Harsh but fair

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes are to receive reduced compensation because they are so poor.

The limited financial support they could have received from the Brazilian electrician – shot dead by police marksmen – will also count against them.

Harsh because it seems so: why should the poor receive less compensation than the rich?

Fair, because it isn\’t \”compensation\”, it\’s \”loss of earnings\”.

12 comments on “Harsh but fair

  1. What a surprise. Their son is murdered by the British state and then the same British state refuses to pay them just compensation. Police state Britain. What a wonderful plave to live. Will the scum who murdered Ian Tomlinson be let off scot free as well? The white wash has been going on for some time.

  2. No. Next question?

    If a member of a the public had shoved a police officer, who subsequently died, that citizen would be arrested and very probably would be facing a manslaughter charge. Yet the cowardly thugs who shoved Tomlinson has not even been arrested let alone charged.

  3. “What a surprise. Their son is murdered by the British state and then the same British state refuses to pay them just compensation.”

    Which part of ‘…it isn’t “compensation”, it’s “loss of earnings”…’ did you not understand?

  4. Which part of ‘…it isn’t “compensation”, it’s “loss of earnings”…’ did you not understand?

    Whch part of meaning of just are are you incapable of understanding?

  5. We can argue all you like about what should be the case in these situations, but the ‘Mail’ being disingenuous with what the money is actually paid out for in reality doesn’t help, does it?

    It tends to get the simple-minded, hard-of-thinking folks all riled up. Doesn’t it?

  6. If a member of a the public had shoved a police officer, who subsequently died, that citizen would be arrested and very probably would be facing a manslaughter charge.

    Arrested, yes. Prosecuted? Depends on the circumstances: since 1984’s PACE, the police no longer determine whether to prosecute.

  7. We can argue all you like about what should be the case in these situations, but the ‘Mail’ being disingenuous with what the money is actually paid out for in reality doesn’t help, does it?

    Given that the British state protects its assassins from criminal prosecution in such cases, punitive compensation is the only opportunity that the Menezes family have for receiving even partial justice. It would have been better had those who killed their son and then lied about the circumstances had faced a jury. This seems a small price to pay.

  8. Arrested, yes. Prosecuted? Depends on the circumstances: since 1984’s PACE, the police no longer determine whether to prosecute

    The CPS is rather more ready to prosecute a citizen who assaults a policeman than it is to prosecute a policeman who assalts a citizen.

  9. The CPS is rather more ready to prosecute a citizen who assaults a policeman than it is to prosecute a policeman who assalts a citizen.

    I don’t think that’s true. The police are far less willing to investigate the latter to provide the CPS with information. The CPS has guidelines that say it’s worth prosecuting if there’s a 50:50 chance or better of a conviction, and by and large they get it right.

    Obviously the police can undermine the CPS whenever they choose (and in the case of TSG officers we see this all the time).

  10. Kay,

    The CPS has guidelines that say it’s worth prosecuting if there’s a 50:50 chance or better of a conviction, and by and large they get it right.

    There are two tests: the reasonable chance of conviction, as you rightly say, and whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute.

    And this is if the investigation makes it that far in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.