I spoke to a lawyer (in California)regarding an on the job injury. He told me that it is my duty to file for Disability Insurance. And that he'd represent me in My Workers Comp case. He said he'd charge 15% of any settlement I'd receive from Workers Comp.
Does this mean that I can receive one lump payment from WC, from where he takes 15%? Or would WC give me a weekly check (until I recover) and does he get 15% from my weekly check? Thanks in advance.
Answer:
CUCH is correct---but also keep in mind...if you are given california state disability while you have a workers comp claim...you will be paying the state back the disability payments.and yes you would receive one lump sum, minus the 15%
you can get the worker comp company to give you weekly payments...but not usually unless your case is really Strong...if you got the advanced payments...again these will be deducted out of your settlement.
also...settlement for work comp are not a get rich thing...and it usually drags on for a very long time.
good luck
Your attorney is working on a contingency, where he will be paid his 15% when he takes your case and wins a lump sum...where as he takes his portion off the top.
THAT'S ALL HE GET'S FROM THE LUMP-SOME. THEY'RE THE CHEAPEST ATTORNEYS SO FAR. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY HIM BECAUSE ONCE YOU WIN YOUR CASE, HIS FEE IS DEDUCTED AND YOU'RE AWARDED THE REST WHICH COMES IN A HUGE CHECK THROUGH HIM TO YOU IN YOUR NAME.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Worker's Comp in Texas - 2 jobs, injured at 1?
"My friend" has a co-worker named "Linda". "Linda" works 2 jobs, one of which is M to F 830 to 430 M to T, F is 9 to 12. So that is her full time, primary job. She also has a 2nd job where she works weekends and the remainder of her Friday. "Linda" was recently injured at her 2nd job and is using the benefits of workmen's comp. It is not confirmed if at her second job she is full or part time since it is retail, but she is getting the benefits via check. "Linda" continues to work at her 1st job and her injury does cause some conflict because it has to do with her hands. My question is, what she is doing is that fraud, shouldnt she be at home collecting 2 checks?? I need to know what is going on here. I really cant obtain a straight answer via internet. Any input is appreciated...
Thank you!
Answer:
Basically she is ripping off he system, since she can work and perform. SOrry would report her as in you are the one with insurance premiums going up that is in fact paying her.
That question will be asked in wc court. They will ask everything and anything to try to prove that she was stretching the truth. I injured my back at in 2001...to this day...I am still getting injections in my back and cannot sit or stand for too long. I have a paper pushing job as a medical biller...but I can no longer do the "pastry" thing I loved to do. Trust me...they make you jump through hoops...and if they find her "fraudulent" she will get into trouble. I worked at a major insurance company...and they send investigators to spy on you and WATCH everything to see what you are doing. I had this happen to me also...but it came back that I have altered everything in my life not to aggravate my current ongoing injury. Someone is always watching.Insurance premiums are so high do to fraud...and they make money by not paying any out. I was diagnosed with a pulled hamstring by Workman's comp Dr..and after three of my doctors did testing, MRI's and physical therapy.they mis-diagnosed me and now they have to take care of me for this problem that will affect me the rest of my life. I actually herniated several disc and now they sit on my sciatic nerve which is extremely painful.
Thank you!
Answer:
Basically she is ripping off he system, since she can work and perform. SOrry would report her as in you are the one with insurance premiums going up that is in fact paying her.
That question will be asked in wc court. They will ask everything and anything to try to prove that she was stretching the truth. I injured my back at in 2001...to this day...I am still getting injections in my back and cannot sit or stand for too long. I have a paper pushing job as a medical biller...but I can no longer do the "pastry" thing I loved to do. Trust me...they make you jump through hoops...and if they find her "fraudulent" she will get into trouble. I worked at a major insurance company...and they send investigators to spy on you and WATCH everything to see what you are doing. I had this happen to me also...but it came back that I have altered everything in my life not to aggravate my current ongoing injury. Someone is always watching.Insurance premiums are so high do to fraud...and they make money by not paying any out. I was diagnosed with a pulled hamstring by Workman's comp Dr..and after three of my doctors did testing, MRI's and physical therapy.they mis-diagnosed me and now they have to take care of me for this problem that will affect me the rest of my life. I actually herniated several disc and now they sit on my sciatic nerve which is extremely painful.
Worked 21 days so far, no day off in site, not even for an emergency?
