First aid & Blood donations

[ron freeman]

All pilots should have basic first aid training & if no medical reasons... a pint of blood would not go a miss !

[colin keightley]

Getting basic first aid training is always a good idea but remember if you dont get an official certification at the end of it your not covered under the good samaritan act

[GlennP]

Due to such litigation you have off duty medics walking past the dying and injured in America. Sad when it gets to that.

Does the club arrange any kind of training with st johns ambulance? Just a few guys to come down before a club night and take a basic course in first aid?

Last time I did first aid I was wearing green jumpers and saying dib dib dib.

Having read the sad news of 2 deaths in morrocco and knowing what the medical facilities are like a first aider or medic would be worth their weight in gold out there.

[Fingers]

We are back to the same problem, fear of getting sued!!;

Gaz mentioned to me something he heard from an American before the government changed the laws to allow these money grabbing lawyers to sue anyone for anything at all, and make big money doing it.

"allow the no win no fee ambulance chasing lawyers in and your country is fcuk"

How right that is.

Can the law be changed back to basic common sense values about your own responsibility as a human so these ambulance chasing lawyers make no money and crawl under the stone they came from?

More people suffer from benefiting in this industry.

[GlennP]

Nothing called "the good Samaritan act" exists under britsh statute law. The term good Samaritan act comes from the us/Canada.

If you can show you acted in good faith and to the best of your abilities in an emergency involving life or death you would be very unlucky to face a jury and ever be convicted.

However if you offered the casualty a cigar and a wee dram instead of CPR you might be in trouble.

[gary stenhouse]

we are like this because of debt, in america it is because of no nhs very little sick pay etc. so if you have an accident in the us you try to pin it on someone to save your premium increase, then when you have surgery you sue your dr for neglegence. in florida now most good dr are leavingas litigation is so bad there now. my ex baby siter and neighbour has his own practice in florida. and back in 88 he was paying a high percentage of his earnings in mal practice

[AlastairW]

Ok lets get these out of the way first........

What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.


How can you tell when your lawyer is lying?
His lips move.

What’s the difference between a lawyer and a boxing referee?
A boxing referee doesn’t get paid more for a longer fight.

How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
Three. One to climb the ladder, one to shake the ladder and one to sue the ladder company.

What do you get when you cross a lawyer with The Godfather?
An offer you cannot understand.

Why are lawyers never attacked by sharks?
Professional courtesy.

How many commercial lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
How many can you afford?

Two lawyers were walking along negotiating a case "Look", said one, "let's be honest with each other".
"OK, you first", replied the other.
That was the end of the discussion.

What's the difference between God and a lawyer?
God doesn't think he's a lawyer.

What's the difference between a lawyer and a leech?
A leech quits sucking your blood after you die.

What's the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?
There are skid marks in front of the dog.

What's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?
A doberman pinscher.

What did the lawyer name his daughter?
Sue.

Why should lawyers be buried 100 feet deep?
Because deep down, they're really good people.

How do you save a drowning lawyer?
Take your foot off his head.

What does a lawyer and a sperm have in common?
Both have about a 1 in 3 million chance of becoming a human being.

What is the difference between a lawyer and a herd of buffalo?
The lawyer charges more.

Why did the post office recall the new lawyer stamps?
Because people could not tell which side to spit on.




Despite protestations to the contrary, there has been absolutely no change in the law with regards to the ability to sue people for compensation, and frankly the argument that "no win no fee" agreements encourage lawyers to take on cases and sue is daft. Just think about it for a second - if you do not win you do not get paid. So how many dodgy cases are you going to take on on that basis Steve?

If it is about money grabbing lawyers making money, then the only cases they will take on are the 100% certain ones. Given that this is the case, how has anything changed? What you have now is a situation where because of no win no fee agreements, lawyers will only take cases that are guaranteed successful. In the days of legal aid, lawyers would be happy to take on riskier cases, as they knew that they would still get paid.

