Follow this topic Knowledge » Politics and Finance

David Cameron should NOT compensate riot victims

Donna Ferguson on 15 August 2011 |

89 comments

I don't think the police should pay compensation to riot victims. What do you think?

David Cameron should NOT compensate riot victims

If you’re a taxpayer and you think you haven’t really been affected by the riots, think again.

David Cameron has announced that anyone who suffered damage to or loss of property during the riots can make a claim for compensation to the police, under the 1886 Riot Damages Act.

It’s estimated the cost of these claims could reach £230m after it was revealed that insurers could recover the cost of payouts from the riots too. Victims have 42 days to make a claim to their local police office using a riot claim form for property damage, theft of contents and damage to contents.

Great news if you were a victim. But if you weren’t, you may be wondering - like me - whether it is right that taxpayers should pay compensation to uninsured victims and insurance companies.

Why should taxpayers bail out insurance companies?

Surely the reason we pay insurance companies our premiums every year is because we expect them to pay out in times of need? Why should taxpayers be expected to bail out insurance companies when their customers have a valid claim?

Is that the best use of our resources when there is such a huge debate raging about public sector cuts?

Why should taxpayers bail out uninsured victims?

Don’t get me wrong, I have every sympathy for what the victims of the riots are going through. I want the police to ensure they get justice and I want the NHS to give them the best possible medical treatment. But I am not sure that on top of that I, as a taxpayer, should be expected to compensate them for financial losses.

After all, there are very good reasons to get home insurance and guess what? Protection from damage to your property is pretty high up that list!

Why should the rest of us pay our insurance premiums every year if you can rely on taxpayers to bail you out if you don’t bother?

The police didn’t protect them

The counter-argument is, of course, that the police are to blame because people have the right to protection from riot damage, and as the police failed in their duty, victims deserve compensation.

But when my home got burgled, I didn’t see the police paying out. I had to claim on my insurance - and my premiums went up the following year as a result.

How come I didn't have the right to the same protection and compensation from the police as the riot victims? What make rioters and burglars so different?

I appreciate that the damage caused by the riots was on a much bigger scale and has affected thousands of innocent people, but it seems to me that the money we are paying out to victims would better be spent ensuring the police were better-funded - and so could cope and respond better if such crises arise in the future.

What do you think?

Do you agree with me? Or do you think it’s right that the Government is compensating victims like this? Join the debate using the comments box below!

More: Does your insurance cover you for riot damage?

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Retweet

Comments (89)

Facebook

Twitter

General

Comments (89)

8

ferryhill9 said

Of course he / we shouldn't compensate the victims. It's just another knee jerk publicity seeking reaction to a serious problem.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
3

Rodney said

We already compensate victims of terrorism, rioting and looting in the UK as insurance firms do not provide cover for civil unreat and war be it caused by PIRA, Islamic or any other group with a grudge.
This has been the system in place for many decades or even generations.
How esle can you expect those who have lost homes and businesses to IRA bombs or English rioters to recover?

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 3 loves
3

Captain Sensible said

Actually, as the insurers know that riot damage is covered by the taxpayers funds they won't have charged you a premium for this risk. If you want insurers to pay for the damage caused by rioters then you should expect to payer higher premiums along the way!

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 3 loves
5

martinthorpcross said

How exactly do we check the integretiy of the claims made by people who have been robbed/burgled/had property damaged etc during the riots? If for example I had an old CRT tv set trashed or stolen , but say that actually it was a wide screen flat screen all singing and dancing latest model frsh out of the store, who can prove otherwise? And who's to say the very people who did the rioting and looting won't claim for compensation, showing off their own squalid accomodation and saying rioters did it? Open to abuse? Damn right it is, and as usual the taxpayer foots the bill.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
31

poppasmurf said

This law is from the 1880's.

Plus if your house is ransacked by idiots then it is an insurance claim, not the riot damages act at all, these are totally different circumstances. Even if the outcome is the same.
This is a daft point of view.
For instance I don't believe the government should should hand out tax payers money to the tune of Millions if not Billions to other countries at all, never.
Charity starts at home in my opinion, but to others that point of view will seem daft too.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 3 loves
3

migfighter said

Hi Donna,

Couple of points.

1) Most insurance policies exclude Civil unrest as this incident has been defined and

2) The theory of insurance itself relies on the law of large numbers, where the losses of a few are paid for by the pooling of premiums from many.

Although a relatively few number of people have been physically and financially affected, surely most people in the country would be glad to chip in to support.

Isn't it a lack of a collective identity, low national morale and a 'as long as I'm ok Jack' mentality which lies behind these riots in the first place?

In no way am I excusing the behaviour of anyone who was directly responsible for the violence and damage, or for that matter the bystanders who I think are just as responsible. There is definitely a rotten core of people who are beyond help, products of a generation neglected by their parents who should shoulder the main responsibility.

