Sunday, 4 May 2014

"Think about the money !"

Twenty days after the UK transmission of 'Exposure - the other side of Jimmy Savile' the following article was published detailing the closure of Jimmy's two charities !

The BBC Panorama follow up had put the final nail in the coffin of Jimmy's beloved charities

SO, how much money did Jimmy leave to his two charities and MORE IMPORTANTLY, how much did the charities themselves already have BEFORE Sir Jimmy passed away. 

I don't have a copy of Jimmy's will but the ball park figure BEFORE the auction of his personal effects and sale of his various homes, was said to be £4.3 million. £3.7m of this was to go to his charities, the rest to be shared among family and friends. Now, here's where I got confused because £3.7m is exactly the same amount as was in the Jimmy Savile CT as of March 2011 !

Here's a story published in the mail on the 9th March 2012 !

Here's how much the JSCT had in it's coffers for the year ending 31st March 2010 > 18 months BEFORE Jimmy's death but signed off on 9th November 2011.

Here are the accounts for 31st March 2012 approved in July !

And here are the latest figures for year end 31st March 2014 

No increase (save £90 or so) since before Jimmy's death meaning NONE of Jimmy's money has appeared in the account of THIS CHARITY. So, where the hell is it ?

Well, the estate was FROZEN wasn't it ? Remember this -

Further along it reads

I have NOT been able to find details of accounts relating to the Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust (JMSMT) but, I think that it's safe to assume that it's funds were as described in various publications 

Before Jim's charities were officially closed, the trustees considered various options including changing its name. HOWEVER, an interesting paragraph appeared in this Telegraph article dated October 7th 2012 

Read that last sentence again ! When did any of us take our eyes off the ball to even consider that MONEY DONATED TO CHARITY would or could be targeted as a result of the scandal ?

The following article is even more interesting !

But, the charity funds were NOT frozen, the estate was !

'Protect the charity's funds' - indeed !

Maybe it wasn't about the money for Alicia but, others were circling for their share of the loot !

But, before we go there let's see what charity media folk made of the charities decision to close in November 2012 

 Tell us more !


So what could they do ? 

The third sector was one of only TWO sites to have published this weeks press release. The other was Lancashire and North West Magazine a fact I only realised TODAY ! They didn't mince their words on Thursday !

Strewth, these folks are on my very short list of nominees for journalists of the decade being one of the few to publish the story about Jimmy's DNA clearing him of any known crime !

Any clearer readers - I am ! I now know that there is in excess of £5m that belongs to a charity NOT Jimmy Savile. That money should NOT be up for grabs by ANYONE period !

I haven't finished my investigations into this disgraceful episode yet.  Join me in my next part. In the meantime, here's a word from the man himself doing what his does/did best. I found this little gem yesterday by pure chance, enjoy !



  1. The Stoke Mandeville trust has been closed down and its assets have been dispersed to other charities after consultation with the hospital, AFAIK. The Charitable Trust is still active, as its accounts make clear. So there is only a little over £3.6 million left, not £5 million as you imply. As you say, it's important to get the facts right. There are no claims, and never were, against any of this money. The Charitable Trust, however was ordered to pay the defendants' costs when they lost their recent court action to replace the Nat West as executors and challenge the compensation scheme agreed with between various parties, including the NHS and the BBC. If they had not been ordered to pay these costs, they would have been charged to the frozen estate instead, not to the executors. I understand the Trust was represented pro bono, so it did not cost them anything to bring their action. I hope their lawyers will also be acting pro bono in their appeal against the judgement, because if they lose, which they might, they will be held liable for the costs of the appeal. If they win, of course, the estate will be depleted considerably, but the executors won't change and nor will the scheme they agreed to recently, because their appeal is not about that. It is only about the costs they don't think they should pay.

  2. I'm sure folk will be heartened to know that SOME of the charitable donations actually found their way to good causes if this is the case. Perhaps you could tell us which charity/charities benefited from the CLOSURE of another. More than £5m was headed towards the JSCT as a result of Jimmy's bequest and the sale of his various homes and personal belongings. That FIVE MILLION will now be dispersed amongst a far greater cause than sick hospital patients and crippled soldiers; namely, greedy PI lawyers and their customers !
    Thanks for highlighting the fact that the trustee lawyers worked for nothing (pro bono). Heartening to know that there are still 'a few good men' (and women) out there !

    1. If you read the extract you posted above from the Analysis article on the website, you will see that the charity or charities with similar objectives who benefited from the closure of the Stoke Mandeville Trust are unlikely to be named so people will be unable to link those funds with Jimmy Savile.
      His estate was originally estimated to be about £4 million. When it was frozen in 2012 it was about £3.7 million, apparently. So whatever is dispersed eventually amongst the PI lawyers and their clients, it WON'T BE £5 million.
      I don't know for a fact that the Trust's lawyers acted pro bono, I simply remember reading that they did in a newspaper at the time.

    2. @Rabbitaway re getting the facts right.
      The latest figures for the year ending March 2014 have not yet been received by the Charity Commission, as the financial year has only just ended. The £3,609,906 you refer to above is the figure for the year ending March 2013 not 2014. The 2013 accounts were received in December 2013. The figures for 2014 are not available yet.

  3. @Anonymous Isn't it the case that the NHS, BBC etc intend to recover claims as far as possible from the JSCT? So while there may be not be direct claims there are indirect ones - the lot in fact, as far as the money goes.

  4. Ho Hum here

    Before this goes pear shaped, I think you'll find what anonymous is saying is quite right

    The BBC, NHS, Little Nell et al will have no claim against the Charitable Trusts funds for anything related to 'abuse issues', for want of a better term

    The Estate Executors will have a claim for any costs they incurred in defending actions taken by the Charitable Trust against the Estate in which the Charitable Trust is unsuccessful. Insofar as any other body or individual also incurs costs in the defender of such actions, they too would have a claim against the Charitable Trust for those

    The Charitable Trust is in a bit of a cleft stick. It's assets should have been increased by what was left to the Trust, and the Trustees should be seen to take steps to protect the Charitable Trusts interest in the estate. Otherwise they could be deemed to be negligent if they sat by and did nothing while they saw the legacy frittered away by someone else

    The expenses issue isn't worth a can of beans, in the grand scheme of things, and probably isn't worth getting at all excited about

    What is an issue is what on earth do the Trustees sensibly do? Think of it as something similar to where you would be if your uncle had left you a fortune to give out to war disabled, but you had to sit and watch as the executors dished it out to every doxie who turned up saying they had had it off with him when he was on his travels 30 years ago. Would you be happy if the executors didn't check too thoroughly? And what do you saw to the limbless serviceman who turns up asking if you yet have the money for his artificial leg?

    That's probably a gross simplification, but you really need to get the various strands straight in your head and concentrate on which matter and what can realistically be done about them

    I'm sure Anonymous can correct any incorrect principle in that. He or she seems to know what they are on about

    1. You are right, Ho Hum, the Trust is between a rock and a hard place. They risk depleting their own funds even further if their appeal is unsuccessful, or reducing the value of the estate even more if they win. Perhaps this is their intention, so there is much less available for any settlements under the scheme they agreed with Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

  5. @hohum thanks for that - that is the issue. And in fact the judge when setting out his reasons said it was akin to creditors having a prior claim to beneficiaries in insolvency. that seems to me to be question-begging since creditors would antedate the insolvency (death) and not postdate it.

