Lotto rapist winning the lottery

[Oneeyedvic]

I'm sure you have heard of this case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4296976.stm where the Sun exposed Mr Hoare (and kindly printed photographs of him) for winning the lottery (the git)

Anyway, is there anyone else who feels agrieved that the tax payer now has to foot the bill (estimated at �10,000) to protect him?

 

Surely, the bill should be firmly at the door of Rebekah Wade?

[andy hughes]

The whole point about the law is that it is there for everyone - and not those whom society deems unfit to receive its largesse - either through personal finances, or criminial behaviour, or in this case, both.

the knee-jerk reaction is that this is wrong - but legal arguments brook no input from emotion, and nor should they. Just be grateful that for every 'undeserving' case, serveral dozen valid ones are protected under the same system.

[bernardo]

No

[Oneeyedvic]

Sorry, I was really trying to get across that if the Sun hadn't reported the fact that a person (legally) won the lottery and printed a picture of him, there would not be a cost involved of keeping his identity secret.

 

TheSun gets to sell more papers by taing the moral high ground and demanding that criminals should not be able to play the lottery, and then take the moral highground again when the police have to protect this guys all due to the sun initial report.

 

Thus, surely the Sun is responsible for the costs



Thus, surely the Sun is responsible for the costs



Therefore, shouldn't the sun foot the bill for the costs involved

[WaldoMcFroog]

Yeah, I'm with Vic on this.

[jno]

I agree. The Sun is trumpeting its outrage at the cost of protecting the guy, while increasing that cost by chasing him everywhere. Tabloid hypocrisy. Why should I pay to give Sun readers the opportunity to lick their lips?

[Piper-AK]

I'll be lynched here, and sorry to any one who has ever been attacked by anyone who has then gone on to win the lottery.

If someone wins the lottery, we don't normally judge them on their character and then decide if they're good enough to win the lottery.  Otherwise we'd all be doomed (and I will never get my well deserved millions).  Therefore we shouldn't suddenly kick off if someone society deems bad has won it, surely, if they've already been allowed to enter it?

[january_bug]

Piper-AK - I don't think anyone's questioning whether the guy deserves the money.  I think you're quite right - juding whether or not people should morally be allowed their winnings is a hugely risky route to take. 

I also agree with Andy Hughes that the guy deserves protection.  I have before stated that I am opposd to vigilante behviour, and I think that without protection, this man would suffer at the hands of vigilantes.  He might deserve it.  But this country does not deserve to descend into mob rule. 

Finally, I agree with Vic.  Although perhaps not 100%.  I agree that the Sun should be heavily fined for their part in this, and many other witch hunts they have started.  That paper is increasingly uncontrolable.  It's not just a case of "if you don't like it, don't read it".  That paper has an effect on our lives by the money it costs us as taxpayers.  Perhaps a bill of at least 80% of the costs (because he would have needed some protection at some cost anyway).  80% is plucked out of thin air, but I would be pleased to see a judge work it out, and then fine the Sun accordingly. 

[jno]

annoying when bad guys win the lottery of course... but that's why it's a lottery.

[stevie21]

I'd be delighted if this somehow went to court (is there any legal basis for this?) and The Sun were ordered to pay the costs of this guy's protection.
If the costs of this protection have doubled due to their reporting then they should cover all costs, not just the extra that they've created.
It's fair and logical to me that they should cover the cost that they've created but I also feel that they should pay the original costs as a punitive measure (and to keep the calculations neat!).
Vic for Prime Minister!