Whats your views on this compensation?

robfosters · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:09

Katie Hopkins wrote an ill informed article and deserved to be pulled up on it. Her views were wrong. The family have got an apology from the Mail and Katie but the judge has also awarded the family £150,000 in damages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38367563

It's not so much the figure I have a problem with, it's when you put it up against other compensation awards, it shows that the whole compensation system is skewed badly in the UK. This family get £150,000 for being insulted in public, a woman solicitor got £2.8m a while back for constructive dismissal, yet a family only got £13000 last year when their 16 year old son fell to his death from unguarded scaffolding due to terrible negligence from his boss.

I'm not saying no-one deserves compensation, they all do, but I think an overhaul of the system needs to take place. It's way too flawed atm.

Noxia · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:14

sn't the dismissal one taking into account loss of earnings etc? The teen who died, tragic but that's the end of it, there are no more consequences for that individual. The Mahmood family again have had a lot of attention from it all and potentially negative future consequences.

Not trying to sound harsh but I think it has something to do with how whatever happened has an impact on the future for the victims?

Housey · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:15

I agree the metrics and measurements for such things are all wrong, but we need more slapping down of people posting made up crap and ill informed conjecture as fact because sadly we have bred far too many stupid people who suck it up at face value. Soundbites have a lot to answer for...

robfosters · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:17

Housey said:
I agree the metrics and measurements for such things are all wrong, but we need more slapping down of people posting made up crap and ill informed conjecture as fact because sadly we have bred far too many stupid people who suck it up at face value. Soundbites have a lot to answer for...

I dont get where you're coming from? Are you having a pop at me, because I haven't made any of these examples up.

peterwalkley · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:23

Pretty sure Housey is having a pop at the daily fail. "Ill informed conjecture" sound remotely familiar ? Its their editorial policy ffs ....

Housey · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:24

robfosters said:
I dont get where you're coming from? Are you having a pop at me, because I haven't made any of these examples up.

Wow, didn't you read that wrong...

I am agreeing with you.

I am then making a point about the woman and her ilk.

Clear?

Participant · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:25

Did anyone figure out why the family were prevented from entering the USA?

Dis86 · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:26

Participant said:
Did anyone figure out why the family were prevented from entering the USA?

Cos brown.

robfosters · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:27

Housey said:
Wow, didn't you read that wrong...

I am agreeing with you.

I am then making a point about the woman and her ilk.

Clear?

As crystal

Tefal · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:31

robfosters said:
Katie Hopkins wrote an ill informed article and deserved to be pulled up on it. Her views were wrong. The family have got an apology from the Mail and Katie but the judge has also awarded the family £150,000 in damages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38367563

It's not so much the figure I have a problem with, it's when you put it up against other compensation awards, it shows that the whole compensation system is skewed badly in the UK. This family get £150,000 for being insulted in public, a woman solicitor got £2.8m a while back for constructive dismissal, yet a family only got £13000 last year when their 16 year old son fell to his death from unguarded scaffolding due to terrible negligence from his boss.

I'm not saying no-one deserves compensation, they all do, but I think an overhaul of the system needs to take place. It's way too flawed atm.

I think part of it scales with ability to pay.

No point fining a paper 10k if they make 100k from the story

robfosters · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:33

Tefal said:
I think part of it scales with ability to pay.

No point fining a paper 10k if they make 100k from the story

Thats surely impossible to quantify? It's one article in a paper and online. How can you possibly put a value on how much it's earned the Mail?

Participant · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:33

Dis86 said:
Cos brown.

Maybe Katie Hopkins accidentally stumbled across a major terrorist cell and it was all being hushed up by the courts to avoid Jack Bauer's cover being blown.

Dis86 · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:34

Participant said:
Maybe Katie Hopkins accidentally stumbled across a major terrorist cell and it was all being hushed up by the courts to avoid Jack Bauer's cover being blown.

Come on, she's not that bright or...hold on, she's pretty lucky.

SPG · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:41

If you fall off from some scaffolding is highly likely it was your own fault....

Noxia · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:53

SPG said:
If you fall off from some scaffolding is highly likely it was your own fault....

Not if there were supposed to be measures in place to stop it happening. What an odd comment.

robfosters · 19 Dec 2016 at 21:02

SPG said:
If you fall off from some scaffolding is highly likely it was your own fault....

The scaffolding was supposed to be guarded and the boy was sent up by his boss to throw heavy sandbags off the side. He lost his balance when throwing them and fell off the side. I don't consider it his fault. Poor little sod was probably scared to say no in case he lost his apprentice job.

Holst1981 · 19 Dec 2016 at 21:09

I don't think the papers should pay any less, they ****ed that guys life up.

But 13k doesn't sound like much for the scaffolder... Got a link to the story? Would like to know more.

Mr Jack · 19 Dec 2016 at 21:22

Too small to be honest. Like the Mail care about £150k. The courts need the power to levy fines in addition to the compensation paid to the victims and Newspapers should be required to print apologies and corrections at the same size and on the same pages as their infringement.

Zenduri · 19 Dec 2016 at 21:27

The only compensation i need with Katie Hopkins is a baseball bat and 5 mins with her face in swinging distance. Shes a vile piece of work and incredibly stupid too... evidence below

Gerard · 19 Dec 2016 at 21:36

HybridX said:
The only compensation i need with Katie Hopkins is a baseball bat and 5 mins with her face in swinging distance. Shes a vile piece of work and incredibly stupid too... evidence below

From the looks of her i would have thought that she's already been smacked around the face plenty of times, she's 41 and could easily pass for 50+. Ugly clueless cow.