The worst thing that could now happen would be for us to abandon those who have been affected through no fault of their own. It is time for the population as a whole to heal its own wounds, however best we can.

kind regards

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 3 loves
9

miramoore said

I agree 100% with Donna: Cameron is making political hay on taxpayers' back and it is a cheap way of doing so if I may say so...
Cameron says that rioters should loose their benefits too: OK, as long as expenses fiddling MPs take a cut in their wages, all paid by taxpayers too.
Cameron should realise that the stock market has done a lot more damage to the taxpayers because of bad finance laws and system than the riots... that's not to excuse the rioters but to show how easy it is for politicians to use popular moods to their advantage.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
2

KapTheHat said

Totally disagree. If the government can spend billions on fighting wars overseas, what about it's own citizens. Many of these businesses have been built up over several years and they deserve a break. They are already struggling in a severe recession.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
13

deanrobinson78 said

This quality of articles on this website is in freefall. Have they just started to employ any narrow minded, inexperienced individual with an axe to grind?
So Donna, have you had a business and had the guts ripped out of it? Have you experienced business insurance claims policies? Have you seen the premiums and payment terms on business interruption cover?
These people have lost their livelyhoods - if they don't have a shop they can't make money. It's that simple - and guess what - they claim the dole instead!! Same result on the bottom line but this way the government is supporting them to become contributers to the economy not an additional drain.
I wonder, if you made a claim on your car insurance did you take the nice hire car they offered you or did you decline it in favour of protecting premiums and use public transport?
When you have lost everything you have built up for year and years maybe you will be in a place to correct your drivel.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 4 loves
12

Winker Watson said

The rubbish that is spouted on this site sometimes is getting worse. Some of them lost everything, they should be able to claim.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 3 loves
39

amwell44 said

Rodney, Captain Sensible and migfighter are right. Several others do not know what they are posting about.

A silly article. Does Donna propose the government should bring forward legislation to repeal the Riot Damages Act retrospectively?

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion many of these posts are written only to provoke and are not worth reading, quite frankly.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
6

ocelot said

The previous comments have it right. You are way off on this one. We pay taxes to be protected. The fact Cameron is talking about cutting the costs of the Police encouraged them. just the same as when HMS endurance was withdrawn the Argentinians that that was the green light to attack the Falkland Islands

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
1

mac1611 said

Oh dear oh dear oh dear
Miss Ferguson either wrote this piece of drivel for a bet or sadly if that is not the case,she needs to attend the University of life.Has she ever be at the stage in life where you wonder where your next meal is coming from etc etc.... grow up young lady and i think you need to do some voluntary work, to bring you into the real world enough said ,sheer and utter rubbish of an article or is it a another case of sheer sensationalism to get people to read her articles which normally are binned due to them either scaremongering or just sheer rubbish

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
1

stuartm said

deanrobinson and others make the point well; Donna seems to come from the SMINE philosphy - its mine. Is it possible that part of the cause of the riots is a system which protects itself against the weak and saves the strong? Eventually the weak get a tad cross and lash out in the only way they can.
Is the quality of articles like these only to incite reaction? Because you could argue thats what caused the riots. Lets have some quality control.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
2

BRCosin said

Compensation - full restitution for thefts, damages to premises, disturbance to domestic arrangements (eg need for temporary housing) - should be exacted from the culprits. They are lucky the rate of interest is unrealistically - and economically speaking, counter-prodctively- low. They may need to borrow extensively and work very hard indeed to make any impact. (Why, by the way, should they benefit from minimum wages legislation?). Those who refuse to denounce their accomplices will of course increase the compensatory burden they bear.
Double criminal jeopardy is unjust, so the only evictions relevant to such offenses should be on the basis of re-housing those who have been burned out. If you evict someone by arson, you lose all your 'housing rights'. The street was good enough for your victims, see how you like it.
I wonder if offenses took place with as great frequency in those areas of Manchester where householders and a shopowner took out those who attempted to burgle them? These domestic heroes were not impeded by the need for a risk assessment and a form in sextuplicate to the Health and Safety Executive
Visible and effective armaments in the hands of shopkeepers and householders would deter looters and arsonists; and the prospect of concealed legal weaponry would deter even better. In those areas of the USA where concealed weaponry is not restricted to the criminal classes, life and commerce are a lot safer.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
1

martyn94 said

This is well down to your worst standards of populist silliness. If claimants are entitled to damages under the Riot Damages Act, they are entitled to them, and "Cameron " has no more power to give them, or deny them, than you or I do. As has been said, the state's liability to pay under a 125-year-old law is not exactly news to insurance companies - it has long since been factored into their premium rates, or more likely their policy exclusions.
Whether it is good law is of course another question. For myself it doesn't seem unreasonable for the state to be on the hook for a risk that only the state can control. And a risk that the state should treat as its highest priority in peacetime.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
5

Jodakist said

I think the rioters and their families should be liable for the costs of the rioting and for compensating the victims of the riots, either through their own insurance or by the sale of any assets that they have. However, as the law stands victims can claim compensation under this 1886 Act of Parliament and I hope that they all do even though I would place much of the blame on pathetic government policies over the last fifty years, by both main parties, giving criminals more rights and protection than they deserve. Surely criminals are outlaws therefore outside the protection of the law other than basic human rights! It's time that we had `real men' in parliament who would bring back laws where the punishment fits the crime then perhaps we might just begin to rebuild our society again.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
8

Negotiate Now said

Presumably the businesses were insured. However, many people have suffered such dreadful losses and Cameron sees it fit to send billions in overseas aid to countries such as India and Pakistan. Let's now ensure that he helps his own people. I hope that they all get the help they need because so many innocent people have been made homeless and have lots their liveliehoods.
Negotiate Now, Glasgow

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
20

mtjearly said

There's no knee-jerk reaction here - under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 insurers are entitled to recover their outlay for material damage and theft, but not business interruption, from the Police. If you are uninsured you could still pursue a recovery as an uninsured loss. The only thing which Cameron is really doing to help in this regard is extending the deadline for claims to 42 days - which is probably because of the sheer scale of the losses and widespread nature of the rioting.

Donna Ferguson should probably do some research before asking why a riot is different to a common burglary. The definition of riot is :

Where twelve or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot. (2) It is immaterial whether or not the twelve or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously. (3) The common purpose may be inferred from conduct. (4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene. (5) Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places. (Public Order Act 1986).

A riot suggests a complete breakdown of the police's ability to control public order (which can't be denied - just look at the number of police who stood by and watched as the mob went on the rampage). This is why they are liable.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
43

Basia02a said

I thought that under the current law, lawbreakers could have money and assets confiscated. Largely to impact on drug dealers where a few years in prison was a penalty worth paying for massive financial gain. Could this law be used to acquire thieves (riotors) and arsonists assets?

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
7

jimfo said

I don't see why taxpayers should pay for the damage. The insurance companies are as big thieves as the rioters and they shoud fork out. You can bet that most of them have risk reinsured anyway.
People who were uninsured took the risk and lost out - tough. when yobbos nicked stuff from me that wasn't insured niether the police or cameron put their hand in their pocket to help !!!!

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 3 loves
1

HRBARBIER said

Donna does not know the law or thinks, like the bankers, she is above it.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
4

pauls said

Taxpayers should certainly NOT pay riot victims. I too sympathise for their loss. Hopwever, there are very sad and unfortunate things that happen to people every day that result in them losing out, that are no fault of their own and could have been avoided if someone had done their job better. But those people are left to fend for themselves, as they have not made teh headlines and Mr Cameron can not make any political mileage from bakiling them out and being seen to be a "good chap"!

Bottom line is, insurance is there for a reason. If you don't take out insurance you have to take it on the chin! That might sound harsh, but it's true.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 4 loves
1

Daveyboyo said

I think we should pay compensation. The difference between you being burgled and the riots is that the police stood by and watched the rioters burning down the buildings and did nothing to stop them. If they had seen you being burgled and did nothing im sure you would make a claim off them for their failure to do their duty. I am a taxpayer and live nowhere near any of the rioting but fair is fair. The police failed them and our justice system fails all of us because it is too soft on the offenders. Im sure some examples will be made now but it will go back to the same old thing. We need longer sentencing.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
0

ironopeter@hotmail.com said

I believe the government should compensate the shop owners and those who were affected in the recent London Riots.
Using this as a general guidance for allocation of the funding - which should be comprehensively assessed by an independent company as the affected shop owners could exaggerate their claims:
• 50% of their total claim -those that were uninsured.
• 75% of their total claim - those fully insured, but shops were broken into .
• 100 % of their total claim - those had their shops burnt down & fully insured.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
643

electricblue said

Where on earth does this site find such ill-educated journalists? Those responses suggesting that Mr. Cameron is somehow trying to make political gain by simply expediting what is inherent in our legal system are utterly moronic and linking anything related to these riots to overseas aid is equally pathetic.
All the pathetic apologists trying to link the behaviour of bankers and politicians to the ethical standards of lawless thugs need a reality check. Being angry at the behaviour of a local MP hardly justifies my torching my local convenience store. It seems rather more likely that today's youths look to the disgusting behaviour of many professional footballers and musicians in forming their opinions of morality and social responsibility.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
2

ragamk said

The first thing I thought when I heard this on the news is "Why do I bother paying out for Contents Insurance?" Those people who did not take out insurance should be held culpable because they didn't take necessary steps to protect themselves/belongings. I appreciate that rioting(?) is not an everyday occurrence but what really happened was wide scale looting/theft, mixed in with criminal damage. Rioting means there was a cause involved and there was no cause being fought for by the vast majority of people.
It's a shame that I've just renewed my household insurance because if I had known that everyone else would pick up the bill for my short-sightedness, then I would have cancelled it.
As for punishment, bring back the birch and give them all a damned good thrashing!

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
0

wadeall said

I'm afraid this move will double the total cost of the riots as the white collar crime of exaggerating insurance claims will compound the Chav crimes of looting and arson

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
1

angiedelo said

Oh, so rioters can do what they want when they want because the Government will pay for it all!

Utter madness.

Where is the respect and morality in this?

The police are damned if they do and damned if they dont. They are No 1 scapegoats. Who wants to be copper today?

God, what is wrong with Society? In the war years looters were warned they would be shot. There was hardly any looting. Get the picture? Nanny state Britain has finally lost the plot....

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
4

medelectable said

I have lived in my house for 47 years, 40 years of that being a single mother who has raised two children, worked (as a necessity) until I retired at 65 and am still insuring my property building and contents. I have struggled financially all this time and to now hear that taxpayers might have to pay for those people who have not bothered quite frankly sticks in my craw!!!!

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
0

tilloweb said

It's a good point about the difference between the rioters and burglers......since many of the looters are infact being charged with burglary!!
It's just another chance for the government, especially Theresa May, to take potshots at the police. The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't!!
Most of the officers out on the streets protecting us were and are in their 20s/early 30s. Experienced officers who have the knowledge and depth of experience to bring to these highly charged situation, when they are only in their 40s are considered too expensive and are being forced into taking retirement, if they have completed 30 years of service!! Cameron and his colleagues however, are not going to backtrack on cutbacks to police funding......it doesn't suite their idealogical dogma of the moment + it's so useful to have someone to blame.....rather than their policies, which are strangling the economy and breeding a sense of hopelessness among the 'have-nots' in our society.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
599

Mike10613 said

OMG, I agree with David Cameron; again! :( http://wp.me/p194MF-jn

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
124

nosbort said

You are soooo wrong, under the 1890 riot act the compensation is mandated.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
4

Brixton Dave said

Why are these riots different from 1981, 1983, 1985, 1995?
Previous victims of riot damage have been compensated.
Why are you advocating this change now - think we are in for more and more serious disturbances?
If this current riot damage is not properly dealt with business people will simply not be able to get insurance in Tottenham, Brixton etc. because the insurers will decline to cover them.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
2

mydadsdog said

As taxpayers, we contribute to all manner of things from overseas aid to nuclear arms and subsidising financial institutions. We have given money to governments that have squandered it on arms and opulent surroundings, etc, and we pay for wars we have no business being part of. I would suggest those of you who are vehemently opposed to helping the less fortunate in our own country look closely at what's been happening. Is it really worth being even more punative so that those who previously had so little now have even less? Perhaps we should just give more money to the banks so they can pay even higher bonuses...

