Lifa Assurance - payout when killed commiting criminal act?

Bigsmak

mikey72 wrote: »

Motorists who do 35mph in a 30 zone, park on the zig zags outside schools, etc, etc.....................

People who park on zig zags outsides schools - Yes, this is putting childrens lives at risk and the world would be better off without these people

People who park in the bus lanes and double yellows - Just because they are B#*@^ds.. but also, this it indicative of their nature, being selfish and not following the rules. The world would be better off without these people.

People who do 35 in a 30 zone - no (as the law would let them off as well) people who do 45 in a 30 zone - Yes ....

I could go on...

I am however only 'slightly' exaggerating my viewpoints here.. I wouldn't actually want anyone to die.. However I am all for taking away peoples access to the human rights bills when they choose (READ --- CHOOSE ---) to become criminals... I am all for hard labour and I think we could get all the criminals out of jails painting fences / picking up litter / repairing roads then the country would be a better place..

And don't get me started on benefits cheats..

jamesd

vaio wrote: »

Hand on heart I can say there isn't a railway safety system in existence than can be broken by cutting a wire. They all fail safe.

For one wire I believe that it is a design requirement, though I don't believe that in a complex system it's one that is always met, even though I believe that people try hard to achieve it.

Are you really claiming that it's a design requirement to survive a hacksaw cutting through a bundle of wires and causing random shorts as well as failure of a lot of cables nearly simultaneously, while also stopping trains without injury to passengers regardless of where the trains are and what position the passengers are standing or sitting in at the time?

Do emergency stops on enough trains and I expect injuries even if all signaling systems switch to the safest available signal positions perfectly. Now add lots of random shorts and I'm not so sure that everything is going to survive and work as intended.

Now add in the injuries from consequential events like passengers on the track after stops and prospective passengers switching to more dangerous modes of travel.

Going back to trains colliding, though, do you really believe that the alternative procedures to pass signals that are in safe positions that are more likely to rely on humans are likely to be as safe as the signaling and automatic stopping systems that are being bypassed? Given the history of accidents I don't believe it. I do expect such procedures to be used and to increase the chance of an accident.

vaio

you might be right but I doubt it and I suspect if you were then Network Rail & the media would be shouting it from the rooftops.

a quick google and looking at what Network rail have to say about it, they are happy to let us know there are up to 8 cable thefts per day but don't mention a single case of a passenger being injured as a result, preferring to tell us about the dangers of being injured if you are stealing cable or about the £800 per minute per train delay fine they have to pay to the affected train operating companies

System

The issue of whether or not his family deserve to be punished, or might be totally innocent, is a difficult one.

It is enshrined in British law that all punishments are collectively meted out to the family of the culprit. Breadwinners are sent to prison, fines are imposed, people lose their houses. It is clearly intentional that innocent wives and children are made to suffer too.

It's hard to see how it could be otherwise, but the fact is, that is how it works.

vaio

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

....It is enshrined in British law that all punishments are collectively meted out to the family of the culprit.........

Nah, innocent family members don’t (can’t) get punished by the legal system other than having to endure the consequences of the punishment of the actual transgressor.

That’s a consequence rather than “collective punishment enshrined in law” and I’d go further and say that the law would rightly protect innocent family members from punishment by the state for the actions of another family member.

If I get a fine/jail for being a naughty boy there is no way that my wife/brother/dad/son have any responsibility for it.

Careful_with_that_Axe

vaio wrote: »

Nah, innocent family members don’t (can’t) get punished by the legal system other than having to endure the consequences of the punishment of the actual transgressor.

These are other interesting questions relating to these circumstances. If the cost of the damages were sought from the estate of the deceased, it would be inevitable that the remaining family would be penalised.

How would it be perceived amongst those who feel that the cost of damages should be reclaimed when the transgressor is deceased and it would be the family that paid either directly or indirectly through insurance.

Please forgive clumsy wording. I haven't had enough caffeine yet!

vaio

Also in need of caffeine top up….

If damages are sought from the estate of a dead criminal that’s no different from fining a live criminal.

In both cases his wife would not get the money she would otherwise have got from her husband (or his estate) but that’s a consequence of the punishment not some spurious idea of “collective punishment enshrined in law”.

Any logical construction of “collective punishment enshrined in law” must include using the wife’s assets (rather than the husbands estate) to cover the fine/damages which is just not the case under our legal system.

Careful_with_that_Axe

vaio wrote: »

Also in need of caffeine top up….

If damages are sought from the estate of a dead criminal that’s no different from fining a live criminal.

I do see it as different. The dead person can't be made to suffer anymore, so the remaining family are suffering instead, albeit as a result of his actions.

vaio

It’s tending towards semantics but………..

“consequence” = dead persons assets used to satisfy damages claim/fines thus wife gets less or maybe even nothing from the estate.

“collective punishment enshrined in law” = dead persons assets get used to satisfy damages claim/fines and if there isn’t enough then the wife is "collectively" responsible with dead husband so ends up having to make up the shortfall from her own independent assets

Careful_with_that_Axe

S'ok. I'm a pedant too.

I understand what you mean.