to not understand why they want compensation? (warning JS thread)

[Justforlaughs]

I want to make it quite clear that I have every sympathy with anyone who has been sexually abused at any point in their life. However, in this case there seems to be no advantage to chasing compensation from a dead man. The money that he left had mostly been ear-marked for charities, including a heart research centre at Leeds hospital. I really can't see any reason why anyone would be asking for that money to go into their own pocket instead of benefiting people in need. (Gets ready for a pasting)

yellowsubmarine only because the number of people it could help would be far more, and would not be restricted to victims in THIS case.

I do understand why victims want their situation validated (if that is the word) and to feel that the perpetrator is being seen as "wrong".

To pay for counselling for

Self-harm. Depression. Drug and alcohol abuse. Reparative surgery. OCD. Dissociation. Inability to maintain functional relationships. Marital breakdowns. Being forcefully institutionalised. Hallucinations (auditory and visual). Hypervigilance. PTSD. Sexual shame and confusion. Anorexia and other eating disorders.

Take a look at the link to James Rhodes blog.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/jamesrhodes/100067072/outrage-at-jimmy-savile-conceals-the-fact-that-our-culture-encourages-paedophilia-believe-me-i-know-what-im-talking-about/

I think it's not so much about JS, but that it appears many people at the BBC new about it. And that it was shrugged off. The only thing the BBC understands is money. Compensation might make them look more carefully at what goes on in their buildings.

YABU. There's no reason JS's victims should be less entitled or deserving of compensation than any other person hurt by another just because JS has given his wealth to causes we consider good.

Compensation for crime isn't designed to be a punishment on the perpetrator (that's what criminal convictions are for), it's supposed to help alleviate the effects of the wrong done to the victim. So it shouldn't matter whether JS is dead or alive, victims are just as entitled to compensation.

The legitimacy of any particular claim will presumably be decided the same way claims are normally decided. Victims make a claim against the estate. If the estate wishes to contest particular claims they will do so and then those victims will need to go to court and show, on balance of probabilities, that they were suffered loss at the hands of JS.

I believe the standard is for the administrators to come up with a standard lowish offer to anyone stating they were abused who can show abuse was physically possible (e.g. that JS visited their ward, or that they went on TotP on a night he hosted). For a more significant award people would have to show more evidence that they were victims (contemporary diary entries, witnesses, claims to others before this all came to light etc.) and some evidence of the specific harm they suffered.

Oh, I've got absolutely no problem with cases being brought against the BBC, and any other living person or organisation that helped him get away with what he did. (I'd start with people like Esther Rantzen tbh)

Surely, even without JS being alive to testify, all allegations will still be investigated thoroughly. I doubt that all these 'false compo claimers' people are accusing of jumping on the bandwagon even exist and if they do, the stories will not necessarily be entertained. Therefore those who successfully sue his estate absolutely deserve that money in my opinion.

It would be great if his estate could be used to set up a charity that supports victims of child sexual abuse

But they are victims of childhood sexual abuse. It would be going directly to those affected, rather than lining charity CEOs pockets.

I understand why they feel they have a right to compensation from a man who used his fame and position to a) abuse and b) become very rich.

But I do have an issue with the bandwagon jumpers. How would it proved who is telling the truth and who isnt? If he were alive then there would be a full criminal investigation, and it is more likely (although not guaranteed, I know) that the facts would come out. As it is, that wont happen.

So the fact that there will be people who will claim something happened when it didnt (and there will be, if there arent already) means that I dont think compensation should be paid in this instance, and should be used for a charity dedicated to helping victims of abuse.

I doubt that all these 'false compo claimers' people are accusing of jumping on the bandwagon even exist

Remember the Shannon Matthews case? There are people that will do almost anything for "free" money. I think you are being very naive.