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
2

tame said

Overuse of uppercase will be tamed (you can edit your comment to prevent this):

me my self think that the police should pay for it, for not doing there job tidy, next time they will help the shop keepers, and people homes from burning to the ground,
And now here are some pictures to help lighten the mood

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
15

norcoastactivist said

Uninsured! Why, pay for insurance like most people and there will be no problem. We do not need to continue with this 'Nanny' state. People should stand on there own 2 feet instead of always looking for an easy way out. Just to add to this, the insurance companies should be made to pay up without all the 'GET OUT ' clauses they seem to use.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
9

fatpiggy said

I think I'll decline to say whether I think businesses should be compenstated or not (I can see both sides and I know someone who has lost BOTH their premises in both Croydon and Tottenham) but I think many readers don't realise the extent of businesses not being insured for contents. A local rural business I know recently closed down after more than 20 years of trading. The reason? They'd just been burgled again (this time the thieves used a stolen JCB to crash through the hedge into the yard and then into the building) and they were getting seriously worried about their own safety. The owner told me that the contents were not insured (tens of thousands of pounds worth) and that was quite common in that particular trade area.
I do think though, that the guilty should have their assets removed and sold to help pay for the clean up (under 18s and the parents should suffer it too) and instead of sending them to prison (at the tax payers' expense remember) they should be in chain gangs picking up every little scrap and shard of glass.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 3 loves
7

geejay said

The article is crap, half thecomments are crap.
Compensationfrom the police is mandated. End of story.
Stupid opinions of anti-Cameroons, get a bloody life.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
6

Stickwithit said

poppasmurf - the 1886 Riot Damages Act could well have been another instance of HM Government taking the law out of peoples hands, I don't know for sure but what I do know is that prior to that era we had Home Defence Weapons. These included blunderbussses with sprung folded bayonets incorporated, swordsticks etc. If you were an intruder you would not be wanting to face anyone who had one of those hung on the wall. The insurance thing is a problem too, I reckon the police have long sat on their thumbs, I mean one of their favourite questions when investigating a crime is, "You do have it insured, don't you?".

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
4

franco210 said

Politicians promises. Claims would have to be submitted and these would go to the Treasury, say. First the claimant would go to his insurance company: after they settle up, can you see HMRC (not the politician) paying anything?

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
643

electricblue said

Insurers have always excluded riots and acts of terrorism and quite rightly so. You know the terms of insurance when you sign up and this is not a case of get out clauses. The same businesses compensated under the Riot Act may well not have been compensated in the case of repeat burglaries, but the law is black and white. In some things we have choices - whether to continue trading after burglaries, whether to buy a house in a flood plain. Riots on the scale we have seen were beyond the control of even the Police.
The most sensible comment on here was in relation to looters being shot. In every civilised country there exists the sanction to shoot looters on sight. Even if this had only been with paintball markers against the youngest of those involved, it would have been better than the Police having to stand by and do nothing.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 7 loves
77

Talent said

It's not up to Cameron, it's the law. Where a problem is declared a riot, the insurance companies can get out of paying.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
20

mepink53 said

the courts should order the idiots who did all the damage to pay the compensation to the last penny.make them work till every bit is repaid and then they might think again before they cause trouble. we're all feeling the pinch with all the cut backs but most of us would'nt dream of acting in this manner.have them doing menial tasks in the public eye and make them conspicuous so hopefully it will bring the shame on them that they so richly deserve

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 3 loves
20

mepink53 said

p.s. see my last comment. it also applies to m.p's who fiddled expenses and also to bankers who caused this financial mess in the first place

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
0

roninnes said

When I saw someone looking at the burned out building they used to call home I then realised that I was not so badly off.
To say that the government should not pay out is foolish and rather selfish.
I only hope that Donna Ferguson never finds herself in such a situation.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
6

McCutcheon said

The Riot Damages Act was passed when the police were expected to use serious force against rioters/looters and if they failed to do so and failed to supress rioting/looting, they would be made to pay. Now, every action a constable takes can be examined in minutae and judged by men who have never faced an angry man. Little wonder that officers think twice before the use of force. The modern media and the liberal mindset of judges and politicians have put chains around the police but the riot damages act still places them in the 19th Century.
Certainly, we must have restrictions on our guardians but it would be foolish to expect them to behave without anger or rancour and this must be taken into account. We must return to a more realistic view of policing and accept that there will be mistakes. Outright sadism can be condemned but the use of force in situations of disorder has to be looked at leniently. Only those who have never been trapped in riot situations may not agree.
George Orwell pretty well summed it up when he said, 'People sleep safe in their beds because rough men standby to do violence on their behalf.' (Of course, your modern Chief Constable - Home Office approved - would never agree to this sentiment. They would start blathering on about the community and policing by consent.)

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
13

les1 said

Surely whoever is insured should straight forward claim off of their Insurance Company. This is why we pay insurance. I didn't personally think that any Insurance Company covered you under the conditions of riot. Obviously I was wrong.
Those who did not have Insurance cover however much we may sympathise should not be bailed out by taxpayers. You have a choice & if you decide not to cover yourself then OK however you have to realise that if events like this occur that was the choice that you made & live with it. If the government wants to offer reasonable priced loans to rebuild uninsured people then I think that I can live with that. This is just one more freebe that I do not understand.You make your bed you lie on it.Let's get real for once.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
19

Sooty's Mum said

roninnes, the point that Donna is making is that we should all have insurance to cover damages/losses however they are caused. Basically, those of us who have insurance are paying twice, once for insurance out of our taxed income and out of our taxes. And where do you think that money was going? We will all lose out the third time as services are cut to recoup the money.