What has happened is that there has been a huge increase in claim handling companies, who have absolutely no legal qualifications, and who do literally ambulance chase, or sit in A&E departments. They then get a list of people who have been injured, get some totally untrained person to go and take a statement, and then pass it on to the lawyer. The claims company gets a cut. The lawyers organise themselves to handle cases of this type, install expensive computer systems, case management software etc. The "pot of gold" for them is a group of passengers on a bus. Potentially 30 or 40 people who may well have a claim, and very little work for them. Bus companies now effectively self insure themselves. They pay out compensation on any claim, as the excess is set at some extortionate figure (I saw one where it was £250,000 ). Does anyone want to have a guess as to how many CCTV cameras are now installed on a new bus? Yes they help identify the troublemakers on the last bus home each Friday, but they are mainly there to stop fraudulent claims.

The real problem is the people who actually make the claim. In other words Jo public. No one now believes in an "accident", and now assume that they must be entitled to compensation for the most minor of injuries or incidents. It is these people who then contact the claims companies etc.

I have seen people who whilst walking down a shortcut between two houses, on the way back from the pub, in a pair of broken high heels, slipped and fell, and thought the council should be to blame. Oh and they could not actually remember where they had fallen....

I am going to go bankrupt pretty quickly if I take cases like that on a no win no fee basis.

[colin keightley]

Nothing called "the good Samaritan act" exists under britsh statute law. The term good Samaritan act comes from the us/Canada.

I must have been mis-informed but i was assured that as long as i did not go beyond my training then i would be fine.

[Fingers]

Very interesting indeed Alastair,

I guess your saying that I can setup business and have a team of people that go out and knock on doors looking for people to make claims. I then pass these onto a lawyer who will give me a "finders" fee?

Yes it is up to the individual to actually make the claim, but so was it the individuals choice to buy that shity expensive double glazing or that dodgy investment policy. There all being sold.

It is also up to the lawyer to chose to do this type of business.

[gary stenhouse]

very interesting i guess its feer and chinese wispers is why we all think like this.
like i said its debt that is driving it as people look at claiming as a way out some legit but a lot not.

funny how fear works, you only need to see when a few people charge at a croud, it causes a stampede fear that you might be the one who gets caught in the cross fire

cheers gary

[John Wallis]

Why are lawyers never attacked by sharks?
Professional courtesy.

Now that gave me a good belly laugh

[Fingers]

Re law change to allow no win no fee

Until the late 1990s, anyone who wanted to make a claim relating to personal injury law in the UK either had to pay expensive legal fees or seek help through the means-tested Legal Aid (now Public Funding) system. The funding of Legal Aid, in turn, proved expensive for the government. With the advent of the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) in 1998 the law changed, allowing for claims on a ‘no win no fee’ basis. Under personal injury law in England and Wales, anyone eligible to claim compensation need no longer be deterred by the fear of legal fees associated with the claim. Scotland’s law differs although the ‘no win no fee’ concept is also practised there to some extent.

There is no defending that the no win no fee system has opened up a very parasitic industry. And with immoral means the very few are taking a great deal of money out of the pockets of the uk public. The loss due to people/business/government for not doing things because they might get sued, is unmeasurable.

So if the law was indeed changed back in 1998, then how can this be changed back? Or at lest regulated in some way.

[GlennP]

I did a quick search as I was dubious about the sound of "the good samaritan act" ie it didnt sound anything that parliamant would come up with as a title.

The concensus from the small sample of info I took that even trained medical staff can walk by an accident and not do anything to help as there was nothing in law to compel them to act, however they would probably face discipline from their respective professional body or struck off.

With regards to the man on the street with a little first aid knowledge of a basic first aid certificate there seemed to apply a basic test of if you did your best in the circumstances with the knowledge you have you would not be prosecuted. However if you produced a pen knife and proceeded to do a trachiotomy on somone with a bee sting you might be up infront of a wig. I'm not a lawyer though so dont take my word for it.

Have a look at

http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/legal.htm

Hope this helps but you might be able to enlighten me.

BTW the website front page looks good whoever did it

[GlennP]

FROM THE DAILY TELEGRAH........

Lawyers face clampdown on 'no win, no fee' deals under new proposals
Lawyers will no longer be able to get rich on the back of controversial 'no win, no fee’ agreements under recommendations unveiled in a major legal review of the country's civil justice system.

Law firms who aggressively chase personal injury and negligence cases have been widely criticised as "ambulance chasers".

But Lord Justice Jackson, an appeal court judge, said the current structure of so-called “no-win no-fee" agreements, also known as Condition Fee Agreements, was not benefiting the public and had to be reformed.
The current system was “the most bizarre and expensive system that it is possible to devise”, the judge said.

Currently, the losing defendants must pay the winning lawyers’ “success fee” and costly insurance premiums which can leave them with a total bill of four times the cost of the action.

Lord Justice Jackson recommended that instead lawyers should be paid out by the winning side, with success fees capped at 25 per cent of the total payout.

The changes would mean that solicitors would be incentivised to compete with each other on who would take the smallest share of their client’s payout, he said.

To ensure that lawyers did not lose out financially after the changes, courtroom damages for “pain, suffering and loss of amenity” should increase by 10 per cent.

The move would save the taxpayer millions of pounds by cutting the costs of litigation. For example, in the past three years the cost of health negligence claims jumped by a third to £770 million.

In some cases, Lord Justice Jackson said, this meant that the legal costs far outstripped the level of damages paid out.

The judge cited one case when damages of just £1,000 were paid out, despite lawyers running up bills of £10,500. In another, £5,000 damages were paid out, although legal costs were more than £30,000.

So-called “claims farming” companies should also be banned from selling personal injury cases to lawyers for a fee, he said.

He criticised the “escalation” of referral fees in 'no-win no-fee' cases paid to claims management companies since the introduction of the Access to Justice Act in 1999.

“The focus of our litigation process should be upon compensating victims, not upon making payments to intermediaries and others who have moved in recent years into the personal injury compensation process," he said.

“The fact that such substantial referral fees are being paid illustrates that there is too much money swilling around in the personal injury compensation process.”

The radical proposals could also see a fall in spurious libel cases, leading to them being described as a victory for freedom of speech. Celebrities who win claims against newspapers and magazines would be forced to pay lawyers’ fees from their pay-out.

Lord Justice Jackson also suggested that more families should buy legal insurance to cover their costs in the case of "nuisance" rows with their neighbours.

Some home owners have been forced to sell their property to cover the crippling cost of action over petty rows.

Lord Justice Jackson also recommended that in class action cases judges should be allowed to rule that a losing side should not have to pay the other side's costs if would "better facilicate access to justice".

Lord Justice Jackson was asked by the-then Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke a year ago to review spiralling court costs

Lord Neuberger, the present Master of the Rolls who is the most senior civil judge, said: “Without action, costs will continue to spiral out of control and justice will be undermined, and the public interest severely affected.”

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, added: “The judiciary has been concerned for some time that the costs of civil litigation are disproportionate and excessive.”

The changes to the rules governing no win, no fee cases will require primary legislation. Copies of the report have been given both to Jack Straw, the Justice secretary and to Dominic Grieve, his opposite number at the Tories.

Mr Straw said the report was “a substantial, comprehensive and detailed report” and a “remarkable piece of work which is based on extensive consultation and puts forward a broad range of significant recommendations for reform”.

Susan Dunn, the head of litigation at Harbour Litigation, described the report as “a historic day for civil litigation and a big day for freedom of speech", adding: “This is the end for 'No Win, No Fee, No Cost’ for litigants.”

From The Daily Telegraph.

Having been bombarded with calls from lawyers, refferals companies, brokers and car hire firms after my road accident I would dispute that nothing has changed since CFAs came in to practice. Most cases seem to involve an insurance premium of hundreds of pounds being paid to insure against any losses on the lawyers part on both sides. It's also known that both sides claim a success fee in a 50:50 settlement and increase their charges by 100% when they declare a case to be a 'success'.

You also say that they will only take on 100% dead cert cases. Absolutely not true! How many claims are settled out of court with no blame on either side being apportioned and both sides lawyers still get paid. With referrals agencies making £800 for passing on details to lawyers you can see this is big business.

Its also a bit much to say no one believes in an accident these days. Tell that to the victims of astbestos or the mining industries but we all know what the big 3 mining claims firms did to those poor chaps. Cheated them out of their settlement when they were dying of lung diseases or vibration white finger. What about access to justice for those people? And then you get celebrities using no win no fee (CFAs with insurance) for libel claims and receiving damages of £1 million.

