A Torso Cannot Possibly Fly On Its Own

[Grib]

..

[Bill Posters]

That is a shame.

[joeyconcrete]

If it was my airline I think I'd certainly request passengers with similar conditions to have a carer/companion travel with them. As other people have pointed out, the airlines have to cover their arses because the risk of litigation is so great.

 

I'm not fully aware of the care that would be required, but given her condition I'd imagine a considerable amount.

 

Fact is, if AirFrance have conditions of passage, they should be adhered to, and people shouldnt be offended when they are refused. Trans-atlantic flights are quite big flights and there's all sorts of issues that would need to be considered (toilets, food, drinks, life jackets, seatbelts, evacuation). Its kind of unfair to expect AirFrance to make immediate special arrangements without notice. 'If' she notified them in advance of her condition so they could make suitable arrangements then fine, but I do sense a slight hint of US-Type civil-litigation here. Elsewhere on other forums somone made the point that she was "harmed" in the UK by a French company, yet she's chosen to take legal action in the States.

 

The story circulating the internet is a common press-release type story. I originally read about this in the paper and the article was much more detailed as well as being slightly more equal when putting both sides of the story forward.

 

A more detailed article is here

http://www.thisistravel.co.uk/travel/news/...rticle_id=40894

 

Three years ago Ms Price was awarded damages of £10,000 by the European Court of Human Rights after she was made to sleep in a police cell in her wheelchair after being found guilty of contempt of court.

 

She served three days of a seven-day sentence in 1995 after refusing to answer a judge's questions regarding her financial situation.

I've got the impression (which may be wrong) that shes got beef with society and will sue whenever she gets the chance. The judge was quite right making her do porridge. Thats just the impression I get, especially with the whole "i'm doing this for all the other disabled people" - if so, why not try and get the legislation changed, speak to the government, form some kind of pressure group - why go to the US seeking millions in damages for yourself?

 

I think this is fair;

 

In a statement Air France said: "Ms Price was not sufficiently physically independent to comply with the basic safety regulations on board the aircraft, such as fastening and unfastening her seatbelt and pulling on and adjusting the oxygen mask without assistance, and therefore could not be accepted on board to travel alone.

 

To conclude - I think AirFrance are right in what they've done. But maybe slightly out of order if they used the words she says they used. But if the person was french, the language barrier may explain it. I've a basic knowledge of french, if a french passenger of a similar condition was boarding my plane, my choice of words would have been a lot worse. (A rough translation from my french would be :- You cannot fly, you dont have legs or arms, just a head and chest, you need a friend with you, I am sorry).

[joeyconcrete]

For even more bizarre cases;

 

http://www.thisistravel.co.uk/travel/news/...rticle_id=33209

 

Seventy passengers have won the right to sue Thomson Holidays for 'psychological distress' when their plane crash-landed in Spain

How would the amounts be decided, "I was more scared than you", "I've had worse nightmares". Fair enough, its distressing but they'd hardly crash-land on purpose???

 

http://www.thisistravel.co.uk/travel/news/...649&in_page_id=

 

Airlines have previously paid out over the deaths of passengers and those killed on the ground.

 

But now a judge has ruled that people who witness accidents can also sue. If the new ruling survives legal challenge, insurers are expected to raise airlines' premiums. That would in turn force up fares.

 

They'll be people hanging round airports waiting for crashes so they can sue...

 

The sue-ing society is upon us.

[Rog]

Three years ago Ms Price was awarded damages of £10,000 by the European Court of Human Rights after she was made to sleep in a police cell in her wheelchair after being found guilty of contempt of court.

 

Now in that case I think that the finding of the court was absolutely right. She should not have been subjected to that and although the actual amount of compensation was ludicrously high nonetheless compensation was due.

 

What is more the judge that sentenced her to a custodial sentence needs his head examined. There are other and far better ways to deal with someone in such a position as she put herself in than simply to lock them up.

 

Another classic example of the judiciary being unimaginative, clueless, and out of touch with reality if ever there was. Jail someone with that degree of disability? Amazing.

[joeyconcrete]

It's probably very harsh sending her to prison, but how would you punish her? Granted shes been punished enough in a sense (with her condition), but she cant refuse to answer a judges questions. This raises the question how are physically disabled people handled when it comes to prison/confinement? (but thats probably off-topic)

[ans]

The sue-ing society is upon us.

 

I read this in the paper yesterday and have had the same reply myself over here, but most restaurants/cafes will not warm baby milk for you in a microwave in case it gets too hot and you sue. Some will give you a pot of warm water to do it yourself at the table though.

 

I have to agree with concrete over the whole imprisonment thing. While special dispensation and care should be given to disabled people, it doesn't give them the right to use their disability to break the law. Strikes me that this woman just has a chip on her shoulder and has decided to use her disability as a cash cow.

