Right of Reply

In my blog post SICK PRIORITIES – I made reference to the compensation Charlotte Church received (alleged to be upto £600,000) and compared it to compensation given to victims of accidents or soldiers injured in battle.

Natasha commented:

I agree that’s an obscene amount of money Charlotte Church was awarded and she’ll probably donate it to charity

I have no idea what Charlotte Church will do with the money, and I do not criticise her for accepting such a sum. There is no reason why she should give money aware. There is no obligation, in my view upon her to do so.

My post was criticising the legal syatem. These cases ( accident and phone hacking) were civil cases and the award of compensation was not meant to punish the defendant, but to compensate the claimant. Although Charlotte Church’s case was settled outside court, it would have been at a level near that which the courts would have awarded. It is the court’s approach to compensation that I feel is sick in awarding 10-100 times ore compensation for having someone listen to your phonecalls than for lifelong injury



In my blog post  How to Win friends & Influence People I posted about cyclists who manage to upset others and turn people’s opinion against cyclists in general.

ANONYMOUS commented:

Any campaign is a good campaign that encourages the UK roads to be a better place to cycle

I agree entirely with this. My post was explaining why campaigns waging war on other road users will not make the UK roads a better place to cycle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s