Wrongly Jailed and charged £7k

FrostedNipple · 29 May 2007 at 18:42

frakker said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=458006&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Just seen this on the local news here in Oxford and I couldn't believe it. His compensation is £7k less for the 'life and luxury' he's received for the three years he spent wrongly being banged up in prison? Er, well that seems logical!

lmao, i don't see it going through!!

alexakasloth · 29 May 2007 at 18:43

No doubt his compensation includes what he would have been paid if he wasn't in jail. Though on the basis that he didn't choose to be banged up wrongly I disagree with the £7k penalty.

TheCrow · 29 May 2007 at 18:43

i sure some one got done for this before so i think it will go through.

Andri · 29 May 2007 at 18:50

TheCrow said:
i sure some one got done for this before so i think it will go through.

BBC said:
The practice of charging "bed and breakfast" was challenged this year by the Bridgewater Three, the men wrongly convicted of murdering newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater in 1978.

at the end of the article they say the above, this might be what you mean.

I think its just silly to charge someone in a situation like this, it's not like he wanted to be there if anything as said above that woman should be charged with this then lock her up.

turboshed · 29 May 2007 at 18:55

what a joke, it's not like they charge proper crimnals when they get released

Felix E · 29 May 2007 at 18:55

If they didn't take it out of the compensation he'd probably just get less compensation anyway as they'd simply take it into account but not mention it. No such thing as a free lunch I guess

Kol · 29 May 2007 at 18:58

So surely everyone should get charged? The criminals should be charged for sure.

If anyone should be paying this, she should.

Psyk · 29 May 2007 at 19:00

turboshed said:
what a joke, it's not like they charge proper crimnals when they get released

They should imo. Maybe it could be like repaying a student loan, so they only start paying it back when they have a stable job. No doubt that would mean a large proportion of offenders wouldn't pay it back it all, but at least it would be a start.

Or alternatively make them work it off when they are in prison (do they do this already?) but it could be difficult to actually make that profitable.

Sukh · 29 May 2007 at 19:03

They SHOULD get charged, but they never will, its the same reason the government doesnt dock people on benefits when they commit crime, it will just hurt dependants more than the offender. Like they will carry on buying fags even though they have less money and the kids will just get less food or something.

aceface57 · 29 May 2007 at 19:07

This is a quote from someone who commented on the article, i think it makes perfect sense really.

"They must have sent the bill to him in error - it should have gone to the woman who falsely accused him. She should also have had a bill for all the police time, court time etc that had been wasted on the case. Seems like the loonies really are running the asylum!"

Helium_Junkie · 29 May 2007 at 19:13

aceface57 said:
"They must have sent the bill to him in error - it should have gone to the woman who falsely accused him. She should also have had a bill for all the police time, court time etc that had been wasted on the case. Seems like the loonies really are running the asylum!"

Well said, that selfish cruel sick excuse for a woman has ruined, DESTROYED a life for three years, not to mention what he faces now trying to pull things together again.
Disgusting.

teaboy5 · 29 May 2007 at 19:23

Helium_Junkie said:
Well said, that selfish cruel sick excuse for a woman has ruined, DESTROYED a life for three years, not to mention what he faces now trying to pull things together again.
Disgusting.

One of the problems we as men face. Its all to easy for a woman to cry rape to maybe get back at an old partner.

Killa_ken · 29 May 2007 at 20:15

ROFLCOPTERS What plebs

crystaline · 29 May 2007 at 20:25

Misleading headline. He will only be charged if he wins his compensation of over 100k.

SB118 · 29 May 2007 at 20:32

crystaline said:
Misleading headline. He will only be charged if he wins his compensation of over 100k.

Wrong, he'll be charged the money reguardless of his award.

Kol · 29 May 2007 at 20:44

crystaline said:
Misleading headline. He will only be charged if he wins his compensation of over 100k.

What a load of ****. That should have no bearing on it. If I was jailed for 3 years and I'd lost my job and respect. £30k a year wouldn't be enough in my opinion as compensation and I sure as hell wouldn't be paying £7k 'lodgings' just because I got awarded it. It's the magistrates fault, and her fault, for the mis conviction.

crystaline · 29 May 2007 at 20:46

SB118 said:
Wrong, he'll be charged the money reguardless of his award.

"The assessor usually deducts a small amount of rent and living expenses of being in prison from the much, much higher figure of the actual compensation."

?

SB118 · 29 May 2007 at 20:46

Kol said:
What a load of ****. That should have no bearing on it. If I was jailed for 3 years and I'd lost my job and respect. £30k a year wouldn't be enough in my opinion as compensation and I sure as hell wouldn't be paying £7k 'lodgings' just because I got awarded it. It's the magistrates fault, and her fault, for the mis conviction.

Don't sweat it, she's wrong.

SB118 · 29 May 2007 at 20:47

crystaline said:
"The assessor usually deducts a small amount of rent and living expenses of being in prison from the much, much higher figure of the actual compensation."

?

Yup, that's right. It's a normal procedure to charge innocent people when they are in prision.

"It follows a House of Lords ruling which said that claims for compensation for wrongful imprisonment will incur a weekly £40 deduction for board and lodging."

Wrongly Jailed and charged £7k

Guest

Guest