Compensation Culture Gone Mad.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Mr_Fingerz, Feb 16, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    Protesters get £30k compensation

    Ten animal rights protesters were awarded £30,000 compensation by police after officers were accused of falsely imprisoning them.

    The campaigners claimed they were wrongfully arrested while demonstrating against a pheasant shoot at Wansdyke Farm, Ham, near Marlborough, Wiltshire.

    They were arrested on suspicion of causing actual bodily harm.

    A Wiltshire police spokesman said the case was settled out of court and without any admission of liability.

    The protesters' lawyer, Iftikhar Manzoor, said that on 27 October 2001 they stood next to the shooters, forcing them to stop.

    He said this was a commonly-used method for halting a shoot because gun-handling guidelines say a shooter must 'break' the gun to make it safe, if approached.

    Officers arrested the campaigners on suspicion of causing actual bodily harm and detained them at West Lea police station in Swindon, Mr Manzoor said.

    After being interviewed they were released on bail, which was postponed and later cancelled, he said.

    Describing the police reaction as "over the top," Mr Manzoor said his clients were denied their lawful right to protest peacefully.

    "They were deprived of their liberty," he said.

    A police spokesman would not discuss an individual case but confirmed that £30,000 was paid collectively in settlement to the 10 claimants.

    "The settlement was reached without admission of liability," he said.

    (c) BBC 2005

    This really grips my sh1t. From the report, it appears that the shoot was taking place on private land. The protestors shouldn't even have been there. The protestors were denied their right to peacefully protest; what about the shooters rights to engage in a perfectly safe, legal, activity on private land?

    Is there any chance of the landowner/shoot manager suing the protestors (collectively or each) for about £30k for loss of business/stressing the shooters.

    And another thing, the Countryside Alliance has lost in the Court of Appeal. So that's hunting with hounds outlawed from friday in England and Wales.

  2. Try this for size

    A mate of mine applied to re route a public footpath 20m so he could put in a cattle barn. No problem with that, it cost him money but thems the rules and he even wrote to the Rambler's association to let them know.

    When he put in the new stile, the council insisted that it had to allow wheelchair access. This despite the fact that there is no wheelchair access to any other part of the route for miles and the footpath itself is not passable by wheelchair.

    Presumably this caters for those who abseil in by helicopter, drag themselves into their chariot, wheel through the gate and then switch on a funky gyrocopter and fly away.

    The reasoning behind all this - anything less would be discrimination.
  3. it's the same with the new disabilities in the workplace legislation , how long is it going to be before you're boarding your pLane to go on holiday , and notice all the lick marks on the cockpit window....
    BING BONG " just a few words from your captain before take off "

  4. Should have nicked them for trespass, they were surely guilty of that!

    It seems that a lefty's right to "protest" is held up rather higher than an ordinary person's right to be left alone...

  5. I disagree. A (presumably) peaceful protester shouldn't be dragged off to the cells and banged up just because he's had the gall to step on his Lordship's land. If there was no criminal intent they were acting well within their rights and putting themselves between the guns and the birds takes more than a bit of bottle.
  6. And the Quislings of BASC think they're safe from the Antis because they co-operated over the Hunting Ban.

    This pretty much sets a precedent for protesters being able to disrupt shoots at will.
  7. They were breaching the peace by trespassing on private land to obstruct a lawful activity. That's clear cut for me, I'm afraid!

    As a corollory, should "save the trees" types be permitted to stand between the sawman and the tree? Should Jehova's Witnesses trespass in hospital wards to prevent nurses giving patients blood? Should a fundamentalist christian be allowed to stand in your living room between you and your porno flick on the telly? In all those cases if they refused to leave, I'd hope the police would "encourage" them!
  8. OK, you have 1 1/2 acres of land, some for garden, some put aside for shooting (friends of mine have). You decide to have a shoot with a few oppos and some dork from the local touchie feelies decides he dosn't like you shooting. What do you do, stop shooting and listen to him haranging you for being a land owning snob, call the police and have him charged with trespass, or if he gets too close ask the police to arrest him for attempted ABH. Your choice
  9. Suspect the last bit is the crux. The police probably decided that even if they were right it would cost about £100k in legal fees etc and they'd never get any costs from the t0ssers involved. So take the least cost route. Sends the wrong message but they've got a budget to worry about.
    I bet the actual coppers involved are livid but that's the way of things. Fcuking lawyers.
    Talking of which Mansoor perhaps needs a visit - I've seen that name before relating to this type of sh1te.

    Now trying suing me for threatening behavious you b*st*rd. PLEASE!!
  10. I think that for trespass to be charged, you need to be able to prove that damage was done. Even when it is, the police are often completely ineffectual - how many times have they failed to deal with illegal raves and other unlawful soapdodger/chav incursions onto private property?

    Hopefully this, and the hunting shambles, will cost Neue Arbeit dearly in rural constituencies at the General Election.
  11. Blame it on Little Britain
  12. Almost certainly true HTT. The insurance company involved, or the organisation itself, would have determined that it was cheaper to pay these people £30k than it would be to go to court. It probably also means they thought they'd loose. They call it risk management these days!!

    For those mentioning trespass, - I seem to remember from dim and distant training that in itself it is not a crime or an arrestable offence. You have to actually cause some form of damage to be arrested. There are those on this site with more knowledge than me who can put me right if this is wrong.
  13. Don't agree with charging the trespassers.

    Surely some ruddy faced old Brig was onhand and he could have taken his riding crop to the buch of ruffians.

    Failing that a 12-bore up the backside would see them off.
  14. That's not a breach of the peace, it's a lawful protest, probably the most important freedom we have.
  15. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    Trespass is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, so the "animal rights activists" - now there's a contradiction in terms: how do animals have rights?, they don't have any corresponding duties - would have to be nicked for criminal damage.