Victim Support for MP's Crimes
Turk182
Compensation scheme, which result in about 80% of victims losing their
entitlement to compensation.
We saw recently how a levy was placed on fines to generate money for
victims of crime, though I don't know if this money was used to
compensate the government or increase the amount going to victims.
The government are now proposing to extend the scheme to apply the
levy on smaller offences.
If vast amounts of money are being generated this way, it's only fair
that YOU should get your slice of the cake.
Did you know, that for you to be entitled to support from Victim
Support, you don't actually have to report a crime to the police.
This little known fact, means this for example: if you consider that
the crimes of MP's on expenses have caused you actual loss which is
refelcted in the taxes you have been paying or will have to pay, you
are entitled to support.
If you consider that the illegal war in Iraq has caused you emotional
distress, or that the knowledge that you voted for a party who allowed
rendition and torture to occur in your name has affected your ability
to sleep, then you should also consult Victim Support about the
possibility of obtaining 'counselling'.
There may also be a case in respect of 'being a victim of the banking
scandal' where crimes are suspected to have taken place and actual
losses shown through increased charges etc.
Victim Support can advise you to any possible entitlement concerning
compensation, and if they say compensation is not available unless you
have had a breakdown or lost a finger, I suggest you burst out crying
there and then.
Psychologically, what Brown is trying to do now in extending the
'victim' surcharges on to other crimes, is making a statement to the
public of how he is on the side of the victim (on the approach to an
election). He is doing this because he knows that many of us regard
HIM and his government as the criminals, so he is actually trying to
confuse you into liking him. He is projecting his 'criminality' on to
others with an oily, caring smile thrown in.
Turk182
AlanG
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>'Turk182' wrote thus:
>
>>Around four years ago, Labour made changes to the Criminal Injuires
>>Compensation scheme, which result in about 80% of victims losing their
>>entitlement to compensation.
>>
>>We saw recently how a levy was placed on fines to generate money for
>>victims of crime, though I don't know if this money was used to
>>compensate the government or increase the amount going to victims.
>>
>>The government are now proposing to extend the scheme to apply the
>>levy on smaller offences.
>
>I didn't know this rip-off already existed for more serious fines,
>but I'm amazed it hasn't been challenged in the courts. That may
>happen if/when it's extended to parking fines.
You can challenge it all you like but it is an act passed by
parliament so you have as much chance of winning as I have of being
king of europe
>
>I can see no moral justification why a person who is fined for one
>offence - trivial or otherwise - should then have an additional
>levy - a tax by another name - added to his fine for a completely
>unrelated purpose, in fact a crime committed by another person.
>
>Since the income will not be hypothecated, it's just another tax
>to fill up the gaping holes in Brown's public finances, and it's
>yet another effort by New Lab to undermine the rule of law.
>
Buggered up the justice system
Turk182
> 'Turk182' wrote thus:
>
> >Around four years ago, Labour made changes to the Criminal Injuires
> >Compensation scheme, which result in about 80% of victims losing their
> >entitlement to compensation.
>
> >We saw recently how a levy was placed on fines to generate money for
> >victims of crime, though I don't know if this money was used to
> >compensate the government or increase the amount going to victims.
>
> >The government are now proposing to extend the scheme to apply the
> >levy on smaller offences.
>
> but I'm amazed it hasn't been challenged in the courts. That may
> happen if/when it's extended to parking fines.
>
> offence - trivial or otherwise - should then have an additional
> levy - a tax by another name - added to his fine for a completely
> unrelated purpose, in fact a crime committed by another person.
>
> Since the income will not be hypothecated, it's just another tax
> to fill up the gaping holes in Brown's public finances, and it's
> yet another effort by New Lab to undermine the rule of law.
