Car Crash - Child Injury claim

poet123

There's nothing wrong with this as a general principle,

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

but before you try to apply it to threads like this you may want to hang around for a while and watch what happens.

And you think I haven't? I have been around quite a while on the forum, all of them, and have seen many a thread of this nature and I don't share your negative view of the way it usually pans out.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

A range of opinions within any given debate is obviously beneficial as a general rule, but that is not absolute and doesn't mean that every opinion is valid and/or constructive irrespective of where and when it is expressed.

You may have a point, but who is the arbitor of this? As you say it may not be universally true that a range of opinion is beneficial, but more often than not I find it holds true, and I believe it does here. What is constructive is subjective.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

The tendency of what is a constant cycle of members in this forum to jump into specific threads relating to personal injury litigation and throw in opinions based on little more than media sensationalism and pub talk irrespective of the specific issue within the thread as predictable as it is tiresome, and it benefits nobody, not least the individual who comes in to this forum seeking help.

It is also as predictable as it is tiresome that some professionals forget that the public do have a vested interest in the judiciary and its satellites, and that there should be opinion and comment which counterbalances theirs in order to make them understand that real people lie behind the stats. Real people who do a have code of conduct, a morality, and who are not afraid to say they disagree or accept that because it is common it is right. I think it does benefit someone, a lot of someones,....... society.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

That person is inevitably forgotten in the ensuing aftermath, which undermines the purpose of this forum as one that exists to guide members of the public in matters that they need assistance with.

That person is not forgotten, they may not get the universal approval they seek or they may be reminded that not everyone sees things the same way. The purpose of this forum is not to collude with those who seek a "get around" but to give honest comment on question posed.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

I'm sure you would agree that comments and opinion have their time and place.
We are simply disagreeing as to what that appropriate time and place is in this case. Yet another area where we are going to have to agree to disagree.

In real life comments and opinion have their time and place, but on a forum? I think that any platform where a query is raised, a point made, a situation explained, is the arena for response of whatever nature the poster considers necessary, so long as it is couched in language that maintains civility. So, yes, we will have to agree to disagree again.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Obviously I condone neither. But as I said, I have quite deliberately not entered that debate. If you want a discussion on any aspect of the system or the people who make use of it, I would be happy to play my part. That would require another thread, but quite genuinely if you do want to discuss this further go ahead and make that thread and I'll gladly contribute.

That goes to my first point; that those who give professional advice regardless of the obvious issues raised, say a lot when they do not enter the debate with at least a caveat that all claims should be kosher. I don't agree that another thread is required to further that discussion, what more pertinent a forum than one where the principle under debate is aptly demonstrated and gives a baseline for moving the thread forward?

geri1965_2

poet123 wrote: »

That goes to my first point; that those who give professional advice regardless of the obvious issues raised, say a lot when they do not enter the debate with at least a caveat that all claims should be kosher.

I think most of us who work in insurance would consider that a given, and I do not consider it necessary to state this every time I make a post.

poet123

geri1965 wrote: »

I think most of us who work in insurance would consider that a given, and I do not consider it necessary to state this every time I make a post.

I did say when obvious issues are present. Sometimes professional experiences also make you jaded, and blur the lines of what the (more honest) man in the street would think merited comment.

marywooyeah

Quentin wrote: »

And this was no accident! You don't drive into lamposts purely by accident!

lol, do most people do it on purpose then?!!

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote:

It is also as predictable as it is tiresome that some professionals forget that the public do have a vested interest in the judiciary and its satellites, and that there should be opinion and comment which counterbalances theirs in order to make them understand that real people lie behind the stats. Real people who do a have code of conduct, a morality, and who are not afraid to say they disagree or accept that because it is common it is right. I think it does benefit someone, a lot of someones,....... society.

You're planting yourself on a bit of a high horse with this comment, with a tone that is a little too patronising in my view. The irony is that my day to day job brings me into contact with members of the public who do have a genuine vested interest in the legal system because they are directly involved in it. The suggestion therefore that I could dismiss the role of the public in debate surrounding the legal system, or ignore the vested interest of the public in such a system, is utterly absurd.

poet123 wrote:

That goes to my first point; that those who give professional advice regardless of the obvious issues raised, say a lot when they do not enter the debate with at least a caveat that all claims should be kosher.

You're edging towards that high horse again. What exactly does it 'say' when I choose not to enter a debate of that nature? What is it exactly about my profession that should compel me to enter a debate that I have had countless times over the years and do not wish to re enter at this point? Given your previous assertions about it being the subjective view of the poster that determines whether or not to comment in a thread, it's interesting that you seem to be suggesting that I should be compelled to comment on something when I don't want to, let alone that you can make judgments about me from that complete lack of comment.

Crazy_Jamie

marywooyeah wrote: »

lol, do most people do it on purpose then?!!

No, but something can still be your fault even if you did not intend it to happen. That is the whole concept of negligence, where people do not intend collisions to happen but cause them due to negligence. Genuine accidents, where nobody is to blame, do happen, but in threads such as this we're generally talking about injuries that have been caused by negligence.

People often come into these threads questioning why compensation should be due for an 'accident'. The answer is that they were accidents in the sense that they were not intended, but nevertheless they were caused by a party's negligence, and as such they give rise to a claim for compensation. If the crash had been intentional then a criminal conviction may well follow.

That's why Quentin phrased his post in the way that he did, because people do not drive into lampposts without being responsible for that collision. They may not have intended it, but it occurred due to their negligence, and therefore is not an 'accident' in the sense that it does not give rise to liability.

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

You're planting yourself on a bit of a high horse with this comment, with a tone that is a little too patronising in my view. The irony is that my day to day job brings me into contact with members of the public who do have a genuine vested interest in the legal system because they are directly involved in it. The suggestion therefore that I could dismiss the role of the public in debate surrounding the legal system, or ignore the vested interest of the public in such a system, is utterly absurd.
You're edging towards that high horse again. What exactly does it 'say' when I choose not to enter a debate of that nature? What is it exactly about my profession that should compel me to enter a debate that I have had countless times over the years and do not wish to re enter at this point? Given your previous assertions about it being the subjective view of the poster that determines whether or not to comment in a thread, it's interesting that you seem to be suggesting that I should be compelled to comment on something when I don't want to, let alone that you can make judgments about me from that complete lack of comment.

I think if you re read your previous posts re who should be allowed to comment on this kind of thread and where you consider comments are appropriate you may see where I took my lead from in terms of tone and content. It was you who rather patronisingly stated that this thread was not the appropriate place, and implied that those without a professional back ground should make comments elsehwere.

Nor did I say you should be compelled to answer, rather that if you don't it transmits a message to the lay reader. You may not wish this to be the case, but that is what happens.

So, if you consider I am on a high horse, I consider you saddled up first and I merely climbed up alongside you.

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

I think if you re read your previous posts re who should be allowed to comment on this kind of thread and where you consider comments are appropriate you may see where I took my lead from in terms of tone and content. It was you who rather patronisingly stated that this thread was not the appropriate place, and implied that those without a professional back ground should make comments elsehwere.

It's surprising that you've managed to misrepresent my position in such a spectacular fashion. The issue has always been the relevance of posted comments, not the qualifications of those who post them. I have not once suggested that those without qualifications should post elsewhere.

In reality though, this discussion is increasoningly becoming cliched internet debate fodder. This latest post, which amounts to little more than 'well, you did it first', takes us no further forward, and continuing along this strand would serve no useful purpose. Notwithstanding that I have posted one further question below which may warrant a response, this discussion has largely run its course.

poet123 wrote:

Nor did I say you should be compelled to answer, rather that if you don't it transmits a message to the lay reader. You may not wish this to be the case, but that is what happens.

You didn't answer my first and more important question. I will ask again; what message exactly does it transmit?

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

It's surprising that you've managed to misrepresent my position in such a spectacular fashion. The issue has always been the relevance of posted comments, not the qualifications of those who post them. I have not once suggested that those without qualifications should post elsewhere.

In reality though, this discussion is increasoningly becoming cliched internet debate fodder. This latest post, which amounts to little more than 'well, you did it first', takes us no further forward, and continuing along this strand would serve no useful purpose. Notwithstanding that I have posted one further question below which may warrant a response, this discussion has largely run its course.You didn't answer my first and more important question. I will ask again; what message exactly does it transmit?

Your suggestion was that a lot of opinion on here (at least that is the issue we are discussing so I assume you mean on here)is borne out of "pub talk and media sensationalism". The inference is that only those with an insiders knowledge can cut through this hype and post informed, relevant opinion, or maybe the inference is that you believe that only those whose opinions mirror your own can have come to them by reliable means, any other opinion must be formed by media sensationalism et al?

Look, people post as they see fit on an internet forum, it is not up to other posters to be the arbiter of where or what is posted. You and another poster set yourselves up on this thread in exactly that manner. Why you did it is largely irrelevant, save to say that again you made a judgement call on what was and was not constructive or appropriate. No tit for tat as you call it would have ensued had you not taken this tack. You post as you see fit and leave others to do likewise.

When your posts are met with a similar (and deliberate)high handed tone and manner suddenly it is me who is on a high horse. And yet you cite irony.;)

What message does it transmit? I would have thought that was obvious, it implies that you are not interested in the validity of a claim and are quite happy to assist whoever with whatever regardless of whether they should be pursuing a particular course of action in the first place.

As said before (and from which I assumed you would have gleaned the answer to the question you have asked yet again) if you answer with the inclusion of a caveat then you are at least showing a measure of integrity. You will not of course agree with this and will no doubt cite many reasons why you would not/could not/should not do so, that is your prerogative, as it is mine to hold the view I do.

Crazy_Jamie

Your ability to ignore what I actually write in favour of holding me to opinions that you infer on matters that we haven't actually discussed is staggering. I have never actually discussed the various opinions on personal injury litigation with you. My issue with you began with your interpretation of the words used in the OP, and continued on to the issue of whether matters of general discussion have a place in threads that request specific information. Yet in the course of this discussion you have seen fit to infer my opinion on matters that we have not discussed.

In fact, your faith in your ability to infer things in what people say has gone further than that in this thread. You have also chosen to suggest that the OP is lying on the basis of an inference that is shaky at best, and question the integrity of members of this forum who use their professional knowledge to help others on the basis of a frankly absurd inference based on what they don't say. The latter in particular leaves something of a sour taste.

I've already spent far more time going around in circles on this than I should have. I expect that a reply to this post will follow, but at this point I have no intention of wasting any more time on this.