Compo shagger off to the High Court

Roundhead89 said :

I would like to see this woman executed. It is just as well the courts have suppressed her name because there are a lot of people who would love to see this promiscuous little bitch get her just desserts.

Careful, clearly the woman in question doesn’t mind going to court to get satisfaction…

Roundhead89 said :

I would like to see this woman executed. It is just as well the courts have suppressed her name because there are a lot of people who would love to see this promiscuous little bitch get her just desserts.

As a much younger person, I used to consider promiscuous people as sluts. Now I just reckon they’re AWESOME!

Roundhead89 said :

I would like to see this woman executed. It is just as well the courts have suppressed her name because there are a lot of people who would love to see this promiscuous little bitch get her just desserts.

Turned you down, did she?

Roundhead89 said :

I would like to see this woman executed. It is just as well the courts have suppressed her name because there are a lot of people who would love to see this promiscuous little bitch get her just desserts.

Perhaps you could execute her at Bruce Stadium with some rocks, as half-time entertainment. If you’re totally without sin yourself, of course. (Which you’re not, simply for thinking like that.)

And I’m loving the way you don’t mention her partner in your little hate fest.

Reading the “what’s the problem/that’s just the way it is” comments on this thread leads me to think that the recent review of Comcare won’t be the last – and the cost pressures will only grow as things start to get nastier in the APS and more people see a Comcare claim as a nice bolt hole.

Roundhead89 said :

I would like to see this woman executed. It is just as well the courts have suppressed her name because there are a lot of people who would love to see this promiscuous little bitch get her just desserts.

Aww, did someone strike out again last night? Don’t worry. Go on a business trip by yourself and sue for carpal tunnel syndrome.

I would like to see this woman executed. It is just as well the courts have suppressed her name because there are a lot of people who would love to see this promiscuous little bitch get her just desserts.

screaming banshee said :

If you are using something for a purpose it was not designed, then you are at fault for any injury that results.

If you use an office chair to reach the top shelf of a cupboard and fall off…your fault
If you are using a metal knife to free your toast from a toaster and get shocked…your fault
If you are riding a flat bed trolley down a corridor and get hurt…your fault
If you are using a lamp fitting to gain leverage for the next thrust and it breaks and smacks you in the face…YOUR FAULT.

But that is not what the law says. It says if you are injured during the course of your employment you are entitled to compensation. Fault is not an issue. That’s what workers comp is and how it works.

Fault is a civil case and you are mixing up the two concepts.

Now there are plenty of cases analysing whether something is during the course of employment or ‘a frolic of his/her own’. So being injured during work hours while drag racing motorcycles isnt during the course of employment if you are hired as a bobcat driver. But being sent somewhere for work and conducting yourself in an ordinary activity and being injured is during the course of your employment.

You are all being distracted by the sex bit.

Putting all the speculations of the event aside , can anyone tell me how great/or little of an ‘injury’ she even managed to sustain from this ‘light fitting’ apparently smashing her in the face??

dungfungus said :

screaming banshee said :

If you are using something for a purpose it was not designed, then you are at fault for any injury that results.

If you use an office chair to reach the top shelf of a cupboard and fall off…your fault
If you are using a metal knife to free your toast from a toaster and get shocked…your fault
If you are riding a flat bed trolley down a corridor and get hurt…your fault
If you are using a lamp fitting to gain leverage for the next thrust and it breaks and smacks you in the face…YOUR FAULT.

I reckon you have nailed it. Why it has to go to the High Court to be sorted out baffles me.

Because the “shagger” just won’t take no for an answer. She wants her compo, so she’s wasting tax payers money taking through every court possible.

Smashing has def nailed it on the head here. Yes she’s was on a work trip, but she wasn’t exactly using the light fitting for what it was designed to do. This chick should just collect medical expenses from the insurance and move on….

screaming banshee said :

If you are using something for a purpose it was not designed, then you are at fault for any injury that results.

If you use an office chair to reach the top shelf of a cupboard and fall off…your fault
If you are using a metal knife to free your toast from a toaster and get shocked…your fault
If you are riding a flat bed trolley down a corridor and get hurt…your fault
If you are using a lamp fitting to gain leverage for the next thrust and it breaks and smacks you in the face…YOUR FAULT.

