Sick Priorities

spen666

Charlotte Church gets £600,000 Max Clifford £1m etc for having someone listen to their phone calls



Soldiers losing limbs fighting for their country or victims of road accidents suffering similar injuries will be lucky to get £100,000 in compensation



My thoughts on it are as the title of this post says and are expanded on in my blog. http://www.spen666.wordpress.com





Its a sick sense of priorities we have in this country.

EKE_38BPM

Ah, but Charlotte Church won't be able to enter the Paralympics, will she? So she's not a gold medal prospect and thus, a potential national hero. The money is to compensate her for that.

You're right. I was just making a (sick) joke. Some things (such as compensation amounts) just make no sense to me.

DonDaddyD

Spen, this is one thing that if you made an e-campaign or a Government HoC e-petition I would wholeheartedly support.

daviesee

Finally.
A state of the Nation thread that everyone may agree on.

Blindingly obvious and bleeding annoying! :evil:

clarkey cat

Soldiers losing limbs fighting for their country or victims of road accidents suffering similar injuries will be lucky to get £100,000 in compensation

One aspect of the Help for Heroes thing that gets up my nose is how the politicians have jumped on the back of the charity's fantastic work. The charity wouldnt need to exist if the government looked after its injured troops properly. Same with the Royal British Legion.

rjsterry

What have the two figures got to do with each other other than the word compensation? Not comparing apples with apples. The Church case was an out of court settlement with News International, and it was only £300,000 damages - presumably the rest being towards legal costs. The amount of money will be largely based on commercial priorities - the cost to NI of a full court case (it was reported that they were using a team of 25 lawyers for the Church case) and the associated negative publicity would presumably cost NI far more. This is quite different from injury compensation; if you were comparing military injury to, say, an injury sustained in a tube accident, then you might be on to something.

Furthermore, in the Church case, the party paying the compensation is a large multinational - the claim needs to 'hurt' in order for it to have some deterrent effect. What are you suggesting with military compensation? That a team of lawyers be sent to Afghanistan to recover the costs from the Taliban insurgent who made the IED. As the government is footing the bill, the amount of compensation is necessarily limited.

notsoblue

Nah, RJS, they're totally the same. BROKEN BRITAIN.

t4tomo

Exactly one is paid for by a multinational corporation, the other comes out of your taxes. Its apples and pears.

mudcow007

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spen, this is one thing that if you made an e-campaign or a Government HoC e-petition I would wholeheartedly support.

+100000000000

rick_chasey

mudcow007 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spen, this is one thing that if you made an e-campaign or a Government HoC e-petition I would wholeheartedly support.

+100000000000

What would the campaign be for?

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spen, this is one thing that if you made an e-campaign or a Government HoC e-petition I would wholeheartedly support.

+100000000000

What would the campaign be for?

Basically it would be a facebook page to make the government more aware of the sickerer priorities in the UK

PBo

dhope wrote:

Basically it would be a facebook page to make the government more aware of the sickerer priorities in the UK

This has just induced a coffee-nose-keyboard incident!!!

I must say that I am on the apples and oranges side of this - there is no meaningful campaign/petition that can be made on this, as there is no valid comparison.......

daviesee

daviesee wrote:

Finally.
A state of the Nation thread that everyone may agree on.

Guess I was wrong :roll:

spen666 wrote:

Charlotte Church gets £600,000 Max Clifford £1m etc for having someone listen to their phone calls

Okay, it may be apples and oranges but how hurt have these people been? Diddums. Crazy.
If you want to hurt the multinational - fine them and put the money to charity.
For the handicapped possibly?

iPete

Spam?

rick_chasey

NOTW didn't have to pay her that much anyway.

It was an out of court settlement. May have been much less had it gone through court.

NOTW probably figured the damage having the case being dragged through court was bigger than £600,000....

dhope

daviesee wrote:

Okay, it may be apples and oranges but how hurt have these people been? Diddums. Crazy.

And the McCanns? Or do we assume that the McCanns were hurt by the phone tapping but CC wasn't? What's the measure of celebrity?
Another 'state of the nation' moan is this assumption that because someone is rich or famous then it's okay to dismiss sleights against them with crys of "Oh, poor little rich boy/girl, can they not afford to buy their nth Ferrari this year?". In CC's case she's a celebrity because she sings well and has done since she was too young to understand what a celebrity is. Then she met a famous boy but it didn't work out. Tabloid fodder by circumstance but "aw diddums?", really?

If only it were all so simple.

rjsterry

dhope wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Okay, it may be apples and oranges but how hurt have these people been? Diddums. Crazy.

And the McCanns? Or do we assume that the McCanns were hurt by the phone tapping but CC wasn't? What's the measure of celebrity?
Another 'state of the nation' moan is this assumption that because someone is rich or famous then it's okay to dismiss sleights against them with crys of "Oh, poor little rich boy/girl, can they not afford to buy their nth Ferrari this year?". In CC's case she's a celebrity because she sings well and has done since she was too young to understand what a celebrity is. Then she met a famous boy but it didn't work out. Tabloid fodder by circumstance but "aw diddums?", really?

If only it were all so simple.

And in CC's case, a large part of their claim against NI was the intrusion into her parents' lives.

BTW, are all spen's blog posts going to be trailed on BR?

daviesee

dhope wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Okay, it may be apples and oranges but how hurt have these people been? Diddums. Crazy.

And the McCanns? Or do we assume that the McCanns were hurt by the phone tapping but CC wasn't? What's the measure of celebrity?
Another 'state of the nation' moan is this assumption that because someone is rich or famous then it's okay to dismiss sleights against them with crys of "Oh, poor little rich boy/girl, can they not afford to buy their nth Ferrari this year?". In CC's case she's a celebrity because she sings well and has done since she was too young to understand what a celebrity is. Then she met a famous boy but it didn't work out. Tabloid fodder by circumstance but "aw diddums?", really?

If only it were all so simple.

Illegal phone tapping, false allegations, slurs and defamation of character. All should be punished.
Hurt feelings. Diddums.
Hey. It's my opinion but it's only an opinion.

bails87

Yep, wasn't it due to the dragging up of her mother's medical history, use of it to bully her into revealing info about CC etc?

I fyou join the army you expect to be sent to fight. If you're sent to fight a war you expect people to try to fight back, therefore being blown up is an expected occupational hazard for a frontline soldier.

Being harrassed, having your relative's confidential medical history used against you and being illegally spied on and 'hacked' is not an expected occupational hazard for someone who's good at singing.

I suspect spen knows all this already and is just trying to start one of those threads where everyone argues with everyone, including themselves

notsoblue

I think the real crime here is that soldiers are being paid LESS than most of us here! They're FIGHTING for our COUNTRY! When was the last time any of us was shot at?! What kind of sick sick nation do we live in that pays good honest brave soldiers who put their lives on the line for the crown less than some civil servant sat at a desk all day?

I'm glad someone (spen666) has had the guts to bring this taboo subject to everyone's attention.

BROKEN BRITAIN.

Can you talk about how high footballer's salaries are next, Spen?

clarkey cat

That is soooooooo true NSB. They are fighting for us and they are heroes.

bompington

notsoblue wrote:

I think the real crime here is that soldiers are being paid LESS than most of us here! They're FIGHTING for our COUNTRY! When was the last time any of us was shot at?! What kind of sick sick nation do we live in that pays good honest brave soldiers who put their lives on the line for the crown less than some civil servant sat at a desk all day?

I'm glad someone (spen666) has had the guts to bring this taboo subject to everyone's attention.

BROKEN BRITAIN.

Can you talk about how high footballer's salaries are next, Spen?

No, it should be lawyers I think... after all 1/2 CC's payout was costs...

notsoblue

clarkey cat wrote:

That is soooooooo true NSB. They are fighting for us and they are heroes.

lyk dis if u cri evry time

notsoblue

bompington wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I think the real crime here is that soldiers are being paid LESS than most of us here! They're FIGHTING for our COUNTRY! When was the last time any of us was shot at?! What kind of sick sick nation do we live in that pays good honest brave soldiers who put their lives on the line for the crown less than some civil servant sat at a desk all day?

I'm glad someone (spen666) has had the guts to bring this taboo subject to everyone's attention.

BROKEN BRITAIN.

Can you talk about how high footballer's salaries are next, Spen?

No, it should be lawyers I think... after all 1/2 CC's payout was costs...

And *then* the footballers right?

Greg T

clarkey cat wrote:

That is soooooooo true NSB. They are fighting for us and they are heroes.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;

They go where they are sent.

bails87

notsoblue wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

That is soooooooo true NSB. They are fighting for us and they are heroes.

lyk dis if u cri evry time

SPORT ARE TROUPES!

daviesee

bails87 wrote:

Being harrassed, having your relative's confidential medical history used against you and being illegally spied on and 'hacked' is not an expected occupational hazard for someone who's good at singing.

And you are missing the point.
All of the above are illegal and should be punished.
Compensation for hurt feelings is a linked but seperate issue. :roll:

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Being harrassed, having your relative's confidential medical history used against you and being illegally spied on and 'hacked' is not an expected occupational hazard for someone who's good at singing.

And you are missing the point.
All of the above are illegal and should be punished.
Compensation for hurt feelings is a linked but seperate issue. :roll:

Eh?

They settled out of court.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Being harrassed, having your relative's confidential medical history used against you and being illegally spied on and 'hacked' is not an expected occupational hazard for someone who's good at singing.

And you are missing the point.
All of the above are illegal and should be punished.
Compensation for hurt feelings is a linked but seperate issue. :roll:

Eh?

They settled out of court.

Sounds like someone doesn't support our troops...

ಠ_ಠ

DonDaddyD

The point Spen is making is this.

(1) Person A has their privacy invaded is hurt (emotionally).

(2) Person B has their life physically limited/ruined temporarily or permanently and suffers hurt (emotional and physical).

(3) Person A is a celebrity and brings with them publcity and is paid £600,000 (one would argue that the amount paid out was down for publicity reasons on News Corps part, it looks good, they are saying sorry).

(4) Person B is not a celebrity but while is, without question, the far worse off victim is paid £100,000.

The point is the disparity in what we consider justice and recompense for those that have suffered. Yes Charlotte Chruch and her family have suffered. £600k worth of suffering? Compared to £100k for a person who will likely suffer for the rest of their life?

The point falls down because Milly Dowler family were said to have been offered a £2mil settlement.

bails87

News Int chose to pay that much. They didn't have to. They weren't ordered to by a court.

I trust everyone who thinks that CC didn't deserve the money will be forefeiting a portion of their wages to make sure they never earn more than an 18 year old squaddie?