If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
£17,000 for people that died in bombings
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I heard on the news the average pay out for people who died inthe terrorist attacks in London last year was just £17,000 - but in Spain when the trains were bombed the average was £150,000 and in the USA the average for the 9/11 attacks was over a million
Are we just a little cheap here in the UK?
£17,000 isn't even the average wage for 1 year.
Are we just a little cheap here in the UK?
£17,000 isn't even the average wage for 1 year.
0
Comments
How much would be enough is of course a matter of personal opinion. 50k? 100k? No easy answer.
Why should my money be doled out to relatives just because someone died in an incident that had nothing to do with me? Money should only be handed out from the CICB if the quality of life is affected or the family is placed in poverty.
If they had life insurance they will have received high payouts. The payouts in the US were only so high because they all have life insurance.
And how would you work out/decide what's enough and what isn't?
No, the government doesn't give money people who have lost a close one...so why should they give money to the families of people who lost their lives at the 7/7 attacks?
Exactly who do they work out ho much money the victims' families should receive?
We seem to live in a compensation obsessed society.
It was not a question btw
Agreed. And of course, if something happens then it's never their fault; it's always someone elses...
And
What makes these people so different?
Maybe people trust the underground to be secure and the stations to be secure...
Maybe people of London trusted the London government that London was secure.
And obviously it wasn't that secure.
I wonder how they came up with exactly £17,000.
Aladdin's right that you can't put a price on someone's life or indeed compensate someone for the loss of a loved one, but when it is in such a way that the government is responsible (which it is, as a terrorist attack is assumed to be an attack on a country's rule rather than actual commuters who were unfortunately caught in the figurative cross fire) then I see no reason why they shouldn't receive some form of comfort. Also the point that has been raised about perceived safety on the tube is very valid. Obviously it wasn't their fault as such (i.e. technical errors or anything like that) but I can still see that point.
Government officials and the Department of Transport and Tom, Dick and Harry the tax payers can't pop round every time they're feeling blue to give them a cuddle and a box of Quality Street so why not comfort them in a different way? Give them one less worry and yes, probably a little bit of extra comfort and ease their mind a little. Of course it's not going to make them "feel better" but it is obviously going to help them practically - I have no issue with it whatsoever. I think some people are very hard-faced and lacking in compassion when it comes to issues like this, which I really struggle to understand. If I had a wedge of cash lying around I would give them that, too, they don't "deserve" it but it to quote someone wiser than myself: "Kindness is never wasted. If it has no effect on the recipient, at least it benefits the bestower"
I must be off my rocker, bringing the notion of kindness into Politics and Debate
Here's a scenario. If your wife had have been killed in that horrendous and truly horrific event, would you feel that £17K was adequate for her life, and your loss? If you both contribute to a mortgage and suddenly one person's contributions were removed - would the payout be sufficient?
I don't think you can put a sum on a person's life. I think much more than just a figure needs to be taken into account. Family, mortgage, husband and grief (funeral arrangements etc) should be considered. You mention life insurance. Do people that have little to begin with have a policy? Highly doubtful.
I find your sense of reason to be absurd. You cannot possibly say a person's life has a monetary value. And furthermore you cannot say it's YOUR money. Sure you pay taxes... but I dare say the amount you pay in tax is hardly going to fully fund the entire payout to the lost in the July 7th attack.
Very well put - raised all the points I was about to go into myself.
At the end of the day it's not a bag of money with a note syaing "sorry 'bout your husband/father/son - here you have some money to find a replacement". It's a symbolic gesture, and giving a bit more in proportion wouldn't hurt.
Regarding the Sept 11th figure - I'm not sure if it's true. The family I know connected to the WTC attack were not impressed with the treatment they recieved.
its fair for a monumental waste of money to be criticised by any tax payer as they wish
but in this case i dont think that donating or giving money to victims of a horiffic diaster was a waste of money, fair enough it sounds harsh to say that maybe they didnt deserve it, in the sense that someones nan who died, or a kid run over doesnt get compensation off the government
but i still wouldnt call giving the victims and/or their families money, any kind of waste
But surely you can see the difference between those two examples and people who died as part of a "terrorist attack" on our government?
Everyone dies, if we all start compensating one another when dearest grandmother dies of old age then yes of course that would be absurd and my voice would be another that didn't understand or back it. But it isn't comparable to people who die as a result of a terrorist attack, and I know that you know that so I'm not sure why you're labouring that point.
If a child was run over then - depending on the circumstances - the family would be likely to be compensated too. I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who would begrudge grieving parents that compensation.
I agree with you - it's not a waste. However, I find that the objectivity that one's entire tax bill is going to be given to a person as remuneration for their loss in an event that was no where near the publics fault, entirely absurd. Kermit has valid points mostly. However, in this instance his objectivity I believe is hindering his humanityand I can't agree with those that believe he can see past his own financial loss - albeit in the way of taxation. It's sad.
But how do you prevent people taking bombs onto the underground? Thousands of people use it every day so you can't really check them all. I remember reading somewhere that the attack was because tony blair had been re-elected and that the attack was on the public for voting for him. When the vast magority actually didn't.
That's a good point...
Basically, yes.
Aren't people generally more along the lines of "why should they be compensated when others in comparable situations are not?".
Anyone with a mortgage or dependents should have life insurance. I have - I believe it was a condition of my mortgage. It costs me around an extra fiver a month. It would be irresponsible not to - you could drop dead tomorrow and then what would your other half do?
I might come across pretty harshly, but innocent people die every day, and I don't think that the people who died in the attacks deserve any more or any less than the others. In an ideal world, yes, we'd dole out money to anyone who needed it, but the world isn't ideal, the government sure as hell isn't, and to be honest I'd be happier seing the money spent elsewhere. Maybe on our grossly underfunded hospitals so that we can offer people hurt in future atrocites half-decent care, or on the benefits system so that those disabled in accidents OR in attacks can get lifelong support and don't need lump sum payouts? Just an idea. Please tell me if I'm taking crazy here...
Personally, I think that anyone who has said something like 'if you were to drop dead tomorrow, what would you other half do'? has a fair. Is it much different? Not really.
It's been pretty well illustrated by the responses to this thread that yes, they are.
Still not the way I feel about it.
Try another one.
Two people die both have a mortgage, two pre-school kids and a spuse. Both are the oly income for their family.
Why should one family the get £17k because they were killed by a terrorist but the other get nothing because they died of cancer?
A death is a death, both are targic losses to their family. Both families need a hug and help - sometimes financial. I object to my taxes being used in such a discriminatory way.
It doesn't matter how much of my taxes go into this fund, but I out of interest I will pay more than half of one payout. Given a choice (which I don't have) I would rather that more went into health & education or better still came back to me, than offer a cash payout purely on the basis thatthe person was killed by a terrorist than died "naturally".
This isn't about the monetary value of human life, it's about discrimination in the way that the Govt assess that value.
Kaffrin talks sense.
Maybe cos one is much more sudden then the other for a start? Most people with cancer will have it for months or years before it kills them and in the mean time receive compensation inthe form of free NHS treatment.
Also one is much more influenced by government policy, i.e. if the government wants to go to war with America in places like Iraq and Afganistan they're much more likely to increase the number of terrorist attacks on home soil rather then increase the cancer rate?
Why does the Spanish government which is far less rich as the British government give 9 times more compensation?
Sorry, NHS treatment as "compensation"?
Apart from that both still die, both are tragedies. I really cannot see the difference.
What if I had used car crash as an example - with no-one else involved...?
Firstly, on September 10th there were no US forces in either Iraq and Afghanistan, so how about we dispell that little excuse. This whole issue has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan, they are just convenient excuses for the actions of a minority of extremists.
Secondly, national policy is irrelevant because it affects everything we do. Continuing the cancer issue, national policy affects the treatment offered, it affects the things which cause cancer (like smoking) and so we cannot use that as a reason either.
Point is that there is no real reason why one gets and the other doesn't.
I don't know, but then I don't see that as a positive either.
What the American vicitms families got may have been a heck of a lot but what the British families got was totally at the other end of the scale..
I think this country often does things on the cheap and yet is happy to throw money at projects like the Millennium Dome or even to go to war in Iraq just to support the Americans. I think the Spanish government's compensation figure was closer to the mark.