Victim Surcharge
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313669/We...
I know it's a mail link but with so many laws it is easy to fall foul of them
I know it's a mail link but with so many laws it is easy to fall foul of them
voyds9 said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313669/We...
I know it's a mail link but with so many laws it is easy to fall foul of them
And study of 2000 people? Must be comparable to the other 65m plus... I know it's a mail link but with so many laws it is easy to fall foul of them
The victim surcharge goes to pay for a range of,services to help victims of crime, some you may consider worthy, some not so much. Generally the help is targeted at vulnerable groups.
The alternative is that they are paid for from general taxation, rely on chartitable donations, or cease to exist.
The alternative is that they are paid for from general taxation, rely on chartitable donations, or cease to exist.
charltjr said:
The victim surcharge goes to pay for a range of,services to help victims of crime, some you may consider worthy, some not so much. Generally the help is targeted at vulnerable groups.
The alternative is that they are paid for from general taxation, rely on chartitable donations, or cease to exist.
That fulsome reply simply does not answer the question. Name one "victim of crime" that has received either a "payment" or a "service" funded by the victim surcharge.The alternative is that they are paid for from general taxation, rely on chartitable donations, or cease to exist.
Hamish Finn said:
That fulsome reply simply does not answer the question. Name one "victim of crime" that has received either a "payment" or a "service" funded by the victim surcharge.
Unsurprisingly, organisations that help victims of crime don't tend to publicise the names of the people they help.It's not apparent what your question is getting at. Why would knowing the names of individual victims of crime help you?
SamHH said:
Hamish Finn said:
That fulsome reply simply does not answer the question. Name one "victim of crime" that has received either a "payment" or a "service" funded by the victim surcharge.
Unsurprisingly, organisations that help victims of crime don't tend to publicise the names of the people they help.It's not apparent what your question is getting at. Why would knowing the names of individual victims of crime help you?
SamHH said:
Hamish Finn said:
That fulsome reply simply does not answer the question. Name one "victim of crime" that has received either a "payment" or a "service" funded by the victim surcharge.
Unsurprisingly, organisations that help victims of crime don't tend to publicise the names of the people they help.It's not apparent what your question is getting at. Why would knowing the names of individual victims of crime help you?
Hamish Finn said:
The question is getting at: do "victims" actually receive any benefit of the "victim surcharge"? OR does the monies reaped from the "surcharge" just go into the general government coffers, ie, another stealth tax?
Do they receive the money, paid to them directy? No.Do they receive benefits in some form, intended to assist them, which are funded by these surcharges? In theory, yes.
If they do receive these benefits, would they not receive them if this specific revenue stream did not exist? I have no idea.
Hamish Finn said:
The question is getting at: do "victims" actually receive any benefit of the "victim surcharge"? OR does the monies reaped from the "surcharge" just go into the general government coffers, ie, another stealth tax?
No it does not go into the general government coffers, it goes into a fund which is distributed to organisations that help victims of crime. But given that the post in reply to which you asked your question explained that, it's not clear what more you want. Do you think it's a lie?Johnnytheboy said:
Presumably this won't be levied on victimless crimes...?
It applies without discrimination between types of crime. That makes sense, given that the money is not spent directly on the victim(s) of the crime in relation to which it is applied, but indirectly, to victims of crime generally. It also avoids the expense and difficulty that would arise if we had to categorise which crime are or are not victimless.SamHH said:
It applies without discrimination between types of crime. That makes sense, given that the money is not spent directly on the victim(s) of the crime in relation to which it is applied, but indirectly, to victims of crime generally. It also avoids the expense and difficulty that would arise if we had to categorise which crime are or are not victimless.
If there is no victim, can/should it be a crime?Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff