Lawyers sue the scouts...

Mayfair

Mayfair

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
32,585
Location
8,539
#1
What is your opinion on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43519296

My opinion:

I don't read the news, but allow myself to look at BBC top 10 most read new articles, and this caught my eye, so I opened it.

I can't really comment on my thoughts because news stories are generally sketchy, but I must say that when I saw that both parents were lawyers, and they successfully sued the Scouts for £42k, my opinion was altered slightly.

Any thoughts?
 
P

Paranoid_Android

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
105
#2
They over reacted when they said he needed one on one supervision all the time but do you think the parents sent him there on purpose in order to sue them when something like this happened?
 
Zardos

Zardos

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
2,458
#3
BBC said:
Ben joined the 10th Harpenden Scout Group in January 2015, having previously been a member of the beavers.
ha ! beavers :rofl2:
 
Mayfair

Mayfair

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
32,585
Location
8,539
#4
They over reacted when they said he needed one on one supervision all the time but do you think the parents sent him there on purpose in order to sue them when something like this happened?
No, I think they over-reacted as you said.
 
E

exyz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
2,757
#5
Blimey, if it were a school I might get it.
I'd kick up a hoo ha but I wouldn't sue. I'm a bit :eek2:
Why couldn't they volunteer and assist themselves?
Entitled so and so's....they know the system you see.... I feel sorry for the child.
 
T

TheRedStar

Guest
#6
I'm divided on this one... I think my biggest personal issue isn't that the Scouts were successfully sued, but that I strongly suspect the outcome would have been different were the parents not lawyers. I just feel like 'justice' in this country is less about right and wrong, and more about whether you can afford - or have the fortune of being friends with - the right legal professionals. Or, as in this case, if you actually are the right sort of professionals.

I will admit that my initial feelings were along the lines of 'typical fucking sue everyone for everything legal parasites', but I became more sympathetic when I read how the money has been used. Personally speaking, given the campaign that the current government has unleashed upon anyone who dares to claim state help - which is the position that many people who aren't 'neurotypical' (or their parents, as in this case) find themselves in - such people and their families, and the charities which represent them, need as much money as possible. And this need will only get worse the longer the Conservatives remain in power, because it's clear they're hell-bent on cutting off as many dependent people as possible, and starving aid to the rest as much as they can get away with doing.

Accordingly, as mercenary as the parents' act comes across, I actually don't blame them for doing it... a lot of autistic people will have difficult lives, and we've built a society in which reducing difficulties with general day-to-day living usually requires spending your own money (the cruel irony of which is that the people who need such help are - due to whatever has left them in the position of requiring support - least likely to be able to afford it). Honestly, when I thought about what I'd have done in their position, my reaction was that if I could, I probably would. Anyway, it goes with the morality that people in this country have deliberately voted for these last four decades - do what's best for me and mine. Isn't that just the Thatcherite mentality we have it endlessly shoved down our throats that 'everyone' voted for, and that there's no alternative to?!

Live by the gun and all that...

Of course, I know the £42k that The Scouts are having to pay this family doesn't come from nowhere, and so I'm guessing the consequences of all this will be poorer facilities and/or reduced activities for other Scouts. However, at least these children will be able to fully enjoy - and take for granted that enjoyment - what remains on offer for them, which is more than the child at the heart of this story was able to do.

Also, given the scope for personal abuse afforded by modern communication techniques - and the willingness of many people to indulge in such poison - I don't blame the family for making any breaches of privacy a part of their claim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kerome

Kerome

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
12,746
Location
Europe
#7
Well it was an out of court settlement, and the Scouts admitted it was an unusual case and they would have to look again at their process. I think banning the child by insisting on one to one supervision by the scout masters was a bit heavy-handed. The parents basically had a solid case for discrimination, whether that’s worth £42k plus costs, it seems rather high. Good that they’ve given some of the money to an autism charity.
 
Mayfair

Mayfair

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
32,585
Location
8,539
#8
Well, as said, some things are sketchy.

I'm with the first sentence and initial reaction RedStar, even after reading all, and thinking about it.

When I went, I would only have gone because I knew a few others, and my parents knew the leaders from church.
 
T

TheRedStar

Guest
#9
I'm with the first sentence and initial reaction RedStar, even after reading all, and thinking about it.
I understand. I guess I just believe that this sort of thing is akin to a leaf on a weed... if you want to pull it off and make sure it never grows back, you need to dig up the whole plant by it's root. The legal system needs to be changed so that justice is dispensed according to fairness rather than bank account, and society needs to be encouraged in such a direction as to steer people away from the morality which underpins the 'sue sue sue!' mentality.

Honestly, if I had an autistic child, I would be scared for their future (unless he or she conveniently happened to be a STEM savant) given the direction of this country, which - and I'm not grandstanding when I write this; I wholeheartedly believe it - seems to be guided by an attitude whereby any of us who aren't exactly what the economy wants are, one way or another, being deliberately consigned to a life that's being made utterly shit for those who don't actively 'succeed'.

And, one way or another, many people on the autistic spectrum will - because of a 'condition' they were born with, and did nothing to 'earn' or 'deserve', and so shouldn't be effectively 'punished' for - fail to be what's expected of a 21st century worker. Take that poor lad at the heart of the titular story... distress when something unpredictable happens? Anxiety to change? Needing to know plans in advance? Poor little bastard has got no chance of functioning in the 'flexible' job market, which apparently requires 'resilient' people. And, when this puts him at the bottom of society's pile (aforementioned STEM aptitude notwithstanding), those attributes are going to make his life hell when having to deal with the capricious whims and short term security offered by private landlords and the DWP.

If people in this position felt that their children would be looked after properly by the state for the duration of their lives, then perhaps there'd be a lot less such grubbing for money?

So yeah, sod it... if I had a child who I was scared might end up with the above future, and if I saw a way to screw some money out of an organisation which had caused him upset in order to perhaps help his life to be a bit better in years to come, maybe I would. And the Scouts opened the door for this... their reaction to this child's autism was poor, and their apparent lack of discretion in communication regarding the boy was also equally crap (I wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to 'shame' the family by naming them, but it backfired).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not really sure whether it's right or wrong - heart says it's wrong, head says 'right' is for the law to decide - but I definitely see it as being understandable. Mercenary perhaps, and not the sort of mentality conducive to a healthy society, but nevertheless understandable.
 
Last edited by a moderator: