Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

How 5m Violent Crime Victims Could Have Their Compensation Slashed... For Having A Speeding Ticket

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...on-slashed.html

Victims of violent crime are to have their compensation slashed if they have previously committed minor offences such as speeding.

Individual payments to assault and rape victims will be reduced by up to £37,500 as part of a £25million public- spending cuts programme ordered by the Government, it was claimed last night.

Five million motorists could be affected - with magistrates fining up to a million drivers in a year and their convictions becoming 'spent' only after five years.

The Tories have launched an attack on the 'revolting' move.

Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'People will be astonished that Ministers are targeting victims of crime simply because they may have committed minor traffic violations - for which they have already paid the penalty - while prisoners released early are being given compensation for the food and accommodation they would have received free.

'The idea that a rape victim or the parents of a murdered child should have their compensation docked for a speeding conviction years earlier is a revolting proposition.

'Labour is cutting compensation for victims of crime by £25million while spending millions of pounds on spin and bureaucracy.'

The news is bound to fuel fresh claims that motorists, who have faced huge increases in petrol tax and the widespread use of speed cameras, are being unfairly targeted again by Labour.

The move follows changes to payments by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) which gives money to people physically or mentally harmed through being innocent victims of violent crime.

In the past, such payments could be reduced where 'the applicant's character as shown by his criminal convictions makes it inappropriate that a full award or any award should be made'.

But this did not apply to people involved in minor offences such as speeding or other traffic violations.

Deductions are made under a penalty points system which has meant that until now compensation has been paid in full to crime victims who have been fined less than £250 or received a conditional discharge - or been fined more than £250, if that was more than two years previously.

article-1200633-05C2B5E7000005DC-977_468x397.jpg

The money is running out but at least we get to keep the diversity coordinators and all the other important jobs Brown has created.

Brown is pure evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are to be compensation payments then it is silly that they can be affected by speeding offences.

But, at risk of sounding like a right-wing barstard: Does it strike anyone else that the whole nature of the compensation system is rather peculiar?:

Criminal breaks victim's arm. Victim rightly receives medical treatment at taxpayer expense. Victim usually receives sick pay / incapacity benefit (or whatever it's called now) at expense of either employer or taxpayer.

Is it also necessary for the victim to recieve a lump sum of "compensation" from the (innocent) taxpayer?

Fair enough that the criminal should be liable if (s)he has any money to hand over. But why the taxpayer?

After all, shit happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are to be compensation payments then it is silly that they can be affected by speeding offences.

But, at risk of sounding like a right-wing barstard: Does it strike anyone else that the whole nature of the compensation system is rather peculiar?:

Criminal breaks victim's arm. Victim rightly receives medical treatment at taxpayer expense. Victim usually receives sick pay / incapacity benefit (or whatever it's called now) at expense of either employer or taxpayer.

Is it also necessary for the victim to recieve a lump sum of "compensation" from the (innocent) taxpayer?

Fair enough that the criminal should be liable if (s)he has any money to hand over. But why the taxpayer?

After all, shit happens.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are to be compensation payments then it is silly that they can be affected by speeding offences.

But, at risk of sounding like a right-wing barstard: Does it strike anyone else that the whole nature of the compensation system is rather peculiar?:

Criminal breaks victim's arm. Victim rightly receives medical treatment at taxpayer expense. Victim usually receives sick pay / incapacity benefit (or whatever it's called now) at expense of either employer or taxpayer.

Is it also necessary for the victim to recieve a lump sum of "compensation" from the (innocent) taxpayer?

Fair enough that the criminal should be liable if (s)he has any money to hand over. But why the taxpayer?

After all, shit happens.

Exactly B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cant earn your living after an offender has killed you, or blinded you, then society has failed to protect you or your dependents.

society is in effect being fined for their lack of prevention.

the offender should of course have a lifelong duty to pay up with attachment to earnings, assets an pensions....till every penny piece is repayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...on-slashed.html

The money is running out but at least we get to keep the diversity coordinators and all the other important jobs Brown has created.

Brown is pure evil.

Remind me again - how many people are killed and injured each year by the 'minor' crimes of speeding drivers. Also how many obese children are there because their parents would never let them ride a bicycle because the 'roads are too dangerous'.

NB I've never met a dangerous road - only people who blight others lives because they drive dangerously on roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remind me again - how many people are killed and injured each year by the 'minor' crimes of speeding drivers. Also how many obese children are there because their parents would never let them ride a bicycle because the 'roads are too dangerous'.

