Pages

Friday, 15 December 2017

Private Eyes and Ears

Someone told me the other day about a Radio 4 interview during which Ian Hislop discussed what he didn't know about Sir Jimmy Savile. Now, I haven't heard this, so I cannot repeat what he said. But, I believe in deeds, not words. After all, would you sit right next to a man you suspected was a child rapist ? 


Now, this video is definitely worth watching. It kicks off with a discussion of the hoax 'transcript' of 'outakes' from Savile's guest appearance, and quickly moves on to the subject of who KNEW what and when ! Hislop repeats what just about everyone else in the know, didn't. Yes, he'd heard rumours, but he knew nothing ! 

At 1.46 minutes - "It's what the word 'Know' means. If you say, 'I knew about it' you mean, you'd heard the rumours. Everyone had heard the rumours. If you actually knew about it, you should have done something about it. The only people who know about it are people to whom it happened, and they tend to be - disadvantaged, 12 and not in the mood to go to a court trial. I mean, that is why nothing came out"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24mFoSWpsc 

But, 12 year old's, don't stay 12 for more than 365 days Mr Hislop. But, I'll not come back to that flippant part of your - otherwise sensible argument. Sensible, that is, if you've not the editor of the magazine Private Eye since 1986. You can read all about it's relationship with the defamation courts, here. As you can see they didn't exactly give a 'fuck' did they ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye

Must say, I do admire their spunk ! A magazine after my own heart ! LOL



 Before there was Ian Hislop, there was Richard Ingrams and it was his magazine that first published the Savile allegations, because he thought it was a good story !






 c


But, why would someone, anyone mention rumours ? After all, you didn't during your long tenure at the Eye !


 It's that 'know' word again isn't it ? That's their great excuse isn't it ? But, surely, in the Savile case, there has to be more to it that simply not 'knowing'. Because, if we're to believe the likes of Paul Connew at the Mirror, those that did allegedly KNOW, had repeatedly contacted the press before Savile died. According to him, he was alerted in 1994. The alleged knower's contacted the Sun in 2007. Heck, they even contacted the Police, and still, the press didn't know enough to risk a few quid in the courts. 

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/why-oldie-exposed-savile-child-abuse-i-just-thought-it-was-good-story/ 

If it doesn't make sense - it isn't true ! As Judge Judy would say 

But let's hear from Mr Hislop's opposing captain on the Have I Got News for You  front. What did Paul Merton not know, or more crucially - not believe about his guest panelist back in 1999 ?







Read that again - " How can he be ? He is the most recognisable man in Britain, how could he possibly be doing this stuff without people saying: 'that's the man' 


Hard not to like Paul Merton isn't it ? He went that one bit further. He added that bit of common sense that's missing from nearly all the press reportage so far. After all : How could he have gotten away with such hideous crimes for so long ? Someone, would have exposed him. Someone who knew would have followed through on their accusations. After all, they'd already gone to the Police, and the press, hadn't they ?

Happy Christmas Guys and Gals 





Tuesday, 28 November 2017

Taking the filthy lucre - Part One

Goodness Gracious, I should be paid for wading through this shit. But, wading, or - burrowing, as I like to call it, can be rewarding, when, after hours, days weeks, you finally read something that makes you bolt up. You see, I'm reading the transcript of the first day's IICSA civil justice hearing again, and finally, finally, on page 105 (or 27/93) the conversation turns to - how dare they even mention, the mere - possibility of  'dishonest claims' 

It's sometime between 11.54 am and the lunch break, it's 'session 2' and the insurer's are in. They always come in after the solicitors, that's how it works guys and gals. You see, no one gets a brass farthing, unless them underwriting your claim, say so. Your claim has to be worth the risk, your Slater & Gordon type firm is willing to make. It's extremely complicated, so much so, Mr Scorer has to explain it to his clients repeatedly, so I'm not even going there. But, before we get to the insurance guys, lets reflect upon something the lawyers say regarding your cat in hell's chance, claim, if the defendant is not solvent !


 cc


 The merits, likely to be true, and provable, don't come into it for Mr Scorer's vicarious liability claims though, unless, there's a chance that the defendant dares to enter litigation, and, yes, some of them do you know, some of them do !



Now, just THREE of the Savile NHS claims entailed significant sums of money. Remember the stink about how little the victims got, while the lawyers seemingly, raked it in ?




No expert opinions sought there then ! No, trawling through lever-arch files going back ten, twenty years. Of course, Savile was dead, and he was still solvent, so hey, no need to prove anything, not even negligence. The NHS employed Savile, they are thus - vicariously liable ! 

In March 2015, it was reported that THREE victims had been paid £60,000 between them. Liz Dux represented fifty claimants at the time 



Just a month ago, 47 had been paid an average of just £9,500 



 
Now, get this ! Of the three that attracted the big money, and thus, we assume, some input from some expert or another, one was the woman who claimed to have been raped by a porter when she was 12. Yes, that one ! 


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/869495/Jimmy-Savile-victims-NHS-patients-abused-payout

I'm not going there again ! 

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/after-savile-no-more-tears-enough-is.html

Not sure, how much of that £40,000, any of those three victims actually received ! What's all the secrecy about, for goodness sake ? 


Mr Daniels is referring to his costs, not the claimants payout. Mr Scorer, clearly has problems with defendant's solicitors  defending their clients ! The bastards, how dare they !

