- Nov 6, 2006
- 6,793
- 6,446
You're trying to reason with the sort of person who is glad that a young man has had a terrible thing happen to him because it gives him a stick with which to beat Levy and our board.
You are disgusting.
You're trying to reason with the sort of person who is glad that a young man has had a terrible thing happen to him because it gives him a stick with which to beat Levy and our board.
Funny, that's exactly how I feel about you. Perhaps saying you're glad is OTT but you certainly seem far more concerned about trying to use the situation in a way that suits your anti levy agenda than you do about the young man's wellbeing.You are disgusting.
Funny, that's exactly how I feel about you. Perhaps saying you're glad is OTT but you certainly seem far more concerned about trying to use the situation in a way that suits your anti levy agenda than you do about the young man's wellbeing.
I would have saved Rahmad's parents the stress of a legal battle on top of dealing with their brain damaged son.
We clearly (as a club) let them down and the judge agrees.
For the umpteenth time, you wouldn't have had a choice in the matter. Your insurers would have insisted that the case was contested. And, as it turned out in this instance, Spurs' insurers were right to do so because it was agreed that Dr Charlotte Cowie's and Dr Mark Curtin's public liability insurers would pay damages. Not Spurs'. That couldn't be more telling.
Besides which, why do you imagine that the case was so stressful for the Hamed family? There was never any suggestion that they wouldn't win compensation. It was only ever a matter of who would be paying that compensation.
Speaking outside court, Hamed’s father, Raymon, said: “We are relieved more than happy that it is over. If you can imagine, a young man having everything taken away overnight and you didn’t know about it [the cause]. We had to pick up all the pieces. It is the hardest bit. We couldn’t help him because we didn’t know.
“Emotionally it has been draining. It has been draining for a long time but the last two weeks have been difficult. We were never given the chance to protect Rad.” Radwan’s mother, Christabel, said: “We’re happy, we thank God that we are able to secure something for his future. We’re very happy with the outcome. Financially if we had lost the case we would have been homeless, because we didn’t have any financial backing.”
Yes, as employers of two of the three doctors who failed in their duty of care to Hamed, Spurs were found to be "vicariously responsible" (look it up). That is the strict judgement whenever an employee acts negligently within the scope of their employment and causes harm to others. It doesn't mean that the club as a whole has acted badly.
Mills recommended a clinical review be undertaken after abnormalities were spotted in Hamed’s scans. Although he undertook an MRI scan – where no indications of HCM were apparent – a clinical review never took place.
Hickinbottom stated that one of the club’s sports physicians made a “serious error of judgment”. He said: “The club owed a duty of care to the claimant as a result of both the doctor-patient and employer-employee relationship … it was their responsibility, as specialist physicians and employers, to ensure that relevant risks were identified and communicated to the claimant and his parents to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether to bear them. In this they singularly failed.”
Commenting on behalf of Radwan’s family, Diane Rostron, medical negligence expert at Linder Myers Solicitors, said: “On the third day of the trial Dr Mills finally conceded that he owed Rad a duty of care and that he failed in that duty. The club maintained their denials. The judge has now decided that the club failed in their duties to Rad, both as an employer and with the doctor-patient relationship that he had with their doctors. The club failed Rad.”
See above in bold
I merely made an assertion about your actions in this thread, which you may feel insulted by but the fact remained I never attributed a direct insult at you. You have twice attributed a directly insulting adjective to my person, first calling me disgusting and then calling me pathetic. Says more about you than me mateIt's not OTT it's just disgusting and shows what type of pathetic person you are.
Happy to go along but will point out that all I've done is make an inference based on someone's behaviour and have at no point used insulting language.There's all sorts of bollocks being spouted in this thread and right now i'm busy so i'm not even going to begin trying to see who's done what, who's said this and who's upset by that.
As I see it we have two choices.
1: We confine this to discussing the matter at hand and drop the cockwaving insults and childishness with immediate effect
2: I ban you
It's your choice. Fair warning.
Happy to go along but will point out that all I've done is make an inference based on someone's behaviour and have at no point used insulting language.
I merely made an assertion about your actions in this thread, which you may feel insulted by but the fact remained I never attributed a direct insult at you. You have twice attributed a directly insulting adjective to my person, first calling me disgusting and then calling me pathetic. Says more about you than me mate
I think the Muamba saga made big changes in football as a whole to stop this type of stuff happeningJust seen we have been ordered to pay £7m damages to Radwan Hamed, a sad and sorry episode for our club. I'm sure we have learned lessons and hope and wish Radwan Hamed and his family the best for the future.
Glad this has been resolved and his family can now comfortably support him for the rest of his life.