PDA

View Full Version : My heart bleeds for this boy's suffering...



Rheghead
22-Mar-05, 23:47
I'll buy houses and a flash car, says yob awarded £567,000
By Peter Zimonjic
(Filed: 20/03/2005)

A teenage criminal who received £567,000 in compensation after falling through a roof while trespassing boasted about his wealth yesterday, saying that he was looking forward to buying "a few houses and a flash car".

Mortgage Services

Carl Murphy, 18, got the payout last week, nine years after being injured in a 40ft fall at a warehouse in Bootle docks, near Liverpool, prompting angry protests from crime victims and politicians.

In his first public interview since receiving the award, Murphy - who has convictions for robbery, burglary and assault - said that he did not care about the response.

"I deserve this money and I don't care what anybody says about me," he said. "I'm going to buy a big house so I have a place to live with me mum when she gets out of jail. I might buy a few houses - I'll buy whatever I want." He added: "The papers just call me a yob and a thug because I've been done for robbery and assault but those were just silly stupid little things, like.

"I want to spend my money the way I want without people interfering and I want to have a prosperous future.

"I want to take my mates to Liverpool games and get a flash car. This money is mine now and I'll do what I want. I don't care about anyone or what they have to say about it."

Murphy received his compensation after suing the company that owned the warehouse. He claimed that if the perimeter fence had not been in disrepair he would not have been able to gain entry and suffer his injuries.

He is now partially blinded in his left eye and has 17 metal plates in his skull as a result of the fall. He also claims that the incident has caused him to suffer from behavioural problems. It annoys me that people think I don't deserve this money after all I've been through," he said. "I'm going to spend my money on whatever I want and everyone who called me 'Tin Head' can go get stuffed."

Residents of Bootle, where Murphy lives, said that they were too scared to speak publicly about the case but privately described him as the area "king yob".

One said: "He shaves his head so we can all see the scars. He likes to walk around and play the big man.

"I've seen him yelling abuse at the shopkeepers, telling them how he is going to buy the shop with his compensation money and throw them out.

"He is a villain around here. Everybody knows him but no one wants to confront him. He has a big family and they all stand up for each other."

In November last year, Murphy's mother Diane and her partner Kevin Parsons, both 36, were jailed for three years for dealing in crack cocaine and heroin from their council house in Bellini Close.

A police spokesman said: "Diane Murphy was using the home to distribute Class A drugs which was bringing a large criminal element into the suburb.

"Residents in the area are intimidated. Crime is happening on their doorstep. People like Diane Murphy and others who sell drugs disrupt the decent people who live there."

Police describe the area around Bellini Close as a "hotbed for anti-social behaviour, street-level crime and the distribution of Class A drugs". Several buildings are boarded up and vandalised - and gangs of teenagers wearing shell suits and trainers walk up and down the street shouting and drinking alcohol in the early daytime. Police make regular rounds.

Since Murphy's mother was jailed, he has lived with his grandmother, Barbara Murphy, who keeps a rottweiler in her home on nearby Church Grove.

She said: "He never finished school because the teachers couldn't control him. He was a nice boy before the accident but ever since the injuries he has been difficult to control. He needs this money. That is him for life now. What is he going to do without it?"

She said that Murphy does not work or attend school. Neighbours say that they see him drinking in the park with friends on most evenings or hanging around a local cafe.

The payout has been condemned by charities, which point out that victims of crime receive far less under the Government's criminal injuries compensation scheme.

The parents of James Bulger received just £7,500 following his murder, and the family of Damilola Taylor received £10,000 following his murder.

Clive Elliott, the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said: "All rights to compensation should cease the moment a person breaks the law, in this case trespassing.

"Wrongdoers think they are beyond the law - and in this case they have shown they can become quite well off by breaking it."


Another case of legal madness, surely some of his compo should go towards fixing the roof and the fence? :eyes

champagnebaby
23-Mar-05, 04:20
I think he got what he deserved, in the sense of his fall - not his compo pay out.

I believe in 'what goes around come around' but it's typical that a tinky chav like that would get his commuppance then manage to wangle a few pound out of it, like the lotto winner Carroll http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/07/nlott07.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/11/07/ixhome.html all he's done since he won his money is make more peoples lives a misery, it's so maddening as these tinks have probably never done anything to deserve their money - quite the opposite infact and they're gonna be sitting pretty probably never having to work again, well i say 'again' but they were probably head of the dole queue anyway. [mad]

The money likely won't keep him outta trouble either, least he won't be too keen on doing robberies with being partially sighted and deaf, lol But he won't need to with all the money he's got or he could pay one of his chav friends to do the deed for him.

