Lotto Rapist Victim Wins Right To Sue

Lotto Rapist Victim Wins Right To Sue

news.sky.com[/u rl]

One of the victims of a rapist who won more than £7m on the lottery has won a legal victory that could force him to hand over some of his winnings.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7217251.stm]news.bbc.co.uk

I guess the victim deserves to get some sorta compensation from the Lotto winner rapist.
Otherwise it wouldnt have ben fair to the victim and let the rapist walk away with £7m enjoying his life forgetting about other lives he has ruined.


[url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1303078,00.html?&lid=NEWS_TAB_LOTTO_RAPIST_VICTIM_WINS_RIGHT_TO_SUE&lpos=TAB_CONTENT]news.sky.com[/u rl]
(visit the link for the full news article)

Of course if they had just hung the animal. He wouldn't have been able to win the money in the first place!

But being as he's done his time and we're talking about a good few years later here and we are supposed to forgive and forget and all that, surely he should be allowed to keep the cash.

Stinks of double standards.

MonKey

Hoare was first jailed in 1973 for 18 years for sexually assaulting five women and in 1989 he was sentenced to life for the attempted rape of Mrs A in a Leeds park.

First off what's this guys last name? Hoare? your serious? Hoare? ROFLMFAO *snif*

Ok back to the point I was going to make. I am sorry but I disagree with this decision only because this man DID SERVE HIS TIME. He did not rape this woman AFTER he won the lottery, He did not Rape these women and because of that assault win the lottery.

This man paid his debt to society, the sick scum sucker that he is paid his debt. He is now free to purchase lotto tickets just like any good decent human. This woman actually should not get one pence from this man.

Hoare I'm gonna laugh about that name for a while.

Please don't get me wrong this guy is a scumbag. But he is a scumbag that has served his sentence, She was compensated already according to the article and accepted that compensation.

reply to post by whatukno


He was sentenced to life in 1989 after first offending in 1973.
It's obvious he's a recidivist who will continue to commit sex crimes.
The primary purpose of a prison sentence is to punish, not rehabilitate.
He gave up his right to be treat as a normal member of society the day he raped his first victim.

Take all his winnings off him and split them equally bewteen all his victims.

Send the piece of scum back to prison for the rest of his natural, feed him on bread and water, straw mattress to sleep on and hard labour every day.

If she gets some compensation i hope she gives some to the NSPCC or something similar, seeing as how she said the money wasen't important to her.

reply to post by Freeborn


I am not going to disagree with your post at all. I believe that these kinds of people do not deserve to live. However this sick depraved bastard did go to jail and the sentence was carried out. to the ones that sentenced him, he has paid that debt and should not be punished further for something that he has paid his debt for.

Yes he should be put on a sex offender database forever and should have to register anywhere he goes but to take something that he has gotten legally away? No in fact these crimes happened nearly 20 years ago. Yes he is a sick bastard I will reiterate this point. But they should not be able to take something that has nothing to do with the crime away from him.

reply to post by whatukno


Yes, with hindsight I agree with you.
I posted in haste due to my absolute disgust of sex crimes.

At what point do we draw the line in cases like this?
I recognise that if "society" has deemed that he has been punished enough, that should be it.
It is a dangerous precedent.

The length, type and suitability of the initial punishment is a completely separate issue.

If she gets some compensation i hope she gives some to the NSPCC or something similar, seeing as how she said the money wasen't important to her.

Shes not keeping a penny for herself, All of the money she gets will go to a charity,


I say Good on her, What a brave women, SHe has changed a law that needed to be changed,

A crime like this affects the women/man the rest of there lifes, they dont have a sudden thought of its been 3 years i can forget it now,

He deserves never to have it easy, his victims will carry the pain and hurt with them all of there lifes,

people lose there familys over such things, as they can not cope, and some even take there own lifes,


[edit on 30-1-2008 by asala]

Originally posted by Freeborn
The length, type and suitability of the initial punishment is a completely separate issue.

Yes and I agree that these kinds of crime should be punishable as harshly or more so than murder. These people do worse to their victims in my opinion than a murderer. At least the victim of a murderer doesn't have to live with the memory of the crime for the rest of their lives.

But to continuously punish someone even when the terms of their punishment has been carried out? That in my opinion is double jeopardy.

reply to post by whatukno


I had exactly the same conversation with a friend in the pub tonight.

As horrible a crime that murder is, the victim is dead and the murder is usually a spontaneous act brought on by sudden emotional outbursts.

A rape victim has to live with the memory for every minute of the rest of their life.
It can effect all future relationships and victims often go on to live a life of complete misery.
The majority of rapes are premeditated and are completely inexcusable.

There is a need to completely review and overhaul the sentences given out to these evil people.