    1. Ho Humming again...

      In an insolvency or other corporate winding up, in broad terms, this is fixed as taking place at a point in time, using one of a variety of legal processes. Whoever is appointed to oversee it as Notifies known creditors - as included in the entity's books - and advertises for claims from others - usually London, or Edinburgh :-), Gazettes + appropriate media rags

      Assuming no trading post date of winding up, all claims made are for monies due, assets recoverable and do on arising before and up to that date. It is not the date they are lodged that matters. It is when the event that gave ride to them took place, ie something before winding up date

      So, here, the claims against JS' Estate relate to events that occurred, or are alleged to have occurred, prior to his demise

      In a winding up there is a pecking order of priority, Secured, Preferential, and Ordinary creditors, ie third parties to whom money is owed, and after those are met, then the owners get anything that might be left. In an insolvency, that would normally be zero. In a winding up of a solvent concern, it would be the balance of the assets

      In all cases, the person doing the winding up normally has their expenses covered first

      Here, the Charitable Trust is pretty much at the bottom of the pile, a bit as if they were owners - along with any other similarly ranking beneficiaries of the will.

      So they can only get what might be left at the end, after all other valid claims on the assets at date of death, ie liabilities of the Estate, are met. Basically like saying JS can only give away what he had left, and that he doesn't get to skip paying for the bread and milk, fruit and veg man, just because he died before he paid his bill

      So, like in any winding up, those at the bottom of the pile have to wait and see if there is anyone pikes in before them, and hope that the person doing the winding up is good at realising the assets, controlling their costs, and doesn't allow any invalid claims to be paid out

      Normally there are creditor committees to oversee the person doing the winding up

      Here, the Charity Trustees are trying to get the equivalent, the Estate Executors, replaced, and if that doesn't work, at least some other form of oversight on what they are accepting as prior ranking claims

      Not an absolutely perfect technical description, I hasten to add, but about enough to get the gist of it

      Anonymous can pile in and correct/enhance anything that matters

    2. @Ho hum "It is not the date they are lodged that matters. It is when the event that gave ride to them took place, ie something before winding up date" Surely the point is that in terms of creditors there would be a paper trail and other objective evidence to establish claim. Here, there is none and the central alleged actor -JS is not in a position to defend.


  6. As I recall the executors of the Trust (Nat West) first came under pressure to be replaced because they were not questioning the agreeing of payouts to whichever claimants were being presented by Slater & Gorgon or whoever. So monies from the Trust must have been subject to summat.

    Anyhow, one thing that bugs me is the sheer hypocrisy of all these people. Both they and their scheming solicitors keep bleating that it's not about the money, it's about being "vindicated". Well. Jimmy Savile is now commonly mentioned as akin to Hitler & Stalin and Chairman Mao in the pantheon of evil, so they have won have they not? Their victimiser is now the most reviled man in modern British social history.....

    What more "vindication" do they want? The answer is that they give not a shit about vindication, they just wanna get their greedy hands on some cash. Lawyers, scamming lairs, it's all about money. If Jim had given all his cash away securely before death and died truly penniless, I doubt we'd ever have heard a dicky-bird from any of these vultures.

    And let's not forget that the only reason any of this cash was still around a year later was the stange coincidence of some bint stepping forward saying she was his daughter. Funny coincidence since her claim was the legal means by which the cash was kept available while the big sex scam was pieced together. Lawyers are the connecting link. Masters of the Universe - they have the power.

  7. The Nat West is not the executor of the Trust, it is the executor of the estate, which is entirely separate. No monies from the Trust have been subject to summat. Suggesting that they have been only confuses the issue.

    1. @Anonymous
      So you are saying that the Press Release is wrong in fact, and that when it says the Trust is liable to pay the costs of the recent legal action, it is in fact the Estate that is going to pay?

      If the Trust is in fact not liable to being sued why have all it's monies not yet been distributed? That may be a rhetorical question.

    2. Ho Hum again

      Normally if you initiate legal action and lose, you pay the other side for the costs they incurred defending their position.

      If the Charity, ie the Charitable Trust, too an action against the Estate, the Estate's Executors would ask the court to tell the Charity to pay its, ie the Estates, costs

      Anonymous will correct me if that's wrong, I'm sure :-)

      That help?

