Wednesday, 14 May 2014

The Charity Box !

You know I really don't care who comes on my blog and offers constructive comments about the why's and wherefores of a very complex subject. I hope my last few posts have opened a few eyes, and made folk think about the consequences of the disgrace that is, the payment of compensation to people whose claims would never have seen the light of day had a few liars not been presented on National television on 3rd October 2012.

Someone described me as 'old fashioned' the other day. They are quite right I am ! I was brought up in a Catholic household, I had to endure the weekly trip to mass on Sunday. One thing I learned very quickly was the significance of that plate that was passed around near the end of the service. Everyone felt obliged to put something on that plate no matter how small you actually felt embarrassed if you didn't. One thing that you certainly didn't do was 


I certainly sent a few noses a twitching with my announcement that charitable funds NOT monies from Jimmy's estate would be used to cover the Trust's legal costs in it's attempts to, get rid of Nat West. Naturally, it is the estate that is being sued not the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust but, what is the estate if it is not charity money, after all, that is where most of it was going !

OK, let's back track a little here so we can all be sure that we know what we are talking about ! On October 8th 2012, the word was that, Jimmy's two charities would either : change their name, close or, distribute it's funds to other charities !

The first hand into Jimmy's charity box was NAPAC whose boss Saunders sent an email the VERY SAME DAY !

 How disapointed he must have been to learn that !

Bear in mind folks, this information comes from an article dated the 22nd may 2013. I have no idea whether Saunders made public his October email before that and I could care less ! Have a read guys and gals - i just had to include this paragraph ! 

Shame eh ?

Just a month before this article appeared, the abuse folk lawyers were targeting Nat West accusing them of 'milking' the estate.

It went on 


Enter Alan Collins from Panones (now Slater and Gordon) Soliciors. Did he REALLY mention Jimmy's funeral costs ?

So, what was the position legally around this time ? Well, it was this

Back to the civil society piece dated May 2013 and this interesting snippet - who are their 'sources' I wonder ?

It is all very complicated isn't it ? I do wonder though WHO IS running up the legal COSTS and HOW MUCH these are to date ? If, the sources are correct and the JSCT funds are still frozen, then presumably, these COSTS have NOT been paid out of the estate yet.

No, I ain't finished plundering the charity box money issue ! More burrowing to be done, but I'll leave you with this interesting tweet from Anna Raccoon a few months back. What was that the Judge said about cutting costs ?



  1. Like any other estate, Jimmy Savile's would be subject to inheritance tax on anything over £325,000, as the following from the relevant website makes clear. Assuming that Jimmy left a total of £4,300,000, that means £3,975,000 would be subject to tax.

    "If your estate is worth over £325,000 when you die Inheritance Tax may be due. From 6 April 2012, if you leave 10 per cent of your estate to charity the tax due may be paid at a reduced rate of 36 per cent instead of 40 per cent. This article explains the main rules . . . Typically, the executor or personal representative pays it using funds from the deceased's estate. You must pay some or all of any Inheritance Tax due before you can get a grant of probate . . . In most cases, you must pay Inheritance Tax within 6 months of the end of the month in which the deceased died. After this, interest will be charged on the amount outstanding."

    As we know, bequests worth £620,000 were left to named beneficiaries. Assuming the £325,000 before the tax threshold was part of these bequests, that leaves £295,000 subject to 40% tax. £620,000 - £325,000 = £295,000 @ 40% = £118,000.

    The rest of the estate, which he left to his charitable trust (£3,975,000 - £620,000 = £3,355,000) would be subject to 36% tax. £3,355000 @ 36% = £1,207,800
    So a total tax bill of £1,325,800 would be due on an estate of £4.3 million, which leaves £2,974,200, assuming there are no debts or fees or any other expenses which would be deducted before the final value of the estate is calculated.

    Do you know if any tax has been paid yet, as it should be before probate has been granted? If it has been it would explain why the estate has been reduced to about £3 million. I am sure HMG would take their cut first, before any funds are disbursed to anyone, regardless of whether they are claimants or beneficiaries. Perhaps you should find out exactly what the position is as far as the inheritance tax is concerned.

    1. Excellent stuff.
      Nothing like the Revenue to get the money moving around.... :-D

    2. Goodness me 'anonymous' thanks for that input. I don't know if any tax has been paid yet, I'd be surprised if it hadn't. Like Moor says, the revenue get their spoils first don't they, no freeze on their pot eh ! Who knows if all the figures listed are gross or net. I don't but I think I know someone who does !

    3. I believe it was Anonymous who pointed out that the taxman would take his cut first. Frankly, if you don't know whether the reported figures are gross or net because the possibility of inheritance tax never occurred to you, your recent investigations into his financial legacy are irrelevant.