The law is an ass.

[Fingers]

Wow this is very good to read Glenn..... very heart warming to know there is someone who has power who also appears to have common sense.

Change is most definitely on the way.!

I had no idea this fella was working his nuts off, trying to change things.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/law/2010 ... mance.html

Lord Justice Jackson has my full support.

[colin keightley]

With regards to the man on the street with a little first aid knowledge of a basic first aid certificate there seemed to apply a basic test of if you did your best in the circumstances with the knowledge you have you would not be prosecuted. However if you produced a pen knife and proceeded to do a trachiotomy on somone with a bee sting you might be up infront of a wig. I'm not a lawyer though so dont take my word for it.

That is what i was told and i have trained with a few organisations now and they all said the same also if you do something which is now withdrawn from first aid such as tornacaes you can face a law suit

[AlastairW]

How can "No Win No fee" agreements mean there are now more claims?

You missed the original point Steve. If a claim is not winnable, then a "no claim no fee" lawyer is not going to take the case.

The issue is the CFA mark up, where the fees can be increased by a percentage, to take account of the "risk" involved in taking the case. That is the point you are trying to make, and which Glenn has actually touched upon.

And as ever, it is not as simple as the papers try and make out.

God help us.

I never thought I would be discussing CFA's on here! Lets hope we get flying soon.


And John, I think the best one is "how do you stop a lawyer drowning - take your foot of his head." !

[Fingers]

I don't know the correct terms Alastair, in fact I know little about the full system. I have just come to know this practice as "no win no fee".

What I do know is that this "claim blame" industry is crippling a great deal many of things to do with every aspect of your life and if there was no money in it then the lawyers would not bother with it.

I did not think you were in that sort of market, what do you make of it, and what Lord Justice Jackson is hoping to achieve? Does it look likely there will be radical change? After all we all suffer in one way of another in this current system, even solicitors.!

[gary stenhouse]

what an intelectual bunch we are, but after reading a book based 56 bc with juius cesar the lawers were rning the show then along with acountants and guess what 2000 years later it is still the same. differance is we have polititions and guess what most of there day jobs are lawers and and accountants. the wheel is still turning and change will never happen as the money is at the top and that is where it will stay.

if i came out to repair or replace your floor and told you how repairing will be so much cheeper. but by the time i am finished the cost was 30 times more than replacing it. do you think that is the ethical thing to do. so why is the legal system allowed to do this very thing.

we all have jobs to do but and by working hard you sometimes can make a lot of money. yet a public servent judge can be paid well over 500000 per year for just sitting there and listening yet the final say is made by the jury.

still at the end of the day spring is coming and yesterday was a good start and with a bit of luck the weekend will give much the same

cheers gary

[AlastairW]

It is not "No win No fee" agreements or whatever you want to call them (Technically they are Conditional fee agreements (CFA's)) that are the problem.

Actually it is people in your line of business that are to blame Steve!

Computerisation has meant that people have been able to set up systems specifically to deal with areas of the law like this, and that is the real reason for the increase in claims of this nature.

It is also why a lot of conveyancing is now done through "factories", where you never actually get to speak to the solicitor actually dealing with the transaction, let alone meet them face to face.

And it is also the reason why you can now fly to Geneva for £70 return at the beginning of March. Without computer systems Easyjet would not exist.

So look at the bigger picture, and blame the IT people.

PS, I sleep soundly at night as I dont touch CFA's.

[Fingers]

Oh I see! its all my fault, here I am blaming the poor old lawyer and all along it is me that is to blame.............

..Then I will have to be spanked then, wont I.... Naughty, naughty Steve,

Seriously.

That's a little like blaming the inventor of the gun for the murder committed with it.

Just as the man who pulls the trigger has a choice, so does the lawyer as to the line of business he pursues. The computer is just a tool, as you well know, but it is interesting how you guys stick together and hold ranks.

The moral decision is firmly with the lawyer, you know that, we all know that.

