Home Politics & Debate
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.

Money for war on terror but no money for victims of terror

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5393804.stm

It annoys me when governments penny pinch like in this case.

They can spend Billions sending troops, planes, ships, etc around the world to wage a so call war on terror on a country that hasn't even been proved to have all those weapons of mass destruction they said they had, but when you've got real victims of terror they'll penny pinch until the very end

It's a shame when a victim like this has to fly to the other side of the world to get the treatment they need - £6 million payout between 263 people is less then £23,000 each - far cry from the average $1 million per victim pay out on 911.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about the 1000's of victims of crime, through no fault of their own, that receive fuck all ? On a personal level, i was infected with HIV by some asshole who deliberatly set out to infect guys, and i've had fuck all compensation. My life's been totally destroyed by this asshole and i've received fuck all for it ! I saw a programme a few months back about 9/11 and compensation and the attitude of some of the families was down right fucking disgusting. Why should someone, blown up by a bomb and say lost their legs, get £1,000,000+ when someone hit by a car, and receive similar injuries, can get sod all ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why act so shocked? This sort of shit happens so many times that I'm immune to it...no point shouting some rhetoric about how the people should stand up and fight back, we've already lost. :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote:
    What about the 1000's of victims of crime, through no fault of their own, that receive fuck all ? On a personal level, i was infected with HIV by some asshole who deliberatly set out to infect guys, and i've had fuck all compensation. My life's been totally destroyed by this asshole and i've received fuck all for it ! I saw a programme a few months back about 9/11 and compensation and the attitude of some of the families was down right fucking disgusting. Why should someone, blown up by a bomb and say lost their legs, get £1,000,000+ when someone hit by a car, and receive similar injuries, can get sod all ?


    Maybe because whever a country goes to war it should accept that it's actions will have after effects.

    If the UK goes to war in Iraq it should accept that this is likely to increase the chances of people being mad about what's happening and take it out on it's citizens, therefore if this does happen the country should do everything it can to help them victims.

    When you see countries like the USA that preach justice and all that stuff keeping people locked up without charge in Cuba for years on end it doesn't help make the world a safer place, it makes people mad to see such an injustice.

    When 911 happened several sihks were killed by whites in the USA because people saw the turbans ontheir heads and thought lets get them back.. the fact they didn't know the difference between a Sihk and muslim is neither here nor there - there is a cause and effect relationship in everything.

    If you make people wear seatbelts the number of deaths on the road decrease - if you bomb another country the chances of someone wanting to take revenge on your own people increases - cause and effect.

    In this case the governments actions increase the chances of it's own people being hurt (just as it was when the IRA were bombing the UK) - if the UK stayed in Northern Ireland the chances of the IRA bombing a UK city was higher then if they pulled out of Ireland. Therfore the government should help all related vicitms or simply give them the real money needed to help them to pay for what they need done privately - £23,000 pay off is nothing.

    In your case we don't know the exact details of your HIV thing but you'd have to show cause and effect .. maybe you were stabbed by an HIV infected needle or slet with someone with HIV or soemthing else I don't know the details so can't say.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Simply put, I think it's more that the state are liable to a certain extent for a bombing, in their various security flaws, things not done properly etc

    Whereas the state isn't responsible for what happened to you - unless you share details to the contrary?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Then again the victims of 7/7 might be a special case, since it was the highly illegal and morally repugnant actions of the government that motivated the authors of the atrocity to carry out the bombings.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You keep arguing about this DG, and I really don't understand what your point is.

    The CICB is there to help people with injuries after a criminal incident, and I don't see why the payment should be any higher than necessary. If you wish to argue that the CICB doesn't have enough funding then I would agree with you, but I don't see why these victims should be given a penny more in CICB money than they need. And I certainly don't see why they should be given more money simply because it was a terrorist bomb and not a schizo with a knife or a drunk in a speeding car.

    A nursery nurse who was repeatedly stabbed in the face trying to protect her class from a nutcase, and received far worse facial scarring was given £5,000, I don't see why this woman should get more simply because it was a terrorist bomb. I don't think CICB payments are high enough, but I don't think you should get bumped up the scale because of who wounded you.

