Our fault - But no compensation for you

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Death_Rowums, Apr 19, 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. Well that's it, it's official, this is the final straw. I think it's time to start packing:
    Courtesy of the BBC
  2. Sorry - that's mad. 20 months in jail before being released on 1st appeal, and nothing in the way of compensation. What about loss of earnings, apart from anything else? Crazy!
  3. In her case it wasn't enough that her 2 sons died, she was then taken to court and wrongly convicted of murdering them, although money will never compensate for the loss of her sons and the time spent in prison she deserves something. How on earth can anyone say she doesn't deserve compensation simply because her appeal won at the first attempt? FFS!

    What else can the legal system do? offer her empty words? 'oops, sorry you spent 20 month branded a child killer, off you go, no hard feelings?'
  4. Saw this on the news this morning and even one of the cat agreed with me that if the pot isn't big enough to compensate those falsely convicted then the pot isn't big enough. This is virtually moral blackmail as any dissent is seen to be robbing the victims of crime.

    I don't particularly like compensation going to the Stratford Nine or the Ilkley Moor Twelve but if they have been falsely convicted OR the convictions have later proved to be unsafe then (regretably) they are entitled to compensation as well.

    I also think that the proposed means testing is unfair. If I am falsly accused of murder and later incarcerated in HMP Bognor Regis then after my appeal which exonerates me totally, I do not expect to receieve less compensation as I was caught pishing up a lamp post in Dudley or was convicted for being drunk in charge of myself in Sutton Coldfield.

    It sucks but then doesn't Labour suck anyway, so why the big surprise.
  5. More erosion of supposed "rights" within this country. I read this as "we can do anything we like to you and even if we are proven wrong, will not be liable for restitution". In a purely imaginary scenario, let us take the owner/driver of an international HGV who is - wrongly - accused and convicted of contravening the Catch 22 Anti Terrorism Act. He goes down. His business fails. His truck is repossessed. His mortgage forecloses and his family end up in a B&B. He is subsequently found to be inncent on appeal and is released. Falconer then informs him that even though the legal system has falsely imprisoned him, ruined his livelyhood and threatened the cohesion of his family, there is no liability and recompence.......... remember chaps and chapesses, we proudly (but erroneously) lay claim to having the "Mother of Parliaments" and the present government appears hell-bent on overturning all the rights and priviledges we have taken for granted for so long. Coming soon: trial without jury (again); suspension of habeus corpus; the 90 Days Detention Bill (again); withdrawal of health and social benefits to anyone without an ID card; in-car transponders to allow you to be tracked; arrest for saying something uncomplimentary about the PM (oh, sorry, we already have that) - the list goes on and on. I'm not even a Mail or Express reader for Gawd's sake!
  6. i particularly like this line....

    i would have thought banging somebody up for a couple years for a crime they never committed is a criminal in itself, therefore making the falsley accused a victime of crime?
  7. No argument from me that this is a travesty but would like to extend the debate a bit in light of rickshaws little rant.

    Trial without jury. What is so bad about that? 3 professional educated legally trained people decide your guilt or innocence dependant on the evidence as opposed to 12 shelf stackers/plumbers/bus drivers who make their mind up dependant on your haircut and which trousers you are wearing?

    To paraphrase something I read. You some guy who spends 15 years carefully avoiding paying tax by useing any number of clever loopholes and schemes. Some of the best legal minds in the country finally decide that this is actually avoidance and 12 Eastender fans have to decide who is right?

    In most cases I think you would be better off without a jury.
  8. Three lawyers eh? Hmm, you could have, for example:

    Tony Bliar
    Geoff Hoon
    Jack Straw

    I think I'll stick to trial by jury, thanks.
  9. No jury eh.

    You could have, e.g. Lord Hutton as one of the 3 carefully trained legal minds. I'll take my chances with the Eastenders fans thanks.

  10. Steven,
    English Common Law - the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers.
    The job of the defence and prosecution - and the judge in his summation for that matter - is to make it clear to the jury "beyond reasonable".... and all that. I fully accept that with a financial, taxation or other complex case the subject matter might be difficult to grasp. This suggests that the jury should be selected more carefully? No, you can't mitigate stupidity, but perhaps you shouldn't want to do so with a jury of your peers.

    Edited to add: and if you thought my original post was a rant, you really don't want to catch me on a day when I've overlooked my medication or when I've been exposed to more than usual levels of ineptitude.
  11. Mrs daft slips on a wet floor at work and gets £8000 compo because oh dear, she hurt her knee
    Mrs canning is accused of murder with the evidence of a dodgy paedatrician, gets slung in jail, later cleared and recieves precisely...bob all.
    Makes you want to tear your hair out.
  12. Even if she receives nothing at all all those involved with the case, especially that so called doctor, needs to be carefully investigated. If I was her I would look in to bringing a claim against him personally. It would also be neccesary to comb through all of the other cases that the good doctor also gave evidence in.
  13. Typical Labour spin "We are putting more money towards the compensation of victims". How? By "taxing" (in a street argot sense) the victims of our inefficient and sometimes corrupt prosecution service and police. Sometimes they are inefficient because they are chasing stupid bloody measures of performance, so "guilty" is a by hook or by crook goal.

    It is enough to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass panel...really it is.
  14. Just a quote from people on BBC news.

    Check this guy out. How quick would his views change if he was banged up for say, I don't know, kiddy fiddleing. After all the hype in the various tabloids it would be a simple matter to hold your head high and rebuild your life. After all we all know the papers would fall over themselves to match the coverage of your incarcaration with your realease and clearing wouldn't they?

    Mr Jangles, Milton Keynes, UK

    If you are banged up for no reason at all, the government is liable. It should help you get back on your feet, with monetary assistance and possibley even protection for a short while. If someone is to blame ie a lawyer was neglegent, evidence planted/fabricated then the people responsible should be held accountable.

    That is 20 months of her life she will never get back.
  15. Minirantish post then? :)

    Trail by ordeal used to be on the books as well..

    There are any number of crimes for which you do not get the option of jury trial already so extending this to complex and time & money consuming trails seems like a fairly good idea to me.

    As it is Juries try less than 2% of criminal cases.

    Heres a good rant by someone else on the jury system.