Report comment

So let's say a young girl, aged 10, is hit by a drunk driver. She is in agonizing pain for 18 months with her neck and back-all accident related.

Under this Government she is no longer entitled to be compensated for her pain and suffering caused by the drunk driver? How can that be legal, let alone moral.

What about a police officer that is injured in a car chase after criminals? The officer could have mental injuries and severe neck pain for 12 months. Again no right to compensation for all that pain and suffering.

What about the elderly lady of 73 years of age knocked down in the street by a reckless 18 year old driver. As a result of the accident she is in agonizing pain for 12 months and can no longer leave her house. Again, under your new wonderful government she has no right to compensation for all that suffering.

The daily mirror should be bloody well ashamed of itself promoting these reforms as good for the people of England.

The analysis here is a £40 insurance saving (which will never materialize) as justification for these reforms is pathetic. The average motorist will have an RTA every 5 or so years and is likely to be injured so losing the right to general damages is in nobody's interest. If the general public truly knew what the stood to lose ( the peace of mind to know if they are, god forbid, injured for up to 2 years in an accident they can access legal representation and be compensated for their pain and suffering, would a single person vote for these reforms?
Contrary to Government thinking please can everyone apply some common sense and acknowledge that being in a road traffic accident isn't akin to the bumper cars- it's often a very frightening and painful ordeal for all involved ). It does not make the injured person ''irresponsible '' for then looking to be compensated for that pain and suffering caused through the negligence of another- that is the legitimate thing to do! It is not a ''compensation culture''- it is people who have been harmed through no fault of their own seeking to be put back into the position they were in before the accident.

The further analysis is if teh entire system as it presently stands ONLY adds £40 to the average motor insurance policy then surely it's a system worth keeping.

All MPs are subject to a code of conduct to the effect that when they have a declared financial interest in something ( 40 Conservative MPs includung Osborne and Cameron have declared interests in Insurance ) then whenever there is a potential conflict of that interest they are duty bound to always act so as not to cause detriment to society. Need I say more to all you lawyers out there as to the correct approach to maximize pressure?

I also understand that the Insurance Force Task Force reported against raising the SCL to 5k. No surprises its publication was delayed.