    Aladdin, those cunts would have done it regardless. The Government are only to blame because they didn't deport the fucks to Guantanamo Bay sooner. Which war was it that caused 9/11 or the embassy bombings?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Aladdin, those cunts would have done it regardless. The Government are only to blame because they didn't deport the fucks to Guantanamo Bay sooner. Which war was it that caused 9/11 or the embassy bombings?

    Surely you don't agree with Guantanamo Bay?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely you don't agree with Guantanamo Bay?
    I do in principle. I just think after staying there a few years they should be given a trail at least.

    Some of you are complaining the victims of 7/7 are receiving inadequate compensation, but money is always wasted, it's a fact of life unfortunately. DG looks at it that money should not be used to finance a war on terror by the sounds of it he disagrees with. On the other hand I could say, well the money the government wasts with the costs of being a E.U member could of been better for instance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Aladdin, those cunts would have done it regardless. The Government are only to blame because they didn't deport the fucks to Guantanamo Bay sooner. Which war was it that caused 9/11 or the embassy bombings?
    Seeing as all but one (IIRC) of the bombers were British born and bred citizens and that they only became brainwashed and extremist in the last few months of their lives, I don't think you can quite blame the government for not 'deporting' them anywwhere.

    Incidentally the bombers said themselves in their 'martydom' videos that the British involvement in Iraq and British foreign policy were behind their actions. Whereas I'm not saying Blair's wars and policies justify what those cunts did, there is little doubt in my mind that what they did wouldn't had happened if Britain hadn't invaded Iraq and if their traditional near-neutrality (as opposed to revolting one siding) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had been mantained.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    I do in principle.

    What principle is that then?

    That it's okay to pck up people without charge for five years, including an AlJazeera journalist who has been "interrogated" approximately 130 times, 120-odd of which were "interrogations" about Al Jazeera and not anything which he was supposed to have done?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely you don't agree with Guantanamo Bay?

    It's a tough one, I don't agree with what the USA have done with Camp X-Ray, but that's only because they've completely ignored the rule of law.

    If the people in there had been convicted of plotting terror then I would have no objections to them being there, and I certainly wouldn't have any objections if you put people like Hamza, the Shoebomber and the failed London bombers in there too.

    The people who are in there don't deserve to be in there because (legally) they have done no wrong. I doubt that they're all as innocent as the driven snow, but that's by the by. Get them tried in front of a proper jury and if they are found guilty then they deserve everything they get. If they're found innocent they should be freed and given a huge pot of money from the US Government.

    Put it this way- if the London bombers had somehow survived, I would have had no moral objection with someone torturing them for the rest of their lives.

    Aladdin, I honestly believe that they would have done it anyway. Iraq is a convenient excuse, but lets not forget that these people are doing this for many reasons, none of which involve their brothers in Baghdad. Some of the reasons happen to be spuriously religious (such as returning all "Moslem" land to Moslems- that would include "traditional Moslem" countries like Spain), but mostly about creating a lasting power dynamic through fear. It's not about Islam, its about whether you follow the Jihadist leaders. Iraq was a nice soundbite, but nothing else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it is acknowledged by the intelligence agencies in UK and USA that the invasion of iraq without international support, has given the terroist group recruiters a far easier job of poking holes in the "west's" image so we have become a far more likely target

    of course youll never stop it all, but it was an unacceptable risk going to iraq witohut due plan for rebuilding it and engaging the people there so the majority of their population would help in finding extremist elements that want to use iraq as a training ground
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    You keep arguing about this DG, and I really don't understand what your point is.

    The CICB is there to help people with injuries after a criminal incident, and I don't see why the payment should be any higher than necessary. If you wish to argue that the CICB doesn't have enough funding then I would agree with you, but I don't see why these victims should be given a penny more in CICB money than they need. And I certainly don't see why they should be given more money simply because it was a terrorist bomb and not a schizo with a knife or a drunk in a speeding car.

    A nursery nurse who was repeatedly stabbed in the face trying to protect her class from a nutcase, and received far worse facial scarring was given £5,000, I don't see why this woman should get more simply because it was a terrorist bomb. I don't think CICB payments are high enough, but I don't think you should get bumped up the scale because of who wounded you.

    Aladdin, those cunts would have done it regardless. The Government are only to blame because they didn't deport the fucks to Guantanamo Bay sooner. Which war was it that caused 9/11 or the embassy bombings?


    The argument isn't the amount of cash in hand given to the person - it's the amount of money the government are willing to put things right.

    However if the government aren't willing to carry out operations to have people's faces restored then they should stump up some real money so the people can go to other countries or have the work done privately.

    The argument being made is penny pinching - ie. no problem spending on big things like war planes which cost about £10 million a piece but when it comes to helping the victims of the so called war on terror the money suddenly is in short supply.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    I do in principle. I just think after staying there a few years they should be given a trail at least..

    That place is a joke .. In the US you're supposed to have the right to a fair and speedy trial.

    People are there with no hope of a trial, a release date or anything so often they try and kill themselves or don't eat and instead get force fed by drips, etc

    There's about 500 people held against their will there and only about 10 have had a trial.

    The entire place goes against everything the USA is SUPPOSED to stand for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The argument isn't the amount of cash in hand given to the person - it's the amount of money the government are willing to put things right.

    Is it possible to "put things right" then?
    However if the government aren't willing to carry out operations to have people's faces restored

    You mean apart from £97bn in the NHS?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Guantanamo Bay is disgusting.

    The people there are tortured, which is against the Geneva Convention. They are beaten, racially abused, they have to piss and shit themselves etc - and you think that's OK?

    For a load of innocent people? Innocent until proven guilty, at least!

    Anyway I guess this is a bit OT so .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The argument isn't the amount of cash in hand given to the person - it's the amount of money the government are willing to put things right.

    Why should the Government "put things right"? It wasn't Tony Blair on the tube with a backpack and a cheeky grin.

    And how do you "put things right" anyway?
    However if the government aren't willing to carry out operations to have people's faces restored then they should stump up some real money so the people can go to other countries or have the work done privately.

    How is the NHS funded?

    Why should the Government pay for cosmetic surgery?
    The argument being made is penny pinching - ie. no problem spending on big things like war planes which cost about £10 million a piece but when it comes to helping the victims of the so called war on terror the money suddenly is in short supply.

    The CICB is generally short of funds, which is wrong, but that's the way things are. The CICB is largely paid for out of fine income, something which all motoring groups want cut.

    But why should an exception be made for the victims of terrorist attacks? Why should this woman get a vast payout from a small pot of funds just because she received her injuries from a bomb and not from, say, a drunk driver? The CICB should compensate for real injuries first, and should only compensate for cosmetic issues if there is money left.

    Whilst I have an exceptional amount of sympathy for this woman, she can walk and talk, which is more than many victims of crime can do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you've had your legs blown off, or you've been badly run over by a drunk driver, you dont need loads of money, you need good long term treatment on your injuries. Something (fingers crossed) you should get regardless of the cause.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Though some money would be needed to ensure the victim's home is (for instance) compatible and user friendly towards wheelchair users, regarding access, toilet, etc. Some would also need to ditch their car and get a new one they can operate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Though some money would be needed to ensure the victim's home is (for instance) compatible and user friendly towards wheelchair users, regarding access, toilet, etc. Some would also need to ditch their car and get a new one they can operate.

    You get that on the NHS already, as far as I'm aware.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    More "Social Services" than NHS.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Though some money would be needed to ensure the victim's home is (for instance) compatible and user friendly towards wheelchair users, regarding access, toilet, etc. Some would also need to ditch their car and get a new one they can operate.

    Which is why the CICB is geared up to be injury-based, not attack-based.

    Someone who loses their legs- for whatever criminal reason- should get more than someone who dies. It's common sense.

    I don't think CICB payments are high enough, but that isn't what the problem seems to be here. It's that someone who was a victim of a high-profile bombing doesn't get a huge sack of money from the Government "responsible" for the actions. If anyone is responsible its the Moslem Council of Great Britain- perhaps they should pay, the mosques have plenty of nice salable jewels, after all.
Sign In or Register to comment.