One has to ask how the child got hold of the 'weapon' in the first place.
I was listening to an interview about this on the radio and essentially what they were saying was that it was an isolated set of circumstances that make a claim eligable and it shouldnt open any floodgates.
|
|
Why "Drivers Pay"? I thought it was the Criminal injuries compensation scheme that was being claimed against. Taxpayers in general I have thought.would
Edited by Old Navy on 13/11/2009 at 19:53
|
|
|
|
An interesting decision - my initial impression was one of natural justice. The original claims were chucked out as the "offender" was below the criminal responsibility, therefore applying the Home Offices own guidelines (which are quite sensible and well known and applied) said that no crime has been committed. Not having read the detail on it, I was under the impression that the maximum payout was likely to be substantially less than 27k. The kid was allegedly struck 11 times with this car jack thing. I wonder how they figured that out...?
|
|
|
|
I can see what you're saying...but...all court attendees, inc motorists, have to pay the surcharge and the victim in this case was well and truly done over, injured to quite a high degree.
As I read it in the Telegraph, CICB initially declined to pay up, because the assailant was below the age of criminal responsibility and CICB took that to mean no crime was committed. They were overruled and IMO rightly so.
This isn't just drivers having to cough up, it's everyone who attends court... and inc the taxpayer no doubt.
Bottom line is a victim was very badly injured and this country provides a financial assistance to very badly injured victims, (after today of any age it seems).
|
Another bottom line is what parent(s) left children of that age alone in a car? Some sort of criminal neglect input I would have thought, if the courts are taking an interest.
|
|
I can't see what "drivers" has to do with this sorry tale. My aged Aunt, 92, will no doubt pay a proportion of her taxes towards the CICB, but she's never held a driving licence in her life. Bit of a stretch of the "motorist as a persecuted species" wail, is it not?
|
|
|
Surely any claim should have been against the parents of the child, not the general taxpayer?
I'm no expert on these matters, but I would have thought that such behaviour by a three year old would have given serious worries about the child's mental state. It goes well beyond the normal sort of fighting between children and there must have been a fair bit of blood.
|
|
No its a claim to the CICA. HJ, where's the evidence that this case is a scam ?
|
|
|
|
+1 RR. Without anything to hand other than press reports, the perpetrator is said to be in care. So, I think it a highly unusual situation, and its not credible that any segment of society is going to deliberately set up a repeated (11 strikes with the jack?) assault on another child, in numbers of significance to the treasury.
|
|
I'm happy to cough up a small donation to a charity (the BR equivalent of eating one's hat) if they get anywhere near 27k.
|
There are a number of under lying questions but for me the adults must bear all the responsibility for all of this. They have been negligent and should pay the compensation. BUT they have probably got nothing so no avenue for 'kerrchinnng' (£££) there.
What some people find hard to accept is that sometimes its just 'tough'. I come off my motorbike and injure myself - that's 'tough'. I take my finger off on my circular saw - that's 'tough'. Pooh happens.
We live in a compensation culture now where sections of society - tax payer funded 'victims' - can pursue tax payers / insurance companies money through the courts.
Looking at the case through legal eyes the culprit is under the age of criminal responsibility but can still commit a crime. The victim here was subject to ABH or GBH.
I'm pulled both ways on this one. But we have a bottomless pit of money to give away to the needy.
One other observation - you would have thought that someone would have been kind enough to tell the mother to ditch the eyelashes before she went on camera.
|
|
|
|
But .......... where was the mother while all this was going on???
A case of contributory negligence if ever I heard one!
|
but to pull off the scam, and to achieve any kind of worthwhile award(which most likely would take years of process to actually be realised) won't the child have to be severely beaten?
what parent is going to do that? And any that would are so seriously screwed up then they surely will find other illegal ways to profit from their poor children.
Edited by nick1975 on 13/11/2009 at 20:56
|
We don't have the full facts of this case, but:
Children should never be left in a car without adult supervision.
The three-year-old child that wielded the car jack (wheel brace perhaps?) 'does not now live with its parents'/'is in supervised care' (depending on which news report you hear).
