Belgium: Crisis center tells Israeli terror victims that Israel does not exist

At least two Israelis were injured in the terror attacks in Brussels.  Israel would like to fly them home and so in order to release them from the hospital, a Jewish volunteer called up the Crisis Center set up by the Ministry for Internal Affairs to ask about the procedure. He was told that the Israeli victims could not be sent back to Israel, they can only be sent back to Palestine.  The family of the victim is shocked and says that "It's just like Iran here". This is not the first time an emergency responder decides a Jewish medical emergency is a good reason to preach for Palestine.  During the Gaza war, a doctor refused to treat a 90 year old Jewish woman, and suggested to "send her to Gaza for a few hours"






Contact with the Crisis Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
Wednesday March 30th around 17:00

XXX: Good afternoon, my name is XXX, I am a volunteer in the Jewish coordination committee of Antwerp. We are contacted by persons… we have 2 persons of the Jewish community that were hurt in the attacks in the airport

Crisis Centre: Yes sir

XXX: They are prepared to be transported back to Israel. Our volunteers are busy with it and take care of everything but we received information from the hospital that we need special papers from the police that they can be released. Is this correct and to who should we ask that? Can you tell me more about that?

CC: That is effectively.. I will take a look. So … they go back to Palestine.

XXX: Not Palestine, Israel.

CC: Yes, but that was before Palestine, of course. OK

XXX: Could you repeat that again, please? What is the name?

CC: That … Palestine.

XXX: Can I get your name, please?

Cc: Of course, Zakaria.

XXX: And you know only Palestine?

CC: Sorry?

XXX: You don’t know Israel, only Palestine?

CC: I know the Jews went to there, that Palestine received (opvangen) them and that there is a war between Israel and Palestine, of course. And the occupation… that’s what's on the news of course.

XXX: Can you help me with the question I have, or not?

CC: Naturally, of course. Thus they go back to Palestine and ask that they could get an attestation. Voila, it is noted.

XXX: Can I have you name again, I didn’t understand it well.

CC: Zakaria

XXX: Zakaria?

CC: That is correct.

XXX: Zakaria what? What is your last name?

CC: I am not obliged to give it.

XXX: OK

XXX; Thank you very much.

CC: You're welcome. Bye




There were several Israeli victims of the attack, including one who needed to be placed in an artificial coma.

JTA adds:

 Michael Freilich, the editor-in-chief of Joods Actueel, said it “defies imagination” that a Belgian state employee would display the anti-Israel behavior that is commonplace in Arab countries. He also called for punishing the operator instead of issuing the “standard apology.”

The recording’s release follows at least four recorded cases in which people who either spoke Arabic or wore Muslim traditional garb, destroyed, concealed or removed Israeli flags at an impromptu memorial space set up for the attacks’victims at Place de la Bourse in Brussels. It features many flags, including of Arab countries and the Palestinian Authority.

http://antisemitism-europe.blogspot.ch/2016/03/belgium-crisis-center-tells-israeli.html

I don't understand this story. Were the Jewish people actually from Israel or do they live in Belgium? I assume they're from Israel because the article said the person wants to fly them home.

If they're injured, are they still in hospital? If so, why do they not stay there until they're better? After that, surely they can go to Israel under their own steam.

As for this alleged conversation with the person at the Crisis Centre, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know Israel exists. If that's the case, he's probably a one off. Is he a volunteer?

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't understand this story. Were the Jewish people actually from Israel or do they live in Belgium? I assume they're from Israel because the article said the person wants to fly them home.

If they're injured, are they still in hospital? If so, why do they not stay there until they're better? After that, surely they can go to Israel under their own steam.

As for this alleged conversation with the person at the Crisis Centre, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know Israel exists. If that's the case, he's probably a one off. Is he a volunteer?

A few reasons rags

They now clearly feel unsafe in Belgium and who can blame them.

Where most would an Israeli feel safest but in israel..

Judging by the name its clear he is most probably a Muslim

Also have you seen how 4 times the memorial has been used as a Platform for Palestinian hate of Israel

Add all these factors together and also how Belgium is a hub of islamic extremism, to show the extent of the problem extends to problem of migrating Muslims that hold not only antisemitic views in the huge number from North African and Middle Eastern nations, but also very sexist, homophobic etc views

This caller if in the UK would have been suspended immediately

that is pretty shameful

the person is a real anti semite.

and they knew they were doing wrong thats why they wouldn't give a last name

veya_victaous wrote:that is pretty shameful

the person is a real anti semite.

and they knew they were doing wrong thats why they wouldn't give a last name

Can someone get me some water, I just fainted.

An operator in Belgium’s federal hotline on the terrorist attacks in Brussels was fired for telling a Jewish caller that Israel does not exist and is in fact called Palestine.


http://www.timesofisrael.com/operator-of-belgium-terror-hotline-fired-for-telling-caller-israel-doesnt-exist/

Also 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/two-israelis-wounded-in-brussels-attack-flown-to-israel/









The main point on all this.

This man who was the operator was I am guessing Muslim by his name.
The problem is not because he is Muslim, but because countless Muslims are daily fed a narrative of hate against Israel and Jews

What hope is there of an everlasting peace between Israel and Palestine, if numerous Muslims are wrongly fed lies and hate against Israel, Jews etc, by denying the right of a country to exist and a people to have self determination?

The Arabs are not ingenious to the vast majority of the lands they now reside in as their genesis was within the Arabian peninsular and they became Colonialist invaders taking over and controlling vast areas of land. The Jews however are ingenious to the are of what we class as the Holy lands, being as their genies was in this land. Where even where many ended up being forced out of these lands, they retained their identity, culture, language, religion in exile, where even Jews have been living consistently in the Holy lands for at least 2,800 years. How much land do the Arabs really need?

As this is what it boils down to, as it was Arab nationalism that he,helped create and form the PLO as solely to be in opposition to the nation of Israel being in existence. It did not form in opposition to the occupation of the West bank's occupiers the Jordanians. Or i opposition tot he Egyptians the occupiers in Gaza pre -1967. 

I mean seriously, I want a two state solution, but if countless western Muslims, with only the religious tie to Muslims in Palestine, can deny Israel's existence and believe it should not exist. Then what hope is there is peace from the Palestinians who clearly in the majority are spoon fed from birth it has no right to exist. If their belief is the Arabs claim ownership to these lands based on them being colonialist conquerors centuries ago, then by their own methods would place Israel as the rightful present occupiers and the the land could and only would be then contested continually for centuries to come based off such an absurd belief.

Peace will only come when the Muslim world stops spouting hate against Jews?

Peace is a two way street which also means Israel has to play its part which  it has done over the years making peace with other Arab nations and by giving land concessions it won in defensive wars. It needs to go further by pulling back the recent settlements or exchanging land swaps with the Palestinians, with also compensating  the many Palestinian refugees that fled the 1947 civil war the Palestinians started, by refusing again to accept the existence of Israel. The joke is the British did already create a Palestinian nation in Jorden and yet I am happy they create another with the West Bank and Gaza to make up a second Palestinian nation, who of which in the past before the 1960's never referred to themselves even as Palestinians, only the Jews did when it was the British mandate of Palestine.

No matter what people think of Israel, this and only this is why the conflict has continued to exist for decades, the denial of the right by the Palestinians and many Muslims also that Israel has to them, no right to exist. As there is nothing stopping peace being achieved tomorrow, if both sides reached ouit and grab it, but it can only be achieved and will only be achieved when the Palestinians, Iranians etcs accept the right of Israel to exist.

The Arab nations need to also compensate the Jews they ethnically cleansed from Arab lands and further more shows the scale of how much land the Arabs do have compared to the Jews in Israel.

So it wasn't the Crisis Centre, it was just one man. That's the trouble with lumping people together and assuming they speak for an entire organisation.

Raggamuffin wrote:So it wasn't the Crisis Centre, it was just one man. That's the trouble with lumping people together and assuming they speak for an entire organisation.

He represented the crisis center as an employee.
Which means the center is responsible for the people it employs and how they act

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So it wasn't the Crisis Centre, it was just one man. That's the trouble with lumping people together and assuming they speak for an entire organisation.

