Saturday, October 01, 2005

Lotto rapist costs

Charles Clarke is to look into the "broader issues" around the rapist who won £7m on the lottery yet receives protection costing £10,000 per month funded by the taxpayer.

Those "broader issues" should be:
Why is a rapist with a life sentence released early? How does the taxpayer achieve value for money when a year in prison costs 'only' £35,000? Who is he being protected from? Should the Sun newspaper be charged for the additional security costs following the disclosure of the rapist's location? Why does a rapist qualify for protection when other more deserving cases are overlooked?

He should not consider whether the rapist should fund his own protection. It is a typical socialist response. He has too much money, he does not deserve it and it should be confiscated.

How much money should a lottery winner be allowed to keep before the state pays for his protection? £1m? £500,000? £100,000? If he earns £30,000 per month in interest, he presumably also pays the Government £12,000 per month in tax on that interest. Should he stop paying this tax if the Government withdraws it's protection?

North East Conservative MEP Martin Callanan calls on the Home Office to withdraw Hoare's protection "This is totally appalling. Someone who is so wealthy should have no need for state protection". Should the Queen also pay for her own protection on the same basis?

1 comment:

Wat Tyler said...

Good questions snafu.

The first is pretty fundamental. Obviously the vast majority of us want such dangerous low-life banged up for ever. But if they want to accept early release, they should be on their own- just like their victims.