Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by markie, 28 Dec 2006.
Has this guy got a case or not. ?
If for a moment we disregard the age of the foolish boys, and our pity for the family of the dead one, consider that an innocent person has suffered severe injury due to the deliberate act of another.
Perhaps we should compare this to a lorry driver who suffers equally severe injuries as a result of foolish boys dropping a lump of concrete off a motorway bridge. He certainly deserves some kind of compensation, although it would be preferable to receive it from the person responsible for the injury. In some cases, such as the unemployed or career criminals, or youngsters, or people who run off and are not caught, they cannot be made to pay.
I don't have any problem with it - good luck to him.
It seems fair that he gets compensation for something deliberately caused by another party. However, if the law says that a 'dead person cannot be sued', then I can't see how the case will go anywhere
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (=you and me the taxpayer).
My old mum got a couple of thousand a few years back when two lads pushed her to the ground, snatched her handbag and drove off in the car she was about to get into
I remember a few years ago, I was involved in minor fight ( self defence ) I hit the guy once then walked away, but the next day C.I.D. came knocking on the door took me away etc... Anyway I was fined £140 they said for G.B.H. the other guy got £640 compen from the CICB he told them he didn't have full vision in his left eye. considering I hit him near his jaw. Seen the guy a few weeks later and he was bouncing a golf ball, walking down the street.
Sounds like a regular Sunday Mass in Noocassle.
It might be worse now, it was 15 years ago when I had my fight.
Terrible that a lad got killed..'boys will be boys' etc...but losing at playing chicken?...well an awful sacrifice.
However..if that was an adult, lashed up and deliberatly causing mayhem then people may not feel the same sympathy
What m trying to say is you cannot let the fact that it was a kid distort the fact that the guy was seriiously injured through no fault of he own..
He deserves a few quid surely
I find myself in total agreement with the views expressed by everyone else. The man on the motorcycle did nothing wrong, and has had his life violently interupted for no good reason, of course he should, as a minimum, be able to recieve compensation that would cover his lost earnings, posible ongoing medical expenses, replacement of his motorcycle or repairs to it and for the trauma of the event. This should be treated as any other traffic incident.
Surely not as any other traffic incident.
Hey! I've got an idea - you could contact him and offer the services of your wife, her father and her grandfather. Problem solved.
You'll get moderated. Mine just got deleted.
That is £137.255 Billion or £15.67 million per hour 24/7 for the year 2003.
Total take is around £550 billion I believe (a mere £17,440 per sec 24/7)... There must be far heavier spends than society taking care of the innocent.
As an Oz cricket observer has recently written, "we achieve much more with far less resources than England..." Probably true throughout.
Keep an eye on what may be happening http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/news/blog.php No smoke without.. etc.
Yes, I would say so.
If the biker was at fault, the boy's relatives would be holding him responsible for the death and claiming from the biker's insurance company, wouldn't they?
At 12, a child knows (or should know) the risks of crossing a road, and should do so safely. The fact he was playing chicken means he knew he was taking a huge risk, and therefore was not exercising care in crossing the road.
Separate names with a comma.