Hillsborough inquest verdict.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I gave you two mutually exclusive answers, there is no C.
Do you believe police forces should have the threat of their budgets being significantly reduced to act as a deterrent against attempting this type of conspiracy?
Yes or no?
If the answer's 'yes' than the rest of my post after your snippet still stands and if the answer is 'no' then it's an irrelevant to the subject matter of this thread.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Do you believe police forces should have the threat of their budgets being significantly reduced to act as a deterrent against attempting this type of conspiracy?
Yes or no?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
...
...and that's where I quoted your from. It started with Grimm specifically referring the the compensation having to come from the current force and not from the people responsible. You jumped in defending the notion of money being an adequate form of compensation at which point Dis replies stating that all it does it take away from a public service (in this instance South Yorkshire police).
Then finally, we have your post that I quoted, which given the line of conversation comes across as you agreeing that SYP should have their budget "raided" to act as a deterrent.
If that isn't what you think, you've done a really bad job at getting what you do think across.
Last edited:
It was addressing the notion that it wasn't a good thing for public sector bodies to pay compensation as it ultimately affects frontline services. As is quite obvious if you were to carry on reading. Thanks for the post review though, I will definitely try harder in future.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Um...yes....I got that and you are in support of raiding public sector bodies budgets if it acts as a deterrent right? If not, what do you mean by...
"If you don't want to have your budgets raided to pay fines then don't do things that lead to you being fined."
It means that I don't think public sector bodies should be exempt from compensation claims just because the money ultimately comes from the taxpayer.
The alternative is that they act with impunity because as long as no criminal acts are performed the worst that can happen is some internal disciplinary, which isn't much comfort to someone who for example may have a legitimate grievance around their employment.
If it acts as a deterrent from being a badly run organisation then it acts as a deterrent, but that's more a byproduct of the notion of having to compensate people existing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
It's not a deterrent because it's coming from the tax payer though, the deterrent, as you said in the quote, is having their budgets raided. Which means giving them less ability to carry out current and future services to the same level.
Hence my cherry picked example of a possible consequence to supporting that notion and the rest of my post which you initially queried...
I guess the question to you would be why SYP and/or the police/public sector bodies in general should be exempt from the rules that apply to everybody else?
Your extreme emotive example could happen in any situation where there isn't an infinite number of a thing, there's no reason why it would only be triggered by having to pay compensation claims.
Your extreme emotive example could happen in any situation where there isn't an infinite number of a thing, there's no reason why it would only be triggered by having to pay compensation claims.
Man of Honour
Clearly the SYP budget can handle the weight of the compensation amounts, or are we saying they can pay £19m without cuts but can't pay £20m?
After all, it was known within the force that they were guilty, so the compensation claim shouldn't come as any sort of surprise.
After all, it was known within the force that they were guilty, so the compensation claim shouldn't come as any sort of surprise.
From what I gather the SYP didn't pay for most of the legal costs, the taxpayer did:
"The cost of legal representation for the eight former South Yorkshire police officers, including Match Commander David Duckenfield and the current chief constable of the force, has been paid by South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner and amounts to £19.4 million.
However, for the costs incurred, the Home Secretary provided the South Yorkshire PCC with Special Grant funding of £5.1 million for 2013/14 and £9.3 million for 2014/15, and has agreed to provide up to £5 million for 2015/16, to cover the legal fees."
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/Hillsborough-disaster-verdict-96-victims-unlawfully-killed-jury-concludes/
Taking £20m from the SYP would likely be very damaging unless they are bailed out with taxpayer's money. Honestly I doubt the SYP even has £20m available to spend on paying compensation out, they probably have nothing at all in the bank as resources for public services such as the Police are extremely low at the moment due to the government cuts.
Man of Honour
...in which case it's highly likely that they'll have to go cap-in-hand for the money again. Not convinced it'll affect frontline services.
Soldato
Of course any financial penalty applied to SYP will be funded by the taxpayer. Just like every other penny spent by every police for in the UK.
Man of Honour
The NHSLA pays all the Clinical Negligence money out for malpractise.
We get the details from the NHSLA and pay the amount through a BACS transfer.
Caporegime
That is a curious one actually! I guess it all goes down to the wording of the contract really.
The police probably (because I simply don't know) being sued for the cover up though. I imagine they're being sued for the actions taken at the time that resulted in the deaths and injuries. In which case insurance should cover as that was utter incompetence. Interesting one to follow.
Man of Honour
Tonight on ITV:
- Status