It's not easy, working out how all this fits into the Savile case. Or, any historic child sex abuse case, for that matter. One statement that got my attention, clearly nothing to do with him was this ! Is this true ? Really ? 








Unless, of course, someone dares ask the question : Did the NHS have any experts of their own, who were doctors and nurses, or even psychiatrists, when those Savile assaults were alleged to have taken place ? From memory, I don't remember any being consulted by Sue Proctor's crew, though, as always, I'm always happy to be corrected. 

But, back to the lawyers, and their risks, and their limitations. 



But, it's not, just about the money, apparently, some claimants actually want some sort of apology to go with their early settlement ! The real surprise being, that, they rarely seem to get one ! 










Tuesday, 21 November 2017

From six 'victims' to none ! Poor Liz

Goodness Gracious, I'm indebted to 'Linda' for this tweet and it's link to a press story that nicely links up  with my current research ! 


The article, published on November 19th 2016, exposed the dubious practice employed by some lawyers, in prisons ! Nowhere else mind, just prisons ! 


Slater and Gordon actually admitted that it had submitted claims on behalf of people they hadn't even met.


These 'letters' of claim, civil claim that is, were submitted after June 2016. Bear in mind, that Henriques had himself suggested in January, that Janner should have been charged on three counts, in 2007. 



The firm wrote: 'We have not been able to meet personally with our client, who is an inmate.' It added: 'There is no police statement'.
In some other cases, the firm says it is basing the damages claims on police interviews and statements.


 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3951434/Lawyers-chase-cash-child-sex-abuse-victims-ve-never-met-never-police-statement.html

Grevile Janner died in December 2015. This was Liz Dux's reaction 

 Liz Dux, abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon, who represents six of Lord Janner's alleged victims, said: "This is devastating news for my clients. They have waited so long to see this case come before the courts, to be denied justice at the final hurdle is deeply frustrating. 

Worth a read - provides an interesting timeline regarding the Janner history 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12059939/Labour-peer-Greville-Janner-has-died-after-a-long-illness.html 

Dux was determined to get closure for her six claimants, the fight would go on 



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367112/Lord-Janner-dies-aged-87.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367112/Lord-Janner-dies-aged-87.html

Going back to the November 2016 article, S and G were keen to point out that they were NOT representing any Operation Midland claimants 



Funny ! I was under the impression that Janner fell within the scope of Operation Midland. But I'll come back to that later. You see, the late Lord's family fought back, many of the allegations were challenged, and - whoosh, just like that Liz's 6 'victims' became NONE ! 




 
They would subject all claimants to intense cross-examination !


Only proper scrutiny of this claim could have ferreted out that information. WHY hadn't this been done by the solicitors acting on his behalf ? Was this one of the 'one in eight or nine' claimants that pass muster with Richard Scorer's firm - Slater and Gordon ? Looks that way doesn't it folks ? 


 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/28/lord-janner-sex-abuse-case-collapses-six-claimants-abandon-legal/

Goodness Gracious indeed ! 

 https://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/slater-and-gordons-one-in-eight-or-nine.html

Getting back to Operation Midland - I'll leave Matthew Scott to explain what a disaster that turned out to be


 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/operation-midland-was-a-disaster-from-start-to-finish-the-public/

 

Friday, 17 November 2017

A letter to Alexis

Goodness Gracious, don't take your eye off the ball for five minutes, someone may make a mistake, and no one will bother to correct it ! Worse still, no one will actually notice. No one except awkward folk like me. I'm talking about money, the costs and funding of child sex abuse cases, those that involve a lot of risk to the company bringing the case that is ! Bear with me, I'm no expert, and neither do I want to be. My remit is purely, fact checking. You see, this inquiry has been going on for a few years now, it's costing a hell of a lot of money, so the very least it and it's core participants from the legal world, should be able to do is - 

Tell me, what is the income threshold for funding via legal aid ? Here's what Garsden and Scorer, think, it is 




He thinks the income threshold is £2,700 a year ? That figure is actually per year, not per month, as far as I can make out, and I have checked several sources. It is rather complicated, so - as usual happy to be corrected. Remember, we're dealing with legal aid for civil claims for sexual abuse, it's important to know, which bit of the law your case fits into. 

Here's what the government says 


By way of a slight apology, the IICSA twitter folks actually did link the transcript of the seminar, that very day ! See what I mean about missing something ?


The first few pages are all you need to read today folks

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/919/view/iicsa291116_a.pdf 

How did the press react to that alleged ' sort of poverty gap'  ?








Is this what Scorer meant when he said his firm only actually proceeded with about one in eight or nine claims ? Who knows ? The Savile claims and their costs, were all met by the estate itself, no need for public funding (legal aid). But, that's another story ! The IICSA inquiry isn't about Savile type civil claims. It's about the bigger picture ... those poor souls allegedly abused in settings where some organisation allegedly failed in their duty of care. 

But, before I'd want to know about that, I want someone to tell me, if what Garsden and Scorer say is true. Are legal fees really a 'barrier to justice' for the poor ? Can one of those dozen or so lawyers in the room, please ask their admin staff to check the income threshold for legal aid please ? Thanks 


https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/29/legal-fees-are-a-barrier-to-justice-for-sex-abuse-victims-inquiry-hears