Sueing 7 years after an attempted rape

chesterstu

chesterstu

chesterstu

Permabanned
Joined
18 Jul 2006
Posts
1,222
Location
Frodsham
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7216895.stm

I think this is disgusting. I accept rape is bad and i have never been raped so i can't say how the women feels but the guy who did went to prison and has been punished. So why should this money grabbing women be allowed to chase to him now when at the time she clearly decided taking a civil action case against wasn't worth it.

This is all wrong. What do you think?
 
He should still be in prison and doesn't deserve a penny of the money he has. That's what I think.

Although I don't know the specific details of the rape.
 
furnace said:
He should still be in prison and doesn't deserve a penny of the money he has. That's what I think.

Although I don't know the specific details of the rape.
Click to expand...

If it was a child rapist then maybe but it was only an attempted rape and we live in a world where people are forgiven and not just written off
 
I think this is wrong as well. The guy fair enough is a scum bag for doing that to someone. But he has done his time in prison and that should be the end of it. He has already paid his price.
 
Although I hate the thought of a rapist getting off lightly in any circumstances, this has worrying rammifications for more then just rapists. Personally, I think 6 years was a good limit. People need to move on as well, and however nice it is to have money, it doesn't fix what has been done. If you can go for 6 years without any money, you can go for longer.

Burnsy
 
Surely when the money was gained is immaterial - she could have pursued the guy for damages at any point in time, but what would have been the point - he couldn't conjure up the money to pay her so why waste the legal fees? If there's a likelihood of receiving damages then she should be entitled to claim IMO.

In any event it isn't an outrageous decision anyway, the limitation act isn't absolute and there is plenty of precedent for extending it in certain cases - this is just another case by all accounts.
 
chesterstu said:
If it was a child rapist then maybe but it was only an attempted rape and we live in a world where people are forgiven and not just written off
Click to expand...

Haha re-read what you have just written. The first part and the second part don't seem to fit.:confused:
 
Rich_L said:
Surely when the money was gained is immaterial - she could have pursued the guy for damages at any point in time, but what would have been the point - he couldn't conjure up the money to pay her so why waste the legal fees? If there's a likelihood of receiving damages then she should be entitled to claim IMO.

In any event it isn't an outrageous decision anyway, the limitation act isn't absolute and there is plenty of precedent for extending it in certain cases - this is just another case by all accounts.
Click to expand...

from the artical this is the first time in 400 years, that a decision like this has been made on a rape case.
 
He doesn't deserve the money, should all be taken off him and stuck into charity or some sort of children/cancer foundation.
 
Tefal said:
from the artical this is the first time in 400 years, that a decision like this has been made on a rape case.
Click to expand...
Oh aye I don't dispute that, but the general principle (of disapplying the limitation act in certain circumstances) isn't without precedent :)
 
SK07 said:
He doesn't deserve the money, should all be taken off him and stuck into charity or some sort of children/cancer foundation.
Click to expand...

that's ridiculous.

What has money got to do with anything?

Are we really, as a society, in a position where everyone is so focused upon money as equalling integrity and success (which it very much doesn't) that we can't differentiate between morality and wealth.

Shame on anyone who can't.
 
Rape (and even attempted rape :/) is an abhorrent crime, and you deserve everything that comes to you for raping anyone (regardless of age) and you should never be allowed to forget, or be forgiven for it. If this is allowed then hopefully it'll act as more of a deterrent than the current punishments.
 
* "It was this rather than financial gain which motivated me to begin this process two years ago." *

Id sue her for being a Liar.... Its quiet obviuos she is in this for the money and nothing else.

Fine, change the law so people who serve the time asked for by the people to pay for the crime are always under a cloud of knowing if they ever do anything that makes their life better in any way it will be taken away. So much for forgiveness... It is greed pure and simple.

Id have more respect for her if she came out and said, im skint and he tried to rape me so i want some of the 7mil he won. At least she is being honest and not just taking the moral high ground for a easy trip to being rich.

If you do a crime and do the time, that should be the end of it. To me its like a shop selling you something, then 7 years later charging you the amount it has gone up by in the past 7 years as they think its right... stupid.

IMO...

ColiN - my opinion changes a lot :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom