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 think victims should be allowed to claim for reasonable expenses. To cover the cost of counselling. Reconstructive surgery if assault. A new alarm system plus the cost of goods taken for burglary victims. Etc.

I think some people will make up stuff when money can be sought. I believe it's naive to think otherwise. For that reason I think it's sensible to remove any financial compensation.

so the daughter's friend was planning long term, waiting for the 'perfect moment' to make the accusations? She carefully managed her alcoholism for, what,15 years? Then waited even longer to time her story just perfectly to 'trap' an innocent man? She's likely the same age as his daughter - 50ish, so she's waited over 30 years for this 'opportunity' has she? To now get 'compensation' because she's succeeded in her quest?

Do you honestly believe the charges he's been found guilty of are from made up lies? Seriously?

money should only be given if robbed

But they were robbed, they were robbed at the time of thier abuse of their rights to their own body. They were robbed of the right to be believed. They were robbed of so very very much.

They're being robbed now.

I would also dispute the comment that money has nothing to do with sexual harassment, of course it does.

Of course it bloody does.

Money gives you a layer of protection, the ability to buy people off, to convince people to turn a blind eye, to buy access to vunerable people, to squash news stories, to hire the best lawyers and solicitors.

You're either naive or well daft if you think that money has nothing to do with sex abuse.

YANBU No one seems to question compensation for being a victim of other crimes. But when it's sexual violence there seems to be a perception that it will encourage false claims. This must be due to people believing that lying about rape is common when in fact it is no more common than false allegations for any other kind of crime. It can have a devastating impact on a persons emotional health, so they should be compensated if they want to pursue a claim.

Glad u started this thread as I was reading the comments under the Daily Fail article today ( I know I shouldn't ) and the amount of people alleging that women were only coming forward to get compensation was shocking. Any victim of a violent crime is entitled to apply for criminal injuries compensation, regardless of whether there is a guilty verdict, as long as they have cooperated with the criminal investigation.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any civil claim against a person.

I think there is starting to be a sea change in how these types of crimes are perceived but sadly, old views die hard. Some people still don't get how hard it is for a young person to come forward and talk about what has happened to them and what it is that eventually emboldens them to report.

It is also a really good example as to why we should absolutely NOT have anonymity for perpetrators in these cases. It's often only when women see that the same crime has happened to them that they feel confident enough to come forward and say, this happened to me too. Sexual offenders tend to be serial offenders as it's a pathology and every report of sexual assault should be taken seriously and investigated. Hopefully this will happen more in the future.

I think the trouble with compensating people financially for emotional upset is that it favours a victim mentality.
Being stoical and getting on with life gets less money than becoming an alcoholic. It is rare that things like alcoholism are due to single events anyway.
I think we compensate people with money far too much. Compensation should pay your lawyers fees, justice should be about seeing the other person be brought to justice.
If there is to be financial compensation then all victims should be compensated equally, it shouldn't be a biggest victim competition.

What if someone has suffered damage that is not easily quantifiable?

I'm thinking of one of Max Clifford's victims, the one he was sentenced to the greatest amount of time for, and if he had assaulted her in recent years, he would have been sent away for a much longer time because making her suck his cock amounts to rape now, though it didn't then.

She kept quiet until her parents were dead because she couldn't bring herself to say what he'd done because her parents trusted him and telling them that they'd been fooled would have destroyed them.

I can't imagine what keeping that secret did to her relationship with her mum and dad and her memories of them. I weep for her and them and am beyond rage at what that bastard did to them all. I am so grateful I've never been through something like that.

Money is the only language people like Clifford understand. That's a given on here.

But I'm beginning to think that it's the only thing people who talk about 'the compensation culture' understand too.

Government compensation via www.cica.gov.uk has levels set by Parliament on a "tarrif" of injuries, including mental injury for blameless victims of violent crime.

There is a "penalty points" deduction, so if you yourself have committed a crime your compensation is reduced according to the severity of your crime.

The money awarded is not as great as some would imagine and has a ceiling. Compensation for a death for example was about £5.5K. So anyone thinking victims of sexual abuse are set up for life would be mistaken.

It can be awarded regardless of a conviction providing the applicant meets criteria, including working with the police, filing a report, medical evidence of injury etc. The award is made on the "balance of probabilities."

I don't know much about civil compensation.

As a survivor of something similar I can tell you that therapy is expensive and cannot easily be accessed free for as long as is needed. The money can help.

Hiding this thread now.

Well, he has been holed up with his legal advisors since he was found guilty so I suspect all his assets have already been transferred to his wife so he won't have any money to pay out compensation.

bluebelljumpsoverthemoon
Your equating of the sexual abuse of these girls to "having their bum patted" is literally the most upsetting and revolting thing I've read on MN.
I hope to god youre never in charge of anyone's daughter.

