take it. Likewise a bus or an ambulance.

Gedditt yet?



joe

 

[Thermo]

No wonder they kicked you out of the force. HE STOLE A TRAIN

Sections 1-7 theft act 1968

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.

SO HE DIDNT STEAL A TRAIN. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. BARRACK ROOM LAWYER.

I left the police of my own choice and left with a record of examplary conduct and an offer that i could return at any point if i so desired. o stick that in your pipe