To be severely pissed off at the comments re Rolf Harris' victims & compensation?

[TensionWheelsCoolHeels]

Bit of background 1st - I know quite a bit about 'compensation culture' as I've worked within the claims industry in my job for over 20 years. Not specifically criminal injuries type of claims, but I'm 'well versed' in the process, how it works etc.

Watching a discussion earlier on Loose Women (I know, in know) and I was really shocked with the general consensus of both the panel & audience that the victims of Harris' abuse shouldn't be able to claim compensation as it 'doesn't change what happened' and to even think about that prior to conviction gives the accused the 'stick' of using money as motivation for the accusations in the 1st place.

Given my background, I have quite strong views about what warrants a claim for compensation and in the case of victims of abuse, I absolutely 100% think they are entitled to pursue a claim against the perpetrator of the abuse, especially where they have the means. The impact of that abuse on those victims is, in many if not most cases, significant, long term, and extremely damaging in many aspects of those lives affected. Knowing the things that are taken into account when 'valuing' compensation, abuse victims more than many 'tick' the boxes required to warrant compensation as a result of what they've endured (and in the case of historical abuse, that's exacerbated by the length of time between the abuse happening and any action taken which results in a conviction).

So why do some people, generally, feel that in the case of abuse victims, compensation shouldn't be pursued, or isn't warranted? The impression Im getting is that this is a commonly held view - but I thought id check what others think about this, as I really cannot fathom the mindset which seems to condemn victims for even considering pursuing claims for compensation.

I fully expect to get a flaming for watching Loose Women (and generally it's not a programme I watch) but that aside, is the general view that compensation isn't warranted in these situations?

I saw it too.

I do wonder though if the victims would actually want any of his money as compensation?

(I got the impression that they were solely talking about using Rolf's own fortune to use as compensation)

I felt the same when they were saying his fortune should be given to a Charity that supports Child Abuse - I imagine it would cause a lot of inward controversy I.e not wanting to turn down the money but at the same time finding it morally hard to accept it from a Paedophile.

I don't think any amount of money could compensate and it feels wrong to accept it, like the victim has been prostituted.

As a victim I would feel insulted.

I think they should take his money and give it to the NSPCC

I think it was quite a heated discussion and at times they were talking at cross purposes. Some saying it should be an automatic right and others only when a case is proved.

I also don't see why they would want the compensation from their abuser. I mean whatever they use the money for it's being funded by him.

YANBU at all. But unfortunately I think this type of view is quite widely held in our society that abuse, assault and rape aren't "that big a deal". And so the victims shouldn't be compensated. I'd counteract that with asking the person in question how they would feel if some dirty old man (or dirty young man) shoved his finger up their vagina (or arse in the case of men). Would they feel like they should just get on with it because it's "not that big a deal". But I can be a bit tactless and crude when I'm angry.

Well I think some victims would not want it, or would want to donate it and some would want it, even just to know he didnt have it. I think it should be up to them what they do.

Whatever a victim may or may not want, whether to pursue a claim or not, is entirely right and I have no problem with that. I think it's more the idea that other people judge or condemn those who, IMO, are absolutely deserving of compensation for the abuse they have endured, that I have a problem with.

I couldn't believe the suggestion that the victims should hand any compensation over to child abuse charities to help victims of child abuse.

The women who gave evidence are victims of child abuse and will have suffered hugely over the years so they should get every penny they can out of his estate and try and rebuild their lives.

I think what some of them were saying was what about cases where they have been found not guilty, but because if their 'celebrity' status it has been plastered everywhere, should they get compensation too?

All in all nothing really came out of the debate and it turned into a bit of a shouting match.

Having been through this myself I reported for justice, not compensation. I couldn't bring myself to take his money either, it would feel tainted. But that's me.

No there shouldn't be a ban, though. There are people out there so traumatised by what they have been through that they're unable to function and certainly suffer financial loss as a result. Damn right they should be compensated if they feel the need.

Yanbu, absolutely.

But I know my own mother thinks that people are only making these historic claims in order to benefit financially and she strongly believes the majority of people are faking.

But I think all victims deserve to take every penny and leave the abusers destitute.

Well yes CoffeeTea103 but why should he get to keep all his money when he's built reputation and his career on a pack of lies and deceit? At least if the victims are given compensation they can choose what to do with the money. Give it to charity if they want or use it to fund private therapy, or even just spend it all on booze. It would their choice. I think the important thing here is giving the victims the choice of whether they take the compensation or not. If they don't want it fine, don't take it, if they do they can put it towards something they want. Or just burn it, for the satisfaction of taking some of his earnings and burning them.

Hmm, I am no expert so perhaps this is the kind of cackhanded response that might illuminate you I get mightily confused about the "compensation" system, having never been involved in any claim, nor being a legal person.

It seems there are various different financial awards a claimant can receive, some that are to pay for future care/therapy (?), some that are to make up for lost earnings/expenses, some that are to punish the accused, and so on. I'm not clear whether the term "compensation" is a catch-all, or if it refers to one of these specific types of award.

Perhaps the Loose Women were as cackhanded as I am when trying to discuss this...

