SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Tom]

My testicles in my 50s.

 

[Scouse]

My testicles in my 50s.

They give out random spam?

 

[Scouse]

Woman sexually assaulted on plane refused compensation

The 24-year-old shares the impact of her ordeal on a flight from Qatar and being refused compensation.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, I feel for her - I really do. However, why do we offer "compensation" paid by taxpayers for anything like this?

We can't afford to do normal shit, why are the taxpayer on the hook for compensating people for the actions of criminals?

 

[Deebs]

Woman sexually assaulted on plane refused compensation

The 24-year-old shares the impact of her ordeal on a flight from Qatar and being refused compensation.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, I feel for her - I really do. However, why do we offer "compensation" paid by taxpayers for anything like this?

We can't afford to do normal shit, why are the taxpayer on the hook for compensating people for the actions of criminals?

Surely the operator of the plane is responsible for the security inside the plane, therefore they should pay up.

 

[Scouse]

Surely the operator of the plane is responsible for the security inside the plane, therefore they should pay up.

I mean, if there's compensation due, then yes. But I'd argue that the plane isn't responsible for the behaviour of the passengers on the plane to that extent.

It's generally unreasonable to hold a company to account for the criminal actions of it's service users. If someone did it on a bus, do you think the bus company should be liable?

 

[Gwadien]

Shitty one, it's in a similar vein to NHS compensation when they fuck up (which costs us billions).

Then again I suppose it's really shit to say sorry your perpetrator wasn't very rich so you're not getting shit.

Maybe force the guy to work in prison and give everything to her? But then you open another can of worms of why are we paying £50k a year for EACH prisoner which comes from the taxpayer?

 

[Deebs]

I mean, if there's compensation due, then yes. But I'd argue that the plane isn't responsible for the behaviour of the passengers on the plane to that extent.

It's generally unreasonable to hold a company to account for the criminal actions of it's service users. If someone did it on a bus, do you think the bus company should be liable?

Last time I checked the airline operator was responsible for the safety of the passengers on the plane. To be fair buses are a little different to a jumbo hurtling around at 500mph with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

 

[Gwadien]

Last time I checked the airline operator was responsible for the safety of the passengers on the plane. To be fair buses are a little different to a jumbo hurtling around at 500mph with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Unless he had a criminal record, I fail to see how its the fault of the airline?

I mean it sets a weird precedent - have women only sections in planes?

 

[Deebs]

Unless he had a criminal record, I fail to see how its the fault of the airline?

I mean it sets a weird precedent - have women only sections in planes?

Read what I said, airlines are responsible for the safety of the passengers when on a plane under guidance from governing bodies but ultimately the staff are provided by the airline operator.

 

[Scouse]

Last time I checked the airline operator was responsible for the safety of the passengers on the plane. To be fair buses are a little different to a jumbo hurtling around at 500mph with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Are they? They literally called the company Airbus after all.
The airline is responsible for safe passage of the passengers under normal circumstances. If the airline is to be held responsible for criminal activity then they should pay out if terrorists kill people.

Shitty one, it's in a similar vein to NHS compensation when they fuck up (which costs us billions).

If you've paid for a service, you are due safe service. If they fuck up due to negligence, then they should rightly pay.

The airline wasn't negligent when it wasn't monitoring passengers for illicit fingering.


(There's a whole other dimension to this story where if we tell humans that <insert crime here> should devestate them then they become utterly devestated when and if <said crime> actually happens - it's like societally prompted snowflakification - we reduce mental resilience and ability to recover from said crime. However, we won't get into that because, wow, the potential rage )

 

[Deebs]

Are they? They literally called the company Airbus after all.
The airline is responsible for safe passage of the passengers under normal circumstances. If the airline is to be held responsible for criminal activity then they should pay out if terrorists kill people.


If you've paid for a service, you are due safe service. If they fuck up due to negligence, then they should rightly pay.

The airline wasn't negligent when it wasn't monitoring passengers for illicit fingering.


(There's a whole other dimension to this story where if we tell humans that <insert crime here> should devestate them then they become utterly devestated when and if <said crime> actually happens - it's like societally prompted snowflakification - we reduce mental resilience and ability to recover from said crime. However, we won't get into that because, wow, the potential rage )

Um can you tell me which airline is responsible for screening all luggage both in hold and carry on? Last time I checked it was the airport's responsibility to ensure only allowed items get through baggage check.

 

[Raven]

I feel for her, but fuck all to do with me, don't see why any tax should be involved.

The only time tax should be used as compensation is when a public or government body fucks up.

 

[Scouse]

Um can you tell me which airline is responsible for screening all luggage both in hold and carry on? Last time I checked it was the airport's responsibility to ensure only allowed items get through baggage check.

That would be the airport's responsibility, not the airlines.

And in the event of a terrorist act, it would still have to be demonstrated that the airport was negligent.

Stopping people from fingering you whilst you're asleep on a plane is NOT the airline's responsibility. Where are they negligent?

 

[Deebs]

That would be the airport's responsibility, not the airlines.

And in the event of a terrorist act, it would still have to be demonstrated that the airport was negligent.

Stopping people from fingering you whilst you're asleep on a plane is NOT the airline's responsibility. Where are they negligent?

I am still confused I have always thought the Captain and therefore his staff are responsible for the safety and well being of passengers on his aircraft.

 

[DaGaffer]

Read what I said, airlines are responsible for the safety of the passengers when on a plane under guidance from governing bodies but ultimately the staff are provided by the airline operator.

Reading the article, the cabin crew dealt with the situation as soon as they became aware of it. In any court case the airline will use "the test of a reasonable person", and in this case how could the cabin crew know in the middle of the night what was going on until she reacted? They dealt with the problem as soon as they were aware, they literally couldn't do anything else unless we're advocating shackling passengers to their seats for the duration of the flight?

If a company is negligent, then throw the book at them, but I don't see any negligence here.

 

[Scouse]

Either way, she shouldn't be getting any sort of payout from taxpayers...

 

[Scouse]

Get us out of those pesky european things!!

Met police’s facial recognition plans fall foul of European law, says watchdog

Use of cameras at Notting Hill carnival could have ‘chilling effect’ on people’s rights, says equality regulator

www.theguardian.com

I mean. They need to drop the E from ECHR. It's harder to object to a court of human rights.