Thursday, 21 November 2013

No win, no Fee ... For Them !

On the 16th June 2013, the same day that West London Mental Health Trust (Boroadmoor Hospital) issued a further appeal for information, Slater and Gordon Solicitors issued a statement that included this information 

 Their '67 victims' have now become 72 according to an article in the Independent on17th November 2013, concerning a suggestion by the President in the Faculty of Public Health for a debate into lowering the age of consent.

A lawyer representing 72 of the victims of Jimmy Savile warned against any move to lower the age of consent.
Liz Dux, who heads a specialist child abuse team at Slater & Gordon, said: “I have real concerns about the prospect of the age of consent being lowered.

Ms Dux's goes on :

“Predatory adults would be given legitimacy to focus their attentions on even younger teenagers and there is a real risk that society would be sending out the message that sex between 14-15-year-olds is also acceptable.

So that's two blogs in a row in which I report an element of discomfort for the No Win No Fee lawyers handling the claims against the late Jimmy Savile. Here are some of the Q and A's from their 'update' on the investigation !

'Time limits' first I've heard of this - Perhaps someone would like to explain that one to me !

..the majority of the Jimmy Savile related allegations the time limit has RUN OUT' ???

Fisher Meredith Solicitors handled these difficulties thus


 And their 'Final Word' !

 The main Solicitor associated with the Savile investigation is Slater Gordon's Liz Dux - here's more information about her !

Ms Dux comments about the hospital allegations in the Daily Mail on the 23rd June 2013

Liz Dux, one of the lawyers representing his victims, said Savile's offences on NHS property were just as bad as those committed on the BBC premises and in some cases much worse.
Dux, of Slater & Gordon, added that more people in the NHS than previously thought knew about what was happening and took no action.

Here's an example she quotes

 'There are stories of Savile being on top of people in the wards and nurses just saying "Oh, get out Jimmy, you shouldn't be in here".'

There are some interesting comments from those who say they, or someone they knew, were there !

Moor Larkin mentioned in my comments section in my previous post about a letter, originally published  in the Nursing Standard on January 30th 2013 entitled 'Savile was uninversally loathed by Stoke Mandeville Staff'.  Again, no mention of patients or children - NONE !

The third Q in Slater Gordoan's Q and A's on their Jimmy Savile investigation update page is the following :

Hopefully, you are having the same pleasant thought that I am reading those last few lines !  See ya next time Guys and gals !


  1. No lawyer would take a case on a no win/no fee basis if they didn't believe they could win it. Each client would have to provide them with enough details about their allegation to convince them to represent them on that basis if they couldn't get legal aid, which is almost impossible in most cases these days, even for those who qualify. All of the hospitals involved are insured against claims like these by the NHS Litigation Authority. They will decide whether or not to settle out of court or proceed to trial depending on the merits of each case. Any settlements they do make will be calculated individually, after the claimant has been assessed by psychiatrists to determine the extent of any psychological injury caused by the alleged abuse. The NHS Litigation Authority is not a pushover and nor are their lawyers. They're not going to start handing out money to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Lix Dux might have 72 clients but there is no class action in the UK like there is in the States.

    1. Not sure that is necessarily the case about "no win/no fee". None of these cases are going to court are they, and a whole year has gone by already. The lawyers are pressurising for ex-gratia payments to be made and admissions of culpability to be made, so the costs are zero in many ways. I would say their only costs are the complimentary drinks for the tabloid hacks who type up the frequent propaganda hand-outs they seem to get given.

  2. There's a strong whiff of herd talk going on there. Now, did they voice opinions of Jimmy being a bit creepy BEFORE the media painted him as a devil incarnate? Seeing as how not one formal complaint was registered at the time, it looks like all smoke and no fire to me.

  3. Indeed - 'unsubstantiated' 'gossip' and 'rumours' now, where have I heard that one before ... ? Oh yes, time to re visit some old friends I think !

  4. Nick Vaughan-Barrett of the BBC says in Pollard that the "dark side" he had heard about with regards to Jimmy was to do with his "having relations" with patients, but nothing about "underage girls"

    Also, another comment was:
    "Addressing the the claims that nurses were almost dragged into his room, I witnessed many giggling nurses often knocking on the door of his room that became his home while staying at the hospital, nurses that were happy to enter once the door was opened. "

    Vaughan-Barrett says he is referring to the 1980's. The second story is specified as a personal story dating from May 1976 to March 1977..... no struggling with memory or vagueness about dates in the latter case.

  5. @Moor the latter case you refer to is part of ableize blog that was featured in my last post 'I was a patient ... 1977' !!!

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.