Tuesday, 15 January 2019

And the winner's are ?

Osbourne Clark Solicitors - according to the press that is !

The Savile estate was originally valued at £4.5m. Osbourne Clark received £1.8m and I'm NOT even going to try to work out how much anyone else got. I've been trying all day, sorry but I'm brain-fagged ! 

Yesterday the following was published in the Sunday Times

 It seems that someone's freedom of information request has been successful*

'Open cases' ? So the NHS will be paying out even more ? I'm not going there ! 

No indication in Gregory's report of how much the claimant's lawyer's got. I wonder if they even asked ? It might be interesting to see that FOI request, especially given the fact that they got the amount paid to Osbourne Clarke wrong ! 

'A large number of false claims ?' 

If only someone would follow the money in the right direction now and then ! If only Sunday Times hacks read the tabloids who knew in 2016 that Osbourne Clarke actually got £1.8m out of the estate. 

And, here's the thing : Only £141,000 would be left to cover other claims (not made directly to the estate via the 'scheme') including the NHS ! 

 78 'payouts' were made for claims made directly to the estate, totaling £1m

78 claims were therefore successful by the looks of it. Two years earlier David Rose informed us that just 22 out of the 58 processed at the time, had been accepted, that is - they had passed someone's screening. Let's remind ourselves of that particular status quo back then. 

Which means there must have been at least 208 claims made against the estate. Not the BBC or NHS via the vicarious liability route, just against the estate via the 'scheme' implemented by Justice Scales in the High Court. 
By my reckoning, this means that 130 claims were NOT accepted, i.e they were deemed false, untrue - however you want to put it ! That's a tad shocking isn't it ? Have any of these claimants been reported for fraud ?

Now, once I got past my knee-jerk annoyance towards the Sunday Times' Andrew Gregory, I decided that what he'd written just a few days ago, was actually quite useful. Yes, he kind of got the OC fee wrong (he may have been referring soley to the NHS legal costs) but, even that is useful piece of information, when you consider how little any of us have actually been told about the Savile claims and 'payouts'. 

*For example, I now know that the freedom of information request was actually made by The Sun newspaper who published this a few weeks before. Yes really !

Of course, the Sun has no idea how expensive these pithy legal encounters can be, not having ever been sued by anyone ever, but the real Oscar in - The Public Interest - category needs to go to Pete Saunders who's currently being paid a fortune to sit on the IICSA panel, 'truth project' thing. His suggestion for cutting the costs ? replace one set of expensive folk with another ! 

We're reminded that three of Savile's NHS 'victims' got £40,000 each, meaning that someone accepted one of the more serious offences had been committed ? Remember folks, this is OUR money, not the NHS's, not Jeremy fucking Hunt's money, it's OURS, and it's being given away ! Well, that's what I think anyway.

Much as I hate to do this - here's the link to the sun's efforts. Might be an interesting chore for someone to fish out their FOI request. Not me, I've done enough ... for now !

I guess I should have worked out exactly how much the ambulance chasers were paid. I'll leave that one to you as well. 

I wonder just how many of these claimants might have submitted claims to more than one of the sources available to them - the NHS, the BBC, the estate directly ? How would anyone even know ? 

Happy New Year All 

Here's a little something for the 52 who got on average, less than £10K of OUR money !

Update 22st January 2019

I've been asked to publish the following information sent to me by Amanda. Exactly as she worded it to me 

'The NHS just paid out "nuisance claims". It was cheaper than investigating them ..... The scrutineers worked for free and proved many were lies but the NHS just paid. Was their evidence shared with the NHS ? We'll never know, nor will we ever know if they took any notice of it. The lawyers won't say who did and who didn't get paid out. Surely the NHS and the BBC should .... It's our money and they are public bodies.
Did you know that multiple claims were made ? ..... Nothing stopping any claimant getting money from the NHS his estate and the BBC i.e "assaulted in xyz hospital then at TOTP. That would make three separate claims'.

Someone should ask the NHS and the solicitors, questions based upon the above statement. Shouldn't they ?

Friday, 14 December 2018

Justice For Ted Heath - Hansard December 11th 2018

Lord Lexden (Alistaire Cooke - writer) goes on 

Not a happy bunny is he ? And all power to him for supporting the dead ex- Prime Minister Edward Heath. You can read the official report of the debate here.

His Lordship is rightly pissed that a dead man's good name can be destroyed. He wants justice for Ted Heath.Welcome to my world Alistair ! I've been wanting Justice for Jimmy since his good name was destroyed within minutes of his death in October 2011. 

At least Ted got an investigation, the boys at Scotland Yard decided from the outset that Jimmy didn't deserve one because he was guilty as far as they were concerned. Their feeble excuse for not bothering - it was pointless, he's dead but there's got to be others out there - still alive, so we can investigate them, should warrant some future comment in influential circles. As ever, we can wait, can't we guys and gals ? 

