Jack Straw on Car Insurance
- Thread starter Muffin`
- Start date
Funny that cos i once spent all weekend licking a womans bum in the High gate Holiday in and didnt hurt myself at all.
What the **** has your accident got to do with his mums one?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
I call BS on that, I've never rolled a car.
I call BS on that, i've just typed some random words on my computer donkey cheese marmalade blaster.
Are you sure that was the only damage done? It could explain a lot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Any this is relevant because.......???
Was your accident the same? No
Do you have the same neck bone/muscle structure? No
Where forces involved the same? No
Are you a medical expert? No
Hence your statement is BS.
Grow some stones and come tell me I'm talking ****, I'll be at the RR day on the 23rd of next month. Leave your input devices at home.
Of course, you wont show because you're just a spineless (and clueless) troll.
Unlucky as far as i'm concerned.
The system should be changed that you only get financial recompense for major injuries, not just "any"
Ie things that leave you some kind of permanent injury that enables you to qualify for disability, or maybe something that requires surgery to correct.
Doesn't need surgery, doesn't mean you qualify for DLA ? jog on son.
I simply can't believe that anyone could object to the Insurance and Ambulance Chasing Industries
All they are doing is demonstrating private enterprise and engaging in a wee bit of harmless and perfectly legal entrepreneurial "wealth creation".
This sort of behaviour is what you have to look forward to now that we have a Tory Government
Suck it up Tory Boys.
Trollhausen to the rescue of the whippy compo indioits !
So if someone came along and ruined your quality of life, you'd just chalk that up to being unlucky?
Wow.
You just went down in my estimation, and it was already pretty poor.
I sincerely hope someone comes along and gives YOU a soft tissue injury.
I was tempted to stop my post there, but I am so incensed I am going to continue. Lets imagine your child was sat in the passenger seat of your Volvo, being driven to school by your Wife. She is minding her own business and WHAM, out of nowhere someone T-Bones the car. Your wife is killed instantly and your child has a broken arm, a broken leg and severe soft tissue neck injuries.
No surgery or DLA for your wife, she's beyond the benefit system and no surgeon can bring back the dead. Your child's broken bones will heal without surgery, just needs a cast but will never be able to play football or any contact sports again. Also suffers from chronic pain from the neck injury sustained and has limited range of movement. No surgery, no DLA.
Jog on.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,815
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Read into a symptom call Fibromyalgia
and while you google that, I'll tell you a story.
A long time ago in a place far far away (still in England and Wales), a claimant claimed he/she had Fibromyalgia, and the case was worth a lot of money as the symptoms called him/her so much pain that he/she was in a wheelchair. What is controversial about this diagnosis is this.
Obviously the Claimant's expert diagnosed this as the symptom and cause of the pain and suffering, it is not hard to find an expert to dispute this. Nevertheless, I will spare you the details, but we had the claimant under surveillance and watched him/her movements to see if the Claimant was faking it. At no time did this claimant slip up. However, the case manager for the insurance company, as they are the ones liable to pay the Claimant the money was convinced that this claimant was faking it all. Anyway, the case went to trial and the Claimant won a substantial amount of money.
Still! You think it is over...well, the claims manager was so convinced that he had the Claimant followed and under surveillance again after all the money had paid out a year or so later (so there was no point faking it anymore).
Guess what?
The Claimant was still in a wheelchair.
Just an example of some soft tissue injury that even some experts don't think are real, yet it is.
Last edited:
Calm your attitude, all i've done is post my opinnion, i honestly thought you were better than the "i'll meet you at an OcUK meet and hear you say that 'cos i'm well hard" **** too tbh.
I did suffer a soft tissue injury, my citroen picasso was rammed so hard from the back the car had to be recovered because there were bits of bumper hanging off and the only thing keeping the boot shut was that it was a twisted mangled mess.
I was fine after a week or two.
I sincerely believe that the right to compensation for this sort of stuff is wrong. I'm not going to cast doubt on your experiences, but it will be that severe in an extreme minority of cases. Most will be fake, and of those that aren't fake, 80 % of that 80 % of accident claims that are whiplash will be mild ones for which some painkillers will be sufficient.
For that tiny minority, yes it will be harsh. But its in the interest of the majority if it stops this BS fakery and milking of the insurance companies that raises our premiums.
I'll gladly meet up with anyone from here for a beer, I attend every meet I can reasonably get to. Those that call me a liar (when what I have said is a statement of fact) can come and discuss the merits of their convictions at any such opportunity. No promises it will turn violent though.
Rather than being a **** about these very real, debilitating injuries why can you not see that in a lot of cases, it is warranted? Rather than outlawing personal injury claims why not suggest that, like in my Mum's case, the 'payout' is in the form of physiotherapy (which costs the earth btw, which is why the payouts are as relatively high as they are - £1000 goes nowhere when you have to see a physiotherapist regularly) rather than a lump cash sum?
I personally vehemently believe that if someone impinges my quality of life through absolutely no fault of my own then I should either be put right or if that is not viable then a financial settlement should be reached. In every case, I would personally rather the former rather than the latter but make no mistake I will be coming after that person for one or the other.
Last edited:
Tbh if you discount whiplash as a 'genuine' injury then you may as well stop treating things like fibromyalgia, ME, CRPS, chronic pain and all those other wishy-washy pseudo-conditions for which the actual physical 'evidence' is just as scarce as whiplash.
Basically all you are seeing is what happens when you put a fundamental public service in the hands of the private sector - previously when legal aid was used there was at least a single-payer who could control rates, access and control funding based on merits and suchlike. However when legal aid was dropped because it 'cost too much' the only alternative to retain universal access to justice was to allow law firms to step into the breach through the introduction of 'no-win no-fee' to allow them to take a risk on potentially unprofitable cases.
Which of course is brilliant when you read that the coalition's new money-saving plan is to limit legal aid even further...
That said, I'm not saying the legal aid system was perfect, far from it indeed, it's just wholly unsurprising that when you open up a service to the private sector that there's a race to the bottom casting any form of ethics to the side in pursuit of the bottom line
Basically all you are seeing is what happens when you put a fundamental public service in the hands of the private sector - previously when legal aid was used there was at least a single-payer who could control rates, access and control funding based on merits and suchlike. However when legal aid was dropped because it 'cost too much' the only alternative to retain universal access to justice was to allow law firms to step into the breach through the introduction of 'no-win no-fee' to allow them to take a risk on potentially unprofitable cases.
Which of course is brilliant when you read that the coalition's new money-saving plan is to limit legal aid even further...
That said, I'm not saying the legal aid system was perfect, far from it indeed, it's just wholly unsurprising that when you open up a service to the private sector that there's a race to the bottom casting any form of ethics to the side in pursuit of the bottom line
Last edited: