To wondre WHY we live in a world where it everyone else's fault?

[Kimi]

Yesterday in the paper there was a bloke (compulsive gambler) suing a bookmaker for taking his bets and him going bankrupt,
Today there is a woman trying to sue a chap because she was sticking junk mail through his door and cut her hand on the letter box, the other week it was some very obese American trying to sue McDonalds for making him fat , and smokers and drinkers have been known to sue tobacco and alcohol company's.

It always seems to be someone else's fault, no one wants to accept responsibility for them self nowdays, or else see a way to make a quick buck.

Then their is the poor bloke who is looking at a murder charge because he struggled with a knife wielding career criminal who was trying to rob him and her bloke ended up stabbed with his own knife, the world has gone mad.

If I put my life savings on a horse and it lost that is MY fault for being stupid, not the bookies for taking the bet.

If I went shoving unsolicited crap through peoples door and cut myself doing so, that is an accident

If I spent my life shoveling big macs down for every meal I would expect to get fat

If I spent all day smokng then got lung cancer again all my own doing

If I spent all day knocking back alcohol and died as a result, (as my father did) all my own fault

And hell yes I would not care if I killed someone who was attacking me with a fecking knife, they should not have been trying to rob/kill me.

It is a sad world we are living in, and the worst part of it is it is becoming all too normal to blame every one else for our own short comings

Haven't read the entire thread but haven't the risks of smoking been known for years? My mum was in hospital in the 1950's (when she was a child) and she remembers the nurse demonstrating smoking a cigarette through a white hankie and showing them all how the cigarette turned it brown, and this will happen to your lungs etc etc.

I agree with the OP.

But the point is that teenagers may know the risks, but they don't understand. I had no idea of what having a child meant when I was 18, I blithely thought it would be no big deal to get accidentally pregnant, I could always have an abortion or a nice little baby. I had no understanding of the long term implications, even though theoretically I knew. (I was lucky I didn't get pregant until my thirties!)

I'm not saying teenagers are not responsible for their choices. I'm saying that adults who enable those terrible choices, knowing and understanding what that means to those children long term, are far more culpable. They've got to be. It's the difference between being a child and being an adult.

The part of the brain that allows us to determine cause and effect, and rational decision making, the frontal cortex, doesn't fully mature until the early 20s

Which explains why many teenagers are fucking awful at making sensible choices.

they 'know' the risks but are utterly convinced that it will not happen to them

The guy suing the bookies is taking the biscuit, he gambled the money but its not his fault and he should sue?? Would he be not claiming had he won 2 million - I dont think so.

We're fast becoming another America, suing for everything and anything. Sue where you have a justifible cause and you have lost wages etc but suing where you take no responsibility for your actions is going too far.

Totally agree with everything the OP said. Would have added bank charges as well though as another area where people take no responsibility and just sue the banks.

I don't think people sue anymore with regard to cigarettes anyway..

That's what I meant MB, thanks for providing the science!

i read that story yesterday about the woman who'd hurt her hand on somebody's postbox in disbelief. poor bloke thought it was an early april fools.

and as for that advert with the bloke from the bill 'i absolutely did not deserve that' well, i'm glad i'm in work in the daytime now!

im terrified of litigation,
the paper work is relentless and copious in volume. and that paper work is IN CASE of litigation.

People are suing ...well actually claiming back bank charges because banks have been taking the piss for years with charges...they are supposed to make a reasonable charge for admin purposes...not to make a profit...how can you justify charging £60 for someone going £10 overdrawn?...and you send out a computer generated printed letter which costs you a maximum of £1.50...why should they be allowed to take those kinds of liberties??

oh i agree with claiming bank charges back. when i was a student i couldn't afford to eat once because i'd gone 40p over whilst waiting for my pay and they charged me £35 for it.

The very, very very worst case was the smoker who got lung cancer

They told him that his condition was almost 100% sute to be terminal, but they would hom a go of treatment.

He gave up his job and spent his life savings.

They cured him

The ungreatful fucked sued them.

Christ, I wish that we had bad luck like that

Insread of letting him go to court they should have horse whipped him for base ingratitude

The reason the guy is suing William Hill is because he did try to take responsibility for his gambling: he put himself on their self-exclusion list.

Self-exclusion is something addicted gamblers can do, to ensure that the gambling shop won't accept bets from them. All betting shops have to have this, in order to pretend to the public that they too take their responsibilities as seriously as we expect individual adults to do. It is so that they can pre-empt the government monitoring them more closely. The problem with them, is that they are deliberately designed not to work: the bloke in question is taking the case because he was allowed to open a new account 3 months after he put himself on the self-exclusion list. Part of the reason the case is being brought, is to draw attention to the fact that gambling companies are not taking their social responsibilities seriously. I think that's a good thing.

I'm all in favour of people taking responsibility for their actions. That includes companies like banks and multi-million betting conglomerates. I don't see why so people who are all in favour of individual responsibility, appear to think that social responsibility is unnecessary. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, they're complementary imo.

