A cyclist who claimed £1m after being manhandled by tube train staff has been awarded £11,925.
This guy has not worked for ten years, but was still able to afford a two-month massage trip to Thailand, spending £40,000 on food, flights and accommodation.
I expect he's independently wealthy, pays tax here, and has contributed a great deal to this country in other ways (not).
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12581736
|
And I read he'd turned down an £18k out of court settlement. Can we recoup the courtroom costs from him do you think?
John
|
|
well he has a 40k trip to Thailand to pay for...
|
"When he failed to reply the LU worker forced him back and bent him over the barriers"
I imagine that this has been accepted as fact, hence the payout.
I wonder what would happen to me if I forced a LU worker back and bent him over the barriers? Certainly more than a civil payout of a few grand I reckon, more like a criminal record and at least community service.
|
I have no medical or psychiatric training but I can't quite see how "an anxiety disorder which stopped him going out in the dark." could arise from being manhandled at a ticket barrier!
Just beaten to it by the erudite wilber person!!!
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Sat 26 Feb 11 at 19:45
|
Must be more to the story than is written, reminds me of somewhere else thats often mentioned...
Of note is a claim for loss of earnings, from someone who hasnt worked for ten years, so whats the loss? I presume if they havent had to go to work, they are in same position as before...
A massage in Thailand? Cant you get that here now? I know the NHS is tight and all, but for 40 grand, I expect your local back bender will build you a new spine in gold!
Last but by no means least - how do you get an anxiety disorder from a scuffle at a railway station? I cant see how that would stop you going out in the dark.
There seem to be plenty of holes in this story, looks like the BBC have gone down the gutter press route writing complete rubbish. Did I miss Murdoch taking over the reigns or something?
|
...There seem to be plenty of holes in this story...
I think the holes are in the claimant's story.
The judge saw through them, hence the pay out.
|
|
Im afraid the reporting is poor too, its written like a Sun story. All we need now is a diagram with stick men to show how it happened and a cartoon of the claimant in Thailand...
|
...Im afraid the reporting is poor too...
I had hoped a BBC link would enable us to concentrate - for once - on the message, rather than the messenger.
Obviously not.
Back to the Daily Mail for me.
|
I appreciate what your trying to do, but I read that story and it struck me how thin it was - I was being sarcastic about the usual sources because it appears their style is more universal than lefties want to admit.
There was zero detail on why he had to go to Thailand, why he was now afraid of the dark or why he had lost earnings, so someone couldnt be bothered to write the story properly even.
|
....There was zero detail on why he had to go to Thailand, why he was now afraid of the dark or why he had lost earnings, so someone couldnt be bothered to write the story properly even...
It's more likely there was zero detail because the guy's claim was a bucket of poo.
|
I expect it was, but in the interests of balance, this being the BBC, I have expected to hear his silly explanations anyway.
I cant see why the BBC would run this story, the guy even has a foreign sounding name.
If you had linked the same story from the Mail Iffy, you would have got the usual anti-Mail slant, but when its from the BBC, what is one to make of that - if you took that text, sprinkled some Hitchins or Littlejohn comment on it, you would never guess the source. It just tickled me.
|
>> Im afraid the reporting is poor too, its written like a Sun story.
What about it is poor Stu? I thought it came across as quite factual - is that what you mean?
|
>> What about it is poor Stu? I thought it came across as quite factual -
>> is that what you mean?
Ok, I've seen your reply to iffy. Fair enough.
|
>>What about it is poor Stu?<<
As above. So far as I can see, its a story about a man with a foreign sounding name, making a crazy financial claim with a quick listing of his outrageous expenses, but no explanation of the detail for his side of it and why the judge dismissed his claims.
|
...why the judge dismissed his claims...
In the report, it says the judge found the claims variously: 'excessive, highly speculative, exaggerated, and not supported by medical evidence'.
How many more reasons do you want?
|
>> holes are in the claimant's story.
>> The judge saw through them, hence the pay out.
So giving the guy 12 grand was a sign of disapproval was it? I suppose compared to the 18 he had been offered out of court, perhaps it was.
I would like to see people like that fined for wasting everyone's time, and their lawyers tortured to death on television or some other appropriate penalty.
Enough is enough.
Mind you some of these rail and tube barrier johnnies stand in serious need of a kicking. But only some of them. Prats claiming damages for the square root of FA are worse, and there are more and more of them it seems.
Perhaps it's just the BBC winding us up and there aren't many such in reality. Perhaps.
|
>> Perhaps it's just the BBC winding us up and there aren't many such in reality.
>> Perhaps.
I can verify that it's not just the BBC - I read the story in the aforementioned Daily Mail this morning in Asda while me and Mrs F were eating our cooked breakfasts; my treat.
|
...my treat...
Reading the Daily Mail is a treat for anyone.
|
|
How did the stories differ Focus?
|
>> How did the stories differ Focus?
Without looking it up, I came away with the same impression - that the judge had effectively punished the claimant for his unreasonable requests.
I think there were more words in the DM, as I would expect - BBC news website stories tend to be brief, whereas from my somewhat limited experience of reading the DM, they like to go in for more story telling (in a good way).
|
>> Without looking it up
Just tried to look it up, and after 4 attempts gave up! Am I going mad? Anyone else see it?
|
|
Had a quick look, cant find it.
|
I'm sure I read it in the Mail, but I can't find any mention of it in either the paper or online.
Oh dear.
|
|
Must be in the Sun surely
|
|
That was my first choice - wasn't allowed to buy that :)
|
|
I think btw the best bit is his claim for ready meals - I presume he only developed the need to eat after the incident...
|
|
Well it was a good laugh... I must try suing some of our passengers for causing me stress when I ask for money for a ticket and all I get is abuse... I could do with 12 grand...
|
If the offer has been mentioned than the likelihood is that it was what's known as a 'Part 36 Offer'. Refusal will have the consequence that, barring exceptional circumstances, the claimant will be liable for costs incurred after the offer, including those of the hearing. I doubt he'll see much of his £12k but, unless he was funded by ATE insurance I'm not sure that LUL will get their costs either.
Biggest part of an award in injury cases is going to be loss of earnings. No earnings no loss!!!
|
i want to claim having walked up the 193 steps at covent garden tube station last week having missed the lifts
the wife is still rasping
|
Chancer's damages cut - Tooslow