He represented the crisis center as an employee.
Which means the center is responsible for the people it employs and how they act

Yes, but they didn't know he was going to say that, so it can't really be said that the Crisis Centre told the Jewish chap that stuff. That makes it sound like it was official policy, and it obviously wasn't.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


He represented the crisis center as an employee.
Which means the center is responsible for the people it employs and how they act

Yes, but they didn't know he was going to say that, so it can't really be said that the Crisis Centre told the Jewish chap that stuff. That makes it sound like it was official policy, and it obviously wasn't.

It does not matter rags, as he represents the company, which if sued it would be the company that would be responsible

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but they didn't know he was going to say that, so it can't really be said that the Crisis Centre told the Jewish chap that stuff. That makes it sound like it was official policy, and it obviously wasn't.

It does not matter rags, as he represents the company, which if sued it would be the company that would be responsible

I doubt that actually, especially if he's been fired. I hope there will be no pound signs in eyes after this incident. That would make a bit of a mockery of the outrage.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


It does not matter rags, as he represents the company, which if sued it would be the company that would be responsible

I doubt that actually, especially if he's been fired. I hope there will be no pound signs in eyes after this incident. That would make a bit of a mockery of the outrage.

Which proves their liability over the fact they fired this employee

It shows they have acted but again it is the company responsible.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I doubt that actually, especially if he's been fired. I hope there will be no pound signs in eyes after this incident. That would make a bit of a mockery of the outrage.

Which proves their liability over the fact they fired this employee

It shows they have acted but again it is the company responsible.

It doesn't prove their liability.

FFS, is this what it's all about? The "Jewish community" will try to sue the Crisis Centre? I can't be doing with so much fuss over everything. So one bloke doesn't recognise Israel - so what? He's fired - end of story.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which proves their liability over the fact they fired this employee

It shows they have acted but again it is the company responsible.

It doesn't prove their liability.

FFS, is this what it's all about? The "Jewish community" will try to sue the Crisis Centre? I can't be doing with so much fuss over everything. So one bloke doesn't recognise Israel - so what? He's fired - end of story.

He acted whilst as an employee, making the company liable

If a train guard or drive for south eastern was rude to you, who do you think you would take this up with?

South Eastern by any chance?

Who could you sue?

South Eastern by any chance?

Your world views on understanding what is like to be a people who have suffered racial discrimination for near 2000 years is why you fail to understand

I have no idea if they will sue anyway

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't prove their liability.

FFS, is this what it's all about? The "Jewish community" will try to sue the Crisis Centre? I can't be doing with so much fuss over everything. So one bloke doesn't recognise Israel - so what? He's fired - end of story.

He acted whilst as an employee, making the company liable

If a train guard or drive for south eastern was rude to you, who do you think you would take this up with?

South Eastern by any chance?

Who could you sue?

South Eastern by any chance?

Why would you sue a whole company because someone was rude to you? People need to get a grip. Is Israel going to turn on Belgium now because one of its citizens denied the existence of Israel? They'll be claiming "reparations" next.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


He acted whilst as an employee, making the company liable

If a train guard or drive for south eastern was rude to you, who do you think you would take this up with?

South Eastern by any chance?

Who could you sue?

South Eastern by any chance?

Why would you sue a whole company because someone was rude to you? People need to get a grip. Is Israel going to turn on Belgium now because one of its citizens denied the existence of Israel? They'll be claiming "reparations" next.

Because that employee is a representative of that company and whilst working for that company, then the company is liable

Its rather straight forward


You are making some rather fantastical assumptions as well off Israel

I'm not the one who brought up the issue of suing anyone.

I have no patience with this shite. The man was dealt with - end of story.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not the one who brought up the issue of suing anyone.

I have no patience with this shite. The man was dealt with - end of story.

Then why are you even commenting then

I mean you are unable to think outside the box as usual

What if for arguments sake, one of them needed a life saving transplant which required him needing to get to Israel within 24 hours and that because of this numpty, the delay caused the patient to die?
Would you then be making the claims you are making now?

Not in a million years and

A company is responsible for its employees, no matter what nonsense you keep claiming

I'm commenting because I think the blog title is misleading, and therefore the thread title is misleading as well.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm commenting because I think the blog title is misleading, and therefore the thread title is misleading as well.

Then you are mistaken

No, I'm not mistaken.

Raggamuffin wrote:No, I'm not mistaken.

Like I say fantastical.