NB I've never met a dangerous road - only people who blight others lives because they drive dangerously on roads.

Isn't that what they were fined for? Are you in favour of repetitive punishment because you've been bad? I guess you'll be all for cutting benefits for those convicted of a crime then.

As it happens, I agree with Selling Up; since I don't assault eople i don't see why I (as a taxpayer) "compensate for crime. The idea is illogical and absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid we're just going to have to get used to a society where we can no longer expect the Government to right all the wrongs with taxpayers' money.

Whether victim-of-crime compensation is morally the best place to start is debatable, but this kind of thing is going to disappear eventually whether we like it or not.

In the future we'll have to support each other, rather than rely on Government largesse. If that brings us all closer together, it could in itself be an effective weapon against crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you cant earn your living after an offender has killed you, or blinded you, then society has failed to protect you or your dependents.

society is in effect being fined for their lack of prevention.

Is that really acceptable?

After all, people who have a stroke and can't earn a living don't get "compensation".

"Society" can no more be expected to prevent all crime than to prevent all illness.

In the case of illness, the taxpayer is considered culpable if and only if state agencies failed to take "reasonable care" to protect the individual. Which generally translates to medical negligence.

Why not the same for crime? If it can be shown that the criminal justice service had been negligent then by all means compensate. If not then I don't feel inclined to compensate victims out of my pocket, thanks very much.

Edited by Selling up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you cant earn your living after an offender has killed you, or blinded you, then society has failed to protect you or your dependents.

society is in effect being fined for their lack of prevention.

the offender should of course have a lifelong duty to pay up with attachment to earnings, assets an pensions....till every penny piece is repayed.

How much compensation are you due for being killed? Will it be mailed to me, or will it go direct into my account?

I bet the b@stards take £20k of it when I would have reached retirement as well. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remind me again - how many people are killed and injured each year by the 'minor' crimes of speeding drivers. Also how many obese children are there because their parents would never let them ride a bicycle because the 'roads are too dangerous'.

More people killed and injured by speeding drivers than by the sum total of all other criminals. The shame of it is that the Daily Wail will always run campaigns on behalf of them, and scare the powers-that-be off doing anything. If you're a lobby group seen as "key marginal" voters, you can be the tail that wags the dog of both parties.

We don't even have realistic fines for speeding in this country, compared to our neighbours!

This is undoubtedly also the #1 reason we come bottom in all international comparisons of quality of life for our children. With so many roads off-limits for them, there's no real communal social/play space, and no outdoors at all for many.

NB I've never met a dangerous road - only people who blight others lives because they drive dangerously on roads.

But ... but ... it's only dangerous if there might be a pedestrian there, and we've scared them off!

Oh, and any hard surface is dangerous ... that's why they have soft surfaces in play areas, and why some lobby groups want to make you wear silly hats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are to be compensation payments then it is silly that they can be affected by speeding offences.

But, at risk of sounding like a right-wing barstard: Does it strike anyone else that the whole nature of the compensation system is rather peculiar?:

Criminal breaks victim's arm. Victim rightly receives medical treatment at taxpayer expense. Victim usually receives sick pay / incapacity benefit (or whatever it's called now) at expense of either employer or taxpayer.

Is it also necessary for the victim to recieve a lump sum of "compensation" from the (innocent) taxpayer?

Fair enough that the criminal should be liable if (s)he has any money to hand over. But why the taxpayer?

After all, shit happens.

Gives the legal aid team something to fight over i suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarly to comments of others, at risk of coming across as an unfeeling "right wing bast*rd", I too have long been not entirely comfortable with this relatively modern concept of having a tarriff of seemingly arbitrary compensations for being a victim of various crimes. Why is double rape compensated more than single rape?! Rape is rape a rate?!

Why should taxpayers have to compensate others for being the victim of 'bad luck' and the fact that "sh*t happens"?? If we want to have some form of compensation for being raped or facially disfigured, etc then whats wrong with exercising individual responsibility and paying for private insurance to cover such (unlikely) events. I have had numerous conversations with US citizens who are bemused that are 'socialist' lifestyles extend to as far as government (read "taxpayers"!) paying you for bad luck.

