A survivor of abuse from Bradford, Fiona Goddard, has publicly voiced profound distress over her experience seeking compensation, stating that the response she received left her feeling both “insulted” and “gaslit.” Her testimony raises serious concerns about the systemic sensitivity and efficacy of processes designed to provide redress to victims of trauma.
Allegations of Re-Victimisation
Ms. Goddard’s account details a deeply frustrating and emotionally damaging interaction with the compensation mechanism. She alleges that the handling of her claim was dismissive, failing to acknowledge the severity of her ordeal and instead subjecting her to a bureaucratic process that felt adversarial.
The use of the term “gaslit” by Ms. Goddard is particularly potent, suggesting that the response she received attempted to undermine her perception of reality regarding the abuse she suffered and the legitimacy of her pursuit for justice. This feeling of being questioned and invalidated, rather than supported, constitutes a form of re-victimisation that advocates argue is alarmingly common within complex institutional systems.
The Purpose of Redress
Compensation schemes are fundamentally intended to offer survivors a measure of financial and psychological acknowledgement, facilitating recovery and rehabilitation after traumatic events. However, Ms. Goddard’s experience highlights a critical disconnect between the stated goals of these systems and their practical implementation.
Victim support organizations frequently stress that the manner in which compensation claims are handled is as crucial as the outcome itself. Insensitive or protracted processes can exacerbate existing trauma, turning the pursuit of justice into an additional source of stress and anguish for those already vulnerable.
Calls for Systemic Review
Ms. Goddard’s powerful statement is expected to intensify calls for a comprehensive review of the frameworks governing victim compensation. Experts suggest that mechanisms must be implemented to ensure that all interactions are trauma-informed, prioritizing the emotional well-being of the claimant over purely administrative efficiency.
The incident underscores a broader national debate regarding accountability and support for survivors, emphasizing the need for robust training and oversight within all bodies responsible for administering justice and financial redress to victims of historical and ongoing abuse.
