retired_google

**** him, he deserves to lose it.

retired_therob

As far as I'm aware, as it's a civil case the woman could only claim what is proportionate to remedy long-standing effects of the event (e.g. psychiatric harm).

It's not like the judge is going to decide, 'ah you nearly got raped, have £7m!'.

retired_linton_justin

I know, im just waiting for the story:

"Well done for winning £5m on the lotto. However, our records show you failed to pay a parking ticket in 1973 and we have therefore distibuted your £5m winnings to various local councils to help get more parking attendants on the streets. Hope you dont mind!"

retired_derek

James saying what i would have liked to have said far more eloquently than i could at this time in the morning.

retired_tripaige

am I missing an obvious point here?

it's obviously a no.

retired_bemesel

My initial thought was "no".
Then I read how he was imprisoned for a string of rapes before that made me think he shouldn't really have the money.

But then I wavered again and think the reason people are annoyed about him winning this money is the fact he will be free to use it. He should have locked up for life in the first place.

retired_therob

The question is, 'should lotto rapist have to pay compensation?'

What about if he hadn't just won the lottery, and has always been a rich bastard. Would it be right for him to pay compensation then? Bear in mind that, in the law as it stands, there's nothing extraordinary about someone suing a criminal to recompense for the damage they've done.

Why does the fact that he got the money from the lottery make a difference? Or is it the time factor?

retired_brose

i like this little snippet from the article, another classic Home Office quote


"But the Home Office said the prisoner's access to the money would be restricted while he was in custody."

The restriction being he cant pop down the bank and draw any out or go on a shopping spree in town.

Good job he is near the end of his sentence imagine winning £7m but having to wait 20 years before getting proper access to it.

retired_therob

Btw, my own personal thoughts on this case are that we don't have enough information to assess whether a claim is reasonable. If the woman has had to pay for counselling for years after to help get over the emotional distress then I think a claim is fair (if proportionate). If she just wants an easy few quid then obviously not.

Not sure how people can be so sure about saying 'no' when we know almost nothing about the crime and the effect it had on the woman.

retired_musiclova31

it's completely about the time factor. where the money came from is irrelevant. the suggestion that someone should be liable an indefinite period of time renders the entire rehabilitation process redundant.

i fail to see how the two correlate tbh.

imagine the interest...