BUT, on the other hand, I do understand the origins/rationale for this particular class of government payout. Since we live in a broadly socialist society (i.e where almost every aspect of our lives is controlled and governed - with the emphasis being on considerations to fellow citizens) such a 'compensation' scheme is merely a way of ensuring the government is held accountable to us if it fails in its socialised duty of care to us in respect of Law and Order.

Once upon a time we could, if we chose to do so, keep a shotgun in the house to fend off burglars. Women could walk the streets and carry a small pistol in their purse - again, if they so wished. Indeed, there was more of a culture of people exercising greater individual repsonsilibility and common sense in going about their everyday business.

Today, however, we live in a society in which we have collectively, over the years, abdicated such responsibilities and surrendered such 'rights' in return for the promise of safe streets and homes by the goverment organised Law and Order machine. Thus, if government fails in its implicitly agreed duty of care to us, and you or I fall victim to crime through the actions of someone whom the government failed to protect us from - then we can 'punish' the goverment financially.

Its no different really from patients being allowed to sue the NHS for botched operations.

Edited by anonguest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
Isn't that what they were fined for? Are you in favour of repetitive punishment because you've been bad? I guess you'll be all for cutting benefits for those convicted of a crime then.

As it happens, I agree with Selling Up; since I don't assault eople i don't see why I (as a taxpayer) "compensate for crime. The idea is illogical and absurd.

As I recall the fund originally started as a means to ensure law-abiding people who through no fault of their own were given support where there was no other recourse for them. Hence - criminals were likely to receive less - the deserving poor were a victorian idea but then so was this scheme.

As to speeding motorists I don't think they should be fined or banned at all. I think they should be made to drive a car with no brakes, no seat belts, and a 6 inch steel spike thrusting out from the steering wheel. I'm quite convinced that bad driving is a product of 'safety' features which isolate people from the consequences of their actions.

If we can incentivise good driving in this way most of the car problems would go away permanently and cheaply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to speeding motorists I don't think they should be fined or banned at all. I think they should be made to drive a car with no brakes, no seat belts, and a 6 inch steel spike thrusting out from the steering wheel. I'm quite convinced that bad driving is a product of 'safety' features which isolate people from the consequences of their actions.

If we can incentivise good driving in this way most of the car problems would go away permanently and cheaply.

A nice idea that, at first glance, might seem logical. BUT consider that, in the early days of motoring, when people drove Austin Sevens with flimsy brakes and lousy steering, etc - the road death toll was horrendous compared to today. Even worse when considered on a per head of population basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to speeding motorists I don't think they should be fined or banned at all. I think they should be made to drive a car with no brakes, no seat belts, and a 6 inch steel spike thrusting out from the steering wheel. I'm quite convinced that bad driving is a product of 'safety' features which isolate people from the consequences of their actions.

If we can incentivise good driving in this way most of the car problems would go away permanently and cheaply.

No brakes is a little harsh! But no seatbelts and a 6 inch spike sounds sensible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I recall the fund originally started as a means to ensure law-abiding people who through no fault of their own were given support where there was no other recourse for them. Hence - criminals were likely to receive less - the deserving poor were a victorian idea but then so was this scheme.

As to speeding motorists I don't think they should be fined or banned at all. I think they should be made to drive a car with no brakes, no seat belts, and a 6 inch steel spike thrusting out from the steering wheel. I'm quite convinced that bad driving is a product of 'safety' features which isolate people from the consequences of their actions.

If we can incentivise good driving in this way most of the car problems would go away permanently and cheaply.

Speeding isn't the problem anyway, poor observation, judgement and reaction is. I agree that driving faster places more of a premium on those skills but a bad, slow driver is going to hurt more people than a good fast one.

Personally I think that bad driving is a function of the skill and maturity of the driver. The insurance premiums tell us alot about who has accidents and it doesn't correlate with awareness of safety features.

Trouble is that the law can't tell the difference so it regulates on something it can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
A nice idea that, at first glance, might seem logical. BUT consider that, in the early days of motoring, when people drove Austin Sevens with flimsy brakes and lousy steering, etc - the road death toll was horrendous compared to today. Even worse when considered on a per head of population basis.

That's true. But that was because people tended to use roads as they had done traditionally - you found pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders all using the road as if they owned it. Now of course the level of road deaths has dropped dramatically, this is because the above mentioned people are either dead or have been so marginalised by car users that having rightly feared for their life they no longer use the roads.

