Head Honcho Posted 10 March 2006 Posted 10 March 2006 £100k payout for friend of Steven Lawrence yet 7/7 victims are lucky to get £20k. http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/article....310102909990008 I'm not sure what the rest of you think but something is not right here. Im not saying that Duwayne Brooks doesn't deserve a payout, but £100K does seem excessive!
Benji Posted 10 March 2006 Posted 10 March 2006 I think the difference is that this lad has been 'made to feel a criminal' by the police and so they have contributed to what he was an incident of. Where as the 7/7 victims have suffered from terrorism not directly from the police (although you could argue the police should prevent the terrorism i suppose). Either way i agree the differentials of the two seem a bit excessive. But remember our government would rather flash money around on insignificant matters rather than the bread and butter of their people.
Head Honcho Posted 10 March 2006 Author Posted 10 March 2006 I think the difference is that this lad has been 'made to feel a criminal' by the police and so they have contributed to what he was an incident of. Where as the 7/7 victims have suffered from terrorism not directly from the police (although you could argue the police should prevent the terrorism i suppose). Either way i agree the differentials of the two seem a bit excessive. But remember our government would rather flash money around on insignificant matters rather than the bread and butter of their people. Someone gets 100K because his feelings have been hurt, yet someone who has lost a limb gets a fraction of that amount! I just don't get it
Steven Posted 10 March 2006 Posted 10 March 2006 £100k payout for friend of Steven Lawrence yet 7/7 victims are lucky to get £20k. http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/article....310102909990008 I'm not sure what the rest of you think but something is not right here. Im not saying that Duwayne Brooks doesn't deserve a payout, but £100K does seem excessive! Perhaps we should get the Met to make you feel like a criminal (because certainly some of things you post are criminal) and then you can get less than 20k.
Head Honcho Posted 10 March 2006 Author Posted 10 March 2006 Perhaps we should get the Met to make you feel like a criminal (because certainly some of things you post are criminal) and then you can get less than 20k. I don't need £20k thank you very much. I like getting my money the old fashined way, by earning it and I certainly wouldn't expect it for being arrested or questioned. I never questioned The Mets conduct, they were in the wrong, I was however questioning the size of the payout! ........and just so we're all clear on the matter, if anyone posts something on here that you don't agree with, that's criminal now is it?
Steven Posted 10 March 2006 Posted 10 March 2006 I don't need £20k thank you very much. I like getting my money the old fashined way, by earning it and I certainly wouldn't expect it for being arrested or questioned. I never questioned The Mets conduct, they were in the wrong, I was however questioning the size of the payout! ........and just so we're all clear on the matter, if anyone posts something on here that you don't agree with, that's criminal now is it? Delusions of grandeur? Confusing yourself and your opinions with everyone?
Head Honcho Posted 10 March 2006 Author Posted 10 March 2006 Delusions of grandeur? Confusing yourself and your opinions with everyone? I just like a bit of healthy debate thats all steven
Steven Posted 10 March 2006 Posted 10 March 2006 I just like a bit of healthy debate thats all steven
Benji Posted 10 March 2006 Posted 10 March 2006 Someone gets 100K because his feelings have been hurt, yet someone who has lost a limb gets a fraction of that amount! I just don't get it It's not the extent of the two incidents, it's the fact that with the young lad it's the full blame of the Met so they hold full responsibility... that isn't the case with the 7/7 victims. Yes the extent of the incidents greatly differ but the Met will not over compensate people for something they are not to blame for.
Head Honcho Posted 10 March 2006 Author Posted 10 March 2006 It's not the extent of the two incidents, it's the fact that with the young lad it's the full blame of the Met so they hold full responsibility... that isn't the case with the 7/7 victims. Yes the extent of the incidents greatly differ but the Met will not over compensate people for something they are not to blame for. .........or maybe The Met are insured in case's like this, whereas insurers don't pay out on terrorist attacks!
