Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Compensation from Jimmy Saville's estate
As sure as night follows day the subject of compensation has risen its ugly head. What is the point? It's just blood money. It is exactly the same as Saville bunging one of his victims a wad of cash when he was alive to keep them quiet. Will this money make them suddenly forget about his abuse if they were so traumatised? The whole thing stinks. How many more alleged 'victims' are going to come out of the woodwork now that they smell a few quid in it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The theory behind damages for personal injury is to put the victim in the position that they would have been in had the tortious act not occurred. The trouble is, the law can't roll back time and unbreak someone's leg or unassault them. Thus the best the law can do is to provide damages for "pain, suffering and loss of amenity". It's imperfect but the best it can do.
The "point" is this Dave. If you are involved in a car accident as a result of someone else's negligence you can sue for damages for personal injury. Say it didn't result in physical injury but it resulted in a diagnosis of PTSD, you are still entitled to damages.
Why should victims of assault (assuming they have suffered some emotional damage rather than physical injury) be any different?
Why should victims of assault (assuming they have suffered some emotional damage rather than physical injury) be any different?
I don't think it will be quite as simple as someone rocking up and claiming JS groped them 40 years ago.
Any claimant will still have to prove their case. They are going to have to show significant trauma as a result of any assault which is going to have to be supported by medical and psychiatric opinion. Because of the nature of the assaults it may require significant intrusion into the victims' sexual history. So it won't be an easy ride for a "chancer" and it will be a very hard path to tread for a genuine victim for whom I have the utmost sympathy.
Any claimant will still have to prove their case. They are going to have to show significant trauma as a result of any assault which is going to have to be supported by medical and psychiatric opinion. Because of the nature of the assaults it may require significant intrusion into the victims' sexual history. So it won't be an easy ride for a "chancer" and it will be a very hard path to tread for a genuine victim for whom I have the utmost sympathy.
How can it be proved ? Without doubt there will be many chancers making alleged claims. How can they possibly sort the wheat from the chaff?
This is the problem.
I said at the beginning that this would happen, it was as plain as the nose on your face that the bottom feeding pond life lawyers would be there to make a buck or two of the back of the misery.
This is the problem.
I said at the beginning that this would happen, it was as plain as the nose on your face that the bottom feeding pond life lawyers would be there to make a buck or two of the back of the misery.
I agree it is going to be difficult. Genuine victims will generally be able to give a credible account and there may well be corroborative evidence (eg complaints being made - and there were some; medical evidence over a number of years where the patient has had counselling for a sexual assault; being able to describe surroundings, other people etc).
There is every chance that the odd "chancer" may slip through the net but as long as that is not to the detriment of genuine victims so be it.
Anyway, I see significant hurdles to overcome yet before compensation becomes an issue - not least is the limitation period.
There is every chance that the odd "chancer" may slip through the net but as long as that is not to the detriment of genuine victims so be it.
Anyway, I see significant hurdles to overcome yet before compensation becomes an issue - not least is the limitation period.
I really do not understand some posters here.Its not a question of "compensation "rearing its ugly head". Why on earth should people not be offered some form of financial compensation from those that have done genuine harm to them or from their estate in a case like this, however inadequate it might be?
It is possible of course, human nature being what it is, that some of those making claims of abuse are making stuff up in the hope of recognition, or a kind of perverse fame, or as a means of getting some cash, but to just dismiss all claimants as money grabbing opportunists is unfair.
These potential claims for compensation are not being persued through the criminal courts. They are civil claims, and therefore hold to a different standard of proof than a criminal claim.
Any claimant will still have to prove to the satisfaction of lawyers, the police probably psychiatrists and the court that an assault occurred before any financial award for restitution is made. People just making stuff up will find it difficult to persuade such professionals that they have a valid claim.
This is hardly a system whereby someone can just roll up, casually claim "Jim screwed it up for me" and wander off with a shedload of cash.
And why would some posters here begrudge some financial compensation to victims of an abuser anyway? For the majority of complainants, it is likely that any financial compensation is secondary to having the harm done to them recognised. Were they to receive compensation at all, it would just be some form of vindication.
It is possible of course, human nature being what it is, that some of those making claims of abuse are making stuff up in the hope of recognition, or a kind of perverse fame, or as a means of getting some cash, but to just dismiss all claimants as money grabbing opportunists is unfair.
These potential claims for compensation are not being persued through the criminal courts. They are civil claims, and therefore hold to a different standard of proof than a criminal claim.
Any claimant will still have to prove to the satisfaction of lawyers, the police probably psychiatrists and the court that an assault occurred before any financial award for restitution is made. People just making stuff up will find it difficult to persuade such professionals that they have a valid claim.
This is hardly a system whereby someone can just roll up, casually claim "Jim screwed it up for me" and wander off with a shedload of cash.
And why would some posters here begrudge some financial compensation to victims of an abuser anyway? For the majority of complainants, it is likely that any financial compensation is secondary to having the harm done to them recognised. Were they to receive compensation at all, it would just be some form of vindication.
I absolutely agree, lazygun.
In answer to the question, "Why money?", I would ask "Why not?". And I don't understand why some people are becoming so hot and bothered at the prospect.
*You* are not being asked to put your hand in your pocket; and *if* some chancers manage to slip through.......so what?
That Savile was an odious and persistent offender is surely now beyond doubt. If some of his money (earned in a profession that allowed him to continue his abuses) can provide some small recompense for those who lives he blighted......then I think that is fair enough.
Barmaid raises some pertinent 'legal process' points which may be the bar to anyone actually successfully suing the estate, but if the legal framework can accommodate these claims, I believe that they should go ahead.
In answer to the question, "Why money?", I would ask "Why not?". And I don't understand why some people are becoming so hot and bothered at the prospect.
*You* are not being asked to put your hand in your pocket; and *if* some chancers manage to slip through.......so what?
That Savile was an odious and persistent offender is surely now beyond doubt. If some of his money (earned in a profession that allowed him to continue his abuses) can provide some small recompense for those who lives he blighted......then I think that is fair enough.
Barmaid raises some pertinent 'legal process' points which may be the bar to anyone actually successfully suing the estate, but if the legal framework can accommodate these claims, I believe that they should go ahead.
It's the old compensation culture rearing its ugly head yet again
As the old adage goes 'innocent until proven guilty', Savilles dead and these alleged offences took place 30+ years ago so how the hell can any of the claims be proven?
Next time perhaps people shouldn't wait to bolt the gate long after the horse has bolted
As the old adage goes 'innocent until proven guilty', Savilles dead and these alleged offences took place 30+ years ago so how the hell can any of the claims be proven?
Next time perhaps people shouldn't wait to bolt the gate long after the horse has bolted
Latest Posts
Road rules35 mins ago
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life39 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles39 mins ago