I reckon you have nailed it. Why it has to go to the High Court to be sorted out baffles me.

If you are using something for a purpose it was not designed, then you are at fault for any injury that results.

If you use an office chair to reach the top shelf of a cupboard and fall off…your fault
If you are using a metal knife to free your toast from a toaster and get shocked…your fault
If you are riding a flat bed trolley down a corridor and get hurt…your fault
If you are using a lamp fitting to gain leverage for the next thrust and it breaks and smacks you in the face…YOUR FAULT.

Radio VX raises some pretty valid points.

The fact she was having sex should not come into it at all.

The real question here is when is a government employee coverd when travelling for work? ATM in our department we cant really get a straight answer if were are covered by workers comp while we are away for work purposes.

If something happens if we have an accident after hours while away for work? We are not there for pleasure or of our own doing but we cant be expected to just sit in the motel like a hermit.

I will change the scenario slightly, she was getting into bed and grabbed the light fitting & it smashed her in the face? It is certainly a silly thing to do. Is she entitled to compo then?

Diggety said :

Why is her name withheld?

(And her number if she’s hot)

So her partner does not find out about her extra curricular activities perhaps?

When you’re away on government business, and in your hotel room, you aren’t on work time. You’re on personal time. However, you happen to be under a roof provided by the government, because you need to be in that particular town, and the government has put you there. So you are doing your normal everyday activities, and that’s fine. And that includes sex (why not?). Andthe government is obliged to keep you safe. It is pretty “out there” to bring down a chandelier – but there is no “standard” for what is “an acceptable of level of out-there-ness” when you are having consensual sex. I don’t think it’s at all fair to post slurs on the woman involved.

Lucky she didn’t catch a nasty social disease, or worse still, become pregnant during the whole ‘affair’ – otherwise Comcare would really be up for it big time.

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

She was hanging on to that chandelier like she was a bucking bronco but she pulled a little too hard methinks 🙂

Is there is a memo circulating in the High Court advising that all light fittings be secured on the day of the hearing?

Nah much cheaper to shackle her to the witness box and let’s face it that would go down a treat with some in the judiciary.

Shackling infers chains and handcuffs.
Are you suggesting the she was into S & M also? What does Mr Evil think?

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

She was hanging on to that chandelier like she was a bucking bronco but she pulled a little too hard methinks 🙂

Is there is a memo circulating in the High Court advising that all light fittings be secured on the day of the hearing?

Nah much cheaper to shackle her to the witness box and let’s face it that would go down a treat with some in the judiciary.

bundah said :

She was hanging on to that chandelier like she was a bucking bronco but she pulled a little too hard methinks 🙂

Is there is a memo circulating in the High Court advising that all light fittings be secured on the day of the hearing?

Genie said :

I still fail to see why the fact that she was having sex has any relevance whatsoever. She was injured while on a work trip. She wasn’t behaving in a manner that was either illegal or immoral. She hadn’t (to the best of my knowledge, happy to be corrected) violated the public service code of conduct in any way.

Pretty sure having your sexual endeavours dragged through the media would be a negative look for the department and therefore also a breach of the code of conduct by bringing them into disrepute

I can’t really see how the fact that she was having consensual sex on her own time would bring the public service into disrepute, or violate the public service code of conduct. Having it dragged through the media certainly does, but this has occured after the fact. It’s the furore around her claim, but not the act itself that’s bringing the public service into disrepute. Anyway, it’s as much Comcare’s fault as hers that it’s been turned into a media circus.

MERC600 said :

RadioVK said :

Dilandach said :

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

Should public servants be forced to sit quietly in their hotel rooms when away on business and not engaged directly in work related activities?

“work related activities” ??

Please advise where on earth you work that management consider ‘gettin it on’ is a work related activity. Must be a swinggin office.

Sorry, I don’t think I made that very clear. Allow me to re-phrase that.

Do you think that public servants, when sent away to work, should be required to sit quietly in their hotel room and do nothing during the times that they’re not engaged in work activities?

I certainly wasn’t trying to suggest that I thought that sex was a work related activity.

I still fail to see why the fact that she was having sex has any relevance whatsoever. She was injured while on a work trip. She wasn’t behaving in a manner that was either illegal or immoral. She hadn’t (to the best of my knowledge, happy to be corrected) violated the public service code of conduct in any way.

