PC Rathband to sue the police for £1million

[martyh]

As tragic as this is ,i do not feel that the police can be held responsible for Raoul Moats actions.I have enormous respect for him but in this i think he is wrong ,i also think it is just possiible that a firm of lawyers have possibly talked him into it knowing they will make a fortune out of it

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north...2703-28193549/

[Peter_]

The forces insurance will payout if he wins, he was injured in service so no surprise that he is suing for damages.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Masque

The forces insurance will payout if he wins, he was injured in service so no surprise that he is suing for damages.

The way i read it was that this is separate to any compensation and benefits he gets due to a workplace injury ,in this he is holding the force responsible for his injuries ,i would have thought that his compensation ,which he is fully justified in getting ,would come from the criminal injuries board .Of course i may be totaly wrong

[DocDutch]

I think he is totally justified in sueing somebody but it isnt the police's fault that he got shot in the face by Moat, if anything they should try to recover that from his estate or family.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by DocDutch

I think he is totally justified in sueing somebody but it isnt the police's fault that he got shot in the face by Moat, if anything they should try to recover that from his estate or family.

Good luck with that..

[Rob]

OK he's been very seriously injured. Unfortunately that is a risk that those who choose to serve in the police have to acknowledge when they sign up, just as those who serve in the armed forces must acknowledge there are serious risks. There should be a proper welfare provision for anyone who does suffer injury in the line of duty, but equally both the police officer and the public they have chose to server has to be prepared to accept they may have to put themselves in harm's way to protect the public they serve. Whilst the risks should be assessed in any incident, one has to also acknowledge they were dealing with a maniac that was intent on killing and the police's function was to attempt to trace the gunman to prevent further loss of life. In that respect PC Rathband was simply serving his office and shouldn't be entitled to anything from the police other than the normal (and that should be reasonably generous and comfortable) welfare provisions.

Originally Posted by Chroniclelive

It is understood PC Rathband’s case is based on claims officers were given a lack of warning in the moments immediately after Raoul Moat contacted police, threatening to target uniformed police.

This suggests that the grounds of suing wil be on the basis of damages for negligence on the part of the senior officers trying to control, what on all accounts was a fastly evolving fluid incident. Even if the information was passed on one has to ask whether it would have had any effect on the need for many PC's including PC Rathband, to potentially put themselves in harm's way whilst they were trying to locate Moat. By all accounts the Police as a whole had no idea where Moat was. Officers had reasonably to be tasked to locate him, despite the dangers.

[jellybaby]

Very well put

[Tuftus]

Considering he has *probably* been quite well looked after by the Force, it's maybe a bit rich to go down the road he is about to.

But we do not know all the facts on his aftercare / severance / benefits etc so who knows?

Maybe it is a case of sour grapes? Then again, who knows?

It would be good to get Dereks POV on this.

[Paul M]

Perhaps he should remember he is lucky to have lived, others did not.

[techguyone]

I remember reading somewhere that he wasn't eligable for one of the DSA packages which I thought was a bit... off.

Maybe someone who serves could enlighten us on what the 'standard' police welfare package is when an officer gets hurt.