By the sound of it the money's went straight to his tin heid and he's strutting about acting the big man! Which'll only make him worse cos he'll think he's above the law.

katarina
23-Mar-05, 10:22
Clive Elliott, the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said: "All rights to compensation should cease the moment a person breaks the law, in this case trespassing


I strongly agree with the above. Don't get me on my soap box about this - i need to get to work - that is an honest days work - and even if I work every hour god sends for the rest of my life, I will never have that amount of money spare. The political parties are looking for an election issue - well I for one would vote for the party that stops crime from paying whatever their other policies are!

The Angel Of Death
23-Mar-05, 10:58
Think I'll go an rob a house tonight and hope the owner clobbers me with something heavy that'll net me a couple of grand in compo honest me who works for a living and has bills etc could put that to good use at the moment

Its so wrong that someone who freely admits they were not meant to be on that roof can get 500 k large because they managed to climb a fence !!! anyone can climb just about any fence and even if its 20 feet high if your determent enough you can still do it I bet if it was an electric one he would be trying to claim compo because he got a little shock. What about a barbed or razor wire fence that would have left a nasty cut as well (Couple of thousand in there as well)

Simple solution he was trespassing and as such had no right to be there so all compo claims should be waived along with any rights as well more fool him for falling in the first place.

I'm just suppressed none of the "local crew" have tried this one already its a sure fired way of making money isn't it ?

Donnie
23-Mar-05, 11:40
Currently there is a law that regulates an occupier’s duty to a trespasser so if the building was not secured and "safe" then the owner is liable. Would you still feel the same if it had been a small child that was trespassing and ended up injured? It may be a kick in the teeth to the victims when people like the "lotto rapist" win big cash prizes but they are entitled to it as much a anyone else.

katarina
23-Mar-05, 11:54
[quote="Donnie"] Would you still feel the same if it had been a small child that was trespassing and ended up injured? It may be a kick in the teeth to the victims when people like the "lotto rapist" win big cash prizes but they are entitled to it as much a anyone else.[/quote

Come on!!!! A small child would not be able to climb on a warehouse roof!!! And if an older child was there for a bit of devilment he could hardly be put in the same catagory as a hardened burglar who was obviously there with the intent to steal.
By all means fine the owners in case of the former, but under no circumstances should the criminals be rewarded!!! This is soo ludicrous it beggars belief!!! It's as bad as prisoners being given compensation for slopping out!!!! And being rewarded by the law is hardly the same as winning the lottery!!!!

The Angel Of Death
23-Mar-05, 11:55
Where do we then draw the line at safe and secure then ??? i would say a fence and borded up but we all know its very easy to get beyond that

Still comes back to the fact that the ned knew he wasnt supposed to be there that and small children are not very good at climbing are they

Donnie
23-Mar-05, 12:16
What makes you think there wasn't a ladder on the side of the building? When I was a child I was climbing all kinds of buildings. Regardless the law still stands and the owner was liable. The article does not give all the facts. We do not know what caused the fall. Usually in this kind of case something on the roof was not secure causing the person to slip and injure themselves. If the roof is not safe for a trespasser then it is not going to be safe for anyone who has a legitimate reason to be on the roof.

Rheghead
23-Mar-05, 12:28
If the roof is not safe for a trespasser then it is not going to be safe for anyone who has a legitimate reason to be on the roof.

Some roofs have skylights fitted. Are you saying that these are illegal now? I am sure a glass skylight is almost invisible at night let alone be able to support a burglar's weight.

Or should some form of illuminous paint be painted around the glass to make it more obvious? :roll:

Donnie
23-Mar-05, 12:43
This is not my opinion it's the law. If the roof of a building is not safe for access and someone is injured as a result then the owner is liable. I wouldn't imagine a skylight would be included in this but every case is going to be different. I don't like the law either but I don't feel strongly enough to do anything about it.

katarina
23-Mar-05, 12:50
What makes you think there wasn't a ladder on the side of the building? When I was a child I was climbing all kinds of buildings. Regardless the law still stands and the owner was liable. The article does not give all the facts. We do not know what caused the fall. Usually in this kind of case something on the roof was not secure causing the person to slip and injure themselves. If the roof is not safe for a trespasser then it is not going to be safe for anyone who has a legitimate reason to be on the roof.

I stand by what I said. Fine the owners if their safety standards fall below what is legal, by all means - BUT WHY COMPENSATE A CRIMINAL. After all this is what the thread is about, not whether the ware house owners were negligent.
CRIME SHOULD NOT PAY IN ANY WAY.

katarina
23-Mar-05, 12:51
and another thing - the lawyers who fight these cases are as bad as the criminals!

concerned resident
24-Mar-05, 01:18
If a burglar falls over in the dark while he is taking your TV, and injures himself, it sounds like it will be your fault, as you did not leave a clear path of access, and should be taken to court for a compensation claim. There is no difference from your home and a Business premises. The Law is on the side of the criminal, not the law biding person.

Rheghead
24-Mar-05, 11:00
I take it that we now have to fit our windows with 'shatter proof glass' just in case we are liable for any injuries that a burgular may sustain when he is climbing into our hooses. :roll:

Like somebody said on here once, 'The pendulum has swung too far'

The Angel Of Death
24-Mar-05, 11:22
The lunatics are well and truly in charge of the asylum

Its beggars belief that someone can try to extort cash from you because they hurt / done something to themselves in the process of "liberating" your TV and video from your house

Donnie
24-Mar-05, 12:14
I take it that we now have to fit our windows with 'shatter proof glass' just in case we are liable for any injuries that a burgular may sustain when he is climbing into our hooses. :roll:

Like somebody said on here once, 'The pendulum has swung too far'

The law is no different now than it was ten years ago. Health and Safety applies to all people on your land even if they are meant to be there or not. If you feel strongly enough about it then maybe you should get together and do something about it. Maybe try writing to your MP or the PM and voice your concerns.

Alexander Rowe
24-Mar-05, 15:21
I hear that the Liverpool City Council have arranged for a minutes silence at 1pm tomorrow due to the sad and untimely smashing of the window.

squidge
24-Mar-05, 15:48
I know youll roll your eyes but you cant expect me to keep quiet!!!!


A small child would not be able to climb on a warehouse roof!!! And if an older child was there for a bit of devilment he could hardly be put in the same catagory as a hardened burglar who was obviously there with the intent to steal.


Seems to me none of you read the article properly. This man received compensation for a fall through a roof that happened when he was NINE. The article says


Carl Murphy, 18, got the payout last week, nine years after being injured in a 40ft fall at a warehouse in Bootle docks, near Liverpool, prompting angry protests from crime victims and politicians.

Presumably he had not comitted a whole shed load of crimes and he was just a kid runniing wild in a dysfunctional family - his mum is a drug addict and we were expressing our worries about the children of addicts on another thread with some compassion. His Gran who according to theis article keeps a "rottweiler" WOW - terrible family then!!!!! She said he was difficult to control sonce the accident - head injuries might account for that as well remember.

Places that are dangerous for children must be kept secure - if they arent and an owner was negligent then they should be held responsible. This compensation process probably started back when he had his accident nine years ago - anyone who knows about compensation cases knows they can take years. Should it have been said " well this boy might turn out to be a thug and a criminal so we wont let apply for compensation"?

Its a dangerous road to take to say this man isnt fit to get compensation for what was quite clearly an horrific accident - he is partially blind and has seventeen metal plates in his head. We know only half the story. We dont like what he has become but at least he will be BUYING his car and not stealing it, and he will be BUYING his house and not living there on benefits.

This is one of the worst, most blatently biased pieces of reporting i have read in ages!!!!

Rheghead
24-Mar-05, 15:58
If I was a victim of this guy's crimes, I would be seriously thinking of putting in a compensation claim for the distress of having my home desecrated. Something that probably wasn't feasible before he got his guilty mits on all the dosh...

squidge
24-Mar-05, 16:11
I wouldnt argue with that Rheghead nor would i argue that he should get loads of money if this had happened last year.

But he was nine years old - how might his life have been different if the accident hasnt happened - we dont know and thats the point. How long was he in hospital, how long did it take for him to get back to school, how did it affect his behaviour and contribute to the person he is now. Its far more complex than it looked at first glance

jjc
25-Mar-05, 15:20
I've voted 'yes' to the poll because I deeply disagree with (what appears to be an increasing) compensation culture and not because of this particular case.

Of course, I can't blame Rheghead for getting angry having read the article – it is the most one-sided, inflammatory article I've read in a long time. Peter Zimonjic should be (but probably isn't) thoroughly ashamed.

He doesn't actually state that Carl was nine at the time of the accident, he makes you work that one out for yourself.

He does mention that Carl has convictions for robbery, burglary and assault – but so what if he does? What possible bearing do these convictions have on the liability of the company?

He does mention that Carl's mother and her partner were jailed for dealing – but so what if they were? What possible bearing do these convictions have on the liability of the company?

He does mention that Carl's grandmother has a Rottweiller – but so what if she does? What possible bearing does that have on the liability of the company?

He does mention that Carl has been seen drinking in the park – but so what if he has? What possible bearing does that have on the liability of the company?

Another example of a newspaper article designed not to tell us the news but rather to sell the next edition of 'why we should all be afraid'.

Truly, not a good piece of journalism.