Thursday, 4 June 2015


Liz Dux of Slater Gordon Solicitors was very cagey about HOW MANY Savile claimants she had back in October 2012. She made her big media debut on the 12th October. It was hard to escape her face on that particular day. She was everywhere 
But, she was keeping her claimants close to her chest, and who can blame her, after all, their numbers were increasing by the minute, thanks to the MSM and Scotland Yard !
Now, would you be surprised to learn that solicitors had signed up their claimants even BEFORE the expose aired on October 3rd 2012 ? Certainly, by October 1st 2012

No mention of Jimmy's estate in there, Ms Dux' company had their sights on the big one, the main prize/s ; the BBC, the NHS etc.
The Police had not yet opened their mouths, and already, the lawyers had their customers all lined up ! Now, we know that the press had been pimping the story since the beginning of the year, but my question is : WHEN did the lawyers meet these claimants, and HOW ?
Moor Larkin brought my attention to the fact that a press agency had Karin Ward's story, and trawling for more, as early as October 15th 2012.
Now, the press itself was advertising the forthcoming media expose, as early as 20th September 2012. But, it's clear that the amount of people, who'd be aware of the potential for submitting civil claims, would have been limited !


The fact that Dux already had an 'undisclosed number of women', or ANY at all by 1st October, might lead a reasonable person to conclude that among her clients might be those presented on Exposure, in other words, the Duncroft women.

Of course, there was no need to worry about Jimmy's estate, as it had already (thankfully for the lawyer's) been frozen as the result of a paternity claim.

A few days later Dux' firm had 'more than 20 alleged victims'

But there would be no court until the Police concluded their non-investigation of the claims
But, why wait for the Police to finish something they weren't doing ? At the very least, Dux is misrepresenting the facts, is she not ? But then it's in her interests to do this isn't it ? Savile is dead, there's been no trial, no conviction, no arrest even. So what would be the next best thing to validate her customer's claims, if not a senior Police officer from Scotland Yard whose  estimations of numbers of 'victims', increases by the day, that's what ! 

Ms Dux' words on 15th October, explain how trawling works. I'm quite amazed she even said this
 One or two, or even six whose stories were presented on Exposure ?
From the Mail on 1st October which featured these two on the front page

So, there you go guys and gals, the hacks had their unsubstantiated stories. The lawyer's had women ready to make money. All they needed now was publicity. They need not worry that any fraudulent claims might incur consequences, Alan Collins, leading the Savile claims at Pannone Solicitors put their minds at rest on that front !
So, from her 'undisclosed' number of claimants came hundreds. One well known journalist commented on the overwhelming media coverage, the story attracted !
'The story that just keeps on running ..' 'Savile and the BBC..' that is ! 

And then, there was 'plenty more' involving the big targets, with a few famous men and a politician thrown in for good measure. Liz was right, the 'floodgates' did indeed, open. And the fact that they are still open is a national disgrace, is it not ?

 I guess, the 'closest thing we'll have to a .. trial' of the Savile liars, may well be the case of Freddie Starr V Karin Ward. And that's not far off guys and gals, not far off at all !



  1. A national disgrace indeed.

    Fingers crossed for Freddie.

  2. It's been a weird synergy that, if Savile were to be judged by the "involvement" of his variously-alleged living "Others" then he has been found not guiilty every time.

    "Uncle Ted" - no further action.
    Freddie Starr - no further action.
    Gary Glitter - no charges relating to Savile at the BBC
    Ray Teret - charge relating to joint enterprise: Not Guilty.

    And as Ms Dux stamps her feet about constantly... No organisation or individual found to be complicit. I was reading though that the Stoke Mandeville report cost the NHS £7.3M, and that would have mostly gone to the lawyers, so she must have friends doing rather well out of it all anyway.

    1. The NHS have already paid their blackmailer's > £58K. It's not THEIR money is it ?