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)

People have said to cover counseling costs. I wonder how many of the women involved will put the money towards this.

well I assume then that they will have to prove they are having counseling

If they are granted compensation why should they spend it on counselling and why should they prove it?
Is this required by other victims of crime?

that begs the question of how you prove a crime like this, when the person accused is dead.
(genuinely confused)

Because the organizations he did charity work for when he was alive kept quiet about the suspected abuse so as not to lose the financial support and charity goodwill? Institutions already bargained away the vulnerable in order to get funds, lets not have it happens twice over?

Well I can totally understand why victims of abuse would wish to seek financial compensation- it's something people do generally in various situations where they have been wronged. It will not undo the abuse but it's the least they should be given imo.

threesocks - the evidence must be overwhelming. If alive, I strongly doubt he would have a defense tbh! The police HQ put out a statement which described him as a predatory sex offender.

This compensation state is bloody stupid though. Yes people should be given money, but money that goes to paying their bills if they've had to have time off work, any treatment they've needed including counseling, any extra help if they're unable to do things ie cleaner or nanny.

Not money that they can go and buy a new fitted kitchen with or a shopping spree.

And in this case NOTHING can be proven. How on earth is that fair?

perception - I doubt its less about evidence and more about how much in the public eye this whole saga has been in.

GhostShip - there are at least 300 people who have come forward. It's ridiculous to suggest that it could all be rumour. I suspect there certainly is proof.

Why should these victims be treated any differently from anyone else seeking compensation - for example those who had their phones hacked by the NOTW journalists?

People are not forced to spend their compensation on particular things, after any legal action. Cases like this are no different.

My sister and I were both abused as children in the 1970s, I was listened to, believed and a prosecution was secured, 12 month sentence. My sister was ignored, the people around her could not and would not accept that the man could have done this to the both if us, they also believed that as a small child she had no understanding of what was happening to me and could only see I was getting more attention than her, for the next 20 years she lived with it, slowly screwing her head up. No counselling, no support, for either of us, I believe in the 70s and 80s 'kids are resilient' was commonplace.
In the mid nighties she decided to do something, she sue our abuser for compensation, the police where involved, psychologists, the lot, all working together to produce evidence that she had been abused, there wasn't enough to secure a conviction but enough to prove that for compensation purposes he was guilty for crimes against her.
I didn't need to pursue a claim because for me, it was over, I had been heard, I had been believed and he was punished, that wasn't the same for her.
When I asked her why, her answer was , it wasn't about the money it was about punishing him the only way left open to her.
With her compensation she bought a fridge freezer, new bedding and a half decent Xmas for her children. I don't begrudge her a single penny, the pain she went through in perusing her claim let alone what she suffered before can never be undone by a few pounds but at least that she has been heard, believed and some form of punishment has been served, her pain can be lessened.

Very well put, blinky.

I'm terribly sorry for what happened to you and your sister.

You eloquently explain why being believed and seen as someone who has been a victim of crime is so important in a recovery process.

Perception - I haven't suggested it is rumour at all.
And I agree, they shouldn't be treated any differently. But they are. The fact that they're going to be given compensation for something that can be neither proven nor disproven is treating them differently.

And Eldritch my comment is generalised to anyone who seeks compensation, not just this case.

What annoys me more is the idiots who are 'coming forward' now going directly to the papers to make a quick quid. When those who were really victims of Jimmy Saville are suffering in silence.

compensation is about the reocgnition that an individual has been wronged; it is not necessarily about the money itself. this is particularly true in the cases of the people who tried to speak up but were ignored or even punished.

Very well said Binkyridesagain

His estate is frozen. Why should charities get it when those absurd might need it for counselling, therapy etc.

It's hard to get good therapy in the NHS, just try...

So what if they do buy a new kitchen or go on a shopping spree, this will be their money to do with as they wish.

In some cases (like medical negligence) part of the damages claim people make is about having specific needs, like making the house wheelchair accessible. There, of course people list what they need and how much it will cost.

But the rest of the damages claim will be about recognition of the wrong, pain and suffering, or damage to reputation in a libel case. The court just has to put a figure on that. I see no reason why people shouldn't get damages on that basis and I don't understand why any of them should be told how to spend it.

I agree that the fact that he's dead makes the compensation even more important, as those he committed crimes against will never get to see him stand in the dock, as he should have.