Thursday, 31 July 2014

It's not about the money !

I wonder why it took four days for the mainstream media to report the fact that the JSCT has been given leave to appeal Justice Sales' earlier High Court decision ? Could it be that no-one INCLUDING Liz Dux were even prepared for such an outcome ?

Here is one of the most useful pieces of information I've seen since Saturday evening when I was first told about the appeal. I'm starting to get my head round all this guys and gals !

 NOTE that the above is an 'update'. The writer must have contacted someone from the lawyers acting for the Trust. Those acting for the claimants have a very different view of the matter.

I don't understand why Dux does not understand but I'm sure she does really !

Is Dux playing a, not very subtle game of emotional blackmail here ? OF COURSE the Trust is NOT liable for any claims made on the estate. However, that ESTATE was meant to go to the Trust and Jimmy Savile's beneficiaries NOT a bunch of liars and their legal representatives.

Let's read what Dux had to say to the BBC !

 What on earth does she mean by the following ? Is the 'estate' (meaning the Executor) really on the same side as her, the BBC and the NHS ? Obviously, they are !

NOW CAN YOU SEE WHY the JSCT wanted rid of both the scheme AND Nat West ?

The following and most recent article clarifies the matter rather succinctly. Aside from referring to claimants as 'victims', it is really very good !

The links are very good providing more or less all the reader needs to know about the case so far !

Ms Dux had nothing to say just this once !

But, she reappeared in the latest BBC article published today. The gloves are coming off Ladies and Gents !

Interesting days ahead ! The appeal will be heard sometime after October, so keep 'em peeled folks !


  1. Lawyers do not care about "Victims", "Claimants" or what ever you want to call them. All they care about is the fee they can claim at the end of the day. PI pay outs should not be looked at if the allegations of injury cannot be proven. Easy money for claimant and lawyer if there is no way of disproving the claim, on the other hand there is no way of proving that the injury(I say that lightly) did occur. I believe all the claims should be thrown out because they cannot be verified. I might just make a claim against my uncle who passed away 3 months ago as it cannot be proven that he didn't abuse me. He didn't of course but hey where there's an allegation against a dead person , there is a good possibility of a pay out.

  2. And so the story goes
    they wore the clothes
    They said the things
    to make it seem improbable
    The whale of a lie
    like they hope it was
    And the Goodmen of Tomorrow
    Had their feet in the wallow
    And their heads of Brawn
    were nicer shorn
    And how they bought their positions with saccharin and trust
    And the world was asleep
    to our latent fuss
    Sighing, the swirl through the streets
    Like the crust of the sun
    The Bewlay Brothers

    © David Bowie

  3. I have often asked myself, what will it take to make people realise what is going on here?

    I have been impressed by Moor's blog: what a patient and pain-staking work.

    But at the end of the day, I think "Deep Throat" was right. You remember the Watergate hearings? "Follow the money".

    There are so many layers and levels to this - including the entire abandonment of reason by our classes dirigistes ("people who make the decisions"), I think it could easily escape our reckoning simply because it is a part of a much greater whole. How we are going nowadays. Lots of bloggers have either concentrated on the minutiaie (eg this accusation couldn't be true because the date and location are wrong), or they have gone the other way: a la Frank Furedi: (this is an exampe of how we have lost the capacity to think).

    Neither of these two approaches,, though extremely valid in their own ways, are going to get it through people's heads. One is too detailed and the other too broad.

    Now tell them about the money. That is what people understand.

    1. Former PR faces a £1.5million lawsuit in compensation for just one victim

      Last night the anonymous victim who launched the action said: ‘What he did to me and others was unforgivable. He used his position and status to abuse us. We are now picking up the pieces of our broken lives. ‘I will use any compensation I receive to pay for further psychological therapy which I feel will help me regain some measure of normal existence.’

    2. I wonder why it's £1.5 million ? How much is the scam lawyer's cut ?

    3. 'PD' I think Jim D's book should open up some folk's eyes. But it's not being pushed is it ? I think there's still only been ONE review for it on Amazon. Must read & make my contribution !

    4. @ How much is the scam lawyer's cut ? @

      Depends on whether you count their fee alone or their court costs on top and perhaps their success bonus on top of that.

      "Citizens Advice Bureau ;
      You should thnk very carefully before entering a "no win no fee" agreement as, win or lose, you may still have somehting to pay, and this can often be mich higher than you expect"


    5. @Moor 'you may still have something to pay' ! Now there's a thought ! What happens to claims lodged then rebutted by OC solicitors ? Does Dux et al fight on for them or just take their cut and cut loose ? IF they are not legally aid able will they have to fork out any of their own money ? Interesting, I feel another blog coming on this very issue !
      Oh, and they have already PAID with their souls which they have given away for a pittance. I hope they get not one penny piece !