End payments for criminal injuries
Robert Henderson
A mother has won the right to compensation for her son, two years after
he was hit 11 times by another three-year-old boy with a car jack.
Jay Jones, of Wirral, Merseyside, needed stitches after he was attacked
while the boys were alone in a car.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority twice refused to pay out as
it disputed whether a three-year-old could be guilty of a crime of
violence.
Note: I have always been opposed to the idea of the state paying out for
criminal injuries on two grounds: first, there is no greater reason for
such injuries to be compensated than injuries incurred in a non-criminal
situation; second, the system gives and incentive to people to make
false accusations simply to gain money, a situation aggravated by the
fact that payments are made regardless of whether a conviction is
obtained. The second objection has particular force in circumstances
where the alleged crime does not leave lasting disability or where
psychiatric problems are attributed to the aftermath of a crime, for
example, the accusations of child abuse made decades after the alleged
event against those running children's homes. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
steve robinson
Very few claims are false , most are weeded out .
The payout is made because of a crime committed , which is not the
same as gaining a conviction
When i got a payout it nowhere covered the losses i incurred because
of the assault .
Convicted criminals are not eligable
Robert Henderson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> writes
>
>Very few claims are false , most are weeded out .
>
>The payout is made because of a crime committed , which is not the same
>as gaining a conviction
>
>When i got a payout it nowhere covered the losses i incurred because of
>the assault .
But why should you have got anything? If, for example, you had injured
yourself by putting a spade through your foot the state would not cough
up? RH
bombthrower
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gybZCGHvx9$KF...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> The second objection has particular force in circumstances where the
> alleged crime does not leave lasting disability or where psychiatric
> problems are attributed to the aftermath of a crime, for example, the
> accusations of child abuse made decades after the alleged event against
> those running children's homes. RH
>
>
> --
> Robert Henderson
> Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
The children who were abused sexually and physically by the BEASTS who were
empoyed to care for them in childrens homes should have been given
compensation and that should have come from any monies that could have been
stripped from all and any assets held by said BEASTS and then topped up by
goverment money.
Wether the accusations were made decades after the offences were commited
does not matter , what does matter is the accusations were found to be true
in the courts and in many cases decades had not passed before the
accusations were made , the victims were complaining at the time but were
ignored by the police and others in authority who were them selves abusers.
R. Mark Clayton
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gybZCGHvx9$KF...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
> criminal injuries on two grounds: first, there is no greater reason for
> such injuries to be compensated than injuries incurred in a non-criminal
> situation;
I pay fully comp car insurance and get paid out for injury in an accident
(even if it is my own fault).
I also pay National Insurance. Almost by definition a victim of crime is
not at fault for their injury, so why shouldn't the state pay out on what is
a very expensive policy?
> second, the system gives and incentive to people to make false accusations
> simply to gain money, a situation aggravated by the fact that payments
> are made regardless of whether a conviction is obtained.
Well if it related to conviction this would be an incentive to perjury in
criminal cases so as to be sure of gaining compensation.
> The second objection has particular force in circumstances where the
> alleged crime does not leave lasting disability or where psychiatric
> problems are attributed to the aftermath of a crime, for example, the
> accusations of child abuse made decades after the alleged event against
> those running children's homes. RH
>
A friend of mine was attacked by several men outside a pub in broad
daylight. The one who kicked him in the face when he was on the floor got
done for ABH and my friend got a CICB pay out for his injuries (which did
heal up).
There isn't really much chance of ficticious claims as there needs to be a
substantial injury, a report to the police (usually prompt) which will mean
the police investigate it ab initio - not much scope for false claim.
As for your last point - funny how those who were running the homes all seem
to meekly plead guilty - probably because they know they are and eight years
is better than twelve years after a trial.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Toddler-attack boy wins pay-out
>
> A mother has won the right to compensation for her son, two years after
> he was hit 11 times by another three-year-old boy with a car jack.
>
> Jay Jones, of Wirral, Merseyside, needed stitches after he was attacked
> while the boys were alone in a car.
>
> The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority twice refused to pay out as
> it disputed whether a three-year-old could be guilty of a crime of
> violence.
>
> Note: I have always been opposed to the idea of the state paying out for
> criminal injuries on two grounds: first, there is no greater reason for
> such injuries to be compensated than injuries incurred in a non-criminal
> situation;
The state has taken it upon themselves to be the sole protector of the
people against criminals. When it fails it should pay.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
IanAl
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>> Note: I have always been opposed to the idea of the state paying
>> out for criminal injuries on two grounds: first, there is no
>> greater reason for such injuries to be compensated than injuries
>> incurred in a non-criminal situation; second, the system gives and
>> incentive to people to make false accusations simply to gain
>> money, a situation aggravated by the fact that payments are made
>> regardless of whether a conviction is obtained. The second
>> objection has particular force in circumstances where the alleged
>> crime does not leave lasting disability or where psychiatric
>> problems are attributed to the aftermath of a crime, for example,
>> the accusations of child abuse made decades after the alleged event
>> against those running children's homes. RH
>
>Very few claims are false , most are weeded out .
>
>The payout is made because of a crime committed , which is not the
>same as gaining a conviction
>
>When i got a payout it nowhere covered the losses i incurred because
>of the assault .
>
>Convicted criminals are not eligable
Why ever not?
HardySpicer
wrote:
> In message <xn0ghojvgts191...@news.virginmedia.com>, steve robinson
Cos you are a Twat Henderson - that's why!