Wednesday 30 April 2014


Press Release from the Trustee of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust


  1. Laywers & Bankers.
    Con Artists & Gangsters.
    Tramps & Thieves.

    And where is the majestic UK Journalist Industry while this travesty continues?
    In the bar ordering the champers on their expense accounts no doubt and muttering "For we are jolly good fellows", to one another.

  2. Let the nonentities stay out of the way. Real journalists have work to do ! :-)

  3. rabbitaway - this is appalling - I had no idea the contents of the trust was donations from the public. Well done for bringing this to everyones attention.

  4. I don't think anyone was aware of this fact Anna ! The general public needs to be made aware of this asap !

  5. Ho Hum here

    Hang on a mo, Mr Rabbit

    I thought that this was merely saying that the Trust shouldn't have to pay more than only the Natwest's own 'direct costs' of the Trust's unsuccessful action, that that was the real issue, and probably caused by the court assuming that the assets of both Trust and Estate were, in some 'regards', Savile's.

    That's a cock up, not a conspiracy

    And you need to use some software that you can comment on from a phone that does not make the one making the comment almost apoplectic with rage in respect of its utter uselessness :-)

  6. Hello 'Ho', sorry about the software, not my field baby and I cannot complain cos it's free ! So, about the money, well, I have to say that I am confused because the press release certainly indicates that the compo hunters appear to be targeting monies that remain in the JSCT account/s. Leastways that's what I think, I don't know. I like everyone assumed that it was just Jimmy's personal estate that had been frozen etc. I will seek clarification on this issue and update asap.

  7. According to its own financial statements for the last five years, filed as required by law with the charity commission, the JSCT receives income from its investments and occasional voluntary donations.

    In 2009 the voluntary donations were £1,842 and the investment income was £157,148.

    In 2010 the voluntary donations were £430 and the investment income was £66,166

    From 2011 to 2013 there were no voluntary donations.

    In 2011 the investment income was £123,259
    In 2012 it was £132,546
    In 2013 it was £111,597

    Total funds on 31st March 2013 was £3,609,906
    Public donations during the last five years come to the grand total of £2272

    Their accounts have not been frozen and the compo hunters are not "targeting" any of this money. Nor does the press release indicate that they are doing so. It refers only to the costs of the recent litigation.

    The financial statements, which are on public record, can be found here:

    Hope this helps clarify the situation.


    1. Yep. And the Trust is in the difficult position that, if I understand things rightly, as the chief beneficiary of the estate, it can't just sit back and let the executors spaff the money around willy nilly to anyone who rolls up at their door saying that there were 'touched by St Jimmy' and therefor also deserved some fiscal blessing from him as well.

      Especially if there is no real proof, and there is even just a whiff that payments were being made to clear the assorted waifs and strays, and their accompanying mages from the black arts, from embarrassingly parking on some institutional doorsteps with tear and lipstick smeared placards proclaiming 'Lolly for the Lollies'

    2. I will confirm the exact position in regard to the accounts etc as soon as I can. It is important that the British public know what is going on here.

    3. @the Anonymous, who linked to the charity accounts.

      So are you suggesting that we should assume that the bulk of that £3M was actually Sir Jimmy's personal funds then? Is that why the Trust is being targetted?

      So monies destined for charity are fair game for con artists and gangsters then? It's only donations that are sacrosanct? But..... wasn't that what the money was anyway? A donation by Jimmy Savile? Seems to be a circularity here.

  8. I'm not suggesting anything. The JSCT was established in 1985, nearly forty years ago. Compound interest on its investments during that period probably account for the bulk of its funds today.

  9. Ho Hum to Moor

    If I can get a comment complete before I break this thing in frustration, my take on this is

    There are two legal entities

    The Charitable Trust
    JS Estate

    The latter was left to the former in JS will

    The former is made up, as are. Most charitable trusts, of an Asset Base, to which is added donations, and from which are deducted monies paid out in meeting the Charity's objectives

    The Charity could have been set up using JS name as a goodwill gesture in his part and all it's income, and hence asset base, have come from the public without JS contributing a bean

    If anyone is going after that thinking that somehow the funds were JS's, then something seems wrong

    It's the Estate that would be subject to claims for compensation for his alleged misdemeanours, and I guess that what has happened is that when the Trust/charity trustees acted against the executors, and seemingly 'lost' therefore becoming liable for all/some of executors costs, we are seeing claims for costs being made by all those other lawyers who turned up for the bun fight - 20 or so, wasn't it - saying that the Trust should meet their costs as they wouldn't have had to turn up to protect their clients interests - maybe different executors might not be as inclined to keel over, do a deal and cough up? - as the current executors

    You may say that that might accord with the rules, but where's the morality in it? I wouldn't waste my time looking for any....

    1. Message to Ho' - If you create a gmail address u can sign in to all our blogs very easily. You can create one anonymously, u don't have to create a google account. Hope that helps Ho', always nice to see ya !

  10. Someone is reporting the story !

  11. And now, a story of WHO will end up paying for this BIG time ! Yes, you guessed right, you and me that's who !

    1. We've been paying for Operation Yewtree all along.
      We''ll be paying for it for some yet, too.

      One or two folk have paid for it with their lives. The con artists complained at their selfishness and denial of 'justice' for their clients. Giving the victims a voice? All I've heard is the voice of evil.

    2. Third sectors report of 27/2 on the Charity's initially failed case included

      'Alan Collins, principal lawyer at Slater & Gordon, said he was not entirely sure why the charity felt it was entitled to the money. "My interpretation, which they may not agree with, is that these cases ought to be defended, that they go back many years, that some cases are spurious and that they should be thrashed out in the court – but that is rather unrealistic," he said. "For reasons that are not clear, the charity wanted the money."'

      I'm certainly not clear as to why it should seem to be instead destined to go to a range of claimants without proper verification that they have a bona fide claim in the first place because, as this can be read to imply, that is unrealistic

      Is that what he means? If so, I'll send my wife to see them. We could do with a few bob

      Nothing I have seen seems to support the notion that evidenced verification has been carried out, so I am probably not surprised that the charity might think it should get the money

      Maybe the word of claimants lawyers is now seen as being sufficient? I don't profess to know if that's the case. Anyone else here have any idea?

  12. More about the money shortly ! The subject has certainly attracted a great deal of interest. Funny that !

  13. sally stevens4 May 2014 at 01:35

    This could be a real stopper for the 'scheme.' I don't know exactly what the law says about taking public donations that have been put in a Trust for charity purposes to pay off the legal obligations of the person in whose name the Trust was set up. I work with estate/probate/trust lawyers here and am going to ask them what they think. Law may vary slightly in the UK of course, but it doesn't seem ethical or legal to me on the face of it.

    1. Thanks Sally, I'm busy burrowing for more information. We must get our facts right !

  14. sally stevens4 May 2014 at 23:46

    Very interesting set of circumstances legally. I'll certainly let you know what they think.