I agree, why should I pay for insurance and taxes if those that don't just hold their hands out and say, "Gimme"?

I do sympathise with those who have lost everything, whose homes and all of their possessions and memories have gone as well as those who have lost businesses. But, the question here is, would you feel the same way if the house had been burnt and there was no insurance? Would you be saying that they were stupid? I would, my insurance goes up everytime there is a disaster such as flooding. My car insurance has gone up because I was hit by another driver, 100% their fault. So, why should my taxes go up because they were not insured? Why should the elderly suffer because they were not insured. Should hospitals sack staff because they were not insured?

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
3

Gendibal said

Interesting point of view Donna, however you seem to have missed a few points out when you decided to present it from a totally biased and one sided aspect.
The first thing, as so many people have pointed out is that the compensation you are disagreeing with here is a legal requirement, therefore it has to be paid out if claimed under these circumstances.
Secondly, over successive governments, the powers of parents and teachers to discipline their wards has been systematically stripped, to the point of parents/teachers being unable to confront their wards in anything but the mildest terms for fear of the police, social services, or a dismissal panel becoming involved. These riots were in part (I personally believe a greater part) due to this fact ... so as the government caused this to some extent, however indirectly, they have a responsibility to assist to this relatively small extent, and also to re-visit the policies that caused this in the first place.
However, they haven't gone far enough on sentencing of the rioters ... for instance, to buffer the effect on the taxpayer, the ones found guilty should automatically have their assets siezed and auctioned off, benefits should be removed, and they should be made to work for the public good while in prison. For the underage rioters, they should bring back a borstal system, which would certainly put the short sharp shock back into the justice system.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
10

Palefire said

Insurers will wriggle out of this anywhich way they can. If a riot victim was insured, then I think they should receive some compensation. But not from the Police. It should be from every single one of the lowlife scumbags that were unlucky enough to be caught.

It was the rioters that decided to go out and victimise the people, so they should be made to compensate them, too. If they had a grudge against the Police and the incident that the peaceful protest had been about, then they should have restricted their mindless violence and destructive behaviour to being against the Police and Police property.

BTW, my powers of disciplining my "wards" has gone nowhere. They have the difference between right and wrong explained to them in a variety of ways on a regular basis as part of their growing up. If they choose to do wrong, they are punished and the punishment sticks, but I suppose I was actually an adult before I chose to have children and I made sure I could support them before I had them too. And I'm blooming well proud of it! That's my badge of honour, not an ASBO or a criminal record.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
3

Gendibal said

Palefire, I also have children that have on occasion been disciplined for doing wrong, against their usual behaviour ... but I also know a couple of teachers who have come close to being fired for various, what I consider reasonable, disciplinary actions ... also one father who ended up in jail for 6 weeks when he was reported for using something a little more substantial than the naughty step by neighbours. So saying that your powers have gone nowhere is a little empty if this sort of thing happens (and if you look at news sources, it happens quite regularly in one form or another)

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
362

CuNNaXXa said

Unlike the U.S. of A, which is a totally capitalist country, here in the UK we still have a socialist form of government. This means that when someone is literally on their hands and knees, the rest of society will help them back on their feet.
Whether it is the NHS, or social security benefits, people who hit rock bottom can get help.
Now I know that there is an element of society who abuse the rules, but as long as the system helps those who are truly needy, then it works to a point.
I have worked for the last 30 years almost without a break, so I have never relied on state handouts, but it is comforting to know that should I find myself in less than ideal circumstances, then there are options to help me out.
So, if we help those who are needy, this help should also be extended to those who were a victim of this civil unrest. After all, as we give enough aid away to foreigners living in foreign countries, then there is no excuse not to help our own.
Also, think of this scenario. If someone has a choice between claiming from the state, or from their insurance company, it will make no difference at all to the taxpayer, because they will either pay additional tax to cover this loss, or increased premiums to cover this loss. The net effect is that either our taxes or premiums will be adjusted to suit, and we will lose out either way.
So, regardless of how we lose that money, I am fine with the fact that I will be helping those more needy than I am. I am also fine with the simple fact that if I find myself in the same boat as those who are needy, then my right to claim will be just as valid as theirs.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
1

markybabes said

Why should we the taxpayer pay out compensation because when there is all this talk about taking a claim to the Police ultimately it will be the taxpayer paying out, yet again. There has been cutback after cutback, there was not enough Police out on the streets at the start of the riots and the ones that were on the street facing these angry mobs were not standing by idily watching whilst properties got looted etc. There always has to be a scapegoat so blame the Police, they got bricks chucked at them, attacked with metal bars, driven at, threatened, you couldnt pay me enough money to do their job and yet for all the blame thats being heaped at their door I have not read anything in these comments that says anything about the risk they put themselves in. Shame on you all, if you think you can do better join the Police and see if you can make a difference, many Police Officers had their leave cancelled, will they be compensated, I doubt it and Police DO NOT get paid enough money for all the abuse both physical and verbal they get. At this rate there will not be enough Police because who would want to join it.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
643

electricblue said

CuNNaXXa - The USA only pretends to be a wholly capitalist country as you clearly pretend that you know something about the subject of their government. The USA pays out massive amounts in welfare payments, Medicare etc. and has the same proportion of State-sponsored layabouts as we do. California is all but bankrupt due to the burden of the non-working population and the provision of subsidised housing. Precisely what benefits available vary from state to state, but the Liberal loonies of California have a noose around the necks of anyone in business.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
5

Bluecake said

So, how much money is in the kitty?.. Everyone needs to live. The NHS is struggling. Businesses are dissappearing, either going bust or moving abroad. The Police are facing cuts and the list goes on. I'm not saying we should or should not compensate but I really wonder how the axe will fall. So perhaps Donna has a point, because personally I really can't afford to pay more tax and then of course what happens next time?