[John Wallis]

Steve let's face it you are just an angry man about....well most things. Instead of ranting and raving on a paragliding forum why don't you stand for whatever party you support get into local government and make your voice heard and try and change things properly instead of just making a noise on here. You could be the next John Prescott and punch people in the face if they don't agree with you or better still have 2 Jags and run up a big personal expenses bill although that has been frowned on lately with all those moats being cleaned out.

By the way I injured my finger typing on the website you designed and set up and I was also replying to one of your questions I feel a claim coming on Mr Wolf I'm sending a crate of Chateau Nerf Du Pape as a down payment before we take Mr Marshall to the cleaners

[ron freeman]

Er... is anybody going to give a pint of blood ?

[Fingers]

Ranting and raving? Lets face it John unless the topic is anything other than what you feel comfy with it seems to upset you.

The conversation has just turned this way, I have learned that a Lord seems to not only feel the same way as I, and possibly the rest of the UK. But he is actually trying to do something right now to change things. I personally would like to know what a man in the law industry might feel or know about this guy.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/law/2010 ... mance.html

If you don't like the conversation, you don't have to read it. Some people however feel quite comfortable having a debate and talking about something more serious, stick around, you never know John, you might learn something yourself. Please do not turn this into a personal slanging match.

[AlastairW]

Just one case John?

You know my brief fee starts at 5 cases minimum......

You disappoint me!

Steve, You may not like No win no fee, but developments like that are called progress.

Not all progress is neccesarily good. Some you will enjoy, like flying Easyjet, some you may not like, like No win No Fee. But they all go hand in hand as I pointed out earlier.

Maybe we should just scrap the computers, and go back to sitting round log fires in the middle of the forest.

And incidentally, IT people can in no way be compared to the manufacturers of guns. IT people are the equivalent of the little old man in The day of the Jackal, who designs the gun, makes it fit into the crutch, and then makes the mercury filled bullets.

[Fingers]

Progress?!

I am getting the impression you really think that, lets hope this Lord can make a difference other wise we are truly f%$ked.

I agree about the IT guys, but your argument is childish. Your saying that because the technology exists then that is perfectly moral to use it. To follow your line of logic, child porn rings are the fault of the IT guys also and gives the perverts exemption from any blame.

If you are indeed trying to defend this parasitic industry, I feel confident none of the 12 good men would be on my side Mr Wolf. Do you rest your case, would you like to settle out of court for an extortionate fee?

[gary stenhouse]

there was a very good phrase in the jurasic park the book

man has the inteligence to invent something yet not to to not make something.

we created the atom bomb and with that has left the whole world in fear of armageden

we now have designer babys transplants that are not fundable ethical you now pray for others to die to make you live yet without invention of this are expectations of life and death would be so much simplar.

no we expect every thing even though it will never be affordable.

[AlastairW]

I am interested Steve, how is the industry "parasitic"?

And it is good to see that you now agree with me about the IT guys, when only a couple of posts earlier you were saying the exact opposite.

I always like someone with firm convictions who does not change views on a whim.

[Fingers]

To full clarify so nothing can be spun, I agree with this;

IT people are the equivalent of the little old man in The day of the Jackal, who designs the gun, makes it fit into the crutch, and then makes the mercury filled bullets.

This does not give the right for someone to point it and kill someone, which is what you seem to firmly believe! Do you, or do you not, correct me?

Gaining profit to the detriment of someone else, pretty much sums up a parasite.

How many people would agree with you that this industry is progress and for good of the country as a whole? Your learned college Lord Justice Jackson seems to disagree wholeheartedly with you for one.

[AlastairW]

Read my post properly Steve.

I said it was progress, but then went on to say that not all progress was good.

And going back to your definition of parasite, you say it is gaining profit to the detriment of someone else.

Who is the someone else?

Their client?

The person who's fault it was in the first place?

and as for:-

To full clarify so nothing can be spun, I agree with this;

IT people are the equivalent of the little old man in The day of the Jackal, who designs the gun, makes it fit into the crutch, and then makes the mercury filled bullets.

This does not give the right for someone to point it and kill someone, which is what you seem to firmly believe! Do you, or do you not, correct me?

In that scenario the little old man is guilty of aiding and abetting, which makes him equally culpable.

Looks like we are in the same boat Steve, just paddling in different directions....