ChatterBank2 mins ago
Rolf Harris Trial Verdict
Rolf Harris Guilty on all charges
Answers
Lots of abusers are still very much alive and kicking and almost certainly still abusing. Google Elm Guest House for instance. Cyril Smith was never prosecuted because he knew where the bodies were buried. He didn't abuse boys in Rochdale on his own. Local journalists will tell you about the "dirty mac brigade" that used to turn up by train on a Saturday...
09:36 Wed 02nd Jul 2014
\\\\Not when people have had their working lives made impossible by panic attacks and mental illness, no. They deserve monetary compensation.\\
\\\I ask, again, why shouldn't the victims receive compensation directly from their abuser?\\\
Mmmm! I think that the amount of emotional "torture" that one has to absorb during a lifetime is difficult to quantify and may I add...exaggerated.
Yes, i can see an argument for monetary compensation, but what worries me, is that it may well be in excess of that given to a serviceman who has lost a limb.
Disproportionate.
\\\I ask, again, why shouldn't the victims receive compensation directly from their abuser?\\\
Mmmm! I think that the amount of emotional "torture" that one has to absorb during a lifetime is difficult to quantify and may I add...exaggerated.
Yes, i can see an argument for monetary compensation, but what worries me, is that it may well be in excess of that given to a serviceman who has lost a limb.
Disproportionate.
Our law allows us to claim damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. So if you are injured in a car accident through someone else's reckless or negligence and it caused injury you can be compensated.
Many many victims of crime do not claim compensation against their attacker because a) insurers do not provide cover for that type of claim (unlike road accidents) and b) it is often just not worth suing.
So why should a victim of a car accident caused through negligence be entitled to claim but a victim of a crime which was perpetrated with intent not?
His victims will have suffered pain, suffering and loss of amenity - just because the injuries are not visible it does not lessen them as injuries.
Many many victims of crime do not claim compensation against their attacker because a) insurers do not provide cover for that type of claim (unlike road accidents) and b) it is often just not worth suing.
So why should a victim of a car accident caused through negligence be entitled to claim but a victim of a crime which was perpetrated with intent not?
His victims will have suffered pain, suffering and loss of amenity - just because the injuries are not visible it does not lessen them as injuries.
Well this is where people dont understand how the system works. The Claimant (or in this case, more properly the VICTIM) has to prove their case. The effect on some will be significantly different from victim to victim.
There are a set of guidelines applied in these cases known as the Judicial College Guidelines which set down brackets and awards. For those victims on whom it didnt have a significant impact, they will attract awards at the lower end of the scale. For those with past history of having problems coping with having been abused who have sought counselling, medical intervention and have had problems forming intimate relationships which subsist today, they will receive awards at the upper end.
There are a set of guidelines applied in these cases known as the Judicial College Guidelines which set down brackets and awards. For those victims on whom it didnt have a significant impact, they will attract awards at the lower end of the scale. For those with past history of having problems coping with having been abused who have sought counselling, medical intervention and have had problems forming intimate relationships which subsist today, they will receive awards at the upper end.