My fiance works at a disturbution center in Louisville Kentucky. He has been there for about 4 months or so, he is full time and in the union. He has tendenitis (sp) in both of his arms. He has known about it for a whil but not had insurence until recently to go to the doctor. He has not have a day off in over 3 weeks, his arms are hurting him so bad he can barley lift anything ( which it the major part of his job) He called in today to tell them he was going to the doctor today to have his arms looked at. his boss said " well are you going to be at work?" my fiance told him he didnt know it was all up to what the doctor said. so his boss told him if he did not come in today even if he went to the doctors office and got a doctors note then he was fired. My fiance has never missed a day of work and is one of there better employees. Are they able to tell him he can not miss one day even for a health problem?
Answer:
As you indicate he is in a Union, he should contact his Union Rep.
If he is still within a probationary period and the problem is due to a pre-existing condition it will depend on what the Union contract specifies...they may be within their rights to terminate; however, the Union Rep. can file probably grievance and as he has not missed any work in the past and he has a doctor's note, get him reinstated and if he cannot work, see if he qualifies for disability leave (if past the probationary priod w/Dr.'s certification) or FMLA (if unable to work due to a pre-existing condition with Dr.'s certification), Workman's Comp. (if past the probationary period and no pre-existing condition), or return to work with restrictions-light duty until certified able to return to work (if on disability, Workman's Comp. or working with restrictions, most union employers have the right to send him to a Dr. of their choosing for an impartial medical exam to determine a worker's ability to work and the findings of that physician will be binding).
no, if he has a doctor's note it's illegal for them to fire him.
Only if your fiance claims this as a work injury, can they not fire him. Otherwise, yes they can. KY is an AT WILL state, and they don't have to give a reason to fire him at all.
depending on the state that you live in, like in New Hampshire it is not okay for an employer to put the employee in danger when they need medical attention.
They can tell him anything they want. That's why he is in the union. It's their job to make sure the employer is acting correctly.
Tell him to talk to his steward.
In UK it would be unfair dismissal
If he had a note from a doctor indicating that he should not work then the employer can't justifiably fire him. The employer should know this, it would open him up to problems with the union plus a wrongful termination suit from you. If he is still on inital probation, however, they can fire him without cause.
Unfortunately friend, it appears employers can do whatever they want these days. I hope he can find some other employer who treats him better. As one who has been going from part time job to part time job for the last 2 years I can tell you, the big boys hold all the chips and anyone who can keep a job should consider themselves lucky.
He really needs to talk to the union rep. Since he's a member of the union he can't be fired because he is injured and needs to see the doctor.
He needs to go to his union steward. This is against the law as we know it but unfortunately companies know they can break the law and treat Americans like the illegals they prefer to hire for lessor wages. Sounds like your fiance is either illegal or needs a lawyer. This is slavery.
look into the labor laws of your state.
There are some that state employees must be given 2 days off each week.
then you can call around the yellow pages for employment lawyers. Ask them, if they can point you in the right direction since its not an actual case YET.
A few places I worked HAD to give you 2 days off per week...unles you were upper mamnagement that was paid salary.
But hes paid hourly, so I would look into it.
If they fire him, wrongful temrination for going to the doctor.
An possibly harrassment if they make him work while injured
I work in Tennessee, which is also an at-will state. While it does mean that you can terminate employment with out cause or reason, there are federal laws that protect individuals from being fired when they are injured. It breaks federal labor regulations to fire somebody who is under doctor's care for a mental or physical problem that is preventing them from performing their job function (to an extent).
How does this help you? If he can prove he was fired for seeking medical treatment, you have a case. If the employer says he was fired for any other reason under the sun (or no reason at all...in an at-will state) it may be hard to fight.
Answer:
As you indicate he is in a Union, he should contact his Union Rep.
If he is still within a probationary period and the problem is due to a pre-existing condition it will depend on what the Union contract specifies...they may be within their rights to terminate; however, the Union Rep. can file probably grievance and as he has not missed any work in the past and he has a doctor's note, get him reinstated and if he cannot work, see if he qualifies for disability leave (if past the probationary priod w/Dr.'s certification) or FMLA (if unable to work due to a pre-existing condition with Dr.'s certification), Workman's Comp. (if past the probationary period and no pre-existing condition), or return to work with restrictions-light duty until certified able to return to work (if on disability, Workman's Comp. or working with restrictions, most union employers have the right to send him to a Dr. of their choosing for an impartial medical exam to determine a worker's ability to work and the findings of that physician will be binding).
no, if he has a doctor's note it's illegal for them to fire him.
Only if your fiance claims this as a work injury, can they not fire him. Otherwise, yes they can. KY is an AT WILL state, and they don't have to give a reason to fire him at all.
depending on the state that you live in, like in New Hampshire it is not okay for an employer to put the employee in danger when they need medical attention.
They can tell him anything they want. That's why he is in the union. It's their job to make sure the employer is acting correctly.
Tell him to talk to his steward.
In UK it would be unfair dismissal
If he had a note from a doctor indicating that he should not work then the employer can't justifiably fire him. The employer should know this, it would open him up to problems with the union plus a wrongful termination suit from you. If he is still on inital probation, however, they can fire him without cause.
Unfortunately friend, it appears employers can do whatever they want these days. I hope he can find some other employer who treats him better. As one who has been going from part time job to part time job for the last 2 years I can tell you, the big boys hold all the chips and anyone who can keep a job should consider themselves lucky.
He really needs to talk to the union rep. Since he's a member of the union he can't be fired because he is injured and needs to see the doctor.
He needs to go to his union steward. This is against the law as we know it but unfortunately companies know they can break the law and treat Americans like the illegals they prefer to hire for lessor wages. Sounds like your fiance is either illegal or needs a lawyer. This is slavery.
look into the labor laws of your state.
There are some that state employees must be given 2 days off each week.
then you can call around the yellow pages for employment lawyers. Ask them, if they can point you in the right direction since its not an actual case YET.
A few places I worked HAD to give you 2 days off per week...unles you were upper mamnagement that was paid salary.
But hes paid hourly, so I would look into it.
If they fire him, wrongful temrination for going to the doctor.
An possibly harrassment if they make him work while injured
I work in Tennessee, which is also an at-will state. While it does mean that you can terminate employment with out cause or reason, there are federal laws that protect individuals from being fired when they are injured. It breaks federal labor regulations to fire somebody who is under doctor's care for a mental or physical problem that is preventing them from performing their job function (to an extent).
How does this help you? If he can prove he was fired for seeking medical treatment, you have a case. If the employer says he was fired for any other reason under the sun (or no reason at all...in an at-will state) it may be hard to fight.
Wont that be called false charge of defamation?India,see details?
Suppose some man 'R' sends an insulting letter containing unfair comments ; to some coworker 'S' at his home.
S gets hurt after reading that %26 HIMSELF shows that letter to his whole family %26 a group of people.
Now can S prosecute R under provision of defamation in India??
Answer:
Definitely he can prosecute R for the offence of defamation under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code as here a letter was written containing unfair comments that amounts to defamation as provided under section 499 of IPC as Whoever by words either spoken or intended to
be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes
any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, to defame that person.
Now in this case this letter was read by his whole family %26 a group of people before whom his reputation was harmed by such imputation, hence it amounts to defamation.
Not in India..only in Pakistan and Iran
S gets hurt after reading that %26 HIMSELF shows that letter to his whole family %26 a group of people.
Now can S prosecute R under provision of defamation in India??
Answer:
Definitely he can prosecute R for the offence of defamation under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code as here a letter was written containing unfair comments that amounts to defamation as provided under section 499 of IPC as Whoever by words either spoken or intended to
be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes
any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, to defame that person.
Now in this case this letter was read by his whole family %26 a group of people before whom his reputation was harmed by such imputation, hence it amounts to defamation.
Not in India..only in Pakistan and Iran
Won't it be better to make guns illegal?
The second amendment says the right to bear arms. However, I think it's flawed. If there's no gun at all, except in the army, things would be totally better.
First, there would be no mortality since all guns is taken away.
Second, no violence on TV and movies.
I think this prevents a lot of situations.
Answer:
I'd be careful, mate. The NRA will be knocking on your door soon. And no one dares to annoy the NRA. Biggest bullies in the US.
I particularly liked the crass effort of having a rally in Colorado a few weeks after kids shot their classmates at Columbine High...
who is going to come and take mine? I have many on my side and we ain't giving them over.
And you assume criminals would give up their guns? Making drugs totally illegal has worked sooooooo well.
If you make guns illegal, you take them out of the hands of honest citizens, and keep them in the hands of criminals.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/b...
Good for you.
Thank God you didn't write the Constitution.
Keep in mind that people kill people, not guns. (1) If you take away the weapon, people will just find another means for violence. (2) With the proper tools you can make your own guns. (3) The majority of the people on the streets shooting people didn't buy the guns legally anyway.
