Deaf woman wins compensation over covid briefings. - Page 3

nomadking · 29-07-2021, 01:43

IIRC some of the briefings were Q&A type ones. Not really suitable for sign language as they were non-scripted discussions between multiple people.

Russ · 29-07-2021, 07:49

Compensation in situations like this is awarded based on “loss”, for example an injury claim would be based on loss of amenity, loss of comfort etc as well as suffering.

She missed out on 2 out of 150 briefings.

I’m not exactly sure what she lost out on there that affected her life to a great extent.

People need to keep a sense of perspective.

**Maggy** · 29-07-2021, 08:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

Compensation in situations like this is awarded based on “loss”, for example an injury claim would be based on loss of amenity, loss of comfort etc as well as suffering.

She missed out on 2 out of 150 briefings.

I’m not exactly sure what she lost out on there that affected her life to a great extent.

People need to keep a sense of perspective.

TheDaddy · 29-07-2021, 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

Compensation in situations like this is awarded based on “loss”, for example an injury claim would be based on loss of amenity, loss of comfort etc as well as suffering.

She missed out on 2 out of 150 briefings.

I’m not exactly sure what she lost out on there that affected her life to a great extent.

People need to keep a sense of perspective.

Compensation is limited in the county court anyway iirc

papa smurf · 29-07-2021, 08:44

Question is how much was a daily Boris briefing worth ? I'd go as high as 70p.

tweetiepooh · 29-07-2021, 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

IIRC some of the briefings were Q&A type ones. Not really suitable for sign language as they were non-scripted discussions between multiple people.

Good signers can do marvellous things - we have signers at meeting when needed who can sign songs (Usually closer to SSE - sign supported English - than BSL) and the sermons where they may have some notes but things can change quickly.

While I agree signing should have been there, as others have already commented there was always some form of alternative (subtitles) and it didn't happen every time. Further a better broadcasters could add signing to their non-live broadcasts so it would only be the live situation where it would have been missed.

Given a "must do better" certainly but compensation for something hard to quantify like "stress" is something else altogether.

1andrew1 · 29-07-2021, 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Question is how much was a daily Boris briefing worth ? I'd go as high as 70p.

Agreed. Maybe there were two great ones though and these were the two great ones!

I think the decision is more there to make a point and act as a deterrent - legislation says you need to do this, you didn't do it so it will cost you. I suspect legal costs will be greater than any compensation.

nomadking · 29-07-2021, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Good signers can do marvellous things - we have signers at meeting when needed who can sign songs (Usually closer to SSE - sign supported English - than BSL) and the sermons where they may have some notes but things can change quickly.

While I agree signing should have been there, as others have already commented there was always some form of alternative (subtitles) and it didn't happen every time. Further a better broadcasters could add signing to their non-live broadcasts so it would only be the live situation where it would have been missed.

Given a "must do better" certainly but compensation for something hard to quantify like "stress" is something else altogether.

How many of the 148 other briefings did she even try to watch?

Briefings were live, sometimes with more than one person talking which makes live signing a lot more difficult, if not impossible, because of the need to correctly attribute who said what. Live signing has errors, and the briefings had to be accurate.

Big announcements such as lockdowns and rule changes are not briefings and would've been signed. The content of the announcements were on the government website and widely reported by the media.Do Parliamentary debates and Select Committees have signing?

Any important information that was in the briefings would've been available elsewhere.

Carth · 29-07-2021, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. Maybe there were two great ones though and these were the two great ones!

I think the decision is more there to make a point and act as a deterrent - legislation says you need to do this, you didn't do it so it will cost you. I suspect legal costs will be greater than any compensation.

Having skimmed through (I believe) the pdf file of the application or initial hearing, I'm in agreement that costs will probably far exceed compensation.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...net-Office.pdf

BenMcr · 29-07-2021, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

IIRC some of the briefings were Q&A type ones. Not really suitable for sign language as they were non-scripted discussions between multiple people.

All the Scottish briefings include live signing including for the Q&A sections as far as I know.

In the US, most government press conferences include signing, which would also cover any press questions.

And I'm also pretty sure that the BBC interpreters sign the some of the main News broadcasts including live unscripted interviews.

nomadking · 29-07-2021, 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

All the Scottish briefings include live signing including for the Q&A sections as far as I know.

In the US, most government press conferences include signing, which would also cover any press questions.

And I'm also pretty sure that the BBC interpreters sign the some of the main News broadcasts including live unscripted interviews.

When you're dealing with what might be complicated matters such as trends in infections, signing would not be easy or accurate. Try watching a few events that are subtitled live and see the number of errors. Most of them are obvious at the time, because of the limited context, eg football match.

pip08456 · 29-07-2021, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

When you're dealing with what might be complicated matters such as trends in infections, signing would not be easy or accurate. Try watching a few events that are subtitled live and see the number of errors. Most of them are obvious at the time, because of the limited context, eg football match.

Subtitles are another story as most companies use AI software for them. You may have a human watching to correct any errors but that cuses a lapse in the subtitles.

Russ · 29-07-2021, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Compensation is limited in the county court anyway iirc

Yes, it always has been that way.

RichardCoulter · 29-07-2021, 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. Maybe there were two great ones though and these were the two great ones!

I think the decision is more there to make a point and act as a deterrent - legislation says you need to do this, you didn't do it so it will cost you. I suspect legal costs will be greater than any compensation.

Exactly, yet people are focusing on their resentment that she will be awarded compensation, which is likely to be trivial.

The rights of disabled people to be able to participate in everyday life wherever possible is the main thing at play here.

The fact that it was the Government who did this and then tried to dismiss her complaint by stereotypically saying that she could have used the subtitles is what makes this case much worse.

Not all deaf people are able to use subtitles, which is why signing is used.

mrmistoffelees · 29-07-2021, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Exactly, yet people are focusing on their resentment that she will be awarded compensation, which is likely to be trivial.

The rights of disabled people to be able to participate in everyday life wherever possible is the main thing at play here.

The fact that it was the Government who did this and then tried to dismiss her complaint by stereotypically saying that she could have used the subtitles is what makes this case much worse.

Not all deaf people are able to use subtitles, which is why signing is used.

Had she just gone after an apology, I don't think there would be anywhere near as much push back, but as she wanted a “declaration of unlawfulness” and compensation for “injury to feelings”.

injury to feelings? Was the government in the wrong? They were.

Were her feelings hurt? i highly doubt she rocked back & forth in chair, eyes raised to the heavens crying 'Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?' over and over again.

Then, here come the 'ambulance chasers'

'with Lawyers representing her say she should receive several thousand pounds - and stressed the case has implications for other deaf people.'