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
This pretty much sums up some of the issues; there has also been some
damning TV interviews anout this proposal:
Turk182
AlanG
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>'AlanG' wrote thus:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:43:11 +0000, aracari
>><spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>>
>>>'Turk182' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>>Around four years ago, Labour made changes to the Criminal Injuires
>>>>Compensation scheme, which result in about 80% of victims losing their
>>>>entitlement to compensation.
>>>>
>>>>We saw recently how a levy was placed on fines to generate money for
>>>>victims of crime, though I don't know if this money was used to
>>>>compensate the government or increase the amount going to victims.
>>>>
>>>>The government are now proposing to extend the scheme to apply the
>>>>levy on smaller offences.
>>>
>>>I didn't know this rip-off already existed for more serious fines,
>>>but I'm amazed it hasn't been challenged in the courts. That may
>>>happen if/when it's extended to parking fines.
>>
>>You can challenge it all you like but it is an act passed by
>>parliament so you have as much chance of winning as I have of being
>>king of europe
>
>I wasn't referring to challenging it myself, but it wouldn't be
>the first law to be challenged in the courts, perhaps in the EU.
On what grounds do you believe it can be challenged?
>
>>>I can see no moral justification why a person who is fined for one
>>>offence - trivial or otherwise - should then have an additional
>>>levy - a tax by another name - added to his fine for a completely
>>>unrelated purpose, in fact a crime committed by another person.
>>>
>>>Since the income will not be hypothecated, it's just another tax
>>>to fill up the gaping holes in Brown's public finances, and it's
>>>yet another effort by New Lab to undermine the rule of law.
>>>
>>
>>Buggered up the justice system
>
>That too!
Norman Wells
>
> Dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But am I the only one who finds such a
> thing to be utterly outrageous? It's the sort of rank undermining
> and corruption of basic justice and fairness one might expect in a
> country run by a mad dictator.
>
> Think about where it could lead to...
>
> How about the state demanding that you fund the cost of repairs to
> a shop damaged by a kid down the road who you don't even know?
>
> You might ask:
> "WTF has this got to do with me?"
Like lots of taxes in fact. This is a tax too. Tax has to be paid by
someone, otherwise there's no money to provide services. If there's a
special group of people to which I do not to belong who pay certain taxes,
that reduces the general taxation burden on me. Like smokers for example.
I don't smoke, so I'm perfectly happy however high duties on tobacco go.
The more they pay, the less I have to.
So, I'm all in favour of voluntary taxes. And this is just one such. All
you have to do to avoid having to pay it is not to commit any crime. That's
not too difficult really, is it?
Turk182
This move illustrates the basis of all Labour thinking. First they
decide they want something. Then they work out who they can get it
from. Then, in order to justify taking it, they think of and depict
that person as a demon. Then they are able to take what it is they
want.
Labour want money. They are prepared to upset the finely tuned
balance of justice in order to get it. This is how they justified
invading Iraq. These are very dangerously envious and stupid
people. In looking at driving crimes as a cash cow, they have now
built in an ingredient which will mean they lose income if they follow
safe driving programmes - it's madness.
Having interviewed may criminals, I can tell you that the hardest
thing for them to do is empathise with their victim. They are
actually very hostile towards people who claim they are suffering
(because they themselves had to survive without empathy too).
Consequently, if you publicise that victims are getting 'paid off' for
their suffering, you will earn even less compassion from the
criminal. Labour would have trouble understanding this, because there
is a significant bully in the Labour psyche.
Turk182
Norman Wells
> 'Norman Wells' wrote thus:
>>> You might ask:
>>> "WTF has this got to do with me?"
>
>> Like lots of taxes in fact. This is a tax too. Tax has to be paid
>> by someone, otherwise there's no money to provide services. If
>> there's a special group of people to which I do not to belong who
>> pay certain taxes, that reduces the general taxation burden on me.
>> Like smokers for example. I don't smoke, so I'm perfectly happy
>> however high duties on tobacco go. The more they pay, the less I
>> have to.