There will always be a market, therefore, there will always be a supply.
Registered gun users use their guns for these things: hunting, skeet shooting, rifle practice, and the extremely rare instance of self defense.
People who buy guns illegally use their guns for these things: gun crimes.
People managed to murder and rob witout guns for most of humanity - even if the criminals couldn't get guns, they'd go back to stabbings and beatings as the main way. Violence is as old as life itself. It's not just a modern phenomenon.
The law isn't so much a deterrent to the 1% of humanity that are criminals as it is a recourse to the 99% who aren't.
so then there will be a sharp spike in stabbings and chain sawings? I think it would be safe to say that guns make it safer because potential criminals know that that granny could take you down for trying to take her purse.
You are absolutely right. There would be no mortality "since all guns is taken away". We would all be immortal. We would continue to procreate and never die. We will go from a world population of 6 billion to 600 billion within a few years.
Oh, wait, but there will still be bombs, bats, knives, and poisons. We should make those illegal as well. And then cancer, heart disease, and diabetes should be illegalized. Hmmm...fire kills people too. Lightening kills people. Sheesh, I think we need to find paradise and live there.
Hmm...
Well, making them illegal will simply make them more valuable, like it did with controlled substances.
However, America's so-called "democratic" constitution NEEDS a change.
The Second Amendment was written when... Oh, a couple of centuries ago?
Lets see... Two centuries ago, they had guns that took like, a minute to load (soldiers could do it in fifteen seconds though), and couldn't be trusted to actually HIT anything at a range greater than twenty yards.
Why did soldiers line up and fire in the olden days instead of what we do today? Because with those guns, the only way you're going to score a hit is if you fire like six hundred shots at once at the same target...
Now, compare a one-shot, minute-to-load pistol to a sub-machinegun.
Compare a long-barrel rifle that can't be trusted to hit anything to an M21 sniper rifle.
Get the idea?
Oh, and I don't think crazy people should have access to handguns either.
Like on the Simpsons...
Gunsmith: Well, it says here on your record that you're mentally ill, and a danger to the public!
Homer: Awwww
Gunsmith: Don't worry! That just limits you to ten handguns.
Homer: Woo-hoo!
No. I don't believe it would be better to make guns illegal because it just makes it harder for the honest person to defend themselves. Illegal or not, criminals get guns no matter what the laws are. My opinion of course.
In a perfect world, the gun would never have been invented or used to kill other people. This world is far, far from perfect. If gun ownership by private citizens was made illegal, only law abiding citizens would follow the law and give up their guns. The criminals, who probably have unregistered weapons, would not.
Also, people own guns for other reasons. Some people like to hunt, some need to protect themselves or their property from animals, some people collect them, some like target shooting. There are many ways to harm someone. Guns are only one method.
Hell no, guns must not go.
Get more comfortable with them. Go shooting sometime.
There would be no mortality? Are you stupid or just retarded? More people are killed each year in automobile accidents each year than are in gun related accidents. Guns are not the only way to kill people. You can kill someone with your bare hands. So are we going to start taking peoples hands away?
Making guns illegal will do nothing. Drugs are illegal need I say more?
So, your going to ignore thousands of years of human history, where the state has absolute power over the populace. Where a government has no check against it, there is an inevitable revocation of freedoms.
Then there are the 20 plus decisions from the Supreme Court has declared the police do not have to respond to a call.
The first recorded murder was with a rock. Any object can be used as a weapon.
Another thing, your blaming an inanimate object. An object that has to abide by the laws of physics, in other words it can't even load itself.
The average response time of the Los Angeles Police Department is 15 minutes. If a person's throat is slashed they can bleed out in less than a minute.
First, there would be no mortality since all guns is taken away.
Second, no violence on TV and movies.
I think this prevents a lot of situations.
Answer:
I'd be careful, mate. The NRA will be knocking on your door soon. And no one dares to annoy the NRA. Biggest bullies in the US.
I particularly liked the crass effort of having a rally in Colorado a few weeks after kids shot their classmates at Columbine High...
who is going to come and take mine? I have many on my side and we ain't giving them over.
And you assume criminals would give up their guns? Making drugs totally illegal has worked sooooooo well.
If you make guns illegal, you take them out of the hands of honest citizens, and keep them in the hands of criminals.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/b...
Good for you.
Thank God you didn't write the Constitution.