Therapy can cost thousands and thousands of pounds, it can be £150 an hour. I think compensation should be there if people want it. It's up to the victim.

Yes therrapy is expensive. And neither can it neccessarily fix everything. The emotional aftermath of sexual abuse remains seriously underestimated.

Hypothetically speaking, if he were to appeal would they have to hold off on compo? Along the same lines, if his conviction was overturned upon new evidence or something after compo had been given, could he sue to get it back?

I agree with Golferman, I imagine all major assets have been transferred or ring fenced by his legal team and the amount available would be minimal.
I don't think any abuse victim should have to go through any further pain to receive redress, there should be a government board/department/section who pay compensation and supply easy access to support etc (a kind of one stop shop) and then it should be this entity pursue harris and his for repayment of the compensation.
unfortunately I think this is going to become a bigger problem as more claims come to light.

I received substantial compensation after sexual abuse as a minor.

It is nothing like prostitution which ime generally involves exchanging consent for financial gain.

The compensation helped me rebuild my life, support me through courses after I went from being a straight a student to failing all my courses and taking drugs.

It helped me afford expensive make up to cover my facial scarring

It helped me afford driving lessons so I didn't have to get the bus (where the attack happened)

I helped he afford wigs and hats to cover my alopecia

It's really nobodies business whether these victims choose to take compensation.

Completely agree with limitedperiodonly at 1st July, 19:05.

I do think people should be allowed to claim for compensation if they want to.
For some people getting money back from RH would be part of justice being done.
For others no amount of money would make up for the after effects and they might choose not to claim, partly because they have put themselves through enough already.
It is up to the individual.
I have a small amount of experience in this area because DS was assaulted. Don't want to go into details but it was the longest and possibly worst year of our lives. To add to it by trying to extract compensation would have been unbearable. However should DS wish to make a claim in his own right I would support him.
Some people do make things up. Occasionally you read in the papers that people have been charged with wasting Police time etc, but to go through a high profile trial like the RH one needs great strength and I think people who think his victims did it for the money should keep their thoughts very firmly to themselves.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Tue 01-Jul-14 18:19:51
WooWoo the compensation comes from the criminal injuries compensation authority link here

It's not the case that only the victims who have been abused by wealthy/famous people get compensation. Any victim of a crime, affected physical or mentally can claim.

that is really interesting, so if people sue for compensation, the money does not come from the guilty person?

fivefinger compensation is available from the CICA for criminal injuries.

In addition, you can sue somebody for personal injury in the civil courts and be awarded compensation out of their pockets. EG if they are driving and knock you over (although in that case insurance usually pays). Rape/sexual assault and abuse are considered to fall under the personal injury category in civil proceedings.

I'm not sure how the principle of double counting works - ie what you can get from the defendant over and above what you get from the CICA.

thanks, I get it now

Dancing, I'm sure any award from CICA is deducted from whatever sum is determined in a civil suit e.g. £3k awarded by CICA would be deducted from say £10k determined in a civil case. Often the CICA award won't come close to the cost in dealing with the fall out from any kind of violent assault, and if there is a route to sue civilly i.e. there are assets, then that is often the only route you can follow to get the funds to properly address the issues that require to be addressed.

I think the problem is that most people don't really understand that the mental health conditions triggered by sexual assault can be as physically disabling as an actual physical disability in some situations. You don't get awarded huge sums of money for minor 'emotional upset' as someone else described it earlier. You need to be diagnosed with a recognised psychiatric illness which is not a minor bump to just 'get over'. Psychiatric illnesses are serious, and can have a huge impact on someone's day to day life, which can also restrict how they support themselves. This is how the sort of money victims need is considered. It's not, and never will be, about giving people a huge pay day to blow on whatever. There are considerations that go to the heart of the needs victims have in order to try and rebuild their lives. And that is not always as simple as just having a bit if therapy and alls well.

Herrena I think your post illustrates what I've been talking about and my heart goes out to you.

Do you know what? This thread has really got me thinking about my feelings towards myself and my shame at what happened to me. If I had been physically assaulted, I don't think I would have any qualms about claiming compensation but yet, for this, I just have a block.

Casting negative aspersions on people's reasons for wanting compensation is linked to casting negative aspersions on the trauma faced by those who've suffered abuse.

If someone broke your leg due to their own malice, most people would agree they owed you compensation.

But sexual abuse (aside from stranger-rape happening to lily-white victims) still has the stigma of either not being as bad as the victim said, or in some way being the victim's fault. That's what's underlying the quibbling as to why someone would want compensation.

There's also the idea of a "good victim" who suffers silently. Talking about the harm you suffered and wanting restitution, means you're not playing the part of the "good" victim.