Whether she likes it or not, it does come across as very deceptive. If a person is having to explain everything afterwards, people are clearly being given the wrong impressions.
BobMonkhaus on
“For all of these events, the doctors were working with me,” she says. “Like for the Pink concert, I would need three or four days beforehand and three or four days after to recover. The doctors were around me documenting how I suffered before and after all these events.”
Then… don’t go to it?
She told the DWP she’s “hyper sensitive to noise” btw.
The backstory to all of this is that over recent years, the courts have been given really serious weapons to use against people who are found to have brought dishonest personal injury claims. These include paying the other side’s legal costs (which are always substantial – four, five and six figure sums), and committal to prison for contempt of court. The courts are even allowed to deprive people of compensation that they genuinely deserve (as in this case) as long as they find that there has been dishonesty elsewhere (see section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015). The person in this case (who suffered a serious brain injury and had to live for several weeks with part of her skull bone being preserved in her abdomen) had £596,704 in compensation disallowed, most of which was for future loss of earnings and care that the court found she genuinely needed because of her injuries.
The problem is that it is very difficult to reliably determine whether someone has been dishonest. There are obvious ‘barn door’ cases where the dishonesty is obvious, but there are many cases where it is not:
* Even honest people struggle to give a consistent description of their injuries, or the effects of the injuries on their life. Try remembering with precision how bad pain was, for example, five or six years after it happened. It is very easy for Defendants to suggest that inconsistency is evidence of dishonesty, when frequently it is not.
* People do genuinely have good and bad days. It is very easy to point to the good days and say – that is how things always are, and the bad days are exaggerated.
* Proving that someone has been honest requires a huge amount of legwork and due to huge cuts in the costs that Claimant solicitors are able to recover, that money frequently is not there (particularly for lower-value claims).
The end result is that there are going to be many people who are said to be dishonest who are, in fact, not. Could this person be one of them? I have no idea. But it is entirely possible.
Romado on
It’s a pretty typical case of “I’m too ill/disabled to work” but not to have fun. It’s the mentality of thinking they shouldn’t have to work and society owes them an easy carefree life.
Such_Significance905 on
Even in the conversation with the journalist: “Kirsty told us the judge’s words were so painful that she has still not read his ruling in full.”
I know that these rulings are difficult, and I think it’s bullshit that people say that “you’re well enough to have a day out therefore you’re well enough to work”, but you’re definitely well enough to read the verdict from the Judge in your case.
Charming-Potato4804 on
‘The judge’s words were so painful that she has still not read his ruling in full.’
This is a real life example of the Truth Hurts!
What is so strange is she worked for an insurance company so she should have known how to play this game!
Wonderful_Dingo3391 on
The injury was very real, so for me the behaviour after doesn’t really matter. Disabled people go to concerts, some play football. Activity is a huge part of rehabilitation and treatment, I feel pity for her.
AlligatorInMyRectum on
She has problems working, or at least did and is in recovery. It is not the same as going to a concert. If you fuck up working it adversely affects other people. Being able to enjoy yourself at a concert, does not harm any one else. It may be she will not have a good time going to the concert. Why would anyone deprive her of a little joy. It sounds like she wants to return to some semblance of a normal life. The fact that she okayed it all with the doctors means she wasn’t hiding it.
Tw4tl4r on
I have disabled family members that can’t work but go to concerts and sports events quite often. Those events take 2-4 hours and they just sit there and watch something. That doesn’t mean they are capable or working 40 hours a week. That’s an insane take.
Odd-Wafer-4250 on
The comments in this thread are another example of the rot, the utter filth, that is permeating the UK. Suggesting that disabled people should stop trying to enjoy life… such a lack of empathy and intelligence. The very fabric of our society has been poisoned.
[deleted] on
[deleted]
Wigglesworth_the_3rd on
My sister is recovering from a brain tumour. She still really struggles with short term memory, which makes working and learning new skills very difficult.
Because of side effects of the chemo, radiotherapy and steriods, she has other health issues as well.
She occasionally goes to the theatre, but is wiped out for days afterwards.
I have my own business but suffer with an autoimmune disease, I also have to plan my activities to work around the fatigue and my business. I don’t get sick pay, so I plan down time around things that trigger my illness.
I find it odd to be judged on the rare occasion that you’re able to do a normal activity.
erbstar on
The injury is very real. However the payout would have been liability (which was accepted) and then the detrimental impact this would have on her life long term
Did she lie, yeah that’s obvious she did. There’s a lot of statements she’s made that would disqualify her for PIP (mobility component) and a Motability car. She would also likely only qualify for the standard rate of care, as she’s done loads of activities by herself.
The judge was an asshole though. He should have just reduced the lump sum rather than making her an example of her.
What those private investigations proved is blatantly in contradiction to what she put in her claim, both in her criminal case and to the DWP
Fuck around and find out
Medium_Lab_200 on
> Her ill-fated Facebook posts, she says, were a case of her “pretending to have a life”
“I’m not a liar, I was lying.”
SamVimesBootTheory on
In this thread: So many people not understanding that disabled people have good and bad days and that sometimes disabled people might not be able work but can still undertake other activities.
Even if this person has been untruthful the ableism in this thread is through the roof.
15 Comments
Whether she likes it or not, it does come across as very deceptive. If a person is having to explain everything afterwards, people are clearly being given the wrong impressions.
“For all of these events, the doctors were working with me,” she says. “Like for the Pink concert, I would need three or four days beforehand and three or four days after to recover. The doctors were around me documenting how I suffered before and after all these events.”
Then… don’t go to it?
She told the DWP she’s “hyper sensitive to noise” btw.
The judgment from this case is here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/806.html
The backstory to all of this is that over recent years, the courts have been given really serious weapons to use against people who are found to have brought dishonest personal injury claims. These include paying the other side’s legal costs (which are always substantial – four, five and six figure sums), and committal to prison for contempt of court. The courts are even allowed to deprive people of compensation that they genuinely deserve (as in this case) as long as they find that there has been dishonesty elsewhere (see section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015). The person in this case (who suffered a serious brain injury and had to live for several weeks with part of her skull bone being preserved in her abdomen) had £596,704 in compensation disallowed, most of which was for future loss of earnings and care that the court found she genuinely needed because of her injuries.
The problem is that it is very difficult to reliably determine whether someone has been dishonest. There are obvious ‘barn door’ cases where the dishonesty is obvious, but there are many cases where it is not:
* Even honest people struggle to give a consistent description of their injuries, or the effects of the injuries on their life. Try remembering with precision how bad pain was, for example, five or six years after it happened. It is very easy for Defendants to suggest that inconsistency is evidence of dishonesty, when frequently it is not.
* People do genuinely have good and bad days. It is very easy to point to the good days and say – that is how things always are, and the bad days are exaggerated.
* Proving that someone has been honest requires a huge amount of legwork and due to huge cuts in the costs that Claimant solicitors are able to recover, that money frequently is not there (particularly for lower-value claims).
The end result is that there are going to be many people who are said to be dishonest who are, in fact, not. Could this person be one of them? I have no idea. But it is entirely possible.
It’s a pretty typical case of “I’m too ill/disabled to work” but not to have fun. It’s the mentality of thinking they shouldn’t have to work and society owes them an easy carefree life.
Even in the conversation with the journalist: “Kirsty told us the judge’s words were so painful that she has still not read his ruling in full.”
I know that these rulings are difficult, and I think it’s bullshit that people say that “you’re well enough to have a day out therefore you’re well enough to work”, but you’re definitely well enough to read the verdict from the Judge in your case.
‘The judge’s words were so painful that she has still not read his ruling in full.’
This is a real life example of the Truth Hurts!
What is so strange is she worked for an insurance company so she should have known how to play this game!
The injury was very real, so for me the behaviour after doesn’t really matter. Disabled people go to concerts, some play football. Activity is a huge part of rehabilitation and treatment, I feel pity for her.
She has problems working, or at least did and is in recovery. It is not the same as going to a concert. If you fuck up working it adversely affects other people. Being able to enjoy yourself at a concert, does not harm any one else. It may be she will not have a good time going to the concert. Why would anyone deprive her of a little joy. It sounds like she wants to return to some semblance of a normal life. The fact that she okayed it all with the doctors means she wasn’t hiding it.
I have disabled family members that can’t work but go to concerts and sports events quite often. Those events take 2-4 hours and they just sit there and watch something. That doesn’t mean they are capable or working 40 hours a week. That’s an insane take.
The comments in this thread are another example of the rot, the utter filth, that is permeating the UK. Suggesting that disabled people should stop trying to enjoy life… such a lack of empathy and intelligence. The very fabric of our society has been poisoned.
[deleted]
My sister is recovering from a brain tumour. She still really struggles with short term memory, which makes working and learning new skills very difficult.
Because of side effects of the chemo, radiotherapy and steriods, she has other health issues as well.
She occasionally goes to the theatre, but is wiped out for days afterwards.
I have my own business but suffer with an autoimmune disease, I also have to plan my activities to work around the fatigue and my business. I don’t get sick pay, so I plan down time around things that trigger my illness.
I find it odd to be judged on the rare occasion that you’re able to do a normal activity.
The injury is very real. However the payout would have been liability (which was accepted) and then the detrimental impact this would have on her life long term
Did she lie, yeah that’s obvious she did. There’s a lot of statements she’s made that would disqualify her for PIP (mobility component) and a Motability car. She would also likely only qualify for the standard rate of care, as she’s done loads of activities by herself.
The judge was an asshole though. He should have just reduced the lump sum rather than making her an example of her.
What those private investigations proved is blatantly in contradiction to what she put in her claim, both in her criminal case and to the DWP
Fuck around and find out
> Her ill-fated Facebook posts, she says, were a case of her “pretending to have a life”
“I’m not a liar, I was lying.”
In this thread: So many people not understanding that disabled people have good and bad days and that sometimes disabled people might not be able work but can still undertake other activities.
Even if this person has been untruthful the ableism in this thread is through the roof.