1) Jimmy Savile is guilty because of the sheer number of complaints made against him. Two years ago Baroness Butler-Sloss said this 

 Fast forward to the 11th December 2108 

The Savile Police appended 214 crimes to Sir Jimmy Savile. How many of them were repeat offenders, how many showed up again in Conifer ? How many contradictions have I for one, found in the Savile claims, not to mention outright lies ? 

Then there's the question of whether the dead should be investigated at all. Better late than never I guess 

Anyway, that's all I'm saying for now on this. But, beings as it's Christmas, I thought I'd leave you something that made me smile, if not laugh out loud ! Here's one of the Lords in an earlier episode of peers calling out liars in Parliament !!! Enjoy

Merry Christmas x


Sunday, 7 October 2018

'Inadvertently' blaming Kavanaugh ?

I didn't listen to all Christine B Ford's testimony before the Judiciary Committee on 27th September, if I had I'd have heard this and if I'd heard this, I'd have saved myself a lot of bother trying to work out exactly if CBF might just have named Brett Kavanaugh in her therapy sessions. She didn't !

See how Helen Mitchell comes into her own in her questions about these 'notes' I transcribed most of it staring with Ford's early contact with the Washington Post 

 Text to Washington Post dated 7/6 (which presumably means 6th July 201)

Have therapy records talking about it (it presumably meaning the alleged assault)

Did you already have your therapy records at that time 

I had looked at them online to see existed, yes

So this was something available to you via a computer like a patient portal

Actually no, it was in the office of a provider

She'd helped me go through ... 

Did you show a full or partial set of those marital therapy records to the Washington Post ?

I don't remember I remember summarising for her what they said, so I'm not quite sure if I actually gave her the record

Have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel 

Just the counsel

Would it be fair to say that Brett kavanaugh's name is not listed in those notes ?

His name is not listed in those notes

Would it also be fair that the therapist's notes that we've been talking about, say that there were four boys in the room ?

 It describes the sexual assault and it says er erroneously by 4 boys, so the therapist got the content of it wrong

And you corrected that to this reporter at the Washington Post ?


Now, I've been doing my own head in this last week or so trying to work out as best I can with what little I've had, what exactly was it that CBF was trying to achieve by bringing her therapist's alleged notes into her assault claims. Did she believe they would have some corroborative value to her story despite the fact she hadn't actually named Justice K as her assailant, not during her and her husband's couples therapy that is ? Let's go back to statements she made after her initial contact/s with the press and Senator Feinstein and her personal appearance before the committee. 

Hats off to the Daily Mail for their efforts here - this is one of the most useful article's to date

  Now read this - her motivations for coming forward and her desire to hopefully remain anonymous ?

Now, here's where those questions by Mitchell come into there own, as she managed to get Ford to admit that she had researched her medical/therapy notes prior to contacting the press etc. Those notes if they exist, and we have to assume they do because her counsel must have seen them, corroborate her claims that she had therapy and her husband was there at the time maybe in 2012 or 2008 (read my last post), we can accept this on the balance of probability can't we ? What we cannot know is whether she's lying about the fact that she says she told others the identity of her attacker, even in its vaguest form - he's a judge - he might be on the Supreme Court one day etc ! 

Her lawyer's say she'll only release these notes in the course of an investigation and only if she's interviewed by the FBI, and we don't know why she wasn't. But, can we all agree that, really she should have turned over those notes, redacted if necessary ? Which brings me nicely into this most sensitive of questions : Is she lying or does she honestly believe that BK attacked her all those years ago ?

Of course we don't know what information the FBI had already acquired during their 'investigation' but failing to just interview her they've given her an excuse, poor as it is, not to play ball !

But hold on, isn't the whole reason she came forward in the first place one of civic duty ? Why let a pesky thing like not being interviewed AGAIN, after spending half a day doing that for the whole world to see already ? This lady's identification of a Supreme Court nominee, may well be the result of some false memory and that may in due course - partly absolve HER of any serious liability, her accomplishes should not, in my opinion be allowed to get off lightly !

I may have been a bit harsh calling Ford a liar. Common sense denotes that something traumatic must have happened to this woman at some point in her life. Just listen and watch her testimony, she clearly still has mental health problems. But I don't believe her woes have anything to do with Brett Kavanaugh. 

What's more, and this part of the incident has been bugging me since I read it - why did she feel the need to add her own interpretation of her attacker's motivation, NOT TO DELIBERATELY kill her ?

This brings out my own inner psychologist (crap degree no classification). Is she making the attack seem more or less serious - I thought he meant to rape but not kill me ? I'm not sure what she's doing here, and I'm not sure her therapist's notes will aid my understanding. 

But they might ! 


Saturday, 29 September 2018

In whose bedroom was Ford allegedly attacked ?

I've decided that the least stressful way to approach this case is to blog as certain questions come to me. The last few days I've been comparing and contrasting what CBF said at the Senate Judiciary Committee to what she said elsewhere, specifically in her original letter to Senator Feinstein.

The 'full unredacted letter' was published in various publications. I cannot access the Washing Post because it's pay-walled,  but thankfully, Newsweek magazine isn't ! 

The latest news on the story is that the FBI will, rightfully in my opinion, be investigating the claims, and that's no small juice. As NPR very helpfully - and more importantly - impartially explain, lying to a Senate Committee is one thing, lying to the Feds is quite another !

OK, so let's go to the contents of the letter as published in Newsweek. The way CBF describes the incident in her letter is different to what she said later, and contrary to what some may claim - these differences are, as far as I'm concerned quite important !  I've already covered the number of party-goers angle, so I'll not repeat that right now !

1) WHO allegedly pushed her into that bedroom ? 
July 30th Version 

The Polygraph Statement Version 7th August 2018


How does she go from K pushing her to she's not sure if it was him or his friend ? Now, it is of course, perfectly reasonable to not know who pushed you from behind, indeed - how would she know it was BK ? So why say this in her letter to Feinstein ?

Now - read what she says to the JSC on 27th September 

Why has she inserted the "I drank one beer" into this account ? What's happened to make her remember the fact she'd only drank one beer ? Would you remember this ? I don't think I would, but it sounds like a good way of saying, I wasn't drunk, like they were. I could speculate more, but I'll not. 

But, here's the corker for me. Here's something that jumped right at me - the bit about the music ! No, not the loud music that was playing downstairs - the music already playing in the room she's been pushed into ! 

2) Whose room did this alleged attack take place in ? This is someone's bedroom right ? That person must surely have been in the house at the same time ? CBF has to know exactly whose house this was. She remembers the names of just about everyone who was there, so she must know not only WHOSE house it was, but where this bloody house was !

I don't know about you but I'm suspicious of anyone whose story keeps changing, and the more I listen to and read about CBF the less credible I find her story. Not necessarily her by the way - her story ! There's a difference between the two ! 

To be continued


Friday, 28 September 2018

Christine Blasey Ford's Doors

Never mind Mark Judge someone tell Brett Kavanaugh's lawyers to issue legal proceedings against Christine B Ford, if for no other reason than I want to know if every Goddam house she's ever lived in needed renovation in the form of extra doors. And I'm deadly serious folks, listen up !

A few days ago someone had the presence of mind to publish CBF's Polygraph test along with a printed statement regarding an incident in which she claims Federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her. 

I immediately noticed some discrepancies between the handwritten notes and the typed version of events. They're not much in themselves but then one starts burrowing and well, all sorts of holes start appearing - pun intended - everywhere ! 

In her original letter to Sen Feinstein Ford dated July 30th 2008 she claimed there were just five people including her at the gathering at which the alleged attack took place

Her handwritten note dated 7th August 2018 says 4 boys and a couple of girls, I expect not including her !

 So what you might say, and I might agree if it weren't for where these documents led me next, to the Daily Mail for God's sake ! Yes REALLY ! 

You see, I've read her statements, I've heard her testimony (some of it) but what I haven't seen so far is any physical proof that what she's saying is accurate ! Notice I didn't use the word 'true' ? I'm getting a tad wiser in my old age (since yesterday). CBF may well have told her therapist and her husband that Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant, but unless I see those notes, it's just her word, and that's not enough for me ! 

Ford's detractors say she only brought BK into her assault story, when she discovered he'd been nominated for the Supreme Court a few months ago, but Ford is adamant that she told her husband during a couple's counselling session in 2012. It had to be 2012 because that's when she had to explain why she wanted an extra/new/second door in her home !

 could not be understood ? Does this mean her husband was unaware of her issues regarding confinement, in 2012 ? The next bit (from yesterday) is even more bizarre !

She recalled that someday the boy who assaulted her 'could someday be on the US Supreme Court' ? Really - she was saying this in 2012 ? Sorry folks, but I don't believe this and I hope you don't either ! But hold on, for a moment, I'm not alone in my door fetish (I've been questioning her references to the need for extra doors for days), there is intelligent life in the media ! Please someone - give a round of applause to Dr Ford's local missive - the PA Post


Anyone else see Dr Ford's problem here ?  This extra door was fitted in 2008 by which time her husband should have got used to her special needs in the door department, so it's highly unlikely they'd be arguing about it four years later. 

Unless, they were short of cash that is ! But that's another story, I'm knackered . 

To be continued ! Oh but before I go, someone explain to me why Ford's lawyers are withholding her therapy notes ? Maybe the FBI will tell us !

And, what does she mean by this ? She's received 'medical treatment' 

Is she considering a civil claim ?

Oh, and you might want to look up these guys too !