What have you been told about lecturing people? You can disagree with me, but I'm not "mistaken" or "wrong".

Raggamuffin wrote:What have you been told about lecturing people? You can disagree with me, but I'm not "mistaken" or "wrong".

Told?

I can say as I please, if you have a problem with that, then its you with the issue not me

The problem with you Rags, is your inability to admit when wrong

Again which is something you have to deal with not me

An employee whilst in the employment of a company and how they act places the fault with the company

How you can even try to deny that is just plain absurd

So the headline is spot on, as the employee is a representative of the crisis centre

I don't have a problem - you do. You're lecturing again, and I don't agree with what you're saying. The title makes it sound like it was the policy of the Crisis Centre, whereas it clearly was not.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't have a problem - you do. You're lecturing again, and I don't agree with what you're saying. The title makes it sound like it was the policy of the Crisis Centre, whereas it clearly was not.

Tough

The Crisis center is responsible

Move on as I not going to be dragged into another one of your hissy fits

The title stays and its correct

So I suggest you get over that

End of discussion

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't have a problem - you do. You're lecturing again, and I don't agree with what you're saying. The title makes it sound like it was the policy of the Crisis Centre, whereas it clearly was not.

Tough

The Crisis center is responsible

Move on as I not going to be dragged into another one of your hissy fits

The title stays and its correct

So I suggest you get over that

End of discussion

You move on. I'm not going to change my mind, and you are now disrupting this thread with insults. Wait for someone else to pick a fight with.

Shocking way to treat someone looking for help but Rags is actually correct in that the headline is misleading because it wasn't the Belgian Crisis Centre that dealt with the caller.

Irn Bru wrote:Shocking way to treat someone looking for help but Rags is actually correct in that the headline is misleading because it wasn't the Belgian Crisis Centre that dealt with the caller.

The you fail to understand responsibility and employment law

Irn Bru wrote:Shocking way to treat someone looking for help but Rags is actually correct in that the headline is misleading because it wasn't the Belgian Crisis Centre that dealt with the caller.

Yes. I think it's a bit unfair to point the finger at the Crisis Centre really.

I was a bit confused by the story at first - I thought the chap really didn't know that Israel was a real country. I didn't make the connection re his name either.

"Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.

First, employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly, must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee's labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.

Second, when someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal."

The guy worked in a call centre and wasn't even employed by the Crisis Centre.

Irn Bru wrote:The guy worked in a call centre and wasn't even employed by the Crisis Centre.

Again showing you do not understand employer liability

Even if a temp, he is still in the employ of the crisis centre

Do I have to keep educating your ignorance Irn?

See ya

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The guy worked in a call centre and wasn't even employed by the Crisis Centre.

Again showing you do not understand employer liability

Even if a temp, he is still in the employ of the crisis centre

Do I have to keep educating your ignorance Irn?

See ya

He wasn't a temp and he wasn't employed by the crisis centre. He worked for a call centre company named IPG

Statement...

IPG profoundly regrets that an employee, when answering a call to the crisis centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, systematically used “Palestine” to indicate the country of Israel, and by doing so sought confrontation with a Jewish volunteer.

IPG distances itself fully from this inappropriate behaviour.

Being a strictly isolated incident, it goes entirely against all IPG values and rules of conduct.

Moreover, the incident sharply contrasts with the excelling dedication shown by our crisis centre teams who have answered thousands of calls, day and night. We are very grateful for their commitment.

Given the severity of the facts the collaboration with the person concerned has been terminated with immediate effect.

IPG apologizes to all who may have been offended by the acts of our former employee.

IPG would like to take this opportunity to express our deepest sympathy to all the victims of the tragic events of last week in Brussels, as well as their relatives.

http://www.ipggroup.eu/action-crisis-centre/

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The guy worked in a call centre and wasn't even employed by the Crisis Centre.

Again showing you do not understand employer liability

Even if a temp, he is still in the employ of the crisis centre

Do I have to keep educating your ignorance Irn?

See ya

Sources Didge - always check sources.

You'll learn.

Irn Bru wrote:Statement...

IPG profoundly regrets that an employee, when answering a call to the crisis centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, systematically used “Palestine” to indicate the country of Israel, and by doing so sought confrontation with a Jewish volunteer.