As for the principle, it seems intuitive that victims of abuse could have a claim for "damages" (if this is the correct term, if this comes under the heading "compensation"....). Where the money comes from is probably up for debate. It sticks slightly that the perpetrator should pay it directly - seems a little close to payoff (although I know it isn't). Could the state seize (some of) his money and redistribute as appropriate? Are there "standardised" payouts for various crimes like this?

And no, those who need to be compensated should never be judged.

I can see the arguments for not wanting his money. But I also agree that it should be up to the victim. If they want/need the money then that is for them to decide. Not the general public.

When I was awarded compensation as a victim of domestic violence and assault, I didn't even know I would get any upon the guilty verdict. As far as I was concerned the guilty verdict was enough.

I donated the compensation to a domestic violence charity.

Thankfully I have never been in that position, I don't think that I would want compensation from my abuser but who knows until you have experienced it.
Whether they pursue it or not them I think it's their choice but I do like the idea that the money Harris made from being a children's entertainer should be taken from him somehow and it looks like this might be the best way.
I did read online though that his money is tied up in complicated family trusts so he may not have the millions he earns in his own name anyway.

Absolutely agree with it being up to the people who suffered the abuse -whether to claim, what to do with it. Have always hated high and mighty attitudes towards money - especially from people with plenty ( such as those on Loose Women)and yyyy to RH having money that he wouldn't have had if he'd been stopped sooner.

In general, victims of abuse are entitled to compensation via criminal injuries compensation board (name might be different now but that's what it was called when I last dealt with them several years ago) where a conviction has been secured, not directly from the accused. There isn't always a correlation that any money paid to a victim has come direct from the perpetrator. These are generally limited, fixed sums, and a victim can pursue further compensation via civil court direct from the perpetrator. In terms of Harris' fortune & compensation to his victims, the amounts the claims would warrant will barely touch the money he has earned throughout his career while he was abusing young girls/women. If anything drains his money, it'll be more likely to be the legal fees attached to any compensation. It's just worth understanding that in terms of feeling any money that victims are entitled to, it doesn't follow from the process that is in place to deal with these things that this will be money directly from the abuser. However I understand completely if someone feels they don't want money for whatever reason - I'm in no position to judge how a victim feels about this sort of thing.

I just can't fathom the mentality of judging/condemning victims for any actions they decide to take in dealing with the abuse they've endured, where that action may be to pursue compensation. Whole lives can be blighted by abuse - careers ruined due to the fall out from physical and mental issues stemming from the abuse, health affected by things like addiction etc. again stemming from the person trying to cope with the effects of abuse. It's never straight forward that all it takes is some therapy and people can get in with their lives. Compensation recognises the damaging effect a criminal act like abuse can have, and that money can help make a difference where the effect has been severe, long term and devastating. Abuse victims should be able to access that without judgement or condemnation, no matter what the circumstances are.

The only thing I take issue about OP is your shame about watching Loose Women. There is no shame. Know your enemy

Loose Women and The Wright Stuff are open to some form of debate, though obviously calls are screened.

Same with the Daily Mail. I get fed up with apologetic links to that too.If they want to go for the money then they can go for it with my blessing. The idea that they need my blessing makes me laugh.

At least some of the panellists on Loose Women defended people's rights to go after compensation and to keep it for themselves. That cheered me.

I despise the idea that it's only okay so long as the wronged people give it to charity.

Why shouldn't they spend it on a Lamborghini or a big bonfire? Or therapy? Or just maybe creating a secure life that might have been ruined by an abuser?

I agree with you OP. I can't see how the claims would be time barred in civil law now as they have only really come out due to the criminal case.

I think we are dealing with a lot of people who have the mindset of an era that let so many "child's entertainers" away with this. I think the more bother and trouble that there is made for the perpetrators and their cronies, the better. It might just stop some abusers in the future thinking about their own families losing their inheritance.

The question is whether the tv channels had a duty of care not to continue to employ sex offenders, who were using their positions to access victims. I find it difficult to envisage the type of culture that let such widespread abuse go on for so long, but it isn't acceptable, and for a judge to condemn the claiming for condensation actually has little substantive reasoning behind it. The floodgates argument I don't think is valid here because courts would be applying it discriminately - the pool of female victims is much larger than the pool of male victims who are affected, for instance.

So what if they are just going after him for the money? They'd have nothing to get compensated with if he didn't break the law in the first place.

Maybe they need it for therapy or to move somewhere they feel safe?

Or maybe to them it's a sign that what they went through has been validated and not dismissed, even if only in dollar amounts.

I do not understand why anyone would want compensation unless they have suffered financial losses. I know that's not the way it works but it's how I feel. I think it's well and dandy for people who've not been in that position to say they'd want money but it's easy to say that when you've not been traumatised so badly by another human being.

How do you define financial loss though? Many of the victims we know of were children when they were abused. Some may not be fully functioning members of society i.e. unable to work due to addiction etc. The daughter's friend became an alcoholic trying to cope with the abuse she suffered. How do you define the financial loss stemming from abuse suffered by children when it happens before they even get the chance to start a career? The abuse can severely impact the potential they might have had prior to the abuse happening, and it's very hard to quantify that aspect of the effect abuse can have. Compensation can at least address that to an extent, for some victims.