[Rog]

[

I have to agree with concrete over the whole imprisonment thing. While special dispensation and care should be given to disabled people, it doesn't give them the right to use their disability to break the law.  Strikes me that this woman just has a chip on her shoulder and has decided to use her disability as a cash cow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did she even need to be punished? The judge had asked her for details of her personal finances as a part of sentencing her for another offence. She refused to provide the information which is a contempt of court BUT the options open to him range from an admonishment to indefinite imprisonment pending an apology and compliance with the court directive.

 

Surely in her case a better course of action all round would have been to at most admonish her for not providing the information that she had been asked to provide and then set a fine for the original offence based on an assumption that tended towards her personal financial situation being at least comfortable if not even well off, and leave it up to her to appeal the sentence at which time she would have had to disclose her situation in order for the appeal to stand any chance of success?

[ans]

Did she even need to be punished?    The judge had asked her for details of her personal finances as a part of sentencing her for another offence.  She refused to provide the information which is a contempt of court BUT the options open to him range from an admonishment to indefinite imprisonment pending an apology and compliance with the court directive.

 

I don't think either of us are in full possession of the facts here. We have no idea of how much warning the judge gave her that it was his intended course of action if she didn't reply and we have no idea how she behaved in court. She may have been beligerant or defiant, which leads me back to people using their disability to try and garner sympathy and get their own way because of it.

 

Hey, you better be careful anyway Rog, I could just send her the link to this thread and then she'd sue you for emotional distress or something else trumped up.

 

Edit: I should point out that I'm not endorsing the fact that she had to sleep in her wheelchair, that part is very poor treatment, but she shouldn't escape punishment because she's disabled.

[joeyconcrete]

Edit: I should point out that I'm not endorsing the fact that she had to sleep in her wheelchair, that part is very poor treatment, but she shouldn't escape punishment because she's disabled.

 

This is exactly my point. She seems to be arguing for equal rights and to be treated like other people - if thats the case, she should be sentenced and punished like other people. Sleeping in the wheelchair isnt on, but depending on the circumstance (which we dont know) she should be punished like everyone else. For all we know she could have told the judge to f**k off.

 

I generally take the view that if I read about a case which mentions "distress" and "suing for millions" then I tend to make my mind up pretty quick.

[Bill Posters]

It seems that we have our own version of this story.

 

LINK

[joeyconcrete]

He should goto the states and sue them for millions.

[Rog]

This is exactly my point.  She seems to be arguing for equal rights and to be treated like other people - if thats the case, she should be sentenced and punished like other people. Sleeping in the wheelchair isnt on, but depending on the circumstance (which we dont know) she should be punished like everyone else. For all we know she could have told the judge to f**k off.

 

Courts of law are (or at least SHOULD be) about getting to the facts and about justice.

 

(OK – I know the full cynicism such a statement rightly promotes, but it’s the theory at least)

 

Justice is about reaching a fair and equitable decision where there is conflict and about providing recompense to the injured party and punishment to the guilty where punishment is appropriate.

 

The responsibility of the presiding magistrate or the judge includes deciding on the nature and extent of such punishment as he hands down to the guilty.

 

In this particular case we do not know all of the facts and she might well have been a real pain in the rear end throughout the whole proceedings and we know nothing of her past and both these things are important factors that no doubt the judge will have taken into account ---

 

However an admonishment by a judge in court is a punishment in itself. Granted a very mild one, but nonetheless an a punishment. As to it being an adequate or an appropriate punishment for her Contempt of Court by refusing to disclose may well be moot but there are two points to consider.

 

Firstly, to my mind it is inconceivable that anyone who is so terribly deformed, especially a deformity resulting from thalidomide, a manufactured product rather than a natural mishap, should not develop at least some degree of psychosis. And in the very least a tendency to be really bloody minded when I felt like it and especially if I felt that I was getting what I thought was the dirty end of the stick.

 

Second, in the absence of a clear statement of her financial status the judge did have the option to make an assumption on her financial situation and impose a massive financial penalty on her – the greatest that the offence with which she had been charged would allow. That would have still left the door open for her to appeal the sentence and would then have forced her to disclose in order for her appeal to succeed.

 

This is not a matter of not punishing a person because of a deformity but about using a bit of common sense, something that seems to be in very short supply amongst the judiciary. There are always more ways to kill a cat than kicking it up the arse.

[When Skies Are Grey]

Firstly, to my mind it is inconceivable that anyone who is so terribly deformed, especially a deformity resulting from thalidomide, a manufactured product rather than a natural mishap, should not develop at least some degree of psychosis.

 

Sweeping generalisation alert!!!!!