Payouts for effing bomb victims

**AtW** · 26 September 2005, 17:29

And who in your opinion deserves any compensation better than these victims? People who break their cars on potholes due to lack of road maintenance by the local council?

The people who died on 7/7 died because of Govt policy, so its only reasonable that they are at least compensated to some degree.

**PRC1964** · 26 September 2005, 17:30

They went to work minding their own business and some mindless **** tried to kill them. Many of them have lost limbs and suffered horrendous burns which will seriously affect their quality of life and their careers.

Why shouldn't they be helped by the state? It's not like they are free-loading parasites. They were trying to work.

**Chico** · 26 September 2005, 17:59

sunnysan put yourself in any of the injured victims or the families of the deads shoes. In some cases the only breadwinner of the family was taken away. Who will provide for that family? What insurance will pay out for this? In this instance these payments are justified.

**xoggoth** · 26 September 2005, 18:04

I agree with sunnysan. It is missing the point to say they were innocent victims etc. People get killed by all sorts of things. Those killed in accidents, where someone cannot be held responsible get nothing, those killed by normal crime may only get a few hundred. Will that be the case here?

We seem sometimes to have a situation where compensation is paid according to newsworthiness and public outcry. It is not a sensible criteria.

**Chico** · 26 September 2005, 18:06

Xog and sunnysan Where is your compassion? What if it had been your family?

**xoggoth** · 26 September 2005, 18:11

You are missing the point Chico. There is no "free" money, what goes to one cannot go to another. If taxpayers' money is to be distributed it should be done using more sensible criteria. Doesn't the family of a chap killed by a falling tree in a gale deserve some compassion too? But that doesn't capture the headlines does it?

PS By agree I was talking about the principal of compensation, not the f**ng victms bit.

**Not So Wise** · 26 September 2005, 18:21

It's not because they are victims of a terrorist action
It's because they are victims of a crime, thus due for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act

Virtually anyone who suffered phisical injury (or death) due to any crime can claim

You pay tax's to be protected, become a victim of a crime? means government did not do their job, thus you can get money back to cover costs (and maybe bit extra)

**Chico** · 26 September 2005, 18:22

That is why the government has a fund for not only victims of terrorism but for other tragic events. What the criteria is I do not know.

**AtW** · 26 September 2005, 18:30

Originally posted by xoggoth

If taxpayers' money is to be distributed it should be done using more sensible criteria. Doesn't the family of a chap killed by a falling tree in a gale deserve some compassion too?

Taxpayers money for insurance purposes should be used when its a question of taxpayers suffering from deeds of the state -- its Iraq policy for example. If tree falls on a house as the result of a major Catrina like event then its the State's issue as well.

Payouts for effing bomb victims