Pretty sure having your sexual endeavours dragged through the media would be a negative look for the department and therefore also a breach of the code of conduct by bringing them into disrepute

chewy14 said :

RadioVK said :

Dilandach said :

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Because it was a work trip, that the commonwealth was paying for. The room is somewhere to sleep and clean, not for dirty getaways for couples or booty calls.

If I got injured by rogering a lady of the night in a hotel room paid by my employer, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of trying to sue them for damages. There just some activities that if you get hurt doing, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

Oh well, if they don’t win then I guess hotels will need their rooms to be certified to be safe for sexual intercourse. They’d have to test the bed, the wall, the shower, the carpet near the door that has a little gap under it so everyone in the hallway can hear, up against the window and probably the bench that the TV sits on.

I still fail to see why the fact that she was having sex has any relevance whatsoever. She was injured while on a work trip. She wasn’t behaving in a manner that was either illegal or immoral. She hadn’t (to the best of my knowledge, happy to be corrected) violated the public service code of conduct in any way.

I do agree that she has no-one to blame but herself, but you could make that argument about any number of compo claims that have been paid out in the past.

It’s also worth pointing out that she’s not actually suing anyone. She’s claiming against the workers compensation scheme, which is different (again, happy to be corrected if I’m wrong).

Please explain to me why this case should be treated any differently than if she’d injured herself by slipping in the shower. Do you think that public servants should be banned from having sex while away on business? Should public servants be forced to sit quietly in their hotel rooms when away on business and not engaged directly in work related activities?

Because she was directly responsible for her own injury. ie. Pulling the light fitting off the wall.

If she was playing chess and hit herself in the head with a rook, I would think the same. If she was dancing on a table and it broke, then I would think the same.

There must be a limit to what an employee is able to do.

You make a very good point. However, plenty of other compo claims for what could be considered avoidable self inflicted injury are successful.

A friend of mine who works for a large government department snapped an Achillies tendon at an interstate work conference. It happened while she was out dancing with other delegates from the conference after the days official conference events had finished. You could argue that it was self inflicted (at least in part), yet Comcare had no issue in paying compensation.

I’m not saying I think it’s right. I just think that a double standard is being applied to this case based on the fact that she was having sex at the time.

chewy14 said :

Because she was directly responsible for her own injury. ie. Pulling the light fitting off the wall.

If she was playing chess and hit herself in the head with a rook, I would think the same. If she was dancing on a table and it broke, then I would think the same.

There must be a limit to what an employee is able to do.

I agree with what you are saying here.

But does that apply to everything? If I accidentally myself in the head at my desk at work – totally my own action, not related to any work task or something my employer could foresee or prevent – would I be able to claim compo? What if I tripped over in the hall?

The issue from my point of view is fairness. If some idiot can’t walk up stairs and hurts themselves, why should they get compo and she not?

Equally, if she can’t shag without breaking room fittings, why should they pay?

Dilandach said :

Oh well, if they don’t win then I guess hotels will need their rooms to be certified to be safe for sexual intercourse. They’d have to test the bed, the wall, the shower, the carpet near the door that has a little gap under it so everyone in the hallway can hear, up against the window and probably the bench that the TV sits on.

Nice work, if you can get it.

RadioVK said :

Dilandach said :

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

Should public servants be forced to sit quietly in their hotel rooms when away on business and not engaged directly in work related activities?

“work related activities” ??

Please advise where on earth you work that management consider ‘gettin it on’ is a work related activity. Must be a swinggin office.

RadioVK said :

Dilandach said :

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Because it was a work trip, that the commonwealth was paying for. The room is somewhere to sleep and clean, not for dirty getaways for couples or booty calls.

If I got injured by rogering a lady of the night in a hotel room paid by my employer, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of trying to sue them for damages. There just some activities that if you get hurt doing, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

Oh well, if they don’t win then I guess hotels will need their rooms to be certified to be safe for sexual intercourse. They’d have to test the bed, the wall, the shower, the carpet near the door that has a little gap under it so everyone in the hallway can hear, up against the window and probably the bench that the TV sits on.

I still fail to see why the fact that she was having sex has any relevance whatsoever. She was injured while on a work trip. She wasn’t behaving in a manner that was either illegal or immoral. She hadn’t (to the best of my knowledge, happy to be corrected) violated the public service code of conduct in any way.

I do agree that she has no-one to blame but herself, but you could make that argument about any number of compo claims that have been paid out in the past.

It’s also worth pointing out that she’s not actually suing anyone. She’s claiming against the workers compensation scheme, which is different (again, happy to be corrected if I’m wrong).

Please explain to me why this case should be treated any differently than if she’d injured herself by slipping in the shower. Do you think that public servants should be banned from having sex while away on business? Should public servants be forced to sit quietly in their hotel rooms when away on business and not engaged directly in work related activities?

Because she was directly responsible for her own injury. ie. Pulling the light fitting off the wall.

If she was playing chess and hit herself in the head with a rook, I would think the same. If she was dancing on a table and it broke, then I would think the same.

There must be a limit to what an employee is able to do.

Dilandach said :

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Because it was a work trip, that the commonwealth was paying for. The room is somewhere to sleep and clean, not for dirty getaways for couples or booty calls.

If I got injured by rogering a lady of the night in a hotel room paid by my employer, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of trying to sue them for damages. There just some activities that if you get hurt doing, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

Oh well, if they don’t win then I guess hotels will need their rooms to be certified to be safe for sexual intercourse. They’d have to test the bed, the wall, the shower, the carpet near the door that has a little gap under it so everyone in the hallway can hear, up against the window and probably the bench that the TV sits on.

I still fail to see why the fact that she was having sex has any relevance whatsoever. She was injured while on a work trip. She wasn’t behaving in a manner that was either illegal or immoral. She hadn’t (to the best of my knowledge, happy to be corrected) violated the public service code of conduct in any way.

I do agree that she has no-one to blame but herself, but you could make that argument about any number of compo claims that have been paid out in the past.

It’s also worth pointing out that she’s not actually suing anyone. She’s claiming against the workers compensation scheme, which is different (again, happy to be corrected if I’m wrong).

Please explain to me why this case should be treated any differently than if she’d injured herself by slipping in the shower. Do you think that public servants should be banned from having sex while away on business? Should public servants be forced to sit quietly in their hotel rooms when away on business and not engaged directly in work related activities?

Dear god, has anyone before gone to such lengths to prove what a good lay they are?

She was hanging on to that chandelier like she was a bucking bronco but she pulled a little too hard methinks 🙂

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Because it was a work trip, that the commonwealth was paying for. The room is somewhere to sleep and clean, not for dirty getaways for couples or booty calls.

If I got injured by rogering a lady of the night in a hotel room paid by my employer, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of trying to sue them for damages. There just some activities that if you get hurt doing, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

Oh well, if they don’t win then I guess hotels will need their rooms to be certified to be safe for sexual intercourse. They’d have to test the bed, the wall, the shower, the carpet near the door that has a little gap under it so everyone in the hallway can hear, up against the window and probably the bench that the TV sits on.

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

If she’d been rooting in the shower and ripped the shower head out of the wall and spanked herself in the head then we probably would have heard about it!

This also gives rise (ha!) to the concept of masturbation-related injuries in the workplace. We should commission a study to work out how to prevent such injuries occurring.

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Do you really think that she deserves compo for pulling a light fitting off the wall and getting a whack in the face?

Should the tax payer also compensate the hotel owner for the damage to the room?

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Why is her name withheld?

(And her number if she’s hot)

The film version is called Carry On, Comcare – with Barbara Windsor at the front desk of the motel.

Anyone who wants to accuse the RiotAct off being PC should take note of the title of this thread – great stuff! (you wouldn’t see a headline like that in The Crimes).

If she wins in the High Court then everyone will be saying “I’ll have what she’s having”

“Now everyone who likes a bedroom romp should be hoping the High Court rules for Comcare. Otherwise your personal life will be getting a lot more employer regulation.”

Ok, probably that was tongue-in-cheek, but based on comment #1 –

No-one can stop anyone else engaging in consensual, otherwise legal activities. All they can do is attempt to limit their own liability that might arise from such activities.

Also, it’s not clear why they couldn’t just sue the hotel – even if they don’t have deep pockets, surely they have insurance.

This is the type of person that spoils it for everyone else. Public and Private industry.

Cue the inevitable rules and regulations to tighten down what happens when you’re sent out of town / country when you’re outside the normal working hours.