Originally Posted by
jerub
I think it's perfectly reasonable to attempt to claim compensation and have the rules allow or deny the claim as appropriate. The morality is irrelevant: the outcome is bound up in the rules and the situation and if the rules are wrong it is up to the legislators to correct them, not the moral compass of those the rules are intended to protect.
If you have your wallet stolen in a shop, should you claim compensation from the shop? Even though there is nothing in the rules to allow you to claim against the shop.
In this case BA did nothing wrong, broke no rules, yet the OP wants money. EC261 has zero to do with it.
I guess people now have no understanding of the differences between right and wrong.