|
Post by dogless on Mar 25, 2024 19:54:17 GMT
Sorry you've problems with the tax office.
Dealing with family bereavement is always tough and made all the more so when agencies and companies it's necessary to deal with, handle things insensitively and clumsily.
I hope you can resolve the issues with minimal fuss.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 25, 2024 20:01:48 GMT
Sorry you've problems with the tax office. Dealing with family bereavement is always tough and made all the more so when agencies and companies it's necessary to deal with, handle things insensitively and clumsily. I hope you can resolve the issues with minimal fuss. Rog Thanks for that. Do you think compensation is in order?
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 25, 2024 20:07:13 GMT
That's between you and the tax office.
An individual's bad experience isn't the same as maladministration involving a whole generation of women.
But console yourself that they'll not be getting any compensation either.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Mar 25, 2024 20:31:49 GMT
But console yourself that they'll not be getting any compensation either. Rog OUCH! Come on Rog, that's not like you
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 25, 2024 20:40:15 GMT
That's between you and the tax office. An individual's bad experience isn't the same as maladministration involving a whole generation of women. But console yourself that they'll not be getting any compensation either. Rog I personally don't think I'm due any compensation and won't be seeking any. I don't think that other tax payers should, increasingly, bordering on routinely, be expected to be impoverished in the quest for equity, following negligent actions by government. Government doesn't have any money of its own, only control over other people's money. I feel that government has no right to redistribute other people's honestly acquired money in this way, in anything other than, perhaps, the most extreme circumstances. For example, if someone is jailed following a spurious conviction. I felt this, as did my Mum, when she was given a spurious cancer test result. I'm not big on apologies either. The are usually cheap and meaningless. A quirk of the British, that almost everything is apparently OK, provided that you force yourself to say sorry. Someone who apologises having been demanded to do so, badgered into doing so or does it to save their own skin isn't really apologising at all. I certainly won't be demanding that HMRC apologise to me. What might be the point? My view, and what I'll be seeking, is a simple acknowledgment by HMRC that they were in error is in order. In addition, an undertaking from them that a duplicate position won't come about next year, in relation to Mum. It could, if the error was system driven. More broadly: I think that the burgeoning compensation culture is a malignent tumour on society. Mistakes happen, we all make them. Computers, and people, have glitches. It's life. A huge industry exists to feed off this cancer. Insurance costs for businesses rise to cover the risk of being sued for compensation. Everything we buy therefore becomes more expensive. It's more expensive to insure our vehicles and our houses. We're all impoverished. Government really needs to fight this cancer, not promote it from within.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 25, 2024 20:41:40 GMT
But console yourself that they'll not be getting any compensation either. Rog OUCH! Come on Rog, that's not like you I'm afraid it's the truth and I mentioned it very early on in the thread. The anger with the Nottingham triple murder incident today is another example ... governments will say "it's all legal, but we're very sorry" and be happy to distance themselves. I can't see Labour re visiting the issue post election either , can you ? Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 25, 2024 21:04:14 GMT
OUCH! Come on Rog, that's not like you I'm afraid it's the truth and I mentioned it very early on in the thread. The anger with the Nottingham triple murder incident today is another example ... governments will say "it's all legal, but we're very sorry" and be happy to distance themselves. I can't see Labour re visiting the issue post election either , can you ? Rog The families in Nottighamshire were naturally distressed by the verdict. It's easy to fall in line with this and back a demand for change. However: The demanded change equates to mental health conditions no longer offering mitigation in criminal offenses. So for example, a woman who stabs their partner whilst gripped by post natal depression is tried for murder on the same basis as a man who hero worships serial killers and wishes to match their noteriety. A youth with undiagnosed ADHD stabs someone to death on impulse is tried for murder on the same basis as a drug dealer who shoots and kills a rival dealer in a drive by incident. A sober analysis might make the decision not to change the system more understandable.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 25, 2024 21:07:36 GMT
Government are content to say all is legal.
Whether it's right, or just, or fair is irrelevant to them.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 25, 2024 21:24:59 GMT
Government are content to say all is legal. Whether it's right, or just, or fair is irrelevant to them. Rog I think if you reflect you'll realise that government's prime purpose is to decide what's right, just and fair. Naturally, government's view of what's right, just and fair won't match everyone else's view. Do you support the notion that mental health conditions should no longer be a factor within the judicial process?
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 25, 2024 21:43:54 GMT
I support the notion that the victim's family should be our main concern, not the rights of the assailant.
To be dismissed and ignored should be unacceptable.
Other opinions are available 😊
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 25, 2024 21:49:01 GMT
I support the notion that the victim's family should be our main concern, not the rights of the assailant. To be dismissed and ignored should be unacceptable. Other opinions are available 😊 Rog So considering your main concern, what judicial changes do you think would be appropriate, and achieve this?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 26, 2024 15:08:08 GMT
It was manslaughter, pure and simple. While I sympathise with the families the killer was a complete nutter. He won't be getting out for a very long time
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Mar 26, 2024 15:57:58 GMT
The outcome wasn't the issue ... the way the families were treated was. Shouldn't we make greater efforts to keep them onside and fully aware of what's happening and why ? Isn't that extra bit of effort worthwhile ? And in 10 or so years time Jim when some prison doctor believes he's no longer a threat ? Rog
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 26, 2024 16:01:38 GMT
I wonder how much the cost of a murder trial figured in the whole decision making process.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 26, 2024 16:44:44 GMT
The outcome wasn't the issue ... the way the families were treated was. Shouldn't we make greater efforts to keep them onside and fully aware of what's happening and why ? Isn't that extra bit of effort worthwhile ? And in 10 or so years time Jim when some prison doctor believes he's no longer a threat ? Rog I agree the families could have been kept informed better, that's a different issue. I don't believe families should have a say in a verdict though.
|
|