Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Liz Dux, her heart and her 'one accuser'

Remember how excited we all got when the mail on Sunday published this ray of hope ? 

 Well, that was just one of two articles printed in the press, seriously challenging the authenticity of the Savile claims. There's been no more since ! In fact, we don't even know what - if anything, happened  the so-called 'criminal inquiry'. What a bloody let down. Where's the bloody outrage ? Rhetorical questions folks - I've long since given up hoping anyone would answer my pleas. 

Think of this blog (all of it) as a sort of virtual time-capsule, and that, hopefully, sometime in the future, someone will want to know why nobody questioned the Savile caper. And, if they look hard enough, they'll find me and a few others, who dared to speak up and out against this injustice. 

Anyways, back to business. The subject of today's ditty guys and gals is our old mate Liz. I was wondering how she was getting on in her new job, and I found this !

Looking good there Liz, you're obviously happy to have escaped the failing Slater and Gordon. Good for you ! But, what's this about the stories that stay in your heart ? Folks, I took the Times of London up on their free trial just so I could bring you this !

 Niche work - if you have the heart to do it I guess. Let's see what else she says shall we ? Let's get to the point shall we Liz ? What about the money ?

 Liz acted on behalf of 'eight victims' of Rolf Harris. Not sure if they've had their 'closure' yet ! 

 Max Clifford's haven't had their 'closure' yet. According to Liz, according to the Times of London that is !

 Now, here's where them who bother looking for my time-capsule get to use their brains in a way that would be inconceivable to anyone of influence just now. Here's where Liz and Co basically slip up. Here's where one uncovers the inconvenient truth that some people are just plain liars. 

 Because last year 

Now, this is important folks ! Even the press bother to join some dots when it suits them ! 

'one accuser' hold onto that will you. The next bit will make you angry, very angry 

False accusations kill. Let me repeat that for my friends here and in the future. False accusations KILL ! Maybe not directly, but it can't be good for one's health to be FALSELY accused of such things at any time. That's just common send isn't it ? Imagine how her poor husband felt !

'one accuser' - who ended up in prison himself 

'one accuser' who just happened to be represented by ... 

 I mean, that's what it says in the paper. Liz Dux represents 'the accuser' ! She can always correct them if it's wrong. Given her form for NOT correcting incorrect press reportage of significant errors regarding her claimants. I won't hold my breath 

 One influential person in the here and now, joined a few of the dots, the one's that fell within his remit that is !

Liz doesn't mention her Janner 'accuser' when interviewed by the Times of London. She does however object very strongly to any notion that any of us might have that most, if not ALL of her accusers, might be motivated by money ! 

“I get very cross with people attacking Savile’s victims as being about compensation. It was never about that for them and they did not get huge amounts of money because of the problems with the insolvency of the estate.

But, the Savile estate was only the first port of call in her accuser's compensation journey. Even old Joshua Rozenberg, the thinking man's hack, wondered where the cash might be coming from. The thinking men who repeatedly defend the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, yet forget all such rights when it comes to the dead Savile, even going so far as to actually aid and abet this gross injustice when they write

A month later, we all knew where some of the money was coming from. It was coming from us !!

Liz's little 'niche' was certainly paying off for her ! Meanwhile, her accusers whose only interest was in 'closure' and 'justice' and finally getting their voices heard .. 

Making sure the estate (read Charity as in good causes) would be blamed for daring to defend itself in the High Court, she went on and on with her fight for her niche market (read shares and work in progress projections etc etc) 

 The 'amount' didn't reduce for her company though did it ? They got their fee, their accusers got their end and the full protection of the law because, unlike the falsely accused of this world, they can NEVER be identified, even if their accusations turn out to be lies. Like that ...

'one accuser'

And, at the risk of repeating myself .. bear in mind what Henriques said about that 'one accuser'. Surely the same logic could and should have been used by SOMEONE the moment the Savile game began ? 

 Earlier this year, retired High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques criticised the decision not to prosecute Lord Janner in the 1990s. Sir Richard told the Mail on Sunday that he was aware of the claims against Mrs Fitt, which “plainly should have figured” in the decision about whether or not to charge Lord Janner.

In other words, why was this one accuser taken seriously in the first place ? Had Liz Dux's crew never heard of Mrs Fitt who died at the age of 44 after being accused by him ?

After all, we now know, what was always there to be known, had anyone bothered to check out Jimmy Savile's one or two accuser's ! But, of course, the police had already done that, hadn't they ? 

And, don't say no-one ever warned the likes of Rozenberg about the dangers of Liz Dux's particular 'niche', because they did. They even had a big to-do about it in Parliament in 2002. Need I say more ? 

Well done David Rose and the late Richard Webster. Your efforts were not in vain. And, neither are mine !!



  1. "insolvency of the Estate".... ??

    The more time has gone by, the more I think they thought, there was much more money available to them than there was. Jeremy Hunt "blamed" his error on "The £40M figure was used by a witness in Kate Lampard's report".

    It left me wondering how much the entire process was being run by the claimants representatives, just as Yewtree was effectively being run by the NSPCC.

    I mean this error was in 2015... in the third year. How could the government be so ignorant of the facts so long after savilisation began? And so careless with our tax money. The various reports cost perhaps 20 millions.

    It all seems akin to these outrageous legal games over things like PPI, which just seem to be an open-ended cash raid for law companies.

  2. Now I know why I see more Slating and Grave Robbers adverts on TV lol. The ship is sinking

    1. It sank but it's been semi-salvaged

  3. Just twigged... She's no longer a practising lawyer? Presumably that means she cannot be struck-off. Might come in handy if the shit ever does hit the fan.

    1. How do you know that she's no loner 'practising' ? She may/not be un-strikable-offable but, she's still subject to English law, just like the rest of us ! BTW, her husband's just left S and G too ! Wasn't even aware he worked there 'til she tweeted about him leaving LOL

  4. Well done, Rabbit. Your efforts will not be in vain.

    1. Another blog in the pipeline !! Cheers Misa x