Any comparison of 'safety' in this context has to include the changing patterns of road use forced on us by the car lobby. Never has one of our greatest freedoms been so quickly removed with such lack of recognition and protest. Roads are now synonymous with cars - all other users have been culled or removed - and this in one generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hy should taxpayers have to compensate others for being the victim of 'bad luck' and the fact that "sh*t happens"?? If we want to have some form of compensation for being raped or facially disfigured, etc then whats wrong with exercising individual responsibility and paying for private insurance to cover such (unlikely) events.

I don't much like the state having to compensate people either, but the state have stepped in and said that I can't do anything about these incidents myself, that I have to rely on them. Of course, they dismally fail to protect me, so yes, I'll take the cash.

Give me the right to shoot dead any ******* that comes into my home, and I'll waive the request for compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, why the heck are people released early from prison being compensated? Isn't prison suppose to be worse than freedom and hence the tarrif for doing wrong? I didn't realise that a life of crime was so good that I need to be compensated if in the conduct of my career as a criminal I have the priveledge of goal with-held from me.

Second, if people are being compensated for not being in goal, why is this not being passed to the victims as compensation for their losses in being violated?

Another question I've got is, if society fines people, why doesn't this go to the victims since it was the victims, not society that lost out by their actions, except through the reduced capacity of the victim who may need the compensation that the fine would allow to recover their health and well-being. It would also make the point to the criminal that their 'victim' will now profit from the crime the criminal perpetrated against them at the criminal's expense. it would rather turn the tables on the bullying mentality that goes with criminality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are to be compensation payments then it is silly that they can be affected by speeding offences.

But, at risk of sounding like a right-wing barstard: Does it strike anyone else that the whole nature of the compensation system is rather peculiar?:

Criminal breaks victim's arm. Victim rightly receives medical treatment at taxpayer expense. Victim usually receives sick pay / incapacity benefit (or whatever it's called now) at expense of either employer or taxpayer.

Is it also necessary for the victim to recieve a lump sum of "compensation" from the (innocent) taxpayer?

Fair enough that the criminal should be liable if (s)he has any money to hand over. But why the taxpayer?

After all, shit happens.

Its the price we pay for not being able to protect ourselves "unlegally" and when complex social contracts become too ambiguous. Basically we pay a Victim Insurance Contribution, for when the state effs up social engineering projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Similarly to comments of others, at risk of coming across as an unfeeling "right wing bast*rd", I too have long been not entirely comfortable with this relatively modern concept of having a tarriff of seemingly arbitrary compensations for being a victim of various crimes. Why is double rape compensated more than single rape?! Rape is rape a rate?!

This is the price society pays for taking over the monopoly on violence, ie. banning guns people cannot defend themselves anymore and making it almost impossible to extract any value out of the criminal who caused the problem.

It's easily fixed by simply bringing back bonded labour where you can rent out or sell the perp to work until he has paid his debt of that what he has caused in full.

Of course, most modern, tolerant and enlightened people find this kind of treatment to be rather too cruel to the criminal and so prefer to leave the real victim in the lurch with pitiful amounts of compensation and even that is begrudged it seems.

Edited by Cinnamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark my words, traffic control and motoring fines will increase tenfold in the next ten years. Motoring is a cash cow for the govt, and now they really *need* that money! This new proposal is all a part of that. They're finding ways to join the dots and make money from motoring in many more ways.

I don't like speeding myself, and view it as reckless. But making money from it is just as bad. Speed limits will become draconian, cameras will spring up on ever corner, and don't even think about parking your car anywhere other than in your own drive (assuming you have one). Parking permit areas force local residents to pay for the privilege to park in their own road for gods sake.

Prepare to be fleeced.

And after you've been mugged or even raped, prepare to be short changed & fleeced again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More people killed and injured by speeding drivers than by the sum total of all other criminals.

Utter ********: even the government only claim that around 30% of road accidents in Britain are caused by speeding, and the real non-******** figures show it's more like 3%. The vast majority of road accidents are caused by inattention and lousy road design.

Otherwise British motorways -- where almost everyone drives above the speed limit -- would be the most dangerous roads in the country rather than the safest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't much like the state having to compensate people either, but the state have stepped in and said that I can't do anything about these incidents myself, that I have to rely on them. Of course, they dismally fail to protect me, so yes, I'll take the cash.

The state has no money to give you. All its income comes from taxation.

What you're really saying is: the police are absolutely worthless, so I want the state to steal money from that innocent guy over there and give it to me. This, obviously, makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.