Owllady I feel very sorry for you in that you must be perpetually worried about your daughter. Even worse that there is nothing to be done about it. I am only hoping this transparency will help; but I think we've been complacent too long and I don't think it will stop. I think once the dust has cleared, we'll think everything is alright again and it won't be. Some of the victims of Winterbourne View were abused in the new homes they were rehoused in. Where there's no voice there can be terrible exploitation. All the best for you both.

justforlaughs, but why are you putting the onus on the victims of crime to 'help' other victims of crime by forfeiting their legal right to financial compensation by setting up a charity (which would inevitably line CEO's pockets as noodle point out)?

Why shouldn't they be entitled to use any compensation that they are legally entitled to to improve their own lives (which the criminal acts of JS has irrevocably affected forever)?

It's like asking them to be responsible for the consequences of crimes perpetrated by others.

So are they also going to sue the BBC for compensation?
if so who pays for it?

I believe there are a lot more involved in this than just JS. Also quite a few of his crimes were reported at the time they occurred but were not investigated because of who was being accused. These are being reinvestigated, I think.

They all deserve compensation for his vile acts and anyone else found to be involved who is still living should have their assets taken off them.

Disclaimer - I have only read the OP, nothing else.

I would imagine that people who have been abused as children are, as adults, still struggling with dealing with it, and would benefit from counselling/psychiatric help. This costs money - money they probably don't have.

So on this basis - " I really can't see any reason why anyone would be asking for that money to go into their own pocket instead of benefiting people in need." - The money is unlikely to end up in the pockets of JS's victims, but in the pockets of counsellors; and JS's victims are people in need.

I find it surprising that you couldn't work that out for yourself.

They are victims of crime twofold- By the abuser and then by the state.....Pay them.

"Because it sets a precedent - that you can't get away with abuse."

But he did get away with it! He's hardly going to care about what's happening to his estate now, is he?

Personally I don't think anyone should be eligible for compensation unless there is clear and documented evidence that they complained at the time and were ignored / incident hushed up. I can't see how it would work any other way. (And surely counselling would be made available on the NHS, so I'm not sure why anyone would need money for that? )

Well I for one do hope they get some compensation. I know the money won't make up for the abuse they suffered but it could help.

I hope they get every penny they can!

"(And surely counselling would be made available on the NHS, so I'm not sure why anyone would need money for that? )"

Mental health has always been the Cinderella of the Service. You have a long, long wait for an appointment just to be assessed, and then more months before treatment (whilst you continue to deteriorate). Whereas if you can pay, treatment can start NOW.

Money is all the law can give them, so that is what they are seeking.

Unfortunately, you can't say 'I don't want damages, just a finding that I was abused, validation I am not a liar, and an expression of public regret for the failings of all those tasked and paid to protect me' because the system isn't set up like that.

And you need some damages to cover your irrecoverable costs (the gap between what your lawyers actually cost and what the court awards you in costs).

But actually, many victims will have had ruined lives and ongoing problems. Why shouldn't they receive damages and spend it on whatever help they need? And to those who think NHS 'counselling' (or even therapy) is available, hollow laugh.

Personally I don't think anyone should be eligible for compensation unless there is clear and documented evidence that they complained at the time and were ignored / incident hushed up.

If you were going to hush something up, why would you document it

Many people don't report at the time because they are scared - why should they be punished for coming forward later?

And as for the charities he has left his money to - would they really want to be seen taking it? It's a bit tainted.

YABU Abuse can have a terrible effect on a person. They should be compensated for it.

Those who think they ought to have reported the abuse at the time: does that apply to people who were 16, or 12, or 8 etc when it happened to them?

Because that isn't the law at the moment: your time in which to bring a claim is calculated from the point you reached adulthood, I think, not from the date the abuse happened.

I really can't see any reason why anyone would be asking for that money to go into their own pocket instead of benefiting people in need - so victims of abuse of have had their lives ruined are not considered 'in need'. You sound lovely OP.

Are some of the people suing him (for example the lady on the TOTPs where he kept his hand under her bottom) for that type of thing, is that called abuse nowadays? I ask because during the 70s and 80s (Benny Hill era) that type of behaviour was common place. I do think that children who have been sexually assaulted deserve compensation, It makes me feel sick to write children and sexually assaulted in the same sentence.