Sueing 7 years after an attempted rape

[Deluxe1]

I presume any woman that gets raped has to carry the mental scars around with her for the rest of her life so i have no problem with trying to get a decent amount of compensation out of her attacker so many years after the incident took place.

 

[Tefal]

It has, I'm trying to get you to see from something you have an understanding of and apply it here.

You are saying that you are quite happy in this poor cows case, that she should be happy with the 5k given to her by the court as compo when it happened and that she should shut up go back to her destroyed life and be done with it.

I'm saying that YOU wouldnt just sit there and be happy with a judgment like that, why should she? No matter what any of you say, in the same position and given the same chance you would do the same.

Goddammit the whole board tried to screw argos over some mispriced cameras a while ago and were more than happy to screw them for a £50 saving over the mispriced item, half the board even advocates theft of items that are delivered in error even at the risk of costing some poor guy his job.
You cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me that if you or your family had been wronged like this woman was that given the chance to sue the filth that did it, that you would not do so.

why would the boards inclination to criminal acts, predispose them to suing for a crime?

 

[Sic]

Anything other than penetration clearly?

what about a woman raping a man? wasn't there something about a woman giving a sleeping guy a handjob at a party or something? that's rape without penetration

 

[andyp]

It has, I'm trying to get you to see from something you have an understanding of and apply it here.

You are saying that you are quite happy in this poor cows case, that she should be happy with the 5k given to her by the court as compo when it happened and that she should shut up go back to her destroyed life and be done with it.

I know exactly what you're trying to say. I'll quote my earlier post shall I...

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.

If money will make her feel better then she's quite a pathetic individual.

 

[atpbx]

We have laws and a justice system for a reason.

The law doesnt work and there is no justice.

 

[Tefal]

The law doesnt work and there is no justice.

then petion protest and vote to change it. or just leave to somewhere you find more "fair"

How would you like it if a family member or friend committed a crime then after getting out of jail the mates of the victim came round and gave him/her a kicking then robbed their house?

 

[Deleted member 651465]

what about a woman raping a man? wasn't there something about a woman giving a sleeping guy a handjob at a party or something? that's rape without penetration

Where are these women

 

[ChrisJSY]

Chloroform + viagra?

 

[atpbx]

why would the boards inclination to criminal acts, predispose them to suing for a crime?

I think perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.

The board advocates anything that will enable them to get financial gain for themselves if they can no matter what the cost to others if they can get away with it.

But not for others.

If its other people doing its "greedy" "pathetic" and "not on".

Its about the standards applied to other people but not themselves.

That is the argument agaisnt the greed part of why she shouldnt get any cash.

 

[Things change I've changed]

he has been accused of 5 counts of sexual assault in various forms on different people. He won't ever learn his lesson.

With regard to crime, I think that the victim should be entitled to whatever it takes to make them feel comfortable again. In your friend's case, in a perfect world for me, the burglar would have to pay any fees that your friend had to pay for moving house, and any loss of earnings she may have accrued in the move.

nahhhhhh, do you realize if this was really implemented how many people would abuse the system, hell I'd pay someone to burglarize my house and play act the effects it had on me if I wanted to move and have a few weeks paid vacation, all expenses paid, cheers, it's NEVER good when money is involved as an incentive for the victim in a crime, it colours their thinking, it turns it from the victim wanting the criminal to be fairly punished into "Im going to get as much money from you as I can from this", it almost makes the crime acceptable as long as they pay a certain amount of money, I can guarantee when suing someone it's about greed more than wanting the criminal to be punished properly, hell if someone raped me do you really think that I would want thats persons money, that would almost make me a hypocrite enjoying my life on my rapists money lol, it's greed pure and simple.

 

[Rich_L]

Then you are waiving the chance to get anything regardless of how small.
You should not be able to wait for such a long time for a potential person to come into money then decide to have a go at getting some.

The only reason she is doing this is for money.

So do you think she should have incurred thousands of pounds in legal fees to obtain an unenforceable order for damages and costs just to 'prove' that she was entitled to damages? If the guy had money in the first place, presumably she would have sued, yet just because the money arrives after an artificial date means that the guy has 'got away with it'.*

The way round that is obviously the no win no fee and you would sue for costs in the case as well. Or you can take out an insurance policy that if you do lose, the insurance will pay costs.

Good luck in getting a solicitor who is willing to enter into a CFA against an individual without any means Solicitor's aren't going to take on a case where they get nothing up front and no chance of getting costs back at the end! After all, what's the point in suing an individual for costs in the case if they can't even pay the damages?

*the limitation act is a funny beast anyway, for example, if the guy had won the lottery 5 years and 364 days after the event then she would have been able to sue, one day later and she would have to apply for special dispensation.

 

[peetee]

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.

a few years in prison is paying the price for possibly ruining the rest of someones life? constantly being haunted and in fear. Look at that girl who took her life the other week because she had been raped, if they had caught the attacker etc im still fairly sure she would have killed herself. They should have to financially pay for victims, they'll need councilling, will be scared of walking places(more taxis etc) and generally have lost some quality of life, an attempt should be made to correct this.

 

[Tefal]

snip

opportunism and vindictiveness are quite different.

 

[Morba]

So do you think she should have incurred thousands of pounds in legal fees to obtain an unenforceable order for damages and costs just to 'prove' that she was entitled to damages? If the guy had money in the first place, presumably she would have sued, yet just because the money arrives after an artificial date means that the guy has 'got away with it'

If she would have won compensation she wouldn't have had to pay legal fees surely. So she was at no loss.
How has the bloke got away with it? he has served time for it. That will be with him forever, it will be looked at unfavourably for the rest of his life, as will his addition to the sex offenders register.

 

[Rich_L]

If she would have won compensation she wouldn't have had to pay legal fees surely. So she was at no loss.
How has the bloke got away with it? he has served time for it. That will be with him forever, it will be looked at unfavourably for the rest of his life, as will his addition to the sex offenders register.

That goes back to the problems with suing someone who doesn't have any money

She would have been awarded her costs undoubtedly, however the solicitors wouldn't be able to recover any money from the guy, no more than they would be able to get the damages from him on her behalf. That leaves a shortfall, which would have to be paid by her (as the solicitors aren't gonna work for free!), and they'd have to be idiots to enter into a no-win no-fee agreement in litigation against a defendant with no money.

'got away with it' is probably the wrong term in hindsight, a better term would be that she has 'lost out', because the guy didn't have money at the time, whereas if he had, then she would have been able to recover compensation.

*edit*

However, I think the general reasons for the limitation act being in place are sound, so the current position where the court's discretion is required for the limitation to be disapplied or extended is reasonable and I think any similar cases should be treated on a case-by-case basis rather than simply disapplying the limitation act to all cases!

 

[Morba]

yes she lost out due to circumstance. that is life.

 

[Rich_L]

yes she lost out due to circumstance. that is life.

Fair answer really! After all the mere existence of the limitation act inevitably is going to have some people losing out through no fault of their own, so 'that's life' is what it comes down to a lot of the time!

I'd be interested to know how much she is claiming as well, I also wonder whether the opinions on here would change if she was claiming, say, £10,000 or £1,000,000.

i.e. if she was claiming £10,000 for distress caused against the guys £7 million fortune, would that be unfair?

 

[colinuk]

People really should not comment AT ALL about subjects like this unless they have experienced or have tried to help someone deal with rape.
Because you simply do not and will not ever understand it until do.

What a completly stupid thing to say...

This is a forum where you talk about things and get opinions, just because we have not been raped or may or may not know somewho has, does not give anyone else the right to tell others to shut up or that what they are thinking does not count. Go down that route and we may as well all go behind a wall and shoot ourselfs now.

We are talking it out, getting view points we may not have thought of and mixing it up. If you cant see that or agree to join in, then dont post.

I still say he was punished as the law see fit and she was ok with it as she never sue'd him then. Now he won some money, she has a moral case, bobbins, unless greed is now a moral i think she should be told to go take a hike. One you pay the price for something, that is the end of it, and he did.

I am not saying it is fair, or even nice, but you cant have the law working one way for one and another way for someone else, no matter how much he won.

<ColiN>

 

[Stinky]

the money was gained well after the incident, she has no right to it.

i agree with this.

she wouldnt have thought twice about it if he hadnt won the lotto. this is disgusting. even the guy on the news said that this is very rare and its only because he won the lotto that they would even consider her claiming money. its wrong. he won that money fair and sqaure, he's done his time for the crime end of. even if it was a rape it was years ago and has been punished

 

[Mr Jones]

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.

Agreed.

I know she must have suffered, especially such a horrid ordeal but to come back years later, especially after he's serve his time, to sue him for money?

*Money Grabbing Alarm*