>>
>> So, I'm all in favour of voluntary taxes. And this is just one
>> such. All you have to do to avoid having to pay it is not to commit
>> any crime. That's not too difficult really, is it?
>
> I also see it as yet another stealth tax, but New Lab deny it is.
> It makes the surcharge outrageous using their own yardstick.
>
> Where does it end?
> What happens when they want some more money?
They will look, as any government would, to pluck the most feathers with the
least amount of hiss.
> Should we expect a growing list of surcharges added to a parking
> ticket? Perhaps they'll introduce a surcharge for people who pay
> their water bills late or use blue ink instead of black ink on tax
> returns? Or maybe a surcharge for wearing bright coloured clothes
> on Sundays because someone was distracted and lost concentration
> when driving and hit a bollard?
Why not? These would all be voluntary taxes that no-one has to pay.
> We are in the era of sinister New Labour madness.
>
> Your comments seem to be based upon pure self interest and ignore
> that when a person commits an offence, he expects to be punished
> for it and fined accordingly if caught. Here we have a culprit
> being forced to pay for other peoples' offences, completely
> unrelated to his own!
Current fines are not hypothecated in the slightest. So, they just go into
the government's coffers to be spent on what the government wants. At least
the surcharge will go from a criminal to a victim of crime. Even if the two
are not directly connected, there is at least a symmetry about this. The
surcharge is therefore fairer than the main fine, isn't it?
> A long standing view of taxation is that it must always be seen
> to be fair and reasonable.
No there isn't. People who pay taxes always think them too high,
particularly if they perceive them as being focused on their pleasures, like
smoking, drinking, littering, speeding, parking where they want, paying
their bills when they want, and being generally obnoxious. Others who don't
do the majority of these generally anti-social things are perfectly happy
for those who do to pick up the tab. That's not unreasonable, is it?
AlanG
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>Dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But am I the only one who finds such a
>thing to be utterly outrageous? It's the sort of rank undermining
>and corruption of basic justice and fairness one might expect in a
>country run by a mad dictator.
It's the sort of thing we have been putting up with since the
Churchill government of the 50s. Like having 'good reason' to possess
an item but not laying down in law what that good reason might be. We
have had innumerable pieces of legislation passed since then equally
as bad and from every government.
>
>Think about where it could lead to...
>
>How about the state demanding that you fund the cost of repairs to
>a shop damaged by a kid down the road who you don't even know?
I don't think compensation for property is included. Only personal
injury.
CIC is already funded out of general taxation. This seems to be an
attempt to set up a compensation fund from an alternative source and
ring fence it. How many are going to argue about punishing criminals a
bit more in order to compensate victims?
>
>You might ask:
>"WTF has this got to do with me?"
From the government POV the money will only come from offenders so if
you don't commit an offence you won't pay
>
>New Labour's answer:
>"nothing, but someone needs to fund it and you were caught
>speeding last week".
So don't speed
Ian
"Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
news:_SO%m.17738$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2...
There are now so many "crimes" that any ordinary person probably
commits one every day without realising it.
Perhaps EVERYBODY should therefore pay a Victim Surcharge of �15 every
day to atone for the crimes they probably have committed but which
remain undetected?
--
Please visit our appeal at
http://www.donatetobreastcancer.org/nakedbikeride
Thanks
Ian
Ian
No..... because it goes to pay for people who "man" the victim support
offices in courts..... who actually achieve very little!
Norman Wells
> "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
> news:D8_%m.18938$PV.1...@newsfe19.ams2...
>> Current fines are not hypothecated in the slightest. So, they just
>> go into the government's coffers to be spent on what the government
>> wants. At least the surcharge will go from a criminal to a victim
>> of crime. Even if the two are not directly connected, there is at
>> least a symmetry about this. The surcharge is therefore fairer than
>> the main fine, isn't it?
>
> No..... because it goes to pay for people who "man" the victim support
> offices in courts..... who actually achieve very little!
And those people are currently being paid for, er, how exactly?
Turk182
There is nothing wrong with speeding providing you are a police
officer in which case you can speed as much as you like for any
reason, unless you actually mow down an old woman, in which case you
may be asked not to do it again.
Unfortunatley, victims of road crime are not covered by CICS
payments. People on benefits do not get CICS compensation either,
becuse if it is awarded, it is removed from their benefits payment. I
think it fair to say that logic and fairness are not part of the
Labour way. Their main aim is to raise money endlessly from anyone
they feel they can look down on - irresepective of the validity of
their argument.
Here we have Labour trying to tell us that there should be a tax FOR
victims. However, most of us now that tax payers ARE victims.
It is also interesting to see how Harriet Harmen has skillfully weaved
her way out of this debate. Her criminal behaviour regularly lands
her with a prosecution for sometimes serious motoring offences. She
would have to pay the 'victom tax' herself under these proposals.
However, at the very time the government choose to issue this pre-
election news story, Harmen creates a red herring by attacking the BBC
over "older women not getting work". This distracting their attention
and putting them on the back foot, as it were.
Turk182
AlanG
Plod thuggery has nothing to do with this tax
>
>Unfortunatley, victims of road crime are not covered by CICS
>payments. People on benefits do not get CICS compensation either,
>becuse if it is awarded, it is removed from their benefits payment.
No it isn't. It is included in the means tested portion.
> I
>think it fair to say that logic and fairness are not part of the
>Labour way. Their main aim is to raise money endlessly from anyone
>they feel they can look down on - irresepective of the validity of
>their argument.
IME that is true of all governemnts of the last 30 years. The current
lot just happen to be the shite of the litter
>
>Here we have Labour trying to tell us that there should be a tax FOR
>victims. However, most of us now that tax payers ARE victims.
I don't think most of us have been the victims of criminal assault
>
>It is also interesting to see how Harriet Harmen has skillfully weaved
>her way out of this debate. Her criminal behaviour regularly lands
>her with a prosecution for sometimes serious motoring offences. She
>would have to pay the 'victom tax' herself under these proposals.
>However, at the very time the government choose to issue this pre-
>election news story, Harmen creates a red herring by attacking the BBC
>over "older women not getting work". This distracting their attention
>and putting them on the back foot, as it were.
>
You're dribbling at the mouth
Turk182
> >> So don't speed
> >There is nothing wrong with speeding providing you are a police
> >officer in which case you can speed as much as you like for any
> >reason, unless you actually mow down an old woman, in which case you
> >may be asked not to do it again.
> >Unfortunatley, victims of road crime are not covered by CICS
> >payments.
>
>
>
>
> >People on benefits do not get CICS compensation either,
> >becuse if it is awarded, it is removed from their benefits payment. I
> >think it fair to say that logic and fairness are not part of the
> >Labour way. Their main aim is to raise money endlessly from anyone
> >they feel they can look down on - irresepective of the validity of
> >their argument.
>
> >Here we have Labour trying to tell us that there should be a tax FOR
> >victims. However, most of us now that tax payers ARE victims.
>
> >It is also interesting to see how Harriet Harmen has skillfully weaved
> >her way out of this debate. Her criminal behaviour regularly lands
> >her with a prosecution for sometimes serious motoring offences. She
> >would have to pay the 'victom tax' herself under these proposals.
> >However, at the very time the government choose to issue this pre-
> >election news story, Harmen creates a red herring by attacking the BBC
> >over "older women not getting work". This distracting their attention
> >and putting them on the back foot, as it were.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes. Maybe they should call it an insurance companies surcharge.
If we do cover other crimes with this 'crime tax', I wonder if £15
would be enough to cover Blair's private war on Iraq which has had a
human cost which is rising every day? It seems strnage the Blair
should be allowed to get away without having to cough up for his
victims.
