But they now seem to be going for the plain evil policy:
Victims of violent crime are to have their compensation slashed if they have previously committed minor offences such as speeding.To put that into figures, if you are paralysed by your attacker, you will receive £175,000. If you, in the past, committed a minor speeding violation, the government will then knock off £26,250.
And it could be even more:
Individual payments to assault and rape victims will be reduced by up to £37,500 as part of a £25million public spending cuts programme ordered by the Government, it was claimed last night.This is monstrous. And I'd like to say they haven't a hope in hell of getting it through unchallenged.
But with the feeble 'opposition' so far provided by The Dave, they probably will...
Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'People will be astonished that Ministers are targeting victims of crime simply because they may have committed minor traffic violations - for which they have already paid the penalty - while prisoners released early are being given compensation for the food and accommodation they would have received free.People won't be 'astonished' - they will be furious, bitter, despairing, sickened - all those things, but not 'astonished'.
'The idea that a rape victim or the parents of a murdered child should have their compensation docked for a speeding conviction years earlier is a revolting proposition.
Because really, this is nothing more than the logical conclusion of this 'government of all the talents' that we currently have under Brown. No wonder he is losing ministers and cronies left right and centre.
Even their spokesman's heart doesn't seem to be in defending this one:
A Ministry of Justice spokesman confirmed that the changes in compensation payments would affect motorists convicted of minor offences - but denied it was unfair and insisted the budget was not being cut.After the way ministers have been so cavalier with taxpayer's money in the past, that one is going to fly about as well as the MoD's non-existant helicopters...
'The UK's Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is one of the most generous and comprehensive in the world. Each application will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis,' he said.
'We need to recognise that compensation is paid with taxpayers' money and this has always been taken into account when compensating those who have already cost the public purse.'
6 comments:
You've got to wonder if they aren't just upping the ante. "OK, sure, you don't just want to eject us from office. We know that. You want to burn us at the stake. We just, as part of our commitment to joined-up government, want to ensure that when you do so, as we scream and writhe among the flames, as the tallow drips and spits in the coals, that we really deserve it.
Anyone have a better explanation?
DG, to be honest I think they mean it, they really hate motorists that much.
Plus this is just one measure out of tens of thousands that a future government will have to reverse, they'll never get round to reversing all of them so plenty will remain in force.
The thing I don't understand is why victims of crime get compo from the government anyway. If it was compo for the crimes the government commit it'd make a certain amount of sense but they'd still be compensating people with their own money. Put it another way, if I'm a victim of crime I wouldn't want the bloody government to steal from people to compensate me. By all means catch the bastard so I can sue him for compo, and at a push I'd go along with the government automatically attaching his earnings and giving it to me. But I've never supported the idea of arbitrarily taking even more money from ordinary working people, much of which will be just to administer the compo scheme, because the lazy bastards find it easier than dealing with crime in the first place. Why should the government steal even more from you because I've been unlucky enough to have been hurt be a criminal?
Don't get me wrong, the idea of cutting compo for people who've committed some trivial offence in the distant past is a bad one, and I have no doubt it's only because the dumb fucks have finally noticed they've about run out of money. But I've never been in favour of having a taxpayer funded quango drawing arbitrary lines to decide who can have a handout, which itself often seems to be an arbitrary amount and therefore prone to being excessive in some circumstances and pathetically inadequate in others.
My 2 cents.
"Anyone have a better explanation?"
Actually, no!
"Plus this is just one measure out of tens of thousands that a future government will have to reverse..."
It's possible they have indeed given up on reelection, and this is yet another scortched earth policy. But surely reversing it wouldn't take up that much time?
"...I've never supported the idea of arbitrarily taking even more money from ordinary working people, much of which will be just to administer the compo scheme, because the lazy bastards find it easier than dealing with crime in the first place."
Ah, now, cancelling it altogether might be more of an honest way forward.
Provided, that is, they make it easier to sue people, and also grant the option to sue government departments where they can be said to have contributed to the crime.
We might get fewer criminals released onto the streets if departments were liable.
But absent that, expanding the scheme to claw back what Tim Worstall estimates as no more than £5 mill is the worst of all possible suggestions...
I'm with Angry Exile: why on Earth is the government chucking our tax money at the victims of crime? Is this just another attempt to encourage the culture of dependency on the state or what?
wv: culter - of dependunce
"Is this just another attempt to encourage the culture of dependency on the state or what?"
I'm assuming it was, like all government schemes, set up with the best of intentions.
And we all know where that road leads, don't we..?
"wv: culter - of dependunce"
Heh!
Post a Comment