What is going on with the victim's mother's eyelashes? I daren't repeat SWMBO's supposition of her career!
|
|
|
|
Off topic but the whole subject is really off topic
The whole criminal compensation thing is a load of crap and is open to misuse.
I do not see why the state should pay out to people who picked fights and so on
OK if people have suffered real harm and have spent weeks off work, then maybe some money should be available to them to help them out
But then a few weeks ago there was a case of a teenage girl who was left for dead by an attacker (I think she was 15 at the time) and was awarded £19,000, the family were moaning it is not enough.
maybe it would not had been enough if she had sued the attacker and she was awarded £19,000 compensation, but it is not the state that nearly killed her,
There should be a way of seizing assets from criminals or their parents - if under age - to pay compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No particular views on what I suspect is a highly unusual case but lets get the facts straight.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme has been around since the sixties. It is funded by the taxpayer and was originally intended to put the victims of violent crimes in a position broadly similar to that of individuals who'd been able to recover civil compensation for their injuries. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board/Authority makes awards, with a right of appeal to a tribunal. The basis for determining awards was subsequently changed to a tariff based on the injuries suffered and there are a whole host of edging exclusions. The tariff is far from generous and like PU I'd be stunned if, on injuries at the level of cuts, stitches and even a skull fracture, this kid gets a significant fraction of £27k; that is more than the figure for a sex assault victim affected with AIDS. Of course, if it turns out he has a disabling permanent brain injury the rules will change.
The decision in this case was not made by the ?Tribunals Service?, which is an administrative set up but by a lawyer chaired panel of Tribunal Judges in the First Tier Tribunal. And, whatever one thinks of the Victim Surcharge on top of fines it goes to general support of victims through Victim Support and similar organisations ? Criminal Injuries Compo is funded, as it always was, out of general taxation.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 13/11/2009 at 21:56
|
|
What troubles me is the notion that for every ill there must be a financial solution. Sometimes things just happen, and it's no-one's fault.
|
I see you noticed the eyelashes too Tom:)
I agree with HJ and FT, the adults are irresponsible and are to blame for leaving children of that age alone in a car.
Pat
|
|
|
|
Perhaps car jacks should carry a safety warning and be made of the lightest material possible to minimise their capability of being used as an offensive weapon?
;-)
Edited by L'escargot on 14/11/2009 at 07:43
|
|
......and the literacy skills of a three year old...? :-)
|
......and the literacy skills of a three year old...? :-) >>
......... or, indeed, it's mother?
|
I'm with GM on this one...
As to those who say the parents are responsible... I would challenge any parents who have had more than one child to catagorically say that they were there in the same room/car/whatever at ALL times their children were together and never left them alone... I doubt any of us could say that... Perhaps the rest of us were just lucky our kids didn't have violent tendancies, eh?!
|
People are responsible for the actions of their dogs, and dogs don't have any sense of criminal responsibility at any age.
If my pet ferret escaped in a supermarket and went for someone's throat, it would be a criminal injury and I'd be responsible.
|
If my pet ferret escaped in a supermarket and went for someone's throat it would be a criminal injury and I'd be responsible.
>>
Just remind me what supermarket you use Cliff, so I can avoid it.
|
|
|
|
|
Leaving aside the mother's eyelashes, and where any compensation might come from - I understood that the injured child had 'completely recovered'. Why is anyone demanding compensation at all? Is any injury a possible scam? The whole thing seems such a blatant try-on. It must be a combination of a job-hunting solicitor and Max Clifford.
|
|
|
|
Right - saw the Mother - scary!
|
Dammn
AS, ya beat me to it.
Re the mother
I wonder could her children claim offen her when they are older
For being traumatized by the sight of her make-up.
i tell ye---it traumatized me
my wonder was?
how did a three? year old have the strength to weild a car jack/
But to use NI terminology
Scallys---- what else can one expect.
I predicted to the missis that with a wee nudge or two from the mother he might even fit in a couple of more claims as a juvie before embarking on his adult scamming career.
PS
i near went down the throat of a very silly person at work when he said about the McClaren buggy "injuries" & how terrible it was.
a blinking VERY minor flesh wound, which i notice was NOT shown on TV
well they couldnt could they?
Edited by dieseldogg on 14/11/2009 at 15:34
|
|
Marvellous this modern profiling software you can get, a few seconds of exposure on the news and it can tell you everything about a person !
|
Pugugly, ould hand
I have been arguing for years in work that DISCRIMINATION is a good thing
like why else would one prefer a Mercedes to a Tata
Or a Sony to an Alba?
Or a decent country girl to a crackhead( for a wife)
etc
etc
So hey I see myself as being a person great discrimination
But not THAT seriousley
cheers
M
|
|
|
|
For being traumatized by the sight of her make-up. >>
According to the Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6551154/Toddler-attacked-...l
".. Miss Williams, of the Wirral, a trainee beautician ..... >>
She is a trainee after all, and so can be excused for getting the eye makeup wrong! -)
The attacker is now in care:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8357870.stm
" ... Jay's assailant cannot be named for legal reasons. He cannot be prosecuted for the offence because of his age and he is currently in the care of social services. ... "
That will be more costly than the £27k paid to the victim.
Edited by jbif on 14/11/2009 at 16:54
|
|
Thanks jbif, i wondered what all the eyelash fun was about.
|
If you watch the clip of the interview with Renai and you can tear yourself away from the eyes. Look what the little angel is doing with the biro!
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8357870.stm
Think i'd be hitting him with something hard :-)
Edited by Fullchat on 14/11/2009 at 23:29
|
|
Now now, FC, you are not allowed to even smack kids these days.... ;-)
|
|
I think you're being a bit unfair - the little lad has obviously got problems - some compassion wouldn't go amiss. Suffer the little children and all that.
|
Ps
Pugugly
We fostered for a while there & might again once the weans have flown the coop
This experience only reinforced our preconception that our UK world is TRUELY mad
With regards to useless neerdowells breeding ad neausem
And expecting Rolls Royce care from the state
And all paid for by those who choose to limit the no of children they produce
The "natural" parents get away with murder ( occassionally) and minor curelty & gross neglect endlessy
Yet are allowed to keep the children ( and more importantly ) the benefits
Whilst decent would be parents CANNOt get children to adopt
Scheesh
PPS
I do appreciate that this is not the forum for a rant about Social morals
cheers
M
PPPPS
When the child who I had twigged may indeed have other "issues" becomes a "twocker"(perhaps) and kills an innocent?? Because nothing will EVER be HIS fault??
What then Pugugly
Edited by dieseldogg on 15/11/2009 at 10:45
|
So what are you advocating ? - a sound battering ? And all this based on a video clip lasting a couple of minutes. Incredible assessment of needs etc.
EDIT - Ah yes I forgot that it's a presumption based on the length of false eyebrows.
Edited by Pugugly on 15/11/2009 at 11:47
|
Have you ever tried to get biro off leather? I once had to within 20 mins of the sofa being delivered thanks to one of my little angels. That reminds me must go and check the stair. cupboard.
Challenge noted PU.
|
|
Fullchat, am told that babywipes do a very good of removing biro from leather. Love to know if it true!
|
I would believe it.
Baby wipes clean up almost everything (experience from having a 3 year old).
|
Nope
Removal of children after the first two or three unsuccessful "attempts" at child rearing and put them up for fostering/adoption.
Or a decreasing scale of benefits after the first couple of weans.
NO benefits unless the father is named?
Though since he will probably be a neerdowell too that hardly matters
we are into the 4th or 5th generation of dysfunctional families all aided & abbetted by our namby pamby social care system, saying "its not their fault", whilst fiddling their own returns and overtime, for visits that did not happen. cf the Victoria Climbre case
well , sorry, but some of it is.THEIR FAULT
Whilst the unfit patents smoke drink and run to the bookies there will ALWAYS be "child poverty" no amount of money thrown at the problem will make a whit of difference.
The provision of "social housing" once the silly wee minx gets deliberately knocked up hardly helps.
cheers
Ps we have had the 16 year old's boyfriend living under our roof this last 18months.
he would be homeless otherwise.
see, hardly heartless.
