Whats your views on this compensation?

robfosters said:
This family get £150,000 for being insulted in public
Click to expand...

Saying that they were "insulted" is playing down what happened. The family was accused by the most popular British newspaper of being Islamic extremists and having links to terrorism. There are far more serious consequences from that than just being insulted.

Would you merely feel insulted if the Daily Mail ran a story claiming that you were a paedophile? What if they included photos of you or even your home?
 
Bit like that poor guy who was named and shamed for killing the girl in Bristol when it was in fact someone else. I think the gist of it was: He's being questioned by police, looks like a killer doesn't he'
 
How can you possibly compare a lad who fell to his death, without further context potentially as a result of Darwinism as much as anything else, to an individual or family who have been completely falsely outed as terrorists?

It's akin to you being publicly and locally shown to be a paedophile. Nonce.
 
This disgusting woman needs to be taken up the oxo tower by a 7ft uneducated ex-con named Tyler with no lube.
 
I don't understand why she's allowed to remain in the media. She's a cretin. It's a joke that she even gets a column. Rancid swamp donkey.
 
this_is_gav said:
How can you possibly compare a lad who fell to his death, without further context potentially as a result of Darwinism as much as anything else, to an individual or family who have been completely falsely outed as terrorists?

It's akin to you being publicly and locally shown to be a paedophile. Nonce.
Click to expand...

Does beg the question though.

Why did the US government refuse them access?
 
Honestly, I'd be happy with £150,000 and an apology regardless of the circumstances. It wouldn't affect your job prospects with the apology and that's a decent bit of dosh for a lost holiday.
 
"insulted in public"

I think that's the core of why your example doesn't support your argument.

If she'd written something like "these people are ugly and stupid", that would have been an insult. Writing that they had links to al-Qaeda is not an insult. It's a very serious accusation that caused significant harm and might even have put their lives at risk. That's a very different thing.

I think that the compensation is on the low side and that the retraction should have been required to have been given exactly the same prominence as the accusation.

The apology is irrelevant. The only reason to force an apology is to impose dominance, which shouldn't happen and certainly shouldn't be any part of the legal system.
 
Most compensation have a bracket, a minimum and maximum and it is relative to nothing but itself.

Say whiplash has a bracket depending on severity of the injury.

Losing your leg at work has a bracket depending on the type of job that you do and how old you are etc.

Defamation has a compensation depending on the severity of damage of the story against the person in question's status, earnings, reputation etc.

They are exclusive of each other, one can be at the top of one and the other can be the bottom of the other. It is not an insult to the person who gets less for a "worse" injury. It's just how it ended up with in the context of that case.

The only thing it can be relative to is similar cases, as in one defamation case against another defamation case.
 
Compensation for death is often very low, because if you are dead you don't exactly need money. At the basic level the only money would be to relatives to cover funeral costs etc. Getting disabled or several injured can see a much higher compensation because in part the person will have to put up with that for a long time or the rest of their life. It can also result in lost earnings, e.g. someone might have been earning 100K a year but had an accident at work due to some H&S issue, now the person can't go back to that type of work so they are missing a lifetime of potential earnings.


Compensation is not used for retribution or retaliation.
 
D.P. said:
Compensation for death is often very low,
Click to expand...

True.
I deal with compensation every day and I was gobsmacked when I first started 7 years ago just how little some people get.
We could cause clinical negligence that leads to the death of a baby and it is only worth £10,000 however cause celebral palsy and it could run into millions.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
True.
I deal with compensation every day and I was gobsmacked when I first started 7 years ago just how little some people get.
We could cause clinical negligence that leads to the death of a baby and it is only worth £10,000 however cause celebral palsy and it could run into millions.
Click to expand...

Except the millions doesn't go to the family, it goes to pay things like nursing, medical bills, treatment, up keep, housing, maintenance.

Just think...24 hour care, a nurse does 8 hour shift, you will need 3 a day.

£25k a year. that is now £75k.

Life expectancy say...75 years old, and whatever accident happened when the person was 25.

50 years at £75k a year, add inflation. There is your £4 million right there. And it all goes to nursing, the family see none of this.

And then we can move on to the next thing and then next thing.

What goes to the family, or rather, the litigation friend or trust, is the general damages (injury) and loss of earnings and things like DIY, gardening, up keep, holiday. Normally in "large loss" cases (Large loss is what the last firm I worked at class cases above £100k), Medical or loss of earnings is the biggest slice of the pie. Typically though, when it gets to millions, generally it is because they are still alive, long life expectancy and needs constant medical care. Not often the person was a high flyer in an industry to get a large loss of earnings claim.
 
Last edited:
Coupled with the Daily Mail's persistent incitement to violence against minorities, their accusation of someone being an Islamic terrorist needed to be seen in the context in which they deliberately framed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom