Discussion
paintman said:
Mill Wheel said:
I don't have many answers except for one... STOP PAYING ALLEGED VICTIMS MONEY AS "COMPENSATION".
Money wont fix the pain or anguish of genuine victims, and only serves to encourage fraudsters to try their luck - in much the same way as crash for cash is encouraged by insurance payouts - with no requirement to prove the harm allegedly caused.
I'm with MW on this one. And outlaw the media paying for the stories. Money wont fix the pain or anguish of genuine victims, and only serves to encourage fraudsters to try their luck - in much the same way as crash for cash is encouraged by insurance payouts - with no requirement to prove the harm allegedly caused.
Mill Wheel said:
In 20 and 30 year old cases, where somebody makes an allegation, the accused's only defence is if they can provide credible evidence that they were elsewhere, or throw some sort of doubt on the accusers version of events.
From my experience I know how difficult that can be, and the affect that the investigation has on friends and family who along with the accused are kept in the dark as to the progress of the investigation.
I also found myself having to inform the investigating officer of the significance of some of the evidence, as the officer was not old enough to be aware... she did not know what a Ford Granada was, or why it's size was significant. It doesn't give you much confidence in the investigation!
If the news story linked to above is to be believed, Cliff Richard does not even know who his accuser is, yet he was very publicly exposed, with a news team invited along to film the search of his home.
In the case of Liam Britton and the Dolphin Square fiasco, Det Supt Kenny McDonald the head of Operation Midland, publicly declared "Nick's" evidence to be "credible and true".
All the evidence collected so far seems to indicate that McDonald is at best inept, and at worst, guilty of the worst kind of prejudgment in declaring this publicly before all the facts were known!
Being falsely accused must be an awful experience. That's one of the reasons I support anonymity until conviction in most circumstances. Regardless of specifics, I have a belief that it generally takes some seriously skilled deception to make something up and have it lead to a conviction. Most sexual offence investigators will have experienced a malicious accusation and if it gets to the court stage reasonable doubt is all it takes. From my experience I know how difficult that can be, and the affect that the investigation has on friends and family who along with the accused are kept in the dark as to the progress of the investigation.
I also found myself having to inform the investigating officer of the significance of some of the evidence, as the officer was not old enough to be aware... she did not know what a Ford Granada was, or why it's size was significant. It doesn't give you much confidence in the investigation!
If the news story linked to above is to be believed, Cliff Richard does not even know who his accuser is, yet he was very publicly exposed, with a news team invited along to film the search of his home.
In the case of Liam Britton and the Dolphin Square fiasco, Det Supt Kenny McDonald the head of Operation Midland, publicly declared "Nick's" evidence to be "credible and true".
All the evidence collected so far seems to indicate that McDonald is at best inept, and at worst, guilty of the worst kind of prejudgment in declaring this publicly before all the facts were known!
That doesn't help the person being falsely accused at the time, of course.
LoonR1 said:
I'm guessing your view is that the money makes the greedy come out of the woodwork and make false allegations, but your solution seems to be the proverbial sledgehammer and punishes genuine people far more than the chancers.
Punish genuine victims? In what way? You answer your own presumption...LoonR1 said:
How do you propose to compensate them? Unrape them? Unmolest them? Or just give them a sweet and tell them to MTFU / WTFU?
You cannot unrape or unmolest them by paying them money. They will ALWAYS feel the same way - the money at best might pay for something which diverts their attention in the short term, only for something to rake up the old feelings again.I felt violated by being falsely accused and having my character blackened. My wife felt violated at being asked exceedingly personal questions by a police officer - questions which even our GP never asks... my eldest son felt threatened - that his father might be locked away for something which MIGHT have happened WAY before he was born... or DID IT???
Money will NEVER take away that feeling - the injustice of it all... the thought that somebody would do that to another for some monetary reward or even just attention! Take away the discomfort of finding yourself alone with a woman in a waiting room, or seeing an advertisement for a girls school in a magazine you are reading, and turning over the page quickly in case somebody sees you and thinks you are looking too closely!
And then when you read that police are backing away from an enquiry (or enquiries) that has cost ££ millions and come up with nothing, it awakens all those feelings once more, and you feel moved to try and stop it from happening to others - not look for compensation!
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority pays out whether or not the perpetrator is found; If found, whether or not they are prosecuted; whether or not they are found guilty and even when evidence is produced that shows the accuser lied, they are rarely pursued for the money or wasting police time, in case it discourages genuine victims from coming forward.
So stop giving them an financial incentive for reporting a crime... it should be your DUTY TO REPORT a true crime, not a means to financial reward, and call it "compensation".
La Liga said:
eing falsely accused must be an awful experience. That's one of the reasons I support anonymity until conviction in most circumstances.
Unlike you, I am actually OK with an accused person being named, as long as the twardry speculation by the media could be held in check.The media should NOT be investigating ANYONE once they are identified, that is the job for the police.
I actually contacted my local BBC reporter when I was accused, because I wanted to find all the people I knew 30+ years before whom I had lost contact with.. in the end I was able to give the investigating officer the information she needed to find witnesses my accuser had named - perhaps my accuser was relying on them not being found too - one was a Facebook friend of hers, living in London!
The same can be applied to compensation for any wrong someone receives, whethe crime or accident. CICA isn't as easy to obtain, especially for historical matters, as people think.
The media should NOT be investigating ANYONE once they are identified, that is the job for the police.
I actually contacted my local BBC reporter when I was accused, because I wanted to find all the people I knew 30+ years before whom I had lost contact with.. in the end I was able to give the investigating officer the information she needed to find witnesses my accuser had named - perhaps my accuser was relying on them not being found too - one was a Facebook friend of hers, living in London!Be realistic, you'll never stop the media doing that, as it is a reflection of the 'public interest' in the matter. It is also the public and 'no smoke without fire' mentality that dogs people being investigated for sexual offences.
Mill Wheel said:
La Liga said:
Being falsely accused must be an awful experience. That's one of the reasons I support anonymity until conviction in most circumstances.
Unlike you, I am actually OK with an accused person being named, as long as the twardry speculation by the media could be held in check.The media should NOT be investigating ANYONE once they are identified, that is the job for the police.
I actually contacted my local BBC reporter when I was accused, because I wanted to find all the people I knew 30+ years before whom I had lost contact with.. in the end I was able to give the investigating officer the information she needed to find witnesses my accuser had named - perhaps my accuser was relying on them not being found too - one was a Facebook friend of hers, living in London!
La Liga said:
e realistic, you'll never stop the media doing that, as it is a reflection of the 'public interest' in the matter. It is also the public and 'no smoke without fire' mentality that dogs people being investigated for sexual offences.
There should be some public interest in what motivates these people to make false allegations... but that of course would require responsible media reporting and exposing of a few individuals whose stories could be investigated.They obviously don't all just want money - they go on Jeremy Kyle for free!
Mill Wheel said:
LoonR1 said:
I'm guessing your view is that the money makes the greedy come out of the woodwork and make false allegations, but your solution seems to be the proverbial sledgehammer and punishes genuine people far more than the chancers.
Punish genuine victims? In what way? You answer your own presumption...LoonR1 said:
How do you propose to compensate them? Unrape them? Unmolest them? Or just give them a sweet and tell them to MTFU / WTFU?
You cannot unrape or unmolest them by paying them money. They will ALWAYS feel the same way - the money at best might pay for something which diverts their attention in the short term, only for something to rake up the old feelings again.I felt violated by being falsely accused and having my character blackened. My wife felt violated at being asked exceedingly personal questions by a police officer - questions which even our GP never asks... my eldest son felt threatened - that his father might be locked away for something which MIGHT have happened WAY before he was born... or DID IT???
Money will NEVER take away that feeling - the injustice of it all... the thought that somebody would do that to another for some monetary reward or even just attention! Take away the discomfort of finding yourself alone with a woman in a waiting room, or seeing an advertisement for a girls school in a magazine you are reading, and turning over the page quickly in case somebody sees you and thinks you are looking too closely!
And then when you read that police are backing away from an enquiry (or enquiries) that has cost ££ millions and come up with nothing, it awakens all those feelings once more, and you feel moved to try and stop it from happening to others - not look for compensation!
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority pays out whether or not the perpetrator is found; If found, whether or not they are prosecuted; whether or not they are found guilty and even when evidence is produced that shows the accuser lied, they are rarely pursued for the money or wasting police time, in case it discourages genuine victims from coming forward.
So stop giving them an financial incentive for reporting a crime... it should be your DUTY TO REPORT a true crime, not a means to financial reward, and call it "compensation".
t?The issue here is that you're heading off on a rant after being accused of something in the past. You really need to deal with this separately and off here and probably get some counselling around your anger in this matter
Mill Wheel said:
There should be some public interest in what motivates these people to make false allegations... but that of course would require responsible media reporting and exposing of a few individuals whose stories could be investigated.
Can't do that, it might discourage some real victims from coming forward if they might have the media digging into things. Better to let the witches burn - ALL of them, whether they're really witches or not.LoonR1 said:
You are misunderstanding the whole aspect of the financial piece. For a criminal act their is a long established criminal injuries compensation approach, which is what these people will initially be getting money from, I believe. They may them outside the estate / individual for a separate sum under a civil matter. Insurance payouts are made via the civil,process and is a totally different process. Are you suggesting that a victim who has been crippled by another's poor driving simply has to deal with it, as money won't bring their legs back, so tough st?
The Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme has a time limit for victims to claim.t?EXCEPT in the matter of abuse of people under 18 who were abused historically, who can claim whether or not they reported the abuse at the time.
This is tailor made for the Blame and Claim lawyers to coach their clients into claiming large sums, years after the alleged "trauma" has occurred, in the full knowledge that the truth will be difficult to find.
I see that questions ARE being asked as to the competence of the detective heading Operation Midland and his clear assertion that the accuser had told the truth, and he believed him!
Angry over my case? No I am concerned.
Concerned that whilst the allegations made by my accuser were enough to have my life, my family's lives, my friends lives turned upside down, nobody seems to worry that my accuser kept information from the police such as having an older sister, or the whereabouts of witnesses she named, who were on her Facebook friends list, or that her words in her statement were almost a carbon copy of the CICA guidance to qualifying to claim.
Most of all I am concerned that her job as a probation office manager will bring her into contact with other potential victims who may not be as easily cleared as I was.
Mill Wheel said:
The Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme has a time limit for victims to claim.
EXCEPT in the matter of abuse of people under 18 who were abused historically, who can claim whether or not they reported the abuse at the time.
This is tailor made for the Blame and Claim lawyers to coach their clients into claiming large sums, years after the alleged "trauma" has occurred, in the full knowledge that the truth will be difficult to find.
I see that questions ARE being asked as to the competence of the detective heading Operation Midland and his clear assertion that the accuser had told the truth, and he believed him!
Angry over my case? No I am concerned.
Concerned that whilst the allegations made by my accuser were enough to have my life, my family's lives, my friends lives turned upside down, nobody seems to worry that my accuser kept information from the police such as having an older sister, or the whereabouts of witnesses she named, who were on her Facebook friends list, or that her words in her statement were almost a carbon copy of the CICA guidance to qualifying to claim.
Most of all I am concerned that her job as a probation office manager will bring her into contact with other potential victims who may not be as easily cleared as I was.
And the anger continues. I'm pretty certain if anyone else had written the above you'd see it easily EXCEPT in the matter of abuse of people under 18 who were abused historically, who can claim whether or not they reported the abuse at the time.
This is tailor made for the Blame and Claim lawyers to coach their clients into claiming large sums, years after the alleged "trauma" has occurred, in the full knowledge that the truth will be difficult to find.
I see that questions ARE being asked as to the competence of the detective heading Operation Midland and his clear assertion that the accuser had told the truth, and he believed him!
Angry over my case? No I am concerned.
Concerned that whilst the allegations made by my accuser were enough to have my life, my family's lives, my friends lives turned upside down, nobody seems to worry that my accuser kept information from the police such as having an older sister, or the whereabouts of witnesses she named, who were on her Facebook friends list, or that her words in her statement were almost a carbon copy of the CICA guidance to qualifying to claim.
Most of all I am concerned that her job as a probation office manager will bring her into contact with other potential victims who may not be as easily cleared as I was.
Still not sure of your point. It seems to be that because you were falsely accused the whole concept of compensation for genuine victims should be scrapped. A bit extreme I'd suggest.
I've just looked up online the amounts you can claim. It's £11k for a rape, rising to £27k if you have serious mental issues arising from this. I am not sure what serious mental issues are. However I do know that I wouldn't want to be raped for £27k and live with mental problems because of it. I can't really put a value on being raped - as it's never happened to me.
Now - some people might try and play the system. It's not the first sort of scam I'd try if I'm honest. But there will always be people who will manipulate a system. You can't penalise people for the atrocious behaviour of others.
Personally - I think that there needs to be more serious sentencing for people who accuse others of offences. There also needs to be some investigation into this sort of thing. Personally I'd introduce lie detectors - whilst they may not be accurate enough, they would force some people to tell the truth. And it would allow the police to focus the attention towards investigate one party if both set of results indicated that person was lying. I would not allow them in court - but I do think they would help in the investigation stage.
Now - some people might try and play the system. It's not the first sort of scam I'd try if I'm honest. But there will always be people who will manipulate a system. You can't penalise people for the atrocious behaviour of others.
Personally - I think that there needs to be more serious sentencing for people who accuse others of offences. There also needs to be some investigation into this sort of thing. Personally I'd introduce lie detectors - whilst they may not be accurate enough, they would force some people to tell the truth. And it would allow the police to focus the attention towards investigate one party if both set of results indicated that person was lying. I would not allow them in court - but I do think they would help in the investigation stage.
LoonR1 said:
Still not sure of your point. It seems to be that because you were falsely accused the whole concept of compensation for genuine victims should be scrapped. A bit extreme I'd suggest.
Compensation 30 years after an alleged event? A bit late I would argue - money isn't going to solve anything, just encourage the false claims.If a perpetrator is found guilty then fair enough, but CICA often payout before a case comes to court - IF it gets to court.
Mill Wheel said:
Compensation 30 years after an alleged event? A bit late I would argue - money isn't going to solve anything, just encourage the false claims.
If a perpetrator is found guilty then fair enough, but CICA often payout before a case comes to court - IF it gets to court.
There you go then, you've just defeated your own argument. If the money is irrelevant then abolishing it will make no difference. If a perpetrator is found guilty then fair enough, but CICA often payout before a case comes to court - IF it gets to court.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff