Compensation

#1
Right, we have had ``dole scum´´ then ``legal aid´´ threads.
Very interesting too, so I thought I would ask a question from the people at ARRSE.
A certain Paul Blackburn, has just been released from prison, 25 years inside, for something he has always maintained he didn't do, hence the longevity of his sentance.
Now it comes to light, that the man was telling the truth. What form and how much should the compensation be for Mr Blackburn? What should be the punishment for those who gave false witness?, putting him away in the first place.
25 years, a hell of a long time people, probably his best, personally, I would give him 5 million. (I don't have that kind of cash, but uncle Tony can find it)
 
#2
The article doesn't say he was innocent just that by todays standards his trail may have been unfair.
 
#3
25,000 for every year inside plus 200,000 for pain and suffering.
 
#4
His life has been ruined. £100,000 for every year in prison. Then 10 years at 'her majesty's pleasure' for every policeman/retired policeman who lied under oath. All taxpayers should be ok with funding the above - except that the cost of keeping the lying policemen behind bars might be prohibitive
 
#5
I don't think you can really put a price on it. Five million? Why not? Enough so that he doesn't really have to worry about his future.

Thing is, if you gave the boor b@stard all that dough who'd look after him and make sure he re-adjusted to the outside? He'd be easy pickings for all sorts of wasters otherwise. That's the tragedy of the story.

As an aside, (and not casting aspersions on Mr. Blackburn) I am a not frequent, but not infrequent visitor to Her Majesty's Prisons. Everybody in there swears blind that they're innocent. Not a single guilty person in the entire System.

V!
 
#7
frenchperson said:
His life has been ruined. £100,000 for every year in prison. Then 10 years at 'her majesty's pleasure' for every policeman/retired policeman who lied under oath. All taxpayers should be ok with funding the above - except that the cost of keeping the lying policemen behind bars might be prohibitive
And I suppose you think that the lunatics should run the asylum too?
 
#8
I shouldn't be too quick with your largesse. This from the BBC:
...new linguistic evidence, which suggested police had been significantly involved in the statement's wording, led them to believe that the officers had lied.

Lord Justice Keane said: "We cannot escape the conclusion that they cannot have told the truth about the written confession."

Mr Blackburn should also have been told he was entitled to a solicitor and that the interview should have been carried out at a police station, rather than the school where Mr Blackburn was in care, the judges said.
...
He had been questioned for more than three hours without a break before he made an admission.
The fact that he was 15 at the time means little. Having had a small involvement in a famous case of 'wrongful imprisonment' which was almost certainly one of the most disgraceful miscarriages of justice in our history (but not for the obvious reasons), I would be keen on seeing the prosecution evidence before making any sort of judgement.
 
#9
The suggestion is that he was fitted up by the police who interviewed him. It has also been confirmed that what was done was not only wrong now but was also out of order when he was convicted.
So - what about his defence then? They must have had a go at the police evidence and no corroboration of 'confession' by forensic etc. If they did. and didn't get it thrown out, then the jury at the time need to explain why they found a guilty verdict.
Yes - dodgy police work as now reported but they gave it a run, evidence was minimal but the guy was convicted. Don't blame them for the fcuk up. The guy must have had a really hard time convicted as he was of buggery of a 9 year old boy - not the sort really liked in nick. He deserves a good level of compensation.
 
#10
Vegetius said:
Everybody in there swears blind that they're innocent. Not a single guilty person in the entire System.
Reminds me of a comment attributed to Frederick the Great:
Prussian King Frederick the Great was once touring a Berlin prison. The prisoners fell on their knees before him to proclaim their innocence—except for one man, who remained silent. Frederick called to him, “Why are you here?” “Armed robbery, Your Majesty,” was the reply. “And are you guilty?” “Yes indeed, Your Majesty, I richly deserve my punishment.”

Frederick then summoned the jailer and ordered him, “Release this guilty wretch at once. I will not have him kept in this prison where he will corrupt all the fine innocent people who occupy it.”
 
#11
Tiffy_71 said:
frenchperson said:
His life has been ruined. £100,000 for every year in prison. Then 10 years at 'her majesty's pleasure' for every policeman/retired policeman who lied under oath. All taxpayers should be ok with funding the above - except that the cost of keeping the lying policemen behind bars might be prohibitive
And I suppose you think that the lunatics should run the asylum too?
What on earth are you talking about?
 
#12
frenchperson said:
Tiffy_71 said:
frenchperson said:
His life has been ruined. £100,000 for every year in prison. Then 10 years at 'her majesty's pleasure' for every policeman/retired policeman who lied under oath. All taxpayers should be ok with funding the above - except that the cost of keeping the lying policemen behind bars might be prohibitive
And I suppose you think that the lunatics should run the asylum too?
What on earth are you talking about?
What about the life the the boy who was the victim? all the evidence at the time put this person in the frame - he was there for a reason according to the policing methods of that time (25 years ago forensics were not as good - dna sampling etc was non-existant), So you are intimating all police are liers and should be put behind bars, on your generalisation not just the ones on this case, as all that has been said is that he was interviewed aggresively. Now, based on your assumption that all evidence of that era is suspect, no police action is sound (not all suspects held their hands up giving a cheery, "It's a fair cop guv".) - Thereby my comment, a well known phrase to analagise the concept of the world gone mad
 
#14
IF, he is innocent. at least 10 million , taken from the lying scum who put him inside. ie. the corrupt police and their superiors, and their insurers.. make the right people pay for goodness sake, not the taxpayer, but the people who conned the system at the time.
the coppers who have retired should not be untouchable, neither should the lawyers.
god, this seems so simple to me, why?
 
#15
mind you. this blair govt, seems intent on turnig this country into the new soviet union.
give me your arguments why i am wrong, and i will shoot them all down from my perch in the big barracks.
again, emails are welcome
 
#16
ANGRYOFWATTISHAM said:
... this seems so simple to me, why?
Probably because you've only read the press reports, not the transcripts of the original and appeal hearings. You may very well change your mind if you do. Tiffy put it quite well above.
 
#17
Here we go again, - judging things that happened over 25 years ago with todays standards.

It just doesn't work. So there may have been an injustice, - but you've got to be damned certain of your ground before you take any action. Is being questioned agressively really that bad? If they'd let him off then people would have moaned that they weren't doing their job properly. Is there absolute certainty that he didn't do what he's been accused of rather than his arrest and questioning process a bit 'doddgy'?

Now they all jump on the compensation bandwagon, - including most of you lot by the sounds of it.
 
#19
Everybody in there swears blind that they're innocent. Not a single guilty person in the entire System.
The difference being the vast majoriity of these people would put there hands up and say yes guv'nor my fault if it meant that they would make parole, this guy has consistently denied that he did it and as such has served far longer than he would have done if he'd owned up.

This statement by no means assumes his innocence but it does give me pause for thought, if I were in that position would I own up to cut my sentence.

Zippy483
 
#20
Many more were 'fitted up' by the police around the time - The Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, to name just two cases. Or is the general concensus on this site that these people were guilty?
 

Top