Benji Posted 10 March 2006 Posted 10 March 2006 well i'm sure there were more than 5 victims of 7/7...... so accumulate all the money spent on the victims and i think it will come just a little over £100,000 then again... maybe as it was a racial case and the way our government seem to like to over react we shouldn't be surprised in the difference.
Ultra Posted 11 March 2006 Posted 11 March 2006 I think it was to do with the fact the bloke's mate was killed, and instead of doing their job and going after the killers, whose identities were widely known, the Met went after him instead as if the murder was somehow HIS fault. Not surprisingly, he was driven mental. His life is still in bits now. I doubt whether £100k will be enough to repair it, although it may help. But maybe the compo will ensure that the plod don't f**k up in future.
Steven Posted 11 March 2006 Posted 11 March 2006 I think it was to do with the fact the bloke's mate was killed, and instead of doing their job and going after the killers, whose identities were widely known, the Met went after him instead as if the murder was somehow HIS fault. Not surprisingly, he was driven mental. His life is still in bits now. I doubt whether £100k will be enough to repair it, although it may help. But maybe the compo will ensure that the plod don't f**k up in future. Fat chance.
davieG Posted 11 March 2006 Posted 11 March 2006 I think it was to do with the fact the bloke's mate was killed, and instead of doing their job and going after the killers, whose identities were widely known, the Met went after him instead as if the murder was somehow HIS fault.Not surprisingly, he was driven mental. His life is still in bits now. I doubt whether £100k will be enough to repair it, although it may help. But maybe the compo will ensure that the plod don't f**k up in future. Compensation or fines as a deterrent to prevent cock-upsand poor service is a complete waste of time as it will always be the customer / tax payer who picks up the bill.
Steven Posted 11 March 2006 Posted 11 March 2006 Compensation or fines as a deterrent to prevent cock-upsand poor service is a complete waste of time as it will always be the customer / tax payer who picks up the bill. Exactly. Until the Policeman/woman is forced to pay themselves either out of their own pocket or via Insurance, the tax payer pays.
Hullfox Posted 11 March 2006 Posted 11 March 2006 Not sure how many crimes are committed a year within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police but I suspect that the vast majority are handled well. This lad's life seems to have been damaged by the actions of the Met and he has rightly received compensation. Since this happened though, I wonder how many innocent police officers lives have been similarly damaged by criminals through whatever reason and how many of those officers received such compensation. Or as part of the job should they expect such outcomes?
The People's Hero Posted 11 March 2006 Posted 11 March 2006 I think the difference is that this lad has been 'made to feel a criminal' by the police and so they have contributed to what he was an incident of. Where as the 7/7 victims have suffered from terrorism not directly from the police (although you could argue the police should prevent the terrorism i suppose). Either way i agree the differentials of the two seem a bit excessive. But remember our government would rather flash money around on insignificant matters rather than the bread and butter of their people. You can't prevent terrorism. If someone wants to cause terror, they can do.. even if it is through threats. Every time you kill a terrorist or lock one away, it is heralded as a victory for peace loving people, which I suppose it is, but in reality you're just creating more and more martyrs.
Head Honcho Posted 11 March 2006 Author Posted 11 March 2006 Not sure how many crimes are committed a year within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police but I suspect that the vast majority are handled well. This lad's life seems to have been damaged by the actions of the Met and he has rightly received compensation. Since this happened though, I wonder how many innocent police officers lives have been similarly damaged by criminals through whatever reason and how many of those officers received such compensation. Or as part of the job should they expect such outcomes? Not sure of the figures, but stress related illness is the biggest cause of absence in the police force and the vast majority of them go on to take early retirement-another drain on our resources!
Steven Posted 11 March 2006 Posted 11 March 2006 Not sure how many crimes are committed a year within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police but I suspect that the vast majority are handled well. This lad's life seems to have been damaged by the actions of the Met and he has rightly received compensation. Since this happened though, I wonder how many innocent police officers lives have been similarly damaged by criminals through whatever reason and how many of those officers received such compensation. Or as part of the job should they expect such outcomes? The difference being that both the Police and criminals have the choice to be in the situation they are in. That is not was the case in this situation.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.