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
0

hugoo said

But might you not think differently if the police stood idley by whilst the burglar broke into your house right in front of the noses of the police? Its a good thing that the police are made to pay for their lame response, because this way the Chief Constables now have a strong incentive to crack down on future looters.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
0

amym said

I totally agree with Donna. Once again the government screwed up and taxpayers are expected to make things right. I say make the MPs and police chiefs hand over their salaries and I'm pretty sure all damages will be paid for. Maybe that will teach them run the country better!

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
16

jscadden said

I would much rather my taxes go towards compensation for the victims of the riot than to pay the benefits of the rioters.

As some of the correspondents have pointed out, this compensation has been enshrined in law since the 19th century and maybe before that. Furthermore, Insurance companies have factored this right into their policies and premiums. Something that other correspondents here would do well to heed before writing, along with Donna Ferguson, the drivel that has been written. If this is a a sample of your quality Donna, then it is a sad reflection on the lack of standards of people who should know better!

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
9

bejasus said

We live now in a multi lingual, multi cultural, multi religion, multi racial and why not diversify further, as is proposed and have one law for them to abide by and one for others as seems to be the way it is!
Police pay teenagers to act as community officers, some fresh out of school with no life experience to draw upon in a crisis, yet they are used as fodder and scapegoats, relieving more senior officers from duty so they might enjoy a quiet pint or game of pool.
Why shouldn't the tax payer bail out the insurers? This is England where, like lemmings we all jump, or sheep, we do whatever is demanded...anything bar stand up and actually do something about the state they, bankers and politicians have brought our once clean and great country to!
It would be naive to think this will not happen again as tensions rise in all sectors of this melting pot of a population, both racial and political pressure will not relent until it is vented by internal ramifications and perhaps more bloodshed and violence.
This is only the beginning and it would be foolish to think the tax payer will not be forced to foot the bill, as with the banks it has previously been proven. The English people have no back bone anymore and community spirit is a dead and distant memory. So open up your purses and let them squander your hard earned cash however they choose, because unless you stand up for your rights as an English born and bred citizen, you have none!
Poor little man didn't mean to burn out the homes of others it was only a joke he says... so up jump the do do-gooders and claim it's an injustice to force his family out of their house also paid for by the tax payers, those with bottomless pockets ready and willing to support all comers no matter where from in the world, for any reason whatever!

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
0

normad79 said

bejasus:.Yeah but it was not the other members of the family that did it so if your brother kills some one then you should go to prison as well

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
0

normad79 said

Ooh by the way do you not think that it was very convenient for the riot to have happened while the MP's where on holiday so as to bring them back to make them look good after all the crap about then so far. I think that it was set up by the far right (Tories to get the rent a mob to cause the trouble but that got out of hand. Yes we should help the people and the victim's out as well as the other people that all this has effected. Its a bit like the Falklands war that got magi off the hook

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
0

normad79 said

The thing is if you evict family form their home we will have to put them in temporary housing or B&B as is the law. the cost of the home is about £130 a week the cost of temporary housing or B&B will exceed £800 per week so get real. All this knee jerking after the event is costing us far more than what the real cost is to us as it is alienating the people of this country. It is about time we all forgot about boarders and country's and started to think about the whole world as one

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
1

Valmarsm said

Last week we had our Lada car stolen off the drive. Very little hope of ever seeing it again but, as it's 24 years old, my insurance company wil probably write off any payout against my £50 excess. Somehow I don't see the government , or the police, paying for my to get another car, or help towards the vast increase in insurance for any vehicle we may be able to buy to replace it, but my loss is every bit as big to me and my husband, aged 89, as any items lost in the riots.
I feel extremely sorry for the innocent people inviolved in the riots but spending money on firmer policing or a version of Bad Lad's Army (for at least 2 yrs as National Service lasted) for the offenders would be a better way of spending money. This country has gone too namby pamby and politically correct and the riots are the result.
Valmarsm

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
0

Vanessa Pool said

Thank you everyone in helping me finally to decide to unsubscribe from this website.This article is political and not suitable for a financial website. It is obvious from the comments that you are not all reading each others contributions carefully and adding to the debate.
The situation is very much more complicated than everyone is trying to portray. I hope we will take time to consider carefully what is needed. We certainly need to stop cutting services that support young people and families and stop insulting whole groups of people because they are representative of people seen in the law-breaking crowds last week.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
17

shortchanged said

I don't think the taxpayer should suffer- any compensation should come from government funds - a reserve to cover this. I was suprised to read that homeowners are covered for riots, I noticed whenever I renew or change my insurance policy that riots and civil commotion are NOT included! I understood that this exclusion was standard.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
2

Tomkins10 said

"What makes rioters and burglars so different?"
Well for one, the police do not hang around as spectators during a burglary!!!

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
4

gola said

I'm sure you would find that most of the uninsured individuals/businesses have nice cars, wide-screen tvs and the latest mobiles etc. So they should definitely NOT be compensated if they do not have insurance.

Report on 15 August 2011 | Love 1 love
2

AGRI-FIX said

It doesn't matter wether the Gov or the Insurers pay out it will either be funded by tax hikes or funded by higher insurance premiums. The only losers are all those who pay tax or insurance. Oh yeah and probably more duty on fuel/fags/beer or VED.
We will all lose so why bother arguing the toss.
They recently said that crude was down below 100$ per barrel and fuel prices atr the pumps would fall. In Farnborough where I live diesel has gone up by 2p per litre at some garages.

