London Bombings, The Compensation Vultures Appear

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by maninblack, Aug 3, 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. maninblack

    maninblack LE Book Reviewer

    I see that those who view the death of a relative as a sound business move have crawled out of the woodwork.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4741579.stm

    Whatever happened to self reliance, insurance policies etc?
     
  2. I don't see how anyone can get sued, unless the bombers can be pieced back together.

    The money mentioned is a 'gift' from the government, who don't actually have to pay anything.

    What's that about gift horses? Is greed replacing grief already?
     
  3. Slightly off topic but what has really wound me up is the compensation likely to be paid to this Brazilian fellow. I can't understand why the Met. are happy to say he was "mistakenly shot". It seems clear as day to me that mistake made was to run from armed police when told to stop. perhaps any of Arrse's rozzers would like to comment.

    Sorry if I've dragged this off thread Maninblack.
     
  4. Surely the government didn't kill these people, why do we have to compensate for it. Sounds harsh, but why should we expect to foot a bill? Again, reallly harsh, but these things happen, you can't expect everybody to bail you out becuase you demand it.

    OS
     
  5. Why not target OBL's family in good old Saudi and get them to pay, well it was done in his name was it not? And didn't the Lybian govt cough up after the Lockerbie event?
     
  6. I personally have PAX, therefore if I die or am wounded I wont have to bitch to the government to get cash.

    The cash is not an entitlement. It really does seem like greed has replaced grief. I'm sure a similar hijacking of victims and/or families will occur similar to the dead soldiers families from Iraq for someone to ram a policy through parliment.
     
  7. I would wait for the results of the inquiry, and not necessarily assume that the man had "run from armed police when told to stop" - this may or may not be the case.

    IF it turned out that official mistakes had contributed to the man's death, there could be a case for compensation in the form of damages, even though no-one should doubt that the officers acted in good faith.

    Whereas the basic compensation available to the relatives of the bomb victims under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is nothing to do with fault on the part of official bodies.

    (Dragged back on topic.)
     
  8. Never could understand this compensation lark to be honest. My brother-in-law's brother was murdered years ago and his Mum ended up with about £15,000 - even though she'd never given a toss about him and he never supported her financially in any way. So, if someone's son was killed in the bombings, why should his mother and/or father get compensation? Money won't bring anyone back or stop the grief.
     
  9. chimera

    chimera LE Moderator

    Ah you haven't learned the rules of the compensation game have you.

    Someone (anyone really - preferably someone that is heavily insured, or a multinational company, or the government) MUST be to blame. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault, and accidents and 'Acts of God' NEVER happen.

    The vultures will probably sue (in no particular order) - the Government for its Foreign Policy, The London Underground for not having adequate security measures, the makers of the tube trains for not making them bomb proof, a few of the doctors/nurses for not working fast enough to save people etc etc

    Oh and the whole thing will be legally aided so we pay their fees.

    Get the idea??
     
  10. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    Many insurance policies now exclude acts of terrorism, so many people could suffer financially to a considerable degree.
     
  11. maninblack

    maninblack LE Book Reviewer

    Then if you chose to insure yourself with a company that exclude terrorism then you have voluntarily disadvantaged your family.

    It is not for the tax payer to make up for the inadequacies of the tight fisted.
     
  12. Is this really about insurance? Isn't there a government funded Criminal injuries Compensation scheme?

    Edit:
    The Home Office says -

     
  13. Read the first post! This thread is about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
     
  14. Sorry. My fault.