IPG distances itself fully from this inappropriate behaviour.

Being a strictly isolated incident, it goes entirely against all IPG values and rules of conduct.

Moreover, the incident sharply contrasts with the excelling dedication shown by our crisis centre teams who have answered thousands of calls, day and night. We are very grateful for their commitment.

Given the severity of the facts the collaboration with the person concerned has been terminated with immediate effect.

IPG apologizes to all who may have been offended by the acts of our former employee.

IPG would like to take this opportunity to express our deepest sympathy to all the victims of the tragic events of last week in Brussels, as well as their relatives.

http://www.ipggroup.eu/action-crisis-centre/

A very fair and reasonable response from IPG. The idea that anyone should be able to "sue" them for what one guy said is absurd IMO.

Employer not liable if it can be shown the employee acted independently and/or out of personal motives.

The employer has to suspend employee, conduct investigation and then fire them if they're in breach of contract.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again showing you do not understand employer liability

Even if a temp, he is still in the employ of the crisis centre

Do I have to keep educating your ignorance Irn?

See ya

Sources Didge - always check sources.

You'll learn.

Yeah your sources proved zero on the EU law


Again that does not take away employee liability at where he was working, showing you up to being clueless

The above shows you do not understand EU employment law

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Employer not liable if it can be shown the employee acted independently and/or out of personal motives.

The employer has to suspend employee, conduct investigation and then fire them if they're in breach of contract.

That is misleading and wrong, as the employer would have to prove they were not aware of his views on the issue, when they and whilst in employment, if they were, they would be very liable, especially if he was open about his views within the use of equipment, either using the internet and email. So if they were aware, that makes them liable. Especially via social media comments were put on his Facebook at the time of work.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Employer not liable if it can be shown the employee acted independently and/or out of personal motives.

The employer has to suspend employee, conduct investigation and then fire them if they're in breach of contract.

That is misleading and wrong, as the employer would have to prove they were not aware of his views on the issue, when they and whilst in employment, if they were, they would be very liable, especially if he was open about his views within the use of equipment, either using the internet and email. So if they were aware, that makes them liable. Especially via social media comments were put on his Facebook at the time of work.

That's a serious assertion Didge.

Since you're so sure, please show me where it says that in law. Thank you.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

That is misleading and wrong, as the employer would have to prove they were not aware of his views on the issue, when they and whilst in employment, if they were, they would be very liable, especially if he was open about his views within the use of equipment, either using the internet and email. So if they were aware, that makes them liable. Especially via social media comments were put on his Facebook at the time of work.

That's a serious assertion Didge.

Since you're so sure, please show me where it says that in law. Thank you.

Well you should already know the law, but I am going to show they would not even have to, but again if they proved he used social media to use views whilst at work, the company would then be negligent over its internet policy



But if the employee acted independently or purely out of personal motives, the employer might not be liable. Here are a few examples to illustrate the difference:

A restaurant promises delivery in 30 minutes "or your next order is free." If a delivery person hits a pedestrian while driving frantically to beat the deadline, the company will probably be legally responsible for the pedestrian's injuries.
A technology services company gives its sales staff company cars to make sales calls. After work hours, a sales person hits a pedestrian while using the company car to do personal errands. Most likely, the company will not be held responsible for the incident.
A law firm issues cell phones to all of its lawyers, to allow them to call into the office and check in with clients when they are on the road. A lawyer, driving, hits a pedestrian because she is completely engrossed in her telephone conversation with a senior partner in the firm. The law firm will probably have to pony up for the pedestrian's injuries.
A medical billing company hires a fumigator, who sprays the company's office with powerful pesticides. The next day, a dozen employees fall ill from the fumes. One of the affected employees is sent home; on her way, she suffers a dizzy spell and hits a pedestrian. The company is probably on the hook.

If you are sued under this legal theory of respondeat superior, your employee's victim generally won't have to show that you should have known your employee might cause harm, or even that you did anything demonstrably wrong. If your employee caused the injury while acting within the scope of employment, you will have to answer to the victim.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

That's a serious assertion Didge.

Since you're so sure, please show me where it says that in law. Thank you.

Well you should already know the law, but I am going to show they would not even have to, but again if they proved he used social media to use views whilst at work, the company would then be negligent over its internet policy



But if the employee acted independently or purely out of personal motives, the employer might not be liable. Here are a few examples to illustrate the difference:

A restaurant promises delivery in 30 minutes "or your next order is free." If a delivery person hits a pedestrian while driving frantically to beat the deadline, the company will probably be legally responsible for the pedestrian's injuries.
A technology services company gives its sales staff company cars to make sales calls. After work hours, a sales person hits a pedestrian while using the company car to do personal errands. Most likely, the company will not be held responsible for the incident.
A law firm issues cell phones to all of its lawyers, to allow them to call into the office and check in with clients when they are on the road. A lawyer, driving, hits a pedestrian because she is completely engrossed in her telephone conversation with a senior partner in the firm. The law firm will probably have to pony up for the pedestrian's injuries.
A medical billing company hires a fumigator, who sprays the company's office with powerful pesticides. The next day, a dozen employees fall ill from the fumes. One of the affected employees is sent home; on her way, she suffers a dizzy spell and hits a pedestrian. The company is probably on the hook.

If you are sued under this legal theory of respondeat superior, your employee's victim generally won't have to show that you should have known your employee might cause harm, or even that you did anything demonstrably wrong. If your employee caused the injury while acting within the scope of employment, you will have to answer to the victim.

Lol!

Read my first reply again:

"Employer not liable if it can be shown the employee acted independently and/or out of personal motives. "

Then read the bit in bold above that you quoted.

You really are fucking stupid.

I don't think the employer could have foreseen that one of their employees would deny the existence of Israel whilst answering the phone in a Crisis Centre.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:


Lol!

Read my first reply again:

"Employer not liable if it can be shown the employee acted independently and/or out of personal motives. "

Then read the bit in bold above that you quoted.

You really are fucking stupid.

Oh dear Zack just proved he does not understand the law


But if the employee acted independently or purely out of personal motives, the employer might not be liable. Here are a few examples to illustrate the difference:

A restaurant promises delivery in 30 minutes "or your next order is free." If a delivery person hits a pedestrian while driving frantically to beat the deadline, the company will probably be legally responsible for the pedestrian's injuries.

A technology services company gives its sales staff company cars to make sales calls. After work hours, a sales person hits a pedestrian while using the company car to do personal errands. Most likely, the company will not be held responsible for the incident.

A law firm issues cell phones to all of its lawyers, to allow them to call into the office and check in with clients when they are on the road. A lawyer, driving, hits a pedestrian because she is completely engrossed in her telephone conversation with a senior partner in the firm. The law firm will probably have to pony up for the pedestrian's injuries.

A medical billing company hires a fumigator, who sprays the company's office with powerful pesticides. The next day, a dozen employees fall ill from the fumes. One of the affected employees is sent home; on her way, she suffers a dizzy spell and hits a pedestrian. The company is probably on the hook.

If you are sued under this legal theory of respondeat superior, your employee's victim generally won't have to show that you should have known your employee might cause harm, or even that you did anything demonstrably wrong. If your employee caused the injury while acting within the scope of employment, you will have to answer to the victim.

Now I even gave example where the employer could not be construed as to blame even where the employee acted independently, of which none come even remotely close to this situation. He is talking active calls in regards to the crisis, thus in direct responsibility for calls taken by the centre. This the center cannot deem itself not responsible by these facts


Doh[/b]

Further points on this.

The bombing in Zaventem were several people injured Israel. One person was so bad that he was placed in an artificial coma. For several days he can again breathe independently.

Attestation
The Israeli authorities now plan to repatriate at least two of their compatriots with a special plane. But before the man could be released from the hospital, he must submit a certificate from the competent authorities. A volunteer of the Jewish coordination center in Antwerp called this to the Interior emergency number on the special number 1771.


Also:

The federal government opened a call center immediately after the attack to handle requests by callers seeking information on questions pertaining to personal safety, recommended behavior in emergencies and by people seeking information on the victims.


Also

The spokesman of the Crisis Centre reports that the operators of the call center who can answer questions on the special number 1771 are not employees of the Interior but IPG, a specialized company that was awarded the contract. "


Clearly then should be given or have had initial training on how to deal with a variety of calls, or where to direct them to. If this was not done, then they further failed, both as the contractor call center company and the Ministry for awarding the contract, if training measures where not met. That is an unknown but would place them into the firing line if this was the case. Even without knowing this, the operator failed within the scope of his work. Thus making the company that employed him and the ministry liable for this failure..

Didge wrote:Further points on this.

The bombing in Zaventem were several people injured Israel. One person was so bad that he was placed in an artificial coma. For several days he can again breathe independently.

Attestation
The Israeli authorities now plan to repatriate at least two of their compatriots with a special plane. But before the man could be released from the hospital, he must submit a certificate from the competent authorities. A volunteer of the Jewish coordination center in Antwerp called this to the Interior emergency number on the special number 1771.


Also:

The federal government opened a call center immediately after the attack to handle requests by callers seeking information on questions pertaining to personal safety, recommended behavior in emergencies and by people seeking information on the victims.


Also

The spokesman of the Crisis Centre reports that the operators of the call center who can answer questions on the special number 1771 are not employees of the Interior but IPG, a specialized company that was awarded the contract. "


Clearly then should be given or have had initial training on how to deal with a variety of calls, or where to direct them to. If this was not done, then they further failed, both as the contractor call center company and the Ministry for awarding the contract, if training measures where not met. That is an unknown but would place them into the firing line if this was the case. Even without knowing this, the operator failed within the scope of his work. Thus making the company that employed him and the ministry liable for this failure..

And you heard that here first Didge which set you off a googlin' to do some further research - something you should have done in the first place.

And your posts now are just you making up scenarios to siut.

There is no overall EU law covering issues such as this.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again showing you do not understand employer liability

Even if a temp, he is still in the employ of the crisis centre

Do I have to keep educating your ignorance Irn?

See ya

Sources Didge - always check sources.

You'll learn.

NO,  Irn....

The litle old doddery Dodger will never learn !!!


One has only to look at his previous attempts at besmirching Australia and the US..
Where he never checks references if they could possibly prove him wrong. 

AND when he's proven wrong most of the time -- as by you and Raga' in this thread, or with veya' and my most humble self in his Aussie-bashing threads, or even sassy and Fuzzy in his anti-Palestine efforts -- what does he do ?

ALWAYS the same spineless rubbish : 
lamely insult his detractors, 
claim some imaginary mental and academic superiority over everyone else;
and then proceeds to make up more and more crap to boost his weak position..

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:Further points on this.

The bombing in Zaventem were several people injured Israel. One person was so bad that he was placed in an artificial coma. For several days he can again breathe independently.

Attestation
The Israeli authorities now plan to repatriate at least two of their compatriots with a special plane. But before the man could be released from the hospital, he must submit a certificate from the competent authorities. A volunteer of the Jewish coordination center in Antwerp called this to the Interior emergency number on the special number 1771.


Also:

The federal government opened a call center immediately after the attack to handle requests by callers seeking information on questions pertaining to personal safety, recommended behavior in emergencies and by people seeking information on the victims.


Also

The spokesman of the Crisis Centre reports that the operators of the call center who can answer questions on the special number 1771 are not employees of the Interior but IPG, a specialized company that was awarded the contract. "


Clearly then should be given or have had initial training on how to deal with a variety of calls, or where to direct them to. If this was not done, then they further failed, both as the contractor call center company and the Ministry for awarding the contract, if training measures where not met. That is an unknown but would place them into the firing line if this was the case. Even without knowing this, the operator failed within the scope of his work. Thus making the company that employed him and the ministry liable for this failure..

And you heard that here first Didge which set you off a googlin' to do some further research - something you should have done in the first place.

And your posts now are just you making up scenarios to siut.

There is no overall EU law covering issues such as this.

It still does not take away employee liability which you jumped in with two feet where they landed squarely in your mouth

I show the legal side and all you can offer back up is waffle

Quelle surprise


@ Bee,  I am for a two state solution and for the Palestinians to be freed from Hamas and fatah by a progressive Palestinian group that wants peace

Why not ask Zack why he wants Israel destroyed and a one state solution

Sassy has also backed the right of Palestinians to murder Jews under the views its armed resistance under occupation blatantly ignoring international law, or the fact it has been the Palestinians continually attacking Israel. She thus backs terrorism
Ask them

And then you can take both your feet out of your mouth