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
1

bwanajg said

I take the point about taxpayers should not pay for damage caused by riots. This might be seen as a waste of our money. However the people who have had their property damaged might also have seen it a waste of their money to pay tax for the police to protect their homes and businesses when they were being demolished and burned by rioters in front of their eyes! The police are paid to protect your home. Burglars do not make a lot of noise and smoke as did the rioters. I am not sure about exclusions for riots on insurance policies but CIS do protect you from riot damage according to my policy. It just goes to show that you should not always look for the cheapest insurance company!

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
0

mamamia said

well i think this would open a can of worms because really all thieves that do damage when stealing copper etc and do hundreds of pounds of damage are just thugs like the rioters so if the victims get paid out i think a few more will start to put in for claims.

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
8

Harajus said

This wasn't a riot. This was greedy opportunism by lazy bums. These looters should be forced to work till all the losses are accounted for. Give them the jobs that others won't do rather than let more immigrants in to do said jobs. If they don't perform to high enough standards march them out to Afghanistan to accompany our brave boys on patrol. Then they'll have all the 'respect' they crave.The rest of decent society should be rewarded not made to pay.

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 1 love
0

maxwell said

harajus is right. Make them work alongside soldiers in Afghanistan, although they would probably bleat about "human rights" and get away with it.
As for Cameron, the man is totally out of touch with reality and the "ordinary" people. He seems to seek popularity without any thought for the consequence.
If ever there was a time when we need a strong PM, this is it. Cameron is not that man, trouble is there isnt anyone else among the current lot, right or left, that fits the discription, except maybe William Hague.

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
0

mrangryofhampshire said

Riot damages act funded through the tax payer and has been for over 120 years covers this sort of damage as neither business nor home insurance does, So anyone affected is uninsured, im suprised any insurance company is getting involved even if they will later claim it back.

This whole article is stupid, meaningless, ill thought out garbage. If you or this site wish to write and promote articles like this then you are frankly little better than the mindless thieving scum that tried to wreck our inner cities and capital.

Shame on you

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
0

Souptrombone said

mrangryofhampshire is right in my opinion. Insurance and compensation are simply different ways of sharing risk, so we all pay a bit but victims are compensated. How they are compensated is less important, though the 1886 act does make the involvement of the insurance companies somewhat surprising. I do not agree with the article.

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
0

andycohen said

Absolute nonsense, for all the reasons that have already been mentioned above. Time to unsubscribe if this drivel keeps floating into my inbox.

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
0

aidaplaidan said

Have you not noticed Insurers never really lose ? ; they will recoup loses by fair or foul means . I have just run a shop for a year where I ran uninsured besides EL PL cover as they required a £600 premium and a £2500 excess for a shop of less than 20 sq metres. That is useles insurance and not worth paying , If I had been burned out I would have to have claimed under the Riot act .
Insurers are worse than banks when it comes to rip offs so they should not be able to recoup what they pay out from the taxpayers .

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
130

Donna Ferguson said

Thanks for all your comments. I think many of you make the valid point that David Cameron is only acting within the law. That is certainly true, but the point I was really trying to make is that the law can be an ass, and I think it is wrong in this instance! What's more, the Prime Minister has set up a specific relief fund to pay out compensation for victims, which while extremely noble, is not in my opinion the best use of £20m of taxpayers' money. I take onboard the criticism that the State is responsible for the mayhem and chaos because it let down the victims - this should never have happened, and the rioters should never have been allowed to become rioters. But I'm not sure paying financial compensation to victims is the right way to address this. Finally, while some insurers exclude damage from riots from their policies, many do not, as my colleague John Fitzsimons pointed out a few days ago in Does your insurance cover you for riot damage? which I recommend you read. http://www.lovemoney.com/news/insurance/home-insurance/12505/does-your-insurance-cover-you-for-riot-damage
Thanks again for the lively debate, I've very much enjoyed reading all your comments, even the ones that compared me to "mindless thieving scum"!

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
0

BurPFred said

The Insurance Companies are allready DICTATING to the Members of The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons the Vaccination that they require them to GIVE TO KILL YOUR DOG OR CAT. I fail to see why it comes as any supprise that they should be telling the GOVERNMENT that compensation for thr RIOTING must be PAID by the GOVERNMENT to the Insurance Companies.The BANKS recieved TAXPAYERS MONEY, so why not the INSURANCE COMPANIES. Dig deep enough and you will find that they are ONE AND THE SAME.

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
3

Cue said

I still do not understand why the claim isn't made against the actual guilty party. The process should be - victim, claim against the insurer who takes payment from the guilty. Or Victim, claim against the police who take payment via the courts against the guilty.
If no guilty party exists then it's not the victim vault, it's either the police, societies or the insurer's for not identifying the guilty party. So they should foot the bill.
In the case of these riots, where there are multiple victims and guilty parties then the whole cost should be made up by the 900+ people who will be convicted.
Not only would this help with identifying other guilty parties (disclosing other's involvement to lesson your financial burden) but it should also help lower insurance premiums.
Stop their benefits until they've paid back their element of the damage. Should help lower re-affending rates also :)

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 1 love
20

laplennerie said

The Riot Act of the Victorian era was to ensure the police did their job propely to quell the riots - if they did not then they have to compensate the victims. The same should stand today as many insurers will not compensate due to riot or civil disobedience. The duty of Government is to protect the citizen. It is what they are paid to do. If they do not as some suggest they did not do so last week then they have to compensate the victims. Meaning we all pay. If anyone disagrees with the Act then should we have to pay any criminal injuries such as crimes of rape or victims of GBH, bombing and the like.