    3. Lawyers make the rules I know Ho Hum. But if the Trust was not represented by Nat West and there was no legal threat to the Trust - why is the Trust even involved? There must be moor to this than meets the i in savilisation.

      The 'moral' implications here seem to be that "the Trust" has brought all this upon itself by arguing the toss, but if the Trust was not involved, it makes no sense. There must be a connection.

      Furthermore if the relevant lawyers are so keen to have distance between themselves and charitably donated funds, why are they even trying to "collect" their costs? All lawyers do is talk and walk, it's not like they dig coal or make stuff. That one significant objection to Nat West was their consumption of half a mill in legal costs seems to put the ball firmly in the lawyering court.

    4. The Trustees of the Charity are under an obligation to make sure that assets belonging to the Charity, or assets elsewhere which the Charity has an expectation of receiving, are not pissed up against the wall by themselves, ie what they hold, or by others, ie those that they presently hold which the Charity expects to receive.

      I would take action if I was a Charity Trustee and saw assets which I rightly expected to come to the Charity as part of the will of someone who wished to donate them, if the Executors of the donor's estate was perceived to be mishandling them in some way, jeopardising the Charity's interest

      As anonymous said, the Charity Trustees are between a rock and a hard place. Damned by all for appearing to challenge the victims, and with the potential to be damned by others, even the Charity Commission itself, if they don't act properly in the Charity's interests

      They can't just sit on their hands and do sod all

    5. BTW, that was the anonymous Ho Hum writing... :-)

    6. @Ho Hum
      So the connection is that the Trust was expecting to get £3M more from the Savile Estate, and thus is trying to protect the Estate so that that legacy could reach the charities. Is it me or are we just going round and round in legal circles here........ :-D

      I'd have moor respect for these legal chisellers if they would just admit what they are. There's no law against being grasping and manipulative.

    7. Ho Hum thinks that your first sentence sounds pretty close to the mark

    8. Just to be clear

      The 'Trust' = the Charity

      To Hum and Ho a bit more..

      Note that hey are one and the same thing

      The Charity holds the money in trust to be used for charitable causes. The Charity will have a Trust Deed, which is its core legal basis, and that will include the Charity's objectives and the valid uses that that particular charity's funds can be used for

    9. The Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust has not been closed. The Trustees seem to have changed their minds about closing both Trusts as they originally said they intended to do. The JSCT is still active. Its details would not be on the Charity Commission website if it wasn't. The accounts for the last financial year, which runs from 1st April 2013 - 31st March 2014, have not been received yet and probably won't be for several months. Until then we won't know anything about their income or expenditure since the 1st April 2013. This is perfectly normal and applies to every other charity (or limited company), who all need time to prepare their accounts and do not have to submit them immediately.
      We also do not know if probate has been granted, which has to be done before funds from the estate are disbursed. It is important to remember that the Trust only inherited the residue of the estate and any bequests to individuals must be paid first, including the £600,000 that was supposed to be put into trust for the benefit of several individuals. The other bequests are for modest amounts which add up to about £20,000. If there is anything left after any claims have been settled and all the expenses paid, the named beneficiaries will still have priority, as they always do under inheritance law.

  8. Read about how all this crap started in the first place. Had certain liars not been given airtime on national TV, the JSCT charity would NOT have had to close, and the trustees would NOT have needed to defend it's interests in the first place.

  9. Reminded myself that Anna Raccoon posted the full text of the Sales Judgement at the time.

    and an interpretation here, of some of the implications of it, was made by Margaret Jervis

  10. @rabbitaway
    I was wondering if you'd finished your investigations into this disgraceful episode yet as I for one would like to know the real truth about what happened to all the money from the sale of Sir Jimmy's properties and the proceeds of the auction of his personal effects, which haven't been mentioned so far.

  11. Hi 'anon' no I haven't finished with my investigations into the money side of things. I'm busy working on my next part. Thank you 4 your interest. Watch this space !