Mr Coeur de Lion Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 A 3 year old wins the right to claim criminal damages against another 3 year old!!!The world is now officially mad.I would say the only claim would be to the adult responsible for leaving two 3 year olds alone in a car.As a side note, the mother in that picture, is it possible to fit anymore make up on a face?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Driver Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I think you need to read the article again.....It's not a three year old winning the right to claim criminal damages against another three year old - it's actually the child's mother who has won the right to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority over injuries he sustained in a criminal assault. The CICA did not appear to dispute the fact than a criminal assault occurred, merely that the age of the assailant ruled it out as a criminal act. The tribunal ruled otherwise.As regards her makeup, she would appear to have a mild skin complaint, so if she was having her photograph taken for Sky News, you would expect her take steps to disguise it . In any case, why should her personal appearance be an issue in supporting her legal rights....[8-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Coeur de Lion Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 Well, I hope it doesn't set a precedence for every parent to follow the same route because a 5 year old kit gave another 5 year old kid a split lip. That's the danger I see with this case. It should have been a matter of complaint against the responsible adult in charge of the children as to why they were left alone in a car rather than a chase for money. But perhaps that was sorted seperately.As for her appearance, I didn't say it had anything to do with her legal rights. It was just a side comment. The amount of make up just hit me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekJ Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The bit I struggle with is why the tax payer becomes responsible for any payout under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme.These things seem to be viewed as being paid for out of the public purse without any concern that it is the tax payer who is actually paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelligan Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 What would be your preferred option then Mr J? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekJ Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 [quote user="buelligan"]What would be your preferred option then Mr J?[/quote]Not sure.... but I don't quite understand why I should be compensating anyone for someone elses actions.I'm not hung up on this but I note a lot of things that "the government pays for" w3hich actually means the tax payer pays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Coeur de Lion Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 The kid's parent(s) is (are) the one(s) responsible. Any compensation should come from him/her/them.Not that it would do much good now anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The responsible person in this case is of course the person who left two 3 year old kids alone long enough for this kind of thing to happen. Had this happened while the children were with a child minder or in playschool then there is no doubt as to who would have been to blame! There was not sufficient information in the newspaper report to proportion blame, we don't know who was in charge of the children at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Coeur de Lion Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 It would be ironic if the person responsible for their care was the woman in the article!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 And I bet that he wasnt safely strapped into a baby seat on the rear seat squab to have been able to reach and find a jack, beat seven bells out of the other kid and break the front or rear windscreen.I wonder if it was in fact the 3 year old wot dunnit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Judging by my pals experience in UK where he was viciously assaulted in the street causing him to lose an eye and subsequently losing his business and livelihood as a direct result, the kid and mother will be drawing their pensions before they see a penny.My pals been battling for over 5 years now and is no nearer to a payout than the day it happened. His assailant was never caught. Derek, maybe the compensation is meant as an apology on the behalf of the police and courts for being so ineffectual and failing abysmally to protect law abiding citizens from being assaulted in broad daylight [:@] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 If you search on the boys name you will find other reports with a bit more detail about the horrific injuries this boy received. He had to have quite a few stitches in his head and according to the BBC in the first 25 minutes of his arrival in hospital it was touch and go that he would survive.Unfortunately thats about all I can find, I wanted to find out more about exactly how this happened but have not been able to. I don't know who's car, were they in their child seats or not, how did the other boy get hold of the instrument to hit the other. How long were they in the car, who was in charge, why didn't anyone else stop it (the boy was shouting/screaming). Of course we can all jump to conclusions. They may have simply been playing in the car in the owners garden, I don't know and can't find out.As for the money which has a ceiling of 27k (BBC report) and the woman is unlikely to receive such an amount, why not? It won't fix what happened but it may help provide therapy or other things to help the boy forget.If anyone can find the 'facts' of the attack I would be very interested to read them before I come to any conclusion because quite frankly, like you lot, I don't have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 [quote user="DerekJ"]The bit I struggle with is why the tax payer becomes responsible for any payout under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme.These things seem to be viewed as being paid for out of the public purse without any concern that it is the tax payer who is actually paying.[/quote]Spot on Derek. All part of our litigation culture. Why can't he parents of the violent child be held responsible ? although I heard that the child was taken into care - no doubt a temporary measure. Tegwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 [quote user="AnOther"]Judging by my pals experience in UK where he was viciously assaulted in the street causing him to lose an eye and subsequently losing his business and livelihood as a direct result, the kid and mother will be drawing their pensions before they see a penny.[/quote]ANO. Are you speaking of Iain with one i that you kindly put me in contact with ?How is he doing now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I am, did you ever actually contact him, he hasn't said ?Surviving is the best I can put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now