TB

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
1

smurf said

no l think he should pay compensation, then every person who is convicted of rioting should be made to pay out of there benefits & wages until the cost is payed for, even if it takes them fifty or more years, that way they will be reminded for a very, very long time of the crime they have commited.

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 1 love
2

tonymason said

The milk of human kindness positively gushes from the comments to this article!

For those so quick to condemn Cameron, do you seriously think the last bunch of monkeys could solve the problem?

There seem to be a number of contributors who might be better occupied reading the small print of their insurance policies re riot/disorder cover.

There is an assumption that everyone guilty last week is receiving benefits. Several of those convicted seem to have good jobs. Now there's a case for payment of compensation from assets. Removal of benefits where they apply would simply lead to more temptation to break the law.

If you'd like a real old-fashioned view, how about we use some public money to build some "temporary accomodation centres" where all those convicted might be consigned, for months/years/decades, to be let out on a chain gang to do such tasks as mend all the potholes in our roads. Real "work experience" at the taxpayers expense, but with community benefits, and no wages to pay, as we'd already be paying their board and lodging!

I'm resentful about paying my taxes to provide an "education" for young thugs, so yes, why not include school-age looters?

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 2 loves
62

ronat42 said

I agree with every word of Tonymason's comment. Prison is too good for those who laid waste to so much property. I think it's time we took the sentiment from Gilbert & Sullivan "To make the punishment fit the crime." I've spent a lot of my working life on the understanding "If you don't work you don't eat." and it's time a lot of these thugs were forced to live by the same principle. "Work", of course, being honest work, and lets have a bit more of human responsibilities and less of human rights.
We have a whole range of different levels of crime, from opportunistic stealing to wanton destruction. many of the former have had their punishment with the shame of what they have done and there is little point in punishing the taxpayer by incurring the cost of a prison term. The latter are desperately in need of re-education and that has to start with getting their full attention. Unfortunately, prison will not do much good in that area either but human rights laws make any other approach difficult.
Getting back to the original topic, I think that the government should help those who were affected but this should not be processed as a police liability. I think the police performed extremely well given that virtually everything they do is criticised by someone who has never had to face a real challenge. It takes real courage and self control to hold a line when confronted with the madness that we all witnessed and they deserve all of our gratitude and praise. I think we all must share a bit of the blame, especially those at the top of the financial rewards tree and flaunt their oft ill gotten albeit legal (sometimes) wealth with impunity. Perhaps, if all or those in the latter category paid their full tax liability there would be enough cash in the system to sort this out properly, that is, if the politicians could stop looking for brownie points and concentrate their efforts on doing what they are paid for.
No doubt, there will be many making false claims for compensation because they think they can get away with it and that it is therefore justified. Just where does this problem end?

Report on 16 August 2011 | Love 1 love
1

harrylts said

Donna, your argument appears to be political rhetoric rather than financial advise. Since the law is for every man, it now follows that every man who suffered is entitled to compensation under this 1886 act. It is not an accusation of the police. It is not Cameron giving away money. It is simply the law.
Do you have an alternative suggestion, financially wise this time, that would save the taxpayers money? And not one that comes across as: 'I haven't suffered loss and do not want my tax money to be used to help those who did!'
I wonder if you had suffered loss if you would have questioned Cameron on this point... What do you think?

Report on 17 August 2011 | Love 1 love
0

conor said

Insurance companies dont all ways pay for riots. In Northern Ireland if the damage is caused from rioting it is excluded and people have to get the money direct from the state or loose out.

Report on 17 August 2011 | Love 0 loves
265

oldhenry said

Cameron' perhaps' hopes the insurance companies will donate to his party funds , a good return for his largesse of taxpayers funds?
He could have repealed that act to save money, just as he has scapped other items. Like linking the pensions to the RPI rather than the lower CPI.

Report on 17 August 2011 | Love 1 love
2

nhammans said

Regards the comment:

"The counter-argument is, of course, that the police are to blame because people have the right to protection from riot damage, and as the police failed in their duty, victims deserve compensation".

I think is extremely unfair - if the police go in with force they are punished, if they stand back and keep things under restraint, guess what... they are critisized!!!!!!!

Why not blame those responsible and stop trying to blame members of society that are at least trying to help. All those involved should be punished and made to pay, all foreigners involved should be deported - END OF!!!!!!!!!!

Report on 18 August 2011 | Love 1 love
643

electricblue said

Oldhenry - your knowledge of the legal system is on par with pretty much every other bitter and twisted contribution you make. Such a pity all politicians can't uphold the high standards of Tony Blair and the Prescott family, you must be really disappointed.

Report on 19 August 2011 | Love 0 loves

Our top deals

Credit card company	Balance transfers rate and period	Representative APR	Apply now
Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa	0% for 26 months (3.5% fee)	Representative 18.9% APR (variable)	Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable)
Be the first to review this product
Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa	0% for 25 months (2.4% fee)	Representative 18.9% APR (variable)	Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)
Be the first to review this product
Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard	0% for 25 months (2.5% fee)	Representative 18.9% APR (variable)	Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
Be the first to review this product

W3C Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4

David Cameron should NOT compensate riot victims

Why should taxpayers bail out insurance companies?

Why should taxpayers bail out uninsured victims?

The police didn’t protect them

What do you think?

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Comments (89)

Post a comment

Related content

Winston Churchill picked as the new face of the fiver

Why we need financial education in schools

Peer-to-peer lending set to be regulated

Buying an annuity? You need to act now!

Lloyds staff 'bullied' into hitting high sales targets

Over-55s increasing saving to pay for social care

Our top deals

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard