PDA

View Full Version : Bellfield gets 4,500 compo.


superq7
4th Apr 2014, 12:40
Lowlife Levi Bellfield awarded 4,500 compensation for getting a kicking in prison, see link.

Milly Dowler's killer Levi Bellfield awarded 4,500 over prison attack - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10743672/Milly-Dowlers-killer-Levi-Bellfield-awarded-4500-over-prison-attack.html)

Capetonian
4th Apr 2014, 13:11
I would like to think that it was the people who gave him the kicking that were to pay the compensation ............... for not kicking the bastard to within a millimetre of his life ...... and then more ......... and then more ........ until he died in agony and terror.

'Justice', once again, gone crazy.

sitigeltfel
4th Apr 2014, 13:25
There should be a mechanism for the state to seize any compensation, as a contribution towards his future board and lodging.

funfly
4th Apr 2014, 13:33
I really can't get to grips with our system that allows this.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
4th Apr 2014, 13:44
I disagree very strongly. The attack happened before he faced trial, i.e. at that point presumed innocent. This is a screamingly obvious case, as Bellfield himself has stated, of someone requiring separation from the general prison population for his own safety.
I would say it is highly likely the prison staff placed him in the general population deliberately and put the word out as to what he was accused of. In practice, a lynching. Either that or they are terminally incompetent.


Once he had been convicted, I should add, I am in favour of changing Prison regs to allow placing him in the showers and handing out a few rusty razors to the lifers. And what Siti said.

racedo
4th Apr 2014, 13:50
F*** that.

Happy to take up another collection so he gets an even better kicking.........

Octopussy2
4th Apr 2014, 13:57
Fox is right. Prisoners on remand (not found guilty of any crime, remember) should have the right to have reasonable precautions put in place to protect them.

IMHO the Dept of Justice should correct its statement to say that it is disappointed in the amount of compensation (which seems very high for cuts and bruises) rather than the fact of it.

This doesn't detract from the fact that he is low-life scum etc etc. But not everyone on remand is - it might be you or me (wrongly accused of course!)

acbus1
4th Apr 2014, 14:02
Disgusting. Typical of our screwed-up country.

How much emotional or financial compensation has he given to the victim's family?

Here's hoping he's being well 'looked after' now. If not, a transfer to a more 'capable' foreign prison might better suit what he needs.

vulcanised
4th Apr 2014, 14:34
It is simply a sick society that doesn't dispose, by any means, of the likes of Bellfield.

Self Loathing Freight
4th Apr 2014, 14:49
Something similar to what was done to OJ Simpson in the US? A civil judgement against Bellfield would prevent him from ever profiting from the murder.

superq7
4th Apr 2014, 16:47
I wonder what he thinks he's going to spend it on ? The options seem rather limited. :E

Tankertrashnav
4th Apr 2014, 16:50
Whilst agreeing about the general points that have been made about prisoners on remand deserving to be presumed innocent, dont forget this wasn't the case here, as at the time of the "assault" Bellfield was already serving a life sentence for two other murders.

I wonder what he thinks he's going to spend it on ? The options seem rather limited.

Read the article - I wouldnt give that caravan much time before somebody trashes it!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
4th Apr 2014, 17:09
TTN - and had he been attacked for the other two murders? I suspect not. Millie was 13 whereas his other two known victims were aged 19 and 22. I feel the point still stands.

ShyTorque
4th Apr 2014, 19:20
Surely the compensation could now be classed as "proceeds of crime" and immediately confiscated.

tony draper
4th Apr 2014, 19:28
As it is taxpayers money it definitely is proceeds of crime.:uhoh:
Never understood why the taxpayer should fork out cash on behalf of the villain,if I biff you over the head and steal your wallet,I understand you should be compensated for your pain and loss but it should be the villain who pays,confiscate everything he/she owns, house car monies in banks the clothes he stands up in if necessary and pay that to the victim. :=

Sir George Cayley
4th Apr 2014, 21:30
Never thought I'd see you go all softy liberal Drapes!

SGC

tony draper
4th Apr 2014, 21:53
I have to be careful these days what with this electric radio bracelet thingy round me ankle.
:uhoh:

Effluent Man
5th Apr 2014, 07:57
There is a wider point here.If society imposes a prison sentence on a person then I think that they have accept responsibility for that person's safety.
It's not right to decide that certain categories of prisoner have their protection removed,it's just too arbitrary.

Having said that if he had been killed I for one would not have lost any sleep over it.It's just as a matter of principle really.Otherwise should we allow lynchings?

Dushan
5th Apr 2014, 14:03
I disagree very strongly. The attack happened before he faced trial, i.e. at that point presumed innocent. This is a screamingly obvious case, as Bellfield himself has stated, of someone requiring separation from the general prison population for his own safety.


Why would his safty be at risk if he is presumed innocent, pre-trial? All other detainees around him would have been in the same situation. So it was just a bunch innocent guys camping out on government's dime who got into a scuffle. Shit happens. If they weren't Queen's guests it would have happened on the street.

As for your second statement, post conviction, I think you are out of line. That's when he needs protection, no matter how mild his court-determined punishment seems to us. Maybe judges should be handled with razors in showers so that they become a bit meaner and start wielding out proper sentences.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
5th Apr 2014, 14:14
One look at British newspapers will tell you how people even suspected of child rape and/or murder are treated. It wasn't so long ago that a paediatrician was
assaulted, because some Brits are that stupid, that self-righteous, and that viscious. See here. BBC News | UK | A paper's controversial campaign (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1709708.stm)

For the second point, please note I advocated a change in the Law, not unlawful activity. It would seem you agree with harsher legal treatment of the convicted, though perhaps not to the extent I suggest.

tony draper
5th Apr 2014, 15:01
There were no prisons as such in medieval times,just a place they kept you until the executioner got back from the pub.:rolleyes:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
5th Apr 2014, 16:06
Not sure about that. I've seen a couple of tiny lock-ups in old English villages where they kept minor miscreants also; though they were both, I grant you, opposite the pub. Given they had bars rather than doors, perhaps it was intended that the locals expressed their opinion of the guilty with the ale they'd just consumed.

Station_Calling
5th Apr 2014, 17:53
The attack happened before he faced trial

For the Millie Dowler killing. If you read the article he was already serving a whole life term for killing two others. Who's to say which murders he was attacked for?

Either way, he sacrificed his human rights when he took away those of three others. No money should be paid.

wings folded
5th Apr 2014, 18:59
There were no prisons as such in medieval times,just a place they kept you until the executioner got back from the pub.:rolleyes:
I am a bit unhappy about that, Mr D. I seem to recall that there were some residents of the Tower of London who were there for more than a week or two, in which case the executioner must have been on a hell of a bender, and extravagently paid for his 10 second act to be able to afford his slate at the local tavern.

tony draper
5th Apr 2014, 20:05
Being locked up in the Tower was the reserve of the Nobility,raggy arsed folks like us went to the headsman.
For most of our History there was only one punishment for crime,nobody got six months in nick frimstance for stealing a crust,they got shortened.
For minor offenses ie 'giving the Squire a funny look they could be punished by having their ears removed of noses split or branded or if the beak was in a good mood locked in the stocks for a week.
Dont think prison sentences as such came in until Georgian times.
:rolleyes: