Scott Allan's insurers to pay £6m to pedestrian

[CallumLaidlaw]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/hibs-scott-allan-agrees-to-pay-6m-to-pedestrian-1-3806106

It is his insurers that will pay the money Tho obviously, so their headline is slightly misleading

[PiemanP]

Wouldn't wipe my arse with that paper. It's Allan's insurers that will be paying it and lawyers who will have agree it. Totally misleading title.

It would also be nice if they could spell his name correctly.

[TowerHibs]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/hibs-scott-allan-agrees-to-pay-6m-to-pedestrian-1-3806106

It is his insurers that will pay the money Tho obviously, so their headline is slightly misleading
:agree::agree:
i was thinking he would need a tidy signing on fee to contribute to that

[Future17]

Jeezo - that's not nice to read.

Best wishes to the victim and his family.

[Centre Hawf]

In all honesty that sounds like a horrendous situation for the victim and their family.

[liamh2202]

In all honesty that sounds like a horrendous situation for the victim and their family.

Yeah heart goes out to them. Also a thought for Scott as well, didn't know this was even happening can't be easy for him dealing with an accident like that either

[jacomo]

Sorry to hear this and glad the case has been resolved. That is a colossal settlement.

These SUVs are horrendous in an accident.

[Ozyhibby]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/hibs-scott-allan-agrees-to-pay-6m-to-pedestrian-1-3806106

It is his insurers that will pay the money Tho obviously, so their headline is slightly misleading

As is your headline. :-)

[JimBHibees]

This story is front page of the sun. Hibs star pays 6m guff. Dear oh dear.

[worcesterhibby]

This story is front page of the sun. Hibs star pays 6m guff. Dear oh dear.

I'm just surprised it wasn't "Rangers Target to pay 6m"

Or "Rangers in Hunt for 6million pound Scotty"

[Not In The Know]

http://m.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/updated-pompey-s-scott-allan-involved-in-car-accident-in-southsea-1-4441319

A slow moving accident. sounds quite like the guy must have fell over behind his car.

Horrific for all involved really. Shows what **** the sun is and the een are no better sensationalising this.

[Aritch]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/hibs-scott-allan-agrees-to-pay-6m-to-pedestrian-1-3806106

It is his insurers that will pay the money Tho obviously, so their headline is slightly misleading

That article is so poorly written it's unreal.

Do journalists not proofread any more?

[liamh2202]

That article is so poorly written it's unreal.

Do journalists not proofread any more?

They don't even bother making sure any of it is true never mind proof read lol

[weonlywon6-2]

Horrible for all concerned.
Hope the guy gets the support he needs and everyone can move forward.
This will have been difficult for Scott, but harder for the injured person and his family

[ian cruise]

That article is so poorly written it's unreal.

Do journalists not proofread any more?

Indeed. Horrible situation and best wishes to all involved but I genuinely fail to see how this is news.

Headline should read "driver involved in accident has insurance pay out as legally obliged too". Not news, especially not front page news.

[--------]

This story is front page of the sun. Hibs star pays 6m guff. Dear oh dear.


Well, first, he was a WBA player on loan at Portsmouth at the time of the accident, which happened nearly three years ago. This only emerges in the THIRD paragraph of the 'story'.

Second, he isn't paying out the money - his insurance company is. Scott will have done what you or I would have done in the same circumstances - referred the matter to his insurance company along with the reference number furnished to him by the police. The insurance company would then have dealt with the matter on his behalf.

Third, it would appear that any question of criminal behaviour on Scott's part was discounted almost immediately. I sympathise with him a lot; it was nearly nine o'clock on a November evening in a car park and he was moving slowly when he hit a pedestrian behind him. There but for the grace of God - I couldn't count the number of times I've been reversing into or out of a parking slot in a supermarket car park and had to brake suddenly when someone walked across the rear of my car. Not that the pedestrian needed to have been careless - all it would take would be for the guy to stumble over a kerb or a bag of litter and go down on his knees.

This is the sort of accident that happens, but very very rarely results in the terrible injuries suffered by the pedestrian in this case. Scott seems to have done what any sensible driver would do in similar circumstances - accepted responsibility and handed the matter over to his insurance. The only newsworthy aspect of the case is the size of the settlement, which appears to me to be entirely fair in view of the seriousness of the man's injuries, though I'm sure he and his family would much much rather the accident had never happened. I imagine those would be Scott's feelings as well.

