Report comment

Anon at 4.55
There isn't case law about people being undercompensated. However ask any reputable case management company how often they have to make plans to discharge clients back to social services because the money has run out. Or ask any financial deputy how often they have to choose between meeting all of a client's needs for a limited period, or meeting part of their needs each year. And I would also be interested to hear which safe investments you would have chosen for people in 2007/2008...

The fact you think that this is "knee jerk and ill thought out" belies your lack of understanding on the issue. It has been thought about for 7 years, and is a rational decision based on empirical evidence. The fact it has changed so far shows just how wrong it has been for so long. The solid understanding of the evidence behind this is perhaps the sole benefit of having an accountant as lord chancellor.

Let me set you one last challenge - please tell me a single "safe investment" that in the last 12 months has produced interest of 5/6% (ie 2.5% above the rate of inflation). If you can't then you must concede that 2.5% is unachievable and that victims cannot invest their money to avoid being under-compensated.

You are free to disagree about whether we should worry about under compensating victims, but to try to argue that they have not been undercompensated is wholly wrong.