    4. Hardly irrelevant. I have learned a lot. When the news reports first bagan after Jimmy Savile's death, figures of £10M were talked about. What seems to have been teased out by the rabbit burrowing is that roughly-speaking, £4M was in his personal Estate, £4M in the Savile Charity and perhaps £2M in the Stoke Mandeville Charity. All numbers ball-park.

      Now that is all clear, I do wonder if perhaps some of what followed in 2012 may not have occurred if others had done their due diligence and realised that there wasn't as much as £10M up for grabs at all, but at best £4M and likely only £3M after tax.... ;-))

      Fools and their money huh?.....

    5. It has been perfectly obvious for a very long time that his personal estate was only about £4million and that the Charities' money did not belong to him, to anyone who has followed this story with half an eye.

    6. It seemed to get confusing when the Trust put out that Press Release:

      Nat West seem to be unpopular on every front. Last year one of the Compo-lawyer companies was blaming them for nicking all the money that you have now explained was just the taxman all along. How come they're not so clever as wot you are?

      I guess that in the kingdom of the blind, the man with half an eye might still hope to be King.... ;-D

    7. Best riposte so far Mr larkin - 'half a eye indeed' :-)

    8. Aye.......... but talk is of course cheap rabbit.
      You do well to follow the money..... ;-)

  2. Saunders, and NAPAC are a sick joke. They had to apologise to Lord Patten.

    It is certainly the case that notwithstanding their existence since 1999 and their having had a 'helpline' since about 2003, NAPAC had never once had cause to mention Jimmy Savile.... until they went for the dead guy's money

  3. I still don't get that money donated by others to Jimmy's charities can be used to settle legal claims against Jimmy as an individual. Think that might throw a gigantic spanner into the works as far as compensating the claimants. His actual estate, i.e. his own money, is quite small, if I recollect rightly.

    1. From rabbitaway's previous Posts on this complicated matter, I had the impression that his Estate was much the same size as the Trust was at the time.

      I was reading today that they're starting to queue up in America to sue Michael Jackson's Estate. So even a Not Guilty verdict is of no avail once you're dead it seems.

    2. > Sally Stevens

      I think you need to re-read Anna's stuff and some of the comments made here in earlier posts, particularly those of the very authorative 'anonymous', who really does know what he or she is on about

      You're in danger of getting this wrapped round your neck, and some of the other content, and comment, on this blog is, as one of the Anons above has implied, confusing the issue further

      Sorry, mr Rabbit, but you've got some of this more than a bit askew at points


      Ho Hum

  4. Thanks 'Ho' your comment has been duly noted and will form the basis of my next post. Confusing isn't it guys and gals. We are ALL on a learning curve here ! Let's pull, what we know so far together and see if any of us are any the wiser than we were BEFORE the trustee's solicitors released that press statement !

    1. I recall Ho-Hum making a point a couple of posts ago that the fact was that the vast majority of the Estate was scheduled to go to the Charity, since relatively small bequests were made to the Savile family relations. In that sense, Ho-Hum gave me the impression that they were very sympatico with the questionable morality of the Compo-Hunters now gobbling it all up, but, in law, this money unfortunately HAD NOT reached the Charity at the point at which the sequestration attempts began, so in that reality, it is wrong to accuse anyone of 'dipping' in the collection plate.

      Having said all of that, I do recall that at one stage in 2012 there were demands being made that the Charity trust be wound up and the monies made available to the victims.... So, one thing that the Trust must be congratulated about is their moral fibre in resisting that media/legalistic clamour. Especially so since the emergence of the testimony of "Susan" seems to be revealing that the entire Duncroft origins of this were a gigantic fraud.

    2. Thanks Moor - we don't get to hear much of the other side of the story do we ? We hear compo abuse lawyers carping that "it's about closure not money" etc etc ! Perhaps more folk will wake the F*** up when the estate's funds have been drained and THEY come for OUR money (BBC NHS etc etc).

    3. It seems to me as if "Susan" is the only real victim here, apart from Sir Jimmy himself, of course. Bullied so badly she had to be put into isolation to protect her from physical harm because the older girls were so jealous of her special relationship with Jimmy and are still so jealous they had to use her own story as the basis for their fictions about being abused. I'm sure the lawyers for the beneficiaries and his Charitable Trust who are overseeing the claims made against his estate will be taking "Susan's" evidence seriously.


  5. Mr Rabbit, may I make a suggestion?

    Draw up a diagram, showing the 'charity' and the 'estate', which has what money, who is responsible for each, and who has claims on which - including what money flows would take place if these crystallise - and who represents claimants. You can group some of these eg PI claimants, specific beneficiaries etc

    It might help people understand this better and help cut down on comments where ppl have obviously - well, to some of us :-) - got this all muddled up in their heads

    Otherwise this is going to go round in ever increasing incomprehensible circles

    As ever, kind regards

    Ho Hum