What about, the Victims of New Labour. The mentally ill who have had
their therapy taken away - some of which may now be ready to act on a
suicidal ideation.
How much 'victim tax' should we charge Brown for doing that?
Your choice of word 'immoral' describes perfectly the way try and
skew, twist and pervert every value we once had and dress it up to to
mean something else.
They try and re-label our attitudes and vocabulary into a spaghetti
logic that is as muddled as Brown's 'religion'.
Turk182
AlanG
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>'AlanG' wrote thus:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:37:51 +0000, aracari
>><spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>
>>>Dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But am I the only one who finds such a
>>>thing to be utterly outrageous? It's the sort of rank undermining
>>>and corruption of basic justice and fairness one might expect in a
>>>country run by a mad dictator.
>
>>It's the sort of thing we have been putting up with since the
>>Churchill government of the 50s. Like having 'good reason' to possess
>>an item but not laying down in law what that good reason might be. We
>>have had innumerable pieces of legislation passed since then equally
>>as bad and from every government.
>
>I agree there are many poorly framed laws which are often
>manipulated by the police et al to criminalise someone. But this
>crackpot idea of NewLab's rankles with me. I simply cannot see
>any moral justification for imposing such surcharges.
It actually has greater morality than most of what they have done. It
is almost tory like in it's substance.
>
>>>Think about where it could lead to...
>>>
>>>How about the state demanding that you fund the cost of repairs to
>>>a shop damaged by a kid down the road who you don't even know?
>>
>>I don't think compensation for property is included. Only personal
>>injury.
>
>So far ...
indeed
>
>>CIC is already funded out of general taxation. This seems to be an
>>attempt to set up a compensation fund from an alternative source and
>>ring fence it. How many are going to argue about punishing criminals a
>>bit more in order to compensate victims?
>
>I do not believe it will be ring fenced and will probably be
>increased over time (as per APD). It's just another tax being
>imposed on people who get caught speeding etc and is entirely
>unrelated.
Think of it as a bigger fine
>
>>>You might ask:
>>>"WTF has this got to do with me?"
>>
>>From the government POV the money will only come from offenders so if
>>you don't commit an offence you won't pay
>
>Sure, but WTF has a phony victim support fund got to do with
>a guy who gets caught doing 37mph in a 30mph zone?
He pays a bigger fine and some of it goes to victims
>
>>>New Labour's answer:
>>>"nothing, but someone needs to fund it and you were caught
>>>speeding last week".
>>
>>So don't speed
>
>Obviously. But that only helps people avoid paying the surcharge.
>My concern is with the lack of moral principle.
Increasing fines for wrongdoers is a bit more moral than upping taxes.
Perhaps they should have just announced a 5 percent increase on all
fines?
Turk182
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's be clear. Labour are trying to marry together the words
'victims' and 'compensation' to portray themselves as the 'Robin
Hoods' of democracy. They are doing this because they want to be seen
on the side of the good, at the very time before an election, when
MOST people see them as a force for 'evil'.
Whatever you think about the fairness of the new 'tax', don't be
fooled by their motives. These are habitually dishonest and wretched
war mongering criminals. Brown himself is an fiddled expenses 'black
hole' and honsesty is always the first casualty with a bully such as
he.
Turk182
AlanG
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 3 Jan, 17:16, AlanG <inva...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:46:12 +0000, aracari
>>
>>
>Let's be clear. Labour are trying to marry together the words
>'victims' and 'compensation' to portray themselves as the 'Robin
>Hoods' of democracy. They are doing this because they want to be seen
>on the side of the good, at the very time before an election, when
>MOST people see them as a force for 'evil'.
That isn't going to change
>
>Whatever you think about the fairness of the new 'tax', don't be
>fooled by their motives. These are habitually dishonest and wretched
>war mongering criminals. Brown himself is an fiddled expenses 'black
>hole' and honsesty is always the first casualty with a bully such as
>he.
>
What do you expect from politicians?