Totally agree LittleB

I agree that social responsibility complements individual responsibility. No problem with that.
I still think though, that lines have to be drawn. As MB pointed out with the science, people probably tend to reach a mature understanding at around late 20s, though even then there'll be variation. I know some 40 year olds who behave recklessly without regard for the long term effects of what they do, and equally, I know some mature 18 year olds who can make sensible choices. That's why individual responsibility is so important. We can't always go around 'blaming' some one else. FWIW, I had my first child in my late 20s - I don't think even at that age I was able to take on board the full implications of what it would be like. But DH and I had made that decision so got on with it.
I also think the case of the gambler suing William Hill is a joke. I totally agree with the posters who say if he's won, he wouldnt be worried about suing. So it's not the addiction he's concerned about, it's the losing! I think an adult who chooses to open an account even after putting himself on a self exclusion list has got to be accountable - I mean, is it reasonable for an alcoholic to insist that it's the job of every offlicence and supermarket in the country to not sell them booze?

The ambulance chasing lawyers are the inevitable result of government policy. The government chose to reform legal aid - stopping legal aid for personal injury cases. They opened up the market to competition. Surprise surprise, firms started looking for work. And some use aggressive tactics.

Anyway, a lot of this has calmed down since the 'if there's blame there's a claim' lot of gone out of business.

But don't you think big companies have any responsibility at all to ameliorate the effects of addiction to their service/ substance?

An alcoholic can't blame a supermarket for selling him booze, but he can blame a publican for continuing to serve him booze when he's already sozzled - which is in fact illegal, but again it's a law nobody seems interested in enforcing, in spite of the social nuisance drunks cause.

But why is it only the fat loser bloke who has to be accountable?

why don't we hold William Hill accountable as well? They have a self-exclusion scheme which doesn't work: is anyone really arguing that that is acceptable?

I agree the fat bloke wouldn't be suing if he hadn't lost, but that's not really relevant to the issue of William Hill (and all the rest of them) deliberately wriggling out of their responsibilities, is it?

I hope that as a result of this case, they will be forced to set up real self exclusion schemes, not pretend one. If the fat bloke's legal shenanigans force that, it will be a good thing imo.

My SIL is a licensee and takes very seriously the legal issues. So I don't agree that it's a law no one is interested in enforcing. A licensee's livelihood is at stake.
Yes, Bella, I do agree big companies have some responsibility to amerliorate the effects of addiction to their product. That's why the regulations are there. But as I said, every individual has different thresholds of understanding. Some 40 year olds can't or won't take responsibility, some 18 year olds can. I think things have swung too far towards enabling people to feel they can pass the buck, as the OP said. It doesnt mean regulations to protect people shouldnt be there - of course they should- but society has become way too litigious and in the long term I don't think it does any of us any good. (Apart from the lawyers who can make an easy buck!)

But how else will we get William Hill and the others to fulfill their obligations, without litigation? They're not going to do it voluntarily. They will do what they are doing now: pretending.

And if it were true that all licensees are bothered about the law being upheld, how comes our town centres are full of raging drunks every Saturday night? these people haven't been quietly getting sozzled at home and then come out to vomit in the street, they've been in a public place and been served even though they were quite clearly pissed out of their mind a few drinks back. It's incredible how much some of these people have managed to drink - ask any paramedic or doctor in A&E. Sometimes it's because they've smuggled booze into the clubs etc. and added it to their drinks, but mostly it's because they have bought the drinks there, while they have been quite clearly drunk.

Not sure of your evidence base for that last post LB. From what I've seen, people who want to get totally pissed will usually buy a fair amount of booze from the offie or supermarket, and will find all kinds of other ways to drink during the evening - often getting other people to buy them drinks etc.
I don't think my views are a million miles from yours LB - I think the large companies do have to take a level of responsibility, and FWIW I could no more work for something like William Hill, or a tobacco company than eat my own shit, because I really fundamentally disagree with what they're about. I just think it's unfortunate if change has to come about through this type of litigation, because it gives out the message that people dont need to take individual responsibility.

I agree I think it's very bad that this type of litigation is the means of forcing change. For which I blame the government, because if they had the guts to stand up to big business and regulate them properly, then this sort of case would be redundant.

I've sued the council after falling down a pothole in the pavement and badly spraining my ankle.

I was working as a salesperson and was completely sober... i injured myself that badly that i ended up on crutches and couldn't do my job... i was only in the probationary period and ended up having my contract terminated.

I pay my taxes for the upkeep of the public paths and highways, damn right i'm going to sue if i lose my job through their failure to fill a pothole in!

I agree with everything the OP said.

I will also add that I'm in my early twenties. I run a business, and when I make a mistake, every one says I shoul d know better. How? I live in another country, where the culture, language, and everything is different. I don't have a close family for support. I STARTED a business out of innocence, thinking it would be a nice thing to do and very easy. I had no training whatsoever, no one to show me what to do. I had some people warn me that t would be hard, but I had no idea at the time just how hard.

there are lots of judgemental people though who blow a little thing out of proportion.

as an ambulance chasing lawyer clearly i have some interest in people being able to claim for the negligence of others!

what i would say is that in many years of dealing with claims, i have never had anyone say that they think the amount of compensation they have been offered is generous...indeed in explaining to the client of a colleague last week that she would be likely to get £1500 or so for a relatively minor injury that had not caused them to take any time off work, the response was ' well its hardly worth making a claim for that ..why cant we be more like the US where you get decent levesl of compensation....' !

of course what most people dont realise is that in the US most lawyers work on what is called a contingency fee basis - they take a percentage of your damages if you win, ie 5-10% - and therefore awards are always higher to take account of this...so if you get $1 million, your lawyer gets $100,000...!