It would have been. I think she was considering it but eventually was offered an acceptable ill-health award and pension.
Colin Stagg - compensation awarded
- Thread starter matrix_22
- Start date
Indeed. But in this case there is now significant evidence which suggests (a) it wasn't him and (b) it was someone else. So, dependant on the precise nature of that evidence, you may be reaching the point where his innocence has been proven, even though the failure to convict him would not amount to that in itself.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Charging the innocent for board and lodging? Come the revolution someone is getting a bullet to the neck for that one. probably charged them the going rate for a shag for every time they get raped in the shower too. "sorry gov, one up the rear will cost you 30 quid on the old kent road, lets see, twice a week for 20 years, thats £62,400 that's gonna cost you. Well, I know you didn't want it, but it's part of the service mate. You owe us another £100 for each baton we broke on your face too... "
What sort of a country expects someone fitted up to pay for their time in prison out of their comp? Jesus, that makes me angrier even than watching the subhuman bloodlusters at the tabloids try and make out that Stagg is in the wrong for getting comp.
What sort of a country expects someone fitted up to pay for their time in prison out of their comp? Jesus, that makes me angrier even than watching the subhuman bloodlusters at the tabloids try and make out that Stagg is in the wrong for getting comp.
There is certainly a DNA match in existence. It is impossible to comment on what that "proves" or "disproves" without knowing a lot more about it (e.g. whether we know what the material is that has given the trace; where the trace was found; how much of the material was there ...).
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Eh? There is no connection with your reply and the point that they tried to pervert the course of justice. That the court recognised it as improper doesn't in any way negate wht the Met tried to do. They merely got caught, they knew what they were doing and got found out. That no-one witll be brought to book for this is as usual no surprise.
Although that is how the papers portray it, that is not quite what is being done, at least not in so blunt a way.
In any compensation calculation, for any civil wrong, the aim is to put the victim is the same position they would have been had the wrong not been committed. That is a complex calculation and involves all sorts of assumptions. One thing that needs to be taken into account is the fact that people would have spent on living had they (in this case) not been imprisoned and, hence, the money they would have amassed over whatever the period would have been what they earned minus usual living expenses. I think they use the cost of being kept warn and fed as a proxy for the usual living expenses to some extent at least.
Perverting the course of justice would involve lying about what was done. There was no lying about it. They explained what they did and how they did it. Justice was not, therefore, perverted. It took it's proper course (i.e. the Court kicked the evidence into touch and criticised the proactive operation that had been carried out).
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
They tried to get evidence that wasn't there, they tried to entrap someone (another little trick aswell), they tried to get someone jailed by getting him to give information that would make it look like he would confess to something he hadn't done. By any definition that is perverting the course of justice.
They day after the verdict I was on a train from Gasgow back down south. I was sat at a table with a CPS worker, they, according to her, received plenty of pressure to prosecute. That both the CPS and Police believed their own 'press' makes it even more farcical that they proceeded with this case.
By YOUR definition. Not by "any" definition.
They had grounds to suspect Stagg. They were perfectly entitled to carry out enquiries (even covert surveillance) in an attempt to gather more evidence. What they did wrong, however, was allow their belief that he was guilty to guide their operation which, instead of being a search for the truth, became a search for evidence to convict him and to allow themselves to be misled by an "expert" (Paul Britton). Had they lied about the operation, or had they witheld any of the details, it would amount to attempting to pervert the course of justice. They didn't, so far as I am aware.
This calculation is clearly insane and how this bit of law was ever allowed to pass is anyone's guess. It is completely outrageous and I can see no calculation that could work out the 'cost of board and lodging'. I feel sick just thinking about people having to pay for 'accommodation' when they have been wrongly convicted, as it clearly seems Stagg has. In light of the fact that he is not just not guilty, but that there is someone who it can (may, wait and see) be proven is guilty, would Stagg get charged less? Surely these facts would impact on the calculation as opposed to just a not guilty with no clue on who mighta done it.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
The Sun headline 'Staggering'
Why?
untethered
For industry & decency
The calculation presumes that the value of prison accommodation is equal to the value of the person's accommodation had they been free. Common sense tells us that they cannot be valued equally in comparison, if at all.
It isn't though - it is exactly the sort of calculation made in all compensation cases. The aim of the exercise is to, so far as is possible by the award of money, put the person back in the position they would have been except for the wrong. Portraying it as a "bill for board and lodging" is a misleadingly emotional way of describing what is a perfectly standard type of approach, exercised in dozens of cases every day by the Courts.
untethered
For industry & decency
The Sun headline 'Staggering'
Humanity gains some small measure of redemption at times like these when you realise that the Sun's readership is more fair-minded than its writership.
Good prediction, prick. Why don't you actually try reading my posts and following what I actually write in future ...
No sign of any apologies from the button and longdog yet?You couldn't help elimate another half dozen numbers could you ...
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
It's interesting how the advent of DNA matching has changed so much. There can no longer be any question of Stagg's innocence, which wouldn't have been the case for much of the period between Nicoll's death and the award to Stagg.
All those years of hounding and media character assassination . . . he's obviously left with a fucked up 20 years and a difficult future.
Lets hope the evidence against the man now charged with her murder is DNA-based.
All those years of hounding and media character assassination . . . he's obviously left with a fucked up 20 years and a difficult future.
Lets hope the evidence against the man now charged with her murder is DNA-based.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
No sign of any apologies from the button and longdog yet?
Perhaps they work for the Met, West Midlands, West Mercia or Stratchlyde Police Force. They, however, seem unable to apologise for much much smaller peccadilloes.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
To be fair, the Suns ire was aimed at the level of compensation awarded, not Stag.
Clearly unable to retract their previous hate of him, they switched tack and in the editorial blamed the system that gave less to Our Boys
and victims of the tube bombings. Odious cunt hacks.It sounds like you think this is ok. If you do (and I'm not having a go) can you explain why this is, as I think it is an outrage.
Also, what I mean by: Surely these facts would impact on the calculation as opposed to just a not guilty with no clue on who mighta done it
is being released by bring found not guilty could be seen differently from being released not guilty then someone else admits responsibility. That is way different to just a plain not guilty.
The whole paying back for being in jail in Stagg's case and that of those fella's up in Newcastle is just wrong.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1556219.ece
Another example of what a cuntish paper the Scum is,at least the comments after the article seem to think Stag deserves his payout.
unbelievable - but yes looks like the Sun badly misjudged it's own readership
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
In most compensation cases...the guilty party can't claim expenses.
Stagg's prison costs should be paid by the fucking police, if anyone.
That doesn't mean 'leave it up to the judge' at all.
Let's take an example. Suppose there is a murder case and the police have two suspects. One of whom they think probably did it, and they've had tip-offs to the effect, but the case is simply circumstantial and weak. The other one they can make a better case for, one that might well result in conviction, however, again thanks to informants or other evidence which won't be part of any court case, they believe this person to be innocent.
Now do we take your view that it's not up to the police to decide who is guilty or innocent, and thus they should pursue the stronger case against the (let's say) innocent man?
This is wrong.
The general rule is that any benefits received as a result of the injury are deducted from corresponding heads of compensation.
So if you are injured in a car crash and sue the other driver, and you are unable to work for six months and claim your lost earnings, the defendant is entitled to offset your sick pay against the award.
If you receive housing benefit or council tax benefit during that time which you wouldn't have been eligible for had you been working, again that can be deducted.
Read my previous posts. I think it is perfectly valid that in calculating the sum of money needed to, so far as is possible, put the person back in the situation they would have been had the wrong not been done there should be a consideration of what the costs of living during that period would have been too. If you earn £30,000 per year as a free person you would not have £120,000 saved at the end of four years, would you? So, insofar as that aspect of the calculation is concerned (and there would be others - sums estimated for loss of freedom, interference with family life or whatever) it would be perfectly logical to amend that by an estimated figure for what would have been the cost of living in that period.
My understanding is that what is referred to as "deductions for board and lodging" is a figure used as a proxy for that aspect of the overall calculation.
But that's not what I'm saying, is it?
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know this sort of calculation is commonplace in deciding levels of compensation.
To be fair, the Suns ire was aimed at the level of compensation awarded, not Stag.
Clearly unable to retract their previous hate of him, they switched tack and in the editorial blamed the system that gave less to Our Boys
Yes - they don't pull that line when utilities bosses award themselves bonuses bigger than Stagg's compensation.
Yes. The simple fact is that it is NOT the polce's job to decide guilt or innocence. It is their job to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry and, if there is sufficient evidence suggesting guilt, to present that evidence to the CPS / Court.
If we listened to your suggestion we would guarantee more miscarriages of justice. Almost all of them have resulted from the police deciding someone was guilty and then going out looking for evidence to prove that and ignoring evidence which pointed in any other direction.
They are entitled to prioritise enquiries if they have insufficient resources to do everything simultaneously. They are entitled to bring alternative lines of enquiry to a prompter conclusion is there is very significant, reliable evidence establishing the involvement of another ... but the LAW requires them to follow ALL reasonable lines of enquiry in every case (The Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996, a measure passed precisely because anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that your suggestion is a straightforward recipe for disaster).
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
No sign of any apologies from the button and longdog yet?
I'd be most interested to see if button apologises to you in a million years ... particularly as you called him a prick but he didn't actually call you anything.
Of course the button and longdog won't apologise (that would involve them acknowledging they were talking bollocks ... which would undermine pretty much everything they ever post ...) ... but what the fuck do you expect me to call a poster who wades into a thread and, entirely wrongly, assumes what I am going to post, based entirely on their fucking prejudices.
the button, and longdog, acted like pricks. They got called pricks. Tough.
Similar threads