[liamh2202]

Well, first, he was a WBA player on loan at Portsmouth at the time of the accident, which happened nearly three years ago. This only emerges in the THIRD paragraph of the 'story'.

Second, he isn't paying out the money - his insurance company is. Scott will have done what you or I would have done in the same circumstances - referred the matter to his insurance company along with the reference number furnished to him by the police. The insurance company would then have dealt with the matter on his behalf.

Third, it would appear that any question of criminal behaviour on Scott's part was discounted almost immediately. I sympathise with him a lot; it was nearly nine o'clock on a November evening in a car park and he was moving slowly when he hit a pedestrian behind him. There but for the grace of God - I couldn't count the number of times I've been reversing into or out of a parking slot in a supermarket car park and had to brake suddenly when someone walked across the rear of my car. Not that the pedestrian needed to have been careless - all it would take would be for the guy to stumble over a kerb or a bag of litter and go down on his knees.

This is the sort of accident that happens, but very very rarely results in the terrible injuries suffered by the pedestrian in this case. Scott seems to have done what any sensible driver would do in similar circumstances - accepted responsibility and handed the matter over to his insurance. The only newsworthy aspect of the case is the size of the settlement, which appears to me to be entirely fair in view of the seriousness of the man's injuries, though I'm sure he and his family would much much rather the accident had never happened. I imagine those would be Scott's feelings as well.

Excellent post

[RyeSloan]

Doddie, great post.

What I'm confused about is why the judge thought it correct to name the driver and not the recipient of the insurance claim. I'm not sure this is 'news' at all and should have been left to the individuals and insurance companies to sort out, which it clearly has.

Quite what would be in the public interest in realising one parties name and and not the other?

Anyway rather shameful reporting that focuses on the fact Scott is a footballer and adds a rather sensationalist headline to an event that would appear to have been nothing but a tragic accident.

[Jonnyboy]

Well, first, he was a WBA player on loan at Portsmouth at the time of the accident, which happened nearly three years ago. This only emerges in the THIRD paragraph of the 'story'.

Second, he isn't paying out the money - his insurance company is. Scott will have done what you or I would have done in the same circumstances - referred the matter to his insurance company along with the reference number furnished to him by the police. The insurance company would then have dealt with the matter on his behalf.

Third, it would appear that any question of criminal behaviour on Scott's part was discounted almost immediately. I sympathise with him a lot; it was nearly nine o'clock on a November evening in a car park and he was moving slowly when he hit a pedestrian behind him. There but for the grace of God - I couldn't count the number of times I've been reversing into or out of a parking slot in a supermarket car park and had to brake suddenly when someone walked across the rear of my car. Not that the pedestrian needed to have been careless - all it would take would be for the guy to stumble over a kerb or a bag of litter and go down on his knees.

This is the sort of accident that happens, but very very rarely results in the terrible injuries suffered by the pedestrian in this case. Scott seems to have done what any sensible driver would do in similar circumstances - accepted responsibility and handed the matter over to his insurance. The only newsworthy aspect of the case is the size of the settlement, which appears to me to be entirely fair in view of the seriousness of the man's injuries, though I'm sure he and his family would much much rather the accident had never happened. I imagine those would be Scott's feelings as well.

Excellent post Doddie :agree: What ticked me off was the MSM reporting it as a car crash. It was no such thing

[--------]

Excellent post Doddie :agree: What ticked me off was the MSM reporting it as a car crash. It was no such thing


Well, as Mark Twain MIGHT have said, "There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and then the Scottish football media."

Scott wasn't speeding, he wasn't impaired, he stopped and waited for the police (who didn't charge him with any offence). The accident happened about as far away from Easter Road as you can get in the UK, while Scott was playing for Pompey on loan from West Brom, and as is normal in such circumstances, the insurance company dealt with everything on their client's behalf, and the story was that they had agreed payment, admittedly a large sum of money but no consolation to the poor chap who was so seriously injured or to his family.

I was about to characterise this story as sloppy journalism, but it's not. I'm perfectly certain that someone at MSM deliberately and calculatedly made the decision to frame the headline and write the story in a way that would paint Scott Allen in as poor a light as possible, without any consideration as to truth or possible consequences. there's nothing there anyone could sue for, and nothing MSM would need (legally) to apologise for, but it's a vicious piece of muck-raking distortion from a website with a very clear agenda - hostile to Hibs and to anyone connected to the club.