Yet for sexual crimes, it somehow is perceived as different by much of society.
Yes and no barefoot. I'm not disputing for one second that many people have a problem with women claiming monetary restitution for sexual crimes against them. They are wrong. I haven't said anything else.
Many people also have a problem with people claiming 'compo' for all sorts of things. You see it everywhere - not least on here.
I've argued on past MN threads that people are entitled to claim restitution for an accident or negligence but have had to step away because the threads usually become infested by people spouting: 'compo culture!', 'ambulance chasers!', 'my arm was torn off in an encounter with a rusty climbing frame in 1975 and my mum stuck a plaster on and gave me a clip round the ear for being cheeky to the park keeper!'
They are also wrong and idiotic. They are the sort of people who add online comments or tweet The Wright Stuff and Sky.
People should claim compensation – yes, even against our beloved NHS – for in intentional or unintentional acts which result in life changing circumstances. I also agree that there should be punitive damages in some cases to make sure the point is driven home.
I have not said anything else.
I think the resentment at ‘Compo Culture’ is driven by envy that someone, somewhere is getting something that they aren't - like suffering a life-changing incident is fun if you get enough money. That goes for any kind of compensation, but is compounded when it's a woman who's been sexually assaulted, especially by a conventionally attractive, rich and well-connected young man.
The reason why I said 'no' is because you are okay if you are the right sort of victim of sexual assault. I linked to one of the victims of the rapist Iorworth Hoare. He won a great deal of money on the Lottery while on day release from prison – I know, but let’s put that to one side. She was out of time to make a claim but persisted and was granted special leave. The settlement was undisclosed and she gave it to charity.
It was a slog but she had nothing but support because she was the ‘right’ kind of victim. A ‘respectable’ middle aged woman minding her own business when grabbed by an evil stranger – from a park in daylight IIRCC.
But someone like Johnson’s victim – and we all know her case is far more typical of sexual assault - is going to get them all frothing.
That’s why I prefer people not to go there in even suggesting that the person is motivated by money.
That includes not saying that she has ‘decided’ not to sue. The girl has made a lot of decisions and has many more to make. But the poster didn’t know.
It seems a very fine point, but it’s important to me. Because what happens if she does decide to make a claim? Is she a gold digger? Are all those people who hate her going to say: ‘I told you so?’. We have no right to say what we think she’s going to do.
That is also why I do not want to see a monetary element brought into the prosecution of such serious crimes against a person. Everyone’s life is of equal value. We can talk about the money in a different place.