Justice ?
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Apples and oranges.
The CIC scheme awards victims payouts for criminal injuries within the CRIMINAL sphere.
The latter you quote is the amount of damages awarded in the CIVIL courts.
They are entirely different beasts.
The factors on which payments are made differ considerably between the 2 arenas.
A better comparison would be to compare the CIC payments against damages awarded for criminal actions by the civil courts.
The CIC scheme awards victims payouts for criminal injuries within the CRIMINAL sphere.
The latter you quote is the amount of damages awarded in the CIVIL courts.
They are entirely different beasts.
The factors on which payments are made differ considerably between the 2 arenas.
A better comparison would be to compare the CIC payments against damages awarded for criminal actions by the civil courts.
Was the phone hacking not a criminal offence?
Yes but the awards for damages you linked to were made by the civil court.
I doubt they would have got anything from The CIC Scheme for having their 'phone hacked by a criminal act.
Sponsored Links
Ok. I will take it that you think such payments are justified and acceptable.
I do not (but I realise that is how it works).
I do not (but I realise that is how it works).
I certainly don't think the payments are acceptable.
I believe the maximum amounts which The CICA are able to award are a disgrace. They ought to be MUCH higher.
I also believe that those who were 'hacked' were entitled to be compensated but not to the degree they were. IMHO, the ordinary man (or woman) in the street would never be paid such levels and, whilst I do agree that there has to be some privacy, those who seek publicity via stardom must expect that such things 'come with the territory'.
all this bo&&ocks about being scared to use the 'phone is, IMHO, shoite. If you were that bothered you would change your setup or use other means of communication. That's what joe public has to do when victimised by stalkers or violent ex-partners.
I really believe those 'celebs' may well have milked it knowing the money was coming off a broad belt.
Getting back to the original point, a better comparison would be to compare damages awarded to victims of actual injury (intentional or negligent) by the civil courts as against these celeb damages.
That would give a much truer picture of just how the system views things.
I believe the maximum amounts which The CICA are able to award are a disgrace. They ought to be MUCH higher.
I also believe that those who were 'hacked' were entitled to be compensated but not to the degree they were. IMHO, the ordinary man (or woman) in the street would never be paid such levels and, whilst I do agree that there has to be some privacy, those who seek publicity via stardom must expect that such things 'come with the territory'.
all this bo&&ocks about being scared to use the 'phone is, IMHO, shoite. If you were that bothered you would change your setup or use other means of communication. That's what joe public has to do when victimised by stalkers or violent ex-partners.
I really believe those 'celebs' may well have milked it knowing the money was coming off a broad belt.
Getting back to the original point, a better comparison would be to compare damages awarded to victims of actual injury (intentional or negligent) by the civil courts as against these celeb damages.
That would give a much truer picture of just how the system views things.
You may be right; but don't forget that CICA payments are made by the government out of public funds, i.e the tax we pay.
The compensation awarded in a civil court has to be paid by the losing party, e.g the newspaper.
Yes - you are quite correct that the scheme is funded by HM Government and that some of the monies come from taxation. However, there are plenty HM Government 'money-making' schemes which could massively enhance the available pot. GATSOs spring to mind. I am certain that many motorists would be less unhappy with a fine which they knew was going towards paying victims of crime rather then into HMG's coffers. There are plenty other possible sources.
For instance, a fee (small percentage) payable for any amount over £100,000 awarded in civil court. That would bring in a substantial amount.
Did you know that the amounts payable under the scheme were set at the same rate as the amount you would have won in a civil action up until 1996? After that, HMG decided they would set a tarriff system which provided for much lower amounts for victims.
Time to redress the balance for TRUE victims of crime and start paying them APPROPRIATE amounts methinks.
B
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 269
- Country
Sponsored Links
