It’s not that simple. Mercedes manufacture wheelchair accessible vehicles which can be in short supply. My other issue with this policy is the falsehoods perpetuated by it. Motability vehicles are not free cars.

The cases are reportable but initials (unrelated to the claimant’s actual name) are assigned so than the individual can’t be identified.

It’s the norm in my experience if a child receives damages for personal injury or clinical negligence.

I’m also curious as to the position where both the prosecution experts and witnesses have publicly contradicted their evidence. Surely that’s an unsafe conviction?

She had to have the anonymity order lifted to speak about this and the fact it’s a trust for a disabled child will be relevant to how she was advised and undoubtedly the decisions she and her husband made. I don’t know whether she did wrong or not but saying she’s using her child is a cheap shot.

You are missing my point entirely. People are saying she is trying to gain sympathy for having a disabled child when it is entirely relevant to the facts of whatever has happened here.