Blunkett rushes to appease the tabloids, yet again...

[mrph]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3557372.stm

"Lottery-winning prisoners and their families will be prevented from collecting their win under new laws, David Blunkett has promised."

He promised this in a today's Sun, btw. Which tells you a lot in itself... and, for thoe who haven't been following this one, the decision is driven by a prisoner (jailed for attempted rape) winning the lottery a couple of days ago (he's nearing the end of his sentence and was able to buy a ticket while staying at a bail hostel).

Even aside from the deeply disturbing "and their families" bit (which is left vague), this looks stupid. What next, someone wins the lottery before their conviction (or after their release), and Blunkett scrambles to outflank the tabloids on that, too?

It's a lottery. The odds of winning are tiny. The odds don't care if you're the Archbishop of Canterbury or Ian Huntley. Which doesn't stop the tabloids whining about people who shouldn't be 'allowed' to win money.

I can see a case for not letting prisoners gamble (in any form) while convicted. But nobody seems to complain about the thousands who play the lottery and lose, do they?

Comments

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

I do think it is wrong that he was/is allowed to play the lottery whilst still in custody - whatever kind of custody that may be.
He has caused a lot of damaged to some people, and this is going to be painful for them, having it all dredged up agan. I hope that his victims heard what Hazel Blears had to say this morning and sue him for damages - he can certainly afford it now!
He could pay a significant amount to rape crisis charities, but I dont suppose he will.
I hope he gets what he deserves.

[jambon-gris.livejournal.com]

According to the rules of day release he was allowed to play the lottery, specifically. Not in a default it doesnt say he cant, but a yes he can.It is leagal so therefore it is his money. You could argue the rule is wrong and should be changed, and im not sure i'd dissagree.
He may have to pay out damges to his victims, this ive no real opinion on and is a matter for the courts. His ex wife however has absolutely zero claim on the money unless she can claim she contributed to his winning the lottery 10 years after the devorce. If he has anny sense and or decency he will give away a good chunk of the money.

[redandfiery.livejournal.com]

I believe they are not actually divorced. Which might mean that she has a legal claim on the money - even if they've maybe not seen each other for 10 years.