You may edit or delete this post if you wish
PS
I will NEVER vote BNP, or for owt of that ilk.
|
NO benefits unless the father is named
That would cause some confusion where I last worked..
Still I don't think its a three year old's fault. Didn't ask to be born did they. By accident of birth many of us have been "lucky" that's all it is though - luck.
Still disagree with the social classification due to disproportionate length of eyelashes though :-)
|
Can't help agreeing with some of dieseldogg's points.
Things have changed a lot in this country and 'the family' isn't what it was. Informal arrangements are commoner than marriage now I believe. However one has to remember that the children of married couples are sometimes abused or otherwise turned into little monsters at an early age, and that the children of unmarried couples are often raised well. There's nothing wrong with smoking, drinking and betting on horses provided the children aren't starved (or trained as petty criminals) to pay for these things.
Sooner or later, I believe, some mechanism will have to be devised to deter the minority of utter toerags from reproducing and costing us all money and anxiety with their damaged offspring. How this can be done I have no idea. Seems to me that whatever is done, large numbers of people will complain sentimentally and scream the place down.
|
|
Whichever way you cut it - you can't blame a kid for it's parenting, especially for the ages under discussion.
|
you can't blame a kid for it's parenting
Of course not. But the damaged nipper still has to be repaired, supervised or incarcerated when all else fails.
|
|
I know that well enough. That kid in the video I would suggest has some irreperable damage not linked to parenting or the thrashing he had, in all lieklyhood - we can't judge parenting on the length of false eyelashes, that's all I'm saying !
Edited by Pugugly on 15/11/2009 at 16:40
|
Haven't been able to get the video.
Three-year-old children are not responsible and like all human beings are capable of cruel and destructive acts. They don't have a clear idea of the consequences of their actions to themselves or others. So this three-year-old may be damaged and somehow malevolent but may just have been trying something new. Perhaps it had never met another nipper.
As for false eyelashes, they are neither here nor there. A matter of no interest and no significance.
|
|
Agreed - Finally the voice of reason on the blinking eyelashes !
Edited by Pugugly on 15/11/2009 at 17:18
|
Oh come on PU. We agreed all along really.
:o}
|
Three-year-old children are not responsible
Wifey tells me that at that age, they learn by copying and that 'badness' is not already in them....
so if one 3 yr old has bashed hell out of another 3 year old....then he's done so because he's seen someone else doing that....either for real or on the t.v. or similar
|
... So this three-year-old may be damaged and somehow malevolent but may just have been trying something new. Perhaps it had never met another nipper. ... >>
In reply to Lud, the Telegraph story says:
" ... The attack happened in December 2007, when the families of both boys had arranged to go out for a meal together. Jay had asked if he could go with his friend, and the toddlers had been put in the other boy?s car outside his house, ready to set off.
They were left alone together when the boy?s mother momentarily went back into the house to get something she had forgotten. Jay?s family still have no idea why the attack happened, but it was so ferocious that the assailant cracked the car?s windscreen as he rained down blows with the jack, which had been left in the car.
Jay was eventually rescued when the other boy?s parents heard his screams. ...
.... "This decision makes it very clear that in cases where a child suffers an injury in an intentional attack by another child, they are entitled to compensation regardless of the fact that the child who committed the act is below the age of criminal responsibility." .... "
Edited by jbif on 15/11/2009 at 20:20
|
No theres another thought
Lower the age of criminal responsibility
I am thinking in particular of the 16 year old serial rapist
who recently made the news
|
The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in England and 8 in Scotland, the lowest in the EU.
What age would you lower this to? Do British children develop criminal tendencies before our European neighbours ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see the problem in general, but in particular I question the motives of the people applying for compensation, as the boy has not suffered lasting injury. I also think that the boy concerned will not be helped in his future life by constantly being reminded of this - in a little while, left alone, the memory would recede.
|
I also think that the boy concerned will not be helped in his future life by constantly being reminded of this - in a little while left alone the memory would recede.
>>
Exactly what SWMBO said....and she is somewhat qualified in that field.
|
|
|
|
