Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Wymsey

Also in the News - Part 2

By Wymsey, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Bordersfox said:

Exactly that. Also if you're guilty, you don't have to pay. So the state is only applying it to those who are innocent.  Absolutely no logic as far as I can tell. 

If you are guilty you are not being compensated for the earnings you would have made had you not been in prison.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bordersfox

Bordersfox

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

If you are guilty you are not being compensated for the earnings you would have made had you not been in prison.  

L

 

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

a 25% deduction was made from the section of their compensation which reflected their loss of earnings while in prison.

 

They calculate how much you would have earnt while you were in prison, but of course you don't keep all your earnings, so they take of an amount for cost of living, ensuring you are put in the same position you might have been in had you not been wrongfully convicted.  This is nothing to do with the compensation element for the wrongful conviction, it is a separate part of the calculation which is literally saying how much money would you have in the bank if you had worked for this period instead of being in prison.

Firstly, they have no idea what you might have earnt had you not been out in prison. Perhaps you were disillusioned with your job and retrained eventually earning far more than you were in the job you were doing before.

 

Or perhaps you may have decided to live in a van as some people do to vastly reduce living expenses to enable them to go off grid?  Sounds unlikely?  Perhaps, but the fact is the person convicted was deprived of the right and autonomy to make those decisions for themselves.

 

Secondly, as a point of simple humanity and natural justice the person wrongfully convicted was, quite literally, forced to live in a prison.  Absolutely compensate them for loss of earnings but I'm afraid the state needs to suck it up and say 'you're welcome to the free bed and board you never wanted and that was forced upon you'.

 

The law needs to be changed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
Just now, Bordersfox said:

L

 

Firstly, they have no idea what you might have earnt had you not been out in prison. Perhaps you were disillusioned with your job and retrained eventually earning far more than you were in the job you were doing before.

 

Or perhaps you may have decided to live in a van as some people do to vastly reduce living expenses to enable them to go off grid?  Sounds unlikely?  Perhaps, but the fact is the person convicted was deprived of the right and autonomy to make those decisions for themselves.

 

Secondly, as a point of simple humanity and natural justice the person wrongfully convicted was, quite literally, forced to live in a prison.  Absolutely compensate them for loss of earnings but I'm afraid the state needs to suck it up and say 'you're welcome to the free bed and board you never wanted and that was forced upon you'.

 

The law needs to be changed.

Yeah you’re not reading it right imo.  That is compensated elsewhere.  They aren’t paying for their prison, they are being put into a reasonable financial position before compensation is added.  Mind you I read the maximum is 1 million pounds which is clearly not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bordersfox

Bordersfox

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

You clearly haven't read the Coutts internal documents.  He didn't choose to pay off his mortgage, it was coming to an end.  They took the opportunity to close his accounts because they had already decided they wanted to do so.  Their files noted they have many accounts continuing to operate where customers don't meet the criteria any more.  They also clearly say they expected him to make a fuss about it, and yet failed miserably to manage the process.

 

Also worth noting the said hedge fund had a very small position in Natwest - less than 1% of their managed funds, so I seriously doubt they would go to these lengths to make a relatively small share price movement to something they invested in months before.  Not impossible, but unlikely I think.  Did they even sell the shares?

1% of what?  Do you know the figure? I don't so genuinely interested.  I suspect (but happy to be proven wrong) it's still what any ordinary person would consider a significant amount.

 

You may be correct though, if the investment was months before, that this was simply an added benefit rather than a planned move.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bordersfox

Bordersfox

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

Yeah you’re not reading it right imo.  That is compensated elsewhere.  They aren’t paying for their prison, they are being put into a reasonable financial position before compensation is added.  Mind you I read the maximum is 1 million pounds which is clearly not enough.

You might be correct as I've only read a couple of articles about it rather than looking into the legislation in any detail.  But you know what - I don't actually care in this situation what the strict letter of the law states.  

 

I think the two men wrongfully convicted of murdering the paperboy were awarded 500,000 and just over a million each of which 25% was (however we frame it) handed directly back to the state that ruined their lives in the first place.  

 

I think the most heinous thing is that in the vast majority of cases like this you look at there were horrendous oversights, blatant attempts to cover up those oversights and so on. 

 

So, any arguments about putting people back into the same position as they would have been etc etc are just sheer artistry by the state to reduce the already paltry amounts being paid, in the circumstances.

 

So, I say again, change the law! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spiritwalker

Spiritwalker

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

You clearly haven't read the Coutts internal documents.  He didn't choose to pay off his mortgage, it was coming to an end.  They took the opportunity to close his accounts because they had already decided they wanted to do so.  Their files noted they have many accounts continuing to operate where customers don't meet the criteria any more.  They also clearly say they expected him to make a fuss about it, and yet failed miserably to manage the process.

 

Also worth noting the said hedge fund had a very small position in Natwest - less than 1% of their managed funds, so I seriously doubt they would go to these lengths to make a relatively small share price movement to something they invested in months before.  Not impossible, but unlikely I think.  Did they even sell the shares?

What I can’t understand is why those who decided to shut Farage’s account didn’t sit down and think how it would play out.

I understand everyone makes bad decisions but these are clever people who weren’t making decisions in the heat of the

moment, they had time to think this through yet still couldn’t see the obvious coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxile5

foxile5

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RonnieTodger said:


Sad really. New Walk needs a statue of our three favourite sons. 

 

Elephant Man

Daniel Lambert

Roy from Coronation Street

I can't stop laughing at how badly all three of those could go.

 

Literally the worst 3 people to attempt to create a likeness of in stone.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izzy

Izzy

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Bordersfox said:

Let that be a warning to you:

 

 

Phew, for a minute there I thought he was going to say Vegan. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
westernpark

westernpark

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, RonnieTodger said:


Sad really. New Walk needs a statue of our three favourite sons. 

 

Elephant Man

Daniel Lambert

Roy from Coronation Street

It is getting a new statue, but I agree these would be more appropriate choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I reckon he knows what he’s doing and is trying to be funny but in doing that he just proves how ridiculous these type of reactionary tories are. 

Yep, it's meant to be parody.

 

Of course, like most parody spouted by those who think as he does and those who have power, it's just mean-spirited and ridiculous rather than funny. Satire and parody is designed specifically to lampoon those with power, exactly like Mr Anderson and his ilk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LanguedocFox

LanguedocFox

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, RonnieTodger said:


Sad really. New Walk needs a statue of our three favourite sons. 

 

Elephant Man

Daniel Lambert

Roy from Coronation Street

Roy from Coronation Street Is not from Leicester. He’s from Loughborough.

 

He is a Leicester City fan though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...