Pages

Thursday, 12 March 2015

Pretend you're not asleep !

Now that we know something about the 55 alleged 'victims' as described in the recent report, I thought I'd go a looking to see if I might find this person in there !
As you can see, Mr Rose wrote this article in November 2014. By this time ALL those seeking compensation from Savile's estate, had their claims in. They had no choice, because all 'scheme' claims had to be in by June 2014
Leigh Day Solicitors stated that all claims to the scheme were time-limited 
Looking back, you have to smile don't you ?
http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/220468664-newspapers-run-ads-advising-jimmy-savile-sex-abuse-victims-how-claim-%C2%A360000
So, what of that 'questionable' claim Mr Rose spoke of ? Is this woman one of the 55 listed in the latest SMH report ? There is only ONE ex-patient whose description has any similarities, in that :
1) She had cancer
2) She formed a sort of friendship with Jimmy. Here's 'victim 54' 
 
 Let me make this quite clear ! I have no idea IF this alleged 'victim' is the same person referred to in the Rose article. We don't KNOW if 'victim 54' is one of the 44 Ms Dux is described as 'representing' hours before the report is published ! 
It seems strange that Ms lampard's team did not investigate 'victim 54's history further. After all, her story appears unique in Savile abuse terms. He, we are told, had 'genuine feelings of affection' for V54. Goodness, gracious, the beast appears capable of genuine human warmth.
Whatever next ? Who knows ? We don't because we are not being told the full story are we. But, then the claimants MUST be believed and their identity MUST be kept secret. Because anyone REVEALING identities of any alleged victim of sexual assault etc will be subject to the full weight of the law !

Thing is, how do we know what is TRUE and WHAT is not ? How do we know these 55 alleged 'victims' told Lampard the truth ? Same way we know, WHO made those 'questionable' claims, Mr Rose referred to - WE DON'T ! 
We don't, so WE had better keeps our mouths shut if we know what's good for us. We had better NOT spread 'untruths on twitter' either. Because ... if we DO ...


2 comments:

  1. Is that last one the woman who victimised Freddie Starr and was being sued for defamation do you think?

    The lawyers have got this game well and truly taped up haven't they.
    Crooked bunch of bastards.

    ReplyDelete