BBC News Updated every minute of every day

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 10:09 GMT 10:09 UK

It should be paid to someone who has been injured by a criminal. The criminal should pay, not the taxpayer.

Indigenous White, Cornwall, UK

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 10:00 GMT 10:00 UK

I think it should be scrapped. It's one of those benefits which the UK offer and which attracts people to 'soft Britain'. There are thousands of insurance policies out there for people to buy to protect themselves from injuries which might for example, prevent them from working. And for those who don't work, what financial loss are you enduring?

It's an expensive luxury that we cannot afford anymore. Stop the scheme now.

Paula, Preston

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 09:45 GMT 09:45 UK

"Who has decided small children are incapable of criminal intent? They should read 'Lord of the Flies', and observe a few small children playing together." Margaret Gourgiadou

1. Lord of the Flies is fiction.

2. You misuse the words 'criminal' and 'intent'. Criminal actions are ones that break the law. By definition 3-year-olds cannot break the law, but they can show delinquent tendencies. 'Intent' suggests some deliberate attempt. Childhood fantasy play is too irrational to be deliberate.

[electrifyinghardkaur], Coventry, United Kingdom

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 09:31 GMT 09:31 UK

As this is our money, and, it seems, an almost unanimous feeling that this is ludicrous and the mother(s) are entirely responsible and accountable, can we not do something about it? Is there a way for public opinion to be taken into account?

Hope Full, birmingham

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 08:35 GMT 08:35 UK

Who has decided small children are incapable of criminal intent? They should read 'Lord of the Flies', and observe a few small children playing together.
Children have to be trained into civilised, non-criminal behaviour; clearly in this case, the training either failed or was ineffective.

margaret georgiadou

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 07:49 GMT 07:49 UK

Adjusted somewhat to modern conditions, perhaps Alfred the Great's laws could be of use, wherein, "the family group acts as guarantor for its members, paying a 'weirgild' in cases of proven guilt. This 'person-price' determines the fine to be paid as compensation to the wronged party, more or less on a sliding scale according to the severity of the hurt suffered."
And, note, it is paid by the family group, not the rest of us. Could help on the issue of "who's responsible" - it's the family.

[rojosaka], Japan

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 05:25 GMT 05:25 UK

Presuming the award wasn't massive,the lawyers may have earned more. Why shouldn't they? They do the work and their fees don't go into their pockets. They have large overheads. Barristers don't have paid holidays or pensions,unlike doctors,who are paid very high salaries and receive large pensions from the NHS. Why always pick on lawyers? Envy,perhaps?
Ann H,Birmingham

Ann Humphry, Birmingham

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 04:40 GMT 04:40 UK

Immediately!

King Lee Roy Sander Jr, Phenix City, United States

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 04:32 GMT 04:32 UK

While we're at it, why not sue the car manufacturers?

Why was the car jack left lying around in the car in the first place?
And isn't 3 a year old supposed to be strapped securely into a safety seat?

Come on. Lets do us all a favor and start using some common sense.

Mick, Suffolk

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 03:24 GMT 03:24 UK

Regardless of the merits of this case (and obviously there are none), the Tribunal Service is clearly legally wrong here, and CICA was right to refuse to pay.

CICA pays victims of crime. A 3-year-old cannot legally commit a crime, therefore no crime occurred and CICA should not pay.

This should now be further appealed to a real court, where any half-competent real judge would overrule the clearly incompetent buffoons at the Tribunals Service.

Freedom of Speech Rules, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 02:05 GMT 02:05 UK

Everytime someone wins compensation through the courts like this, the health and safety culture becomes less sensible - because people and companies want to protect themselves from prosecution. Natural reaction. So the rules are tightened, and in some cases end up looking totally silly. Because some articulate person won some money in a court case.

[michellegrand], Alton, United Kingdom

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 01:54 GMT 01:54 UK

If someone is convicted of a criminal act in a court of law, then I would say it is a crime. And since no court in this country would consider trying a three year old kid........

[angelholme], Blackpool, United Kingdom

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 01:15 GMT 01:15 UK

The people who left the children in the car unsupervised should pay any compensation and they should be charged with neglect

jim maguire, newcastle upon tyne, United Kingdom

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 01:12 GMT 01:12 UK

Mark, Exeter, UK-
What you said.
Well responded mate.

KittyKat, Lancashire

Added: Sunday, 15 November, 2009, 24:10 GMT 00:10 UK

Another example of a bad parent looking to blame anyone but herself.

The only compensation paid should be that raised from a fine levied on the parents who left the young children alone to fight.

paul, crawley