The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just saw on advert on TV for some accident compensation company (there's so many of them I can't remember which one it is.) Anyway, here's the jist of it.
"Mrs So-and-so was at work, and as she sat down on her swivel chair it collapsed underneath her, leaving her with some painful back and leg injuries. She contacted us, and we got her straight onto a solicitor. She recieved £6,000 in compensation." They also made a large point in the advert of how much coffee she spilt on her desk.
Speaking of large, according to the 'dramatic' reconstruction, Mrs So-and-so was exactly that. I imagine that if I for instance, or someone of 'average' weight, may not have broken that chair. It may sound out of order, but it's true.
Anyway, I don't mind that too much. I break chairs all the time, like when I was 6 and this annoying girl was sitting on one, and I pulled it back as hard as I could causing it to tip over. Actually, I may not have broken it, but it was still funny. Back to the point however, what really gets me is the compensation bit.
I mean, I suppose the money could have gone towards fees for her recovery (I admit I know nothing about the health system whatsoever, and I'm not sure whether she could get free healthcare from the NHS or whatever,) but it still nags me that someone who's probably reasonable well off anyway gets an extra 6,000 quid because she fell off her bloody chair.
Once again, I admit to not having a clue what I'm talking about, but I don't believe people who are born disables get compensation. Why not? After all, it's not their fault. Even if it's the parents fault, it's still not their's.
But no, of course not. If you're born without an important sense you may get some extra care, but people who hurt their back because they can't climb a ladder properly get thousands of pounds in 'compensation.' I apologise to anyone in advance who has got compensation for this sort of injury, and it's not really you I'm having a go at, more the whole system.
Maybe I'm being inexplicably stupid here, but surely it's not too hard to purposefully injure yourself (if you're willing to do that, of course)?
Anyway, that's my little banter over with, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this situation.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
*leans back on swivel chair which collpases, phones Claims Direct and gets 10,000 big ones in compensation*
"Mrs So-and-so was at work, and as she sat down on her swivel chair it collapsed underneath her, leaving her with some painful back and leg injuries. She contacted us, and we got her straight onto a solicitor. She recieved £6,000 in compensation." They also made a large point in the advert of how much coffee she spilt on her desk.
Speaking of large, according to the 'dramatic' reconstruction, Mrs So-and-so was exactly that. I imagine that if I for instance, or someone of 'average' weight, may not have broken that chair. It may sound out of order, but it's true.
Anyway, I don't mind that too much. I break chairs all the time, like when I was 6 and this annoying girl was sitting on one, and I pulled it back as hard as I could causing it to tip over. Actually, I may not have broken it, but it was still funny. Back to the point however, what really gets me is the compensation bit.
I mean, I suppose the money could have gone towards fees for her recovery (I admit I know nothing about the health system whatsoever, and I'm not sure whether she could get free healthcare from the NHS or whatever,) but it still nags me that someone who's probably reasonable well off anyway gets an extra 6,000 quid because she fell off her bloody chair.
Once again, I admit to not having a clue what I'm talking about, but I don't believe people who are born disables get compensation. Why not? After all, it's not their fault. Even if it's the parents fault, it's still not their's.
But no, of course not. If you're born without an important sense you may get some extra care, but people who hurt their back because they can't climb a ladder properly get thousands of pounds in 'compensation.' I apologise to anyone in advance who has got compensation for this sort of injury, and it's not really you I'm having a go at, more the whole system.
Maybe I'm being inexplicably stupid here, but surely it's not too hard to purposefully injure yourself (if you're willing to do that, of course)?
Anyway, that's my little banter over with, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this situation.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
*leans back on swivel chair which collpases, phones Claims Direct and gets 10,000 big ones in compensation*
the world has gone soft. I appreciate that in some cases 'compensation' is needed, as negligence wrecks lives and must be punished, and it is only fair that the victims are given some kind of consolation.
But I'm sick of hearing people whinging about their injuries that could most probably be accounted to their own stupidity.
I heard about a guy in a america who put a can of coke on the passenger seat in his car. When he braked hard, the can hit the dashboard and exploded. He then proceeded to take coca-cola to court for 'making an unsafe container'. I believe he was paid several thousand dollars. I mean is that for real??? That guy had not rights to any compensation in my view. What is next, people trying to corner at 100mph, the car leaving the road and crashing, crippling the occupant, and them then going on to sue the tyre companys for making tyres with 'inadequate grip'?? Sounds stupid but its not far from whats going on now.
In poor countries, you get injured, thats it, your life is ruined, you have to deal with it. Nobody magically appears and says, oh thats too bad, have 10 grand. I think people are just too quick to pass the book here and in america.....
I don't wish to offend anyone who was injured in an accident that WAS NOT their fault, I'm not directing this at you, I realise some people are entitled to compensation.....
But I'm sick of hearing people whinging about their injuries that could most probably be accounted to their own stupidity.
I heard about a guy in a america who put a can of coke on the passenger seat in his car. When he braked hard, the can hit the dashboard and exploded. He then proceeded to take coca-cola to court for 'making an unsafe container'. I believe he was paid several thousand dollars. I mean is that for real??? That guy had not rights to any compensation in my view. What is next, people trying to corner at 100mph, the car leaving the road and crashing, crippling the occupant, and them then going on to sue the tyre companys for making tyres with 'inadequate grip'?? Sounds stupid but its not far from whats going on now.
In poor countries, you get injured, thats it, your life is ruined, you have to deal with it. Nobody magically appears and says, oh thats too bad, have 10 grand. I think people are just too quick to pass the book here and in america.....
I don't wish to offend anyone who was injured in an accident that WAS NOT their fault, I'm not directing this at you, I realise some people are entitled to compensation.....
Before long it will be as bad as it is in America, if it isnt already, where you can rob someone's house, be carrying their widescreen TV out the door so you can't see where you're going, trip over a paving slab, break your leg and sue your victim. Its insane.
I noticed a couple of these kind of stories in the paper today. On is that a telecom company was forced to compensate a blind man £6000 after refusing to employ him as a telephone operator - the judge ruled that they should try to remove the "telephone" aspect from the post.
A second was a widow of a september 11 victim, someone who was on one of the planes. She recently dicided to sue the air companies rather than have government compensation because it offered her slightly more money. She clamis it is to make sure the kind of horror will never happen again, because obviously no-one would think of trying to prevent that kind of thing without someone taking however many million dollars from their budget for doing so.
It makes me want to scream.
I noticed a couple of these kind of stories in the paper today. On is that a telecom company was forced to compensate a blind man £6000 after refusing to employ him as a telephone operator - the judge ruled that they should try to remove the "telephone" aspect from the post.
A second was a widow of a september 11 victim, someone who was on one of the planes. She recently dicided to sue the air companies rather than have government compensation because it offered her slightly more money. She clamis it is to make sure the kind of horror will never happen again, because obviously no-one would think of trying to prevent that kind of thing without someone taking however many million dollars from their budget for doing so.
It makes me want to scream.
The law thinks that it's reasonable for him to know some of his employees will be clumsy mongs, and should wrap them all in cotton wool.
In my opinion, the employee should know he's a clumsy mong, and to go out of his way to make sure he doesn't let his ineptitude cause an accident.
In my opinion, the employee should know he's a clumsy mong, and to go out of his way to make sure he doesn't let his ineptitude cause an accident.
The advert that really gets my goat is one where this guy claims against his employer. Ok fair enough, but the guy FELL and poured a bucket of hot tar over HIMSELF. WTF is wrong with society? This guys employer is penalised for employing a clumsy mong. Honestly.
I see where you're coming from, but you have to view it next to the notion that if someone causes an injury to you, they have to take a degree of responsibility.
If someone goes around selling crap chairs, which he does or should know will collapse under someone who's not hugely overweight sits down, then it's only right that when this person injurs themself falling off, suffering pain and lost money in time off work, surely they deserve some compensation?
The difficult thing is finding the balance between compensating legitimately and letting 'victims' take advantage and rip everyone off.
In my view the system's gone too far to favour the latter.
However, there may be a better way - in new zealand if you suffer an accident you claim from the government. It's funded by taxes from the relevant area (ie, roadish accidents are funded from road/petrol tax), and pays out even if nobody as at fault.
Plus it's a far more efficient system - in the uk, it costs 97p in administration and solicitors' fees to deliver every £1 of compensation. If i remember correctly, it's about 4p in new zealand.
Plus, if we were in nz, i could get something more than the £30 a week insurance to live off while i'm out of work with a dislocated shoulder.
Sadly, there's nobody to blame but life in general :^(
If someone goes around selling crap chairs, which he does or should know will collapse under someone who's not hugely overweight sits down, then it's only right that when this person injurs themself falling off, suffering pain and lost money in time off work, surely they deserve some compensation?
The difficult thing is finding the balance between compensating legitimately and letting 'victims' take advantage and rip everyone off.
In my view the system's gone too far to favour the latter.
However, there may be a better way - in new zealand if you suffer an accident you claim from the government. It's funded by taxes from the relevant area (ie, roadish accidents are funded from road/petrol tax), and pays out even if nobody as at fault.
Plus it's a far more efficient system - in the uk, it costs 97p in administration and solicitors' fees to deliver every £1 of compensation. If i remember correctly, it's about 4p in new zealand.
Plus, if we were in nz, i could get something more than the £30 a week insurance to live off while i'm out of work with a dislocated shoulder.
Sadly, there's nobody to blame but life in general :^(
Just saw on advert on TV for some accident compensation company (there's so many of them I can't remember which one it is.) Anyway, here's the jist of it.
"Mrs So-and-so was at work, and as she sat down on her swivel chair it collapsed underneath her, leaving her with some painful back and leg injuries. She contacted us, and we got her straight onto a solicitor. She recieved £6,000 in compensation." They also made a large point in the advert of how much coffee she spilt on her desk.
Speaking of large, according to the 'dramatic' reconstruction, Mrs So-and-so was exactly that. I imagine that if I for instance, or someone of 'average' weight, may not have broken that chair. It may sound out of order, but it's true.
Anyway, I don't mind that too much. I break chairs all the time, like when I was 6 and this annoying girl was sitting on one, and I pulled it back as hard as I could causing it to tip over. Actually, I may not have broken it, but it was still funny. Back to the point however, what really gets me is the compensation bit.
I mean, I suppose the money could have gone towards fees for her recovery (I admit I know nothing about the health system whatsoever, and I'm not sure whether she could get free healthcare from the NHS or whatever,) but it still nags me that someone who's probably reasonable well off anyway gets an extra 6,000 quid because she fell off her bloody chair.
Once again, I admit to not having a clue what I'm talking about, but I don't believe people who are born disables get compensation. Why not? After all, it's not their fault. Even if it's the parents fault, it's still not their's.
But no, of course not. If you're born without an important sense you may get some extra care, but people who hurt their back because they can't climb a ladder properly get thousands of pounds in 'compensation.' I apologise to anyone in advance who has got compensation for this sort of injury, and it's not really you I'm having a go at, more the whole system.
Maybe I'm being inexplicably stupid here, but surely it's not too hard to purposefully injure yourself (if you're willing to do that, of course)?
Anyway, that's my little banter over with, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this situation.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
*leans back on swivel chair which collpases, phones Claims Direct and gets 10,000 big ones in compensation*
"Mrs So-and-so was at work, and as she sat down on her swivel chair it collapsed underneath her, leaving her with some painful back and leg injuries. She contacted us, and we got her straight onto a solicitor. She recieved £6,000 in compensation." They also made a large point in the advert of how much coffee she spilt on her desk.
Speaking of large, according to the 'dramatic' reconstruction, Mrs So-and-so was exactly that. I imagine that if I for instance, or someone of 'average' weight, may not have broken that chair. It may sound out of order, but it's true.
Anyway, I don't mind that too much. I break chairs all the time, like when I was 6 and this annoying girl was sitting on one, and I pulled it back as hard as I could causing it to tip over. Actually, I may not have broken it, but it was still funny. Back to the point however, what really gets me is the compensation bit.
I mean, I suppose the money could have gone towards fees for her recovery (I admit I know nothing about the health system whatsoever, and I'm not sure whether she could get free healthcare from the NHS or whatever,) but it still nags me that someone who's probably reasonable well off anyway gets an extra 6,000 quid because she fell off her bloody chair.
Once again, I admit to not having a clue what I'm talking about, but I don't believe people who are born disables get compensation. Why not? After all, it's not their fault. Even if it's the parents fault, it's still not their's.
But no, of course not. If you're born without an important sense you may get some extra care, but people who hurt their back because they can't climb a ladder properly get thousands of pounds in 'compensation.' I apologise to anyone in advance who has got compensation for this sort of injury, and it's not really you I'm having a go at, more the whole system.
Maybe I'm being inexplicably stupid here, but surely it's not too hard to purposefully injure yourself (if you're willing to do that, of course)?
Anyway, that's my little banter over with, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this situation.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
*leans back on swivel chair which collpases, phones Claims Direct and gets 10,000 big ones in compensation*