Keep in mind that people kill people, not guns. (1) If you take away the weapon, people will just find another means for violence. (2) With the proper tools you can make your own guns. (3) The majority of the people on the streets shooting people didn't buy the guns legally anyway.
There will always be a market, therefore, there will always be a supply.
Registered gun users use their guns for these things: hunting, skeet shooting, rifle practice, and the extremely rare instance of self defense.
People who buy guns illegally use their guns for these things: gun crimes.
People managed to murder and rob witout guns for most of humanity - even if the criminals couldn't get guns, they'd go back to stabbings and beatings as the main way. Violence is as old as life itself. It's not just a modern phenomenon.
The law isn't so much a deterrent to the 1% of humanity that are criminals as it is a recourse to the 99% who aren't.
so then there will be a sharp spike in stabbings and chain sawings? I think it would be safe to say that guns make it safer because potential criminals know that that granny could take you down for trying to take her purse.
You are absolutely right. There would be no mortality "since all guns is taken away". We would all be immortal. We would continue to procreate and never die. We will go from a world population of 6 billion to 600 billion within a few years.
Oh, wait, but there will still be bombs, bats, knives, and poisons. We should make those illegal as well. And then cancer, heart disease, and diabetes should be illegalized. Hmmm...fire kills people too. Lightening kills people. Sheesh, I think we need to find paradise and live there.
Hmm...
Well, making them illegal will simply make them more valuable, like it did with controlled substances.
However, America's so-called "democratic" constitution NEEDS a change.
The Second Amendment was written when... Oh, a couple of centuries ago?
Lets see... Two centuries ago, they had guns that took like, a minute to load (soldiers could do it in fifteen seconds though), and couldn't be trusted to actually HIT anything at a range greater than twenty yards.
Why did soldiers line up and fire in the olden days instead of what we do today? Because with those guns, the only way you're going to score a hit is if you fire like six hundred shots at once at the same target...
Now, compare a one-shot, minute-to-load pistol to a sub-machinegun.
Compare a long-barrel rifle that can't be trusted to hit anything to an M21 sniper rifle.
Get the idea?
Oh, and I don't think crazy people should have access to handguns either.
Like on the Simpsons...
Gunsmith: Well, it says here on your record that you're mentally ill, and a danger to the public!
Homer: Awwww
Gunsmith: Don't worry! That just limits you to ten handguns.
Homer: Woo-hoo!
No. I don't believe it would be better to make guns illegal because it just makes it harder for the honest person to defend themselves. Illegal or not, criminals get guns no matter what the laws are. My opinion of course.
In a perfect world, the gun would never have been invented or used to kill other people. This world is far, far from perfect. If gun ownership by private citizens was made illegal, only law abiding citizens would follow the law and give up their guns. The criminals, who probably have unregistered weapons, would not.
Also, people own guns for other reasons. Some people like to hunt, some need to protect themselves or their property from animals, some people collect them, some like target shooting. There are many ways to harm someone. Guns are only one method.
Hell no, guns must not go.
Get more comfortable with them. Go shooting sometime.
There would be no mortality? Are you stupid or just retarded? More people are killed each year in automobile accidents each year than are in gun related accidents. Guns are not the only way to kill people. You can kill someone with your bare hands. So are we going to start taking peoples hands away?
Making guns illegal will do nothing. Drugs are illegal need I say more?
So, your going to ignore thousands of years of human history, where the state has absolute power over the populace. Where a government has no check against it, there is an inevitable revocation of freedoms.
Then there are the 20 plus decisions from the Supreme Court has declared the police do not have to respond to a call.
The first recorded murder was with a rock. Any object can be used as a weapon.
Another thing, your blaming an inanimate object. An object that has to abide by the laws of physics, in other words it can't even load itself.
The average response time of the Los Angeles Police Department is 15 minutes. If a person's throat is slashed they can bleed out in less than a minute.
Women discriminating men?
In my state there are many sex criminals and rape. So many women are being scared to men. Every time I see men walking at the stree, and I see woman they will get scared and walk fast even I didnt do anything wrong. They would do thing just because sex crime is very high. Some women would think men is the rapist. Is this called discrimination?
Answer:
The sex criminals and rapists must be tried in court and if found guilty must be imprisoned or meted a death penalty.
yeah for sure this is discriminating. just because you're a guy does not mean you're going to rape them and they shouldn't act like it.
Nope. It might be discrimination if you were causing harm to the man in some way.
Answer:
The sex criminals and rapists must be tried in court and if found guilty must be imprisoned or meted a death penalty.
yeah for sure this is discriminating. just because you're a guy does not mean you're going to rape them and they shouldn't act like it.
Nope. It might be discrimination if you were causing harm to the man in some way.
Woman raped before "honour killing"?
Oh my god, what is going on in this world? How can that be true?And in London? ( I am refering to the homicide of the 20 year old kurdish woman who got killed by her own family)
Answer:
How on earth can they still refer to this as an "honour" killing when she was raped and tortured before hand? It is murder for sexual gratification, and that is how it should be treated
that's radical islam for ya.
Brutal and unforgivable, bring back hanging
It happens all the time in the Muslim world. They never kill the guy that did the rapping only the woman who was rapped. I know, it's a sick culture and they call it a religion of peace.
It seems to be happening so much over in the uk at the moment.
These people and there families that allow this to happen are so sick and deserve to spend a very long time in prison.
It staggers the mind and breaks the heart. Religion is truly the root of all evil.
Horrendous! Just plain horrendous.
they wouldn`t know honour if it got up and punched them.
And guess what? Their religion was Islam...or should I shut up and not say such (true) things?
Religion destroys everything.
As I understand things, Islamic law does not permit the death-sentence for virgins. Thus if the girl is raped,she can be "executed"
I read it too. Very upsetting, and it beggars belief. Why in London - because New Labour opened the flood gates to all sorts.
Muslims must think they regain their honour by committing rape and murder. Just horrible.
Is this a culture we are supposed to learn from?
this is now becoming quite common in this country of ours unfortunatley this case is only the tip of the iceberg so sad
Interesting isn't it how this question about a crime turns into a a rant against Islam by some of those answering the question.
A young woman was murdered, that is crime enough. She was murdered on the orders of her uncle and her father who co-opted others into committing Banaz's torture, rape and murder. Her murder has nothing to do with honour, 'honour killing' is a handy media headline title for the crime as is reflected in the paragraph of this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/londo...
What I am sure of is that this concept of 'honour killings' is alien to Islam in the same way that paedophilia is alien to the beliefs of Christians. That does not mean that those purporting to be Christians will commit such crimes and - terrible though it is - that is the same as in the case of Banaz's murder at the hands of a supposedly Muslim family:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/america...
And they will have to keep them away for other prisoners whilst inside..
MORE EXPENSE
There are many cheaper options
Answer:
How on earth can they still refer to this as an "honour" killing when she was raped and tortured before hand? It is murder for sexual gratification, and that is how it should be treated
that's radical islam for ya.
Brutal and unforgivable, bring back hanging
It happens all the time in the Muslim world. They never kill the guy that did the rapping only the woman who was rapped. I know, it's a sick culture and they call it a religion of peace.
It seems to be happening so much over in the uk at the moment.
These people and there families that allow this to happen are so sick and deserve to spend a very long time in prison.
It staggers the mind and breaks the heart. Religion is truly the root of all evil.
Horrendous! Just plain horrendous.
they wouldn`t know honour if it got up and punched them.
And guess what? Their religion was Islam...or should I shut up and not say such (true) things?
Religion destroys everything.
As I understand things, Islamic law does not permit the death-sentence for virgins. Thus if the girl is raped,she can be "executed"
I read it too. Very upsetting, and it beggars belief. Why in London - because New Labour opened the flood gates to all sorts.
Muslims must think they regain their honour by committing rape and murder. Just horrible.
Is this a culture we are supposed to learn from?
this is now becoming quite common in this country of ours unfortunatley this case is only the tip of the iceberg so sad
Interesting isn't it how this question about a crime turns into a a rant against Islam by some of those answering the question.
A young woman was murdered, that is crime enough. She was murdered on the orders of her uncle and her father who co-opted others into committing Banaz's torture, rape and murder. Her murder has nothing to do with honour, 'honour killing' is a handy media headline title for the crime as is reflected in the paragraph of this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/londo...
What I am sure of is that this concept of 'honour killings' is alien to Islam in the same way that paedophilia is alien to the beliefs of Christians. That does not mean that those purporting to be Christians will commit such crimes and - terrible though it is - that is the same as in the case of Banaz's murder at the hands of a supposedly Muslim family:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/america...
And they will have to keep them away for other prisoners whilst inside..
MORE EXPENSE
There are many cheaper options
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)