Why Are We Compensating People For This In The First Place?

An MP has raised alarm at the slow pace of a scheme to compensate LGBT service personnel dismissed or discharged from the forces because of their sexuality, saying that at the current rate it could take more than a decade to complete the process.

It was illegal to be gay and in the military back then - I undertand we are more 'enlightened' now, and it's no longer illegal (some might wonder if it's going to be made complusory!) but why on earth does this attract compensation?

Jess Brown-Fuller, the Liberal Democrat MP for Chichester, said she began examining the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme, formally launched in December, due to the experiences of a constituent, who is one of just 69 people to have been compensated, of more than 1,200 who have applied.

Brown-Fuller used a parliamentary question on Thursday to highlight Stead’s case and to push the government to make sure claims were processed more quickly.

There are other government compensation schemes ewually, if not more, deserving of a hurry up than this one - the Post Office compensation scheme, the infected blood scheme, for instance. Why is Parliamentary time not used on genuine victims of injustice, not people who knew full well that they were breaching regulations going in?

“It will take years to settle all of these applications, and veterans in their 60s, 70s and 80s potentially don’t have years for those payments to be settled,” Brown-Fuller said. “My frustration is shared by the LGBTQ+ veterans, because they’re angry, they’re frustrated and they’re disappointed that they’re still experiencing these delays. “I think the government is totally aware of the issue, because there is cross-party support for this scheme. What it is not fully grasping is that the minister needs to get a handle on how quickly those payments are going out and the process.”

Of course, the modern MoD is happy to roll over and show it's belly to the least threat these days, even the displeasure of a LimpDumb MP: 

An MoD spokesperson said: “We deeply regret the treatment of LGBT serving personnel between 1967 and 2000 which was wholly unacceptable.

 But was the law then, for good reason, and no-one turned a hair. It's only that it's now viewed with modern day sensibilities that this reflexive crinnging takes place.

“While we don’t hold comprehensive records of personnel discharged due to sexuality, we’re working with organisations like Fighting with Pride to ensure that we reach as many LGBT veterans who may have been affected. “We also encourage anyone who may think that they’re affected to contact us so that we can see if we can help, and the Home Office also runs the disregards and pardons scheme for people wishing to have historic ‘offences’ wiped from their records.”

Why is 'offences' in inverted comments? - according to the law and custom back then, that's what they were. 

It's Not Green Flag's Fault, Judge...

A judge has slammed Green Flag for refusing to help a stranded nursing student motorist 'because she wasn't parked on the hard shoulder' before she was killed when a truck hit her car.

The accident happened a few moments after the call. Unless they had a Star Trek style transporter they couldn't have got to her in time anyway...

'In my judgement, Green Flag should take it upon themselves to ring 999 to help the person because it was obvious that Mrs Dumbuya would have been panicking and wondering whether to stay or leave the vehicle. She would have been worried about crossing the motorway.'

Why the scathing remarks about Green Flag? Why should it be their responsibility, rather than the driver? Just because she was a nursing student, or because she was from an ethnic minority, two groups we are supposed to worship? 

'It would be easy to wreak revenge on the defendant by jailing him but I rather suspect Mrs Dumbuya's family are not interested in vengeance.'

Bowers, 33, of Bamber Bridge, Preston, Lancashire, admitted causing death by careless driving and was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended for 12 months. He was also banned from driving for three years.

I guess he was of good charact...

Oh. 

Dashcam analysis revealed Bowers, who had a previous conviction for drink-driving and driving without due care and attention from 2016, was travelling at 55 mph and had an unobstructed view of the Kia from about 150 to 175 metres away - but an accident report concluded he did not appreciate the Kia was stationary.

He initially denied wrongdoing but eventually pleaded guilty ahead of his trial 18 months later.

Sounds to me as if the judge was misdirecting the rightous anger he should have been feeling. And in a macabre postscript, the 'Mail's' lack of proofreading gives us this gem:

 I think she knew...

Stick To Dipping A Paintbrush, Not Your Hands In Our Pockets...

A successful artist is seeking £33.6million in damages claiming he now paints too slowly after being run over by a stolen moped in central London - preventing him from creating 14 extra masterpieces per year.

Wow! Isn't he lucky the chap who hit him is a billionaire! That is what happened, right?

...he is now suing Mr Hinds and insurers Aviva ...

Ah. Of course.  

However lawyers for Aviva at the High Court in London today branded the claim 'extraordinary' and 'overstated', and suggested the collision had actually helped Mr Mathieu's career, citing interviews in which the artist discussed the 'positive impact of the accident' which 'influenced his subject matter.'

Whoops! 

They also argued that he often fails to sell a 'sizeable portion' of his work at events, undermining his claim that he could sell more works every year. And while not disputing some liability, they are challenging the amount of the payout demanded, arguing the claim is 'inflated' and 'based on hypothetical guess work'.

It's based on what he - and his lawyers - think he can get away with... 

Mrs Justice Hill is considering arguments at a High Court trial in London due to last about two weeks.

That long?