Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bowser-Mong, Mar 13, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I am watching Real Story and it is about victims of terrorism abroad. Some of the stories are truly horrific and it is about the efforts of victims trying to get some form of compensation. A representative of the families wrote to the Government about getting compensation and was told that the victims should claim against either the country where the act occurred or should sue the perpetrators. HOW CAN YOU SUE A SUICIDE BOMBER.
    Something needs to be sorted as it seems that these bureaucrats seem to be incapable of assisting these victims.
    It really is sad and it needs to be sorted out.
  2. Fully agree that it is very sad that these innocent people should be injured - but why should we pay them compensation ? We already pay towards their NHS costs, they can claim benefits if injured etc, so they will be treated for their injuries, they will not starve. Why should you and I ( HM taxpayers) stump up more ? If you are that concerned you can always set up a Charity. I see no reason why the general population should be expected to provide more than a "safety net" as a welfare system.
  3. Well I'd rather see the taxpayers money spent on that than cars for hate-preaching Imams, or Parliament buildings for Wales. A little compassion would not go amiss.
  4. Got to agree with Trossachs on this one. Why should we as Taxpayers pay what amounts to huge sums of money. When you see them on the News bleating they seem to think that the Government is an imaginary banking system and that nobody actually has to pay.

    Im all for the health service and the other various organisations helping these unfortunate people but can we please get out of the this Government cash cos mentality.
  5. London victims compensation row
    The families of those killed in the London terror attacks will be eligible for basic bereavement compensation of £11,000, it has been announced.
    The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority says payments for financial loss could take the amount paid to dependants to a maximum of £500,000.

    The Home Office argues the scheme to compensate victims of crime is one of the most generous in the world.

    But victims' groups described the level of compensation as "a pittance".

    According to the scheme's strict guidelines, the £11,000 sum is a basic payout for loss.

    This is and can be no more than a mark of public sympathy, recognising your grief
    Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

    If more than one family member of a 7 July victim applies, they will get £5,500 each.

    Those financially dependent on a victim can also apply for compensation for earnings lost as a result of the death.

    Dependent children are entitled to £2,000 a year until age 18, and families can also obtain "reasonable" extra payments to cover funeral costs.

    Survivors who are seriously debilitated can claim a maximum of £500,000 compensation, loss of earnings and care costs.

    'Same rules'

    Many families of those killed will receive bereavement pay-outs which are only a fraction of the maximum compensation levels.

    Murder destroys far more than just the victim's life, it destroys the lives of families and communities
    Victims of Crime Trust

    But the authority says these smaller sums should be regarded only as a "token of public sympathy".

    The authority's Howard Webber said: "We are applying the same rules we apply following a death or injury following criminal violence."


    He rejected suggestions that the payouts were mean, compared with the average £2m received by relatives of those killed in the 11 September terror attacks, saying comparisons were inappropriate.

    £11,000 basic pay-out for lost loved one
    £2,000 a year for dependent children
    Financial dependents may get bigger payment for loss
    £500,000 maximum payment
    £1,000 to £250,000 payments for serious injuries
    Loss of earnings for injured maximum £31,000 yearly
    £500,000 maximum payout for injury
    Trauma payments from £1,000 to £27,000. Maximum £500,000

    A spokesman for the Victims of Crime Trust said bereaved relatives should be given 100 times more because they would have to live with "tragedy" for the rest of their lives.

    "Murder destroys far more than just the victim's life, it destroys the lives of families and communities, and it's about time the government raised its level of payments," he said.

    'Stark contrast'

    Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said families and friends of victims would be "dismayed" by the basic compensation.

    The London Bombing Relief Charity Fund set up by mayor Ken Livingstone said on Wednesday it had attracted donations approaching £8m.

    Interim grants of £5,000 are currently available to families of those who died, and grants of £3,000 can be applied for by those admitted to hospital overnight.

    Mr Oaten urged the government to at least match the "public generosity" of the London fund.

    But a spokesman later said he was not suggesting there should be an increase in the basic bereavement payment to families of all murder victims.

    Story from BBC NEWS:

    Published: 2005/08/03 15:57:05 GMT

    © BBC MMVI
  6. There is the mechanism in place for compensation for the victims or relatives of victims. I think really the problem is one of expectation as we see huge amounts paid out in compensation in civil law suits or monstrous amounts in damages paid out in slander and libel suits.

    This is not sour grapes or the green eyed monster but I receive a War Disability Pension and I would urge all of those serving to study the rates as you will find that if something similar happens to you as a serving member of HM Forces you will receive a similar "pittance" or even less.

    It was a horrible act but I feel that like others, that the taxpayer which I still am despite living Holland should not be liable for unreasonable expectations of the victims and that's any victims. The family of the Brazilian mistakenly shot by old bill are milking it to the extreme.
  7. This is what happens if you let compensation culture and the welfare state get out of hand. You get blown up by enemies of the nation, and you get angry at the state, not because they didn't protect you (which is in itself on shaky grounds), but because they didn't pay you enough. Why did the USA have to set such a bad example with the 9/11 victims? We're talking about mostly affluent families in that case.

    Sorry, in a reactionary mood.
  8. i don't think so. the brazilian guy was not a victim of terrorism per se, he was a completely innocent man shot dead by the police. that is a pretty extreme case. "the government" (or people working for it) was directly responsible for this death, and therefore the government are more culpable than in the case of giving a handout to the victims of terrorism instigated by others.

    if it were your brother / dad, shot dead out of hand by government employees, whilst on his way to work in a foreign country - how much money would it take to compensate you for such a senseless loss? probably quite a lot. they will never get jean paul back, and i can see how they would not want this matter to quietly fade away or be brushed under the carpet with a relatively small sum of money.
  9. At least the Met paying out would really be compensation. They cocked up and are making financial amends for that. Why though, should we the taxpayers pay out to the victims of bombings etc, how can it possibly be our fault or our place to make amends?

    Also, milking the system isn't just unsavoury, it also begs the question, how do the relatives feel actually spending the money? If, god forbid, anything happened to a member of my family who wasn't a breadwinner, I'm buggered if I'd want the dosh.

    Scenario One...

    "Wow, nice Merc Awol!"

    "Yeah, my sister got blown to bits in the London Bombings, stroke of luck or what?"

    No thanks.
  10. I don't disagree with that either. The police fcuked up big time and compensation should be paid and not an amount that represents a sweeping under the carpet. Whether he was here or there and it was legal or illegal is irrelevant as well. What I find disturbing is that there is a full time public campaign to keep them in the media eye and it might not even be them that is orchestrating it but I find it very tasteless and it gives the impression they are milking it.

    Surely something like this could be settled behind closed doors and not turned into a media circus.
  11. well, maybe the money will be used to buy his family a house or something. i know a lot of immigrant workers do so in order to send money back to their poorer families in less well-developed countries. not saying that is so in this case (i don't know) but it doesn't have to be spent on flash cars and bling.
  12. Going back to the original post, I saw some of Real Story last night. It featured a guy who was caught up in a bomb abroad somewhere (Sharm-el-Sheikh?). As well as no longer being able to work he was having to pay for dressings which he needed to have changed daily. So, as well as not being able to earn any omney, and not being covered by his travel insurance (I got the impression from the programme that no travel insurance policies cover injuries sustained through a terrorist incident) he is having to pay for basic medical supplies that you would have thought should be available through the NHS! Surely anybody in this guy's situation is worthy of some financial help?

  13. The thing is Mistersoft, the money that they are having to pay out is not theirs it is our money as tax payers.
  14. Sorry missed that part myself but I fail to see how the NHS can get out of that. Travel insurance is for replacing Wolfgang's ski as you smashed it while abroad and why do you think holiday insurance can be so cheap? Because they will replace your underwear (and Wolfgang's ski) but not much else. Walking at an extremely brisk pace can be classified as an extreme sport and tripping up in the Lower Ormeau Road is classified as a terrorist incident. I agree that guy needs help financial or otherwise. Does anybody know the full details?
  15. Hi Sparky
    I belive that compensation should be paid and not a brown envelope shoved across the desk but there are precedents for this sort of thing, ok not Brazilians doing Muslim impressions exactly but the Met have fcuked up before and they've coughed up before so there must be a figure somewhere. It's one of those situations where you're wrong whatever you think. I'm a tax payer as well and there's a lot I don't like my not very hard earned dosh being spent on but ultimately I don't have a wet fart's chance of changing it.