To think if Ian Huntley gets compensation

[Marjee]

he should give it to the government to pay towards the prison service?

This has made me so angry so apologies if its long and ranty but ffs
This evil man killed two innocent children and now according to the news he is likely to gain at least 20k! I'm sure I've read somewhere that if someone on benefits wins the lottery they are expected to pay back some money, why should this be any different? I wonder how much taxpayers money is going towards keeping him behind bars? What a shame his attacker didn't finish the job! Ugh disgusting vile evil man, whats he going to do with that money anyway?!
Sorry ladies I did warn you, anyway I feel better for having got that off my chest!

Of course the prison service has a duty of care to prisoners and should keep them safe. Something very wrong with the way our justice system assesses compensation though. Not just in relation to the difference between what Huntley could get (and we'll see if that estimate is anywhere near) but also when you look at what injured servicemen and women get.

If he gets loadsamoney, then I'd be all in favour of the parents suing him. Assuming they have the time and emotional strength, that is.

I wonder how much money prisoners are actually allowed to spend while they are inside? Are there any rules that stop them spending every penny they own?

I understand that the prison service should have prevented him from being attacked in the first place and they obviously failed in their duty of care but surely any money he gets should go towards his living costs.

In this country elderly people are forced to use their savings and sell their houses to pay for care homes yet presumably any compensation he gets will be his to keep? That just doesn't seem right somehow

I wish they'd let him out.............let the real justice begin, no name changing, no protection.

If I were Holly and Jessica's parent, I wouldn't want a penny from him. I wouldn't want to hear his name or see his face again.

Alouiseg if that's your idea of justice perhaps you should move to Zimbawbe or somewhere equally lovely where vigilante mobs dish out brutal violent retribution?

Agree with atswimtwolengths.

Marjee I agree with you that if prisoners have the means to contribute to the cost of keeping them fed and watered etc whilst in prison then
there should be a mechanism for making them pay up. Most criminals are poor though, so it would raise even a miniscule portion of the total cost of running the prison service. It seems fair though.

Pioneer, I think I've heard those figures too but they amount the maximum that could be awarded if his claims succeed in court. I don't think he'd get anywhere near that amount.

That should have been "would not raise even a miniscule...,,"

The rules are there to protect every inmate from attack whilst under protection of HM Prisons. What he did is obviously one of the worst crimes a person can ever committ. The honourable inmates clearly think that it's within their remit to dole out judgement.

I'm not saying he should get compensations (of course he shouldn't - this will be driven by his solicitor who stands to make money from it) but the thing is, he has a right to claim. He is the very extreme example. At the other end of the spectrum are young adults who have been sentenced for a non-violent crime who need protecting.

I'm just worried that this right for inmates to claim against someone causing them harm whilst inprisoned will be jeopardised by a big profile case.

Alouiseg - that's not a helpful comment.

It used to happen the other way round. People who had been the victims of miscarriages of justice used to have the costs of 'bed and board' in prison actually deducted from their compensation. As if the state had been doing them a ruddy favour when it employed bent coppers and incompetent forensic scientists and lazy judges. Think that sort of sharp practice has been stopped quite recently, but it certainly happened when the Birmingham Six were released.

I agree bosch, I actually think he will be lucky to get anything. Past and present Justice Secretaries have said/are saying they have no intention of paying out any money to him.

My BIL was compensated to the tune of 73k because HMP service didnt look after his feet.

It was on the front page of the Sunday Sport about a week after I married OH.

I was so pround

He pissed it up the wall in a year.

Money well spent then

Helpful? I'm not here to be helpful.

Our legal system is wrapped in red tape and has become a villains charter. I'd like to see child murderers punished, not protected. Same goes for Jon Venables. Some people are just bad and a danger to others.

like or not state has statutory duty to maintain safe environment for inmates,ih will pursue a claim around lack of attention to his safety.given his notoriety

Pioneer - Hmm, I'd beware of relying too much on the legal advice of Justice Secretaries. I suspect they are more likely to say what they think 'the electorate' want to hear than what is actually likely to happen.

(Jareth - tellng somebody else that their contribution not helpful makes you sound like a moderator.

On the other hand, red tape, Alouiseq, is just the words that explain when/how something should happen. If you don't have rules you have anarchy. Or put it another way, if you don't have rules, you have guesswork. If the rules say that the state has a duty to look after people that it puts in prison, then that duty extends to all prisoners, regardless of how awful their crime was. And if the state fails in that duty, then it has to pay somehow.

What protects these murderers is the same rule that protects every other inmate. Of course there is a duty of care, of course inmates should feel safe and not feel like they're going to be stabbed in the head.

Don't start on about Jon Venables, it's a totally different situation. Him and Ian Huntley are the absolute worst examples of human kind and anybody sensible normal would wish a slow and painful death on these people, but rules are rules and they're there for a reason.

If someone like Huntley ends up changing the system then it sets a dangerous precident for inmates who actually DO need protection and who are entitled to it.

sorry, but haven't seen any news this w/e...what exactly is he getting/applying for compensation for?

Bosch, um what?
I don't sound like a moderator? If I'd said 'please refrain from inflammatory comments, or you shall be deleted' or some such, then fine, I was just voicing my opinion along with about 4 other people who you haven't mentioned.

(Alouiseg - just an example in

whoops

the end of that sentence is .... in jest, no offence.

What I don't understand is the fact that, not long back, he wanted to die and now he's suing the prison service because they failed to stop someone who wanted and tried to kill him.

Any compensation he gets should all go to the families of the victims.

I hope the next time it happens they finish the job, I'm not usually of that opinion but the world would truly be a better place if he was 6feet under.

dont lump everyone in the "slow death" category.as henious as crimes as i dont want base retribution,nor as a civillised country should we seek it

challenge in a liberal sociey is how to deal with dysfunction,the cut their clackers off crew doesnt resolve it

Ok, so Huntley is claiming for the fact that prison services havent kept him safe?

Is that right?