Pages

Tuesday, 15 January 2019

And the winner's are ?

Osbourne Clark Solicitors - according to the press that is !

The Savile estate was originally valued at £4.5m. Osbourne Clark received £1.8m and I'm NOT even going to try to work out how much anyone else got. I've been trying all day, sorry but I'm brain-fagged ! 

Yesterday the following was published in the Sunday Times





 It seems that someone's freedom of information request has been successful*





'Open cases' ? So the NHS will be paying out even more ? I'm not going there !

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-pays-over-1m-for-jimmy-saviles-sex-abuse-jqjlvmg36 

No indication in Gregory's report of how much the claimant's lawyer's got. I wonder if they even asked ? It might be interesting to see that FOI request, especially given the fact that they got the amount paid to Osbourne Clarke wrong ! 


'A large number of false claims ?' 

If only someone would follow the money in the right direction now and then ! If only Sunday Times hacks read the tabloids who knew in 2016 that Osbourne Clarke actually got £1.8m out of the estate. 


And, here's the thing : Only £141,000 would be left to cover other claims (not made directly to the estate via the 'scheme') including the NHS ! 


 78 'payouts' were made for claims made directly to the estate, totaling £1m


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3705498/Lawyers-2-5million-Jimmy-Savile-s-estate-leaving-just-1million-paedophile-DJ-s-victims.html

78 claims were therefore successful by the looks of it. Two years earlier David Rose informed us that just 22 out of the 58 processed at the time, had been accepted, that is - they had passed someone's screening. Let's remind ourselves of that particular status quo back then. 



Which means there must have been at least 208 claims made against the estate. Not the BBC or NHS via the vicarious liability route, just against the estate via the 'scheme' implemented by Justice Scales in the High Court. 
By my reckoning, this means that 130 claims were NOT accepted, i.e they were deemed false, untrue - however you want to put it ! That's a tad shocking isn't it ? Have any of these claimants been reported for fraud ?

Now, once I got past my knee-jerk annoyance towards the Sunday Times' Andrew Gregory, I decided that what he'd written just a few days ago, was actually quite useful. Yes, he kind of got the OC fee wrong (he may have been referring soley to the NHS legal costs) but, even that is useful piece of information, when you consider how little any of us have actually been told about the Savile claims and 'payouts'. 

*For example, I now know that the freedom of information request was actually made by The Sun newspaper who published this a few weeks before. Yes really !



Of course, the Sun has no idea how expensive these pithy legal encounters can be, not having ever been sued by anyone ever, but the real Oscar in - The Public Interest - category needs to go to Pete Saunders who's currently being paid a fortune to sit on the IICSA panel, 'truth project' thing. His suggestion for cutting the costs ? replace one set of expensive folk with another ! 



We're reminded that three of Savile's NHS 'victims' got £40,000 each, meaning that someone accepted one of the more serious offences had been committed ? Remember folks, this is OUR money, not the NHS's, not Jeremy fucking Hunt's money, it's OURS, and it's being given away ! Well, that's what I think anyway.

Much as I hate to do this - here's the link to the sun's efforts. Might be an interesting chore for someone to fish out their FOI request. Not me, I've done enough ... for now ! 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8083278/patients-abused-jimmy-savile-compensation-nhs-paid/

I guess I should have worked out exactly how much the ambulance chasers were paid. I'll leave that one to you as well. 

I wonder just how many of these claimants might have submitted claims to more than one of the sources available to them - the NHS, the BBC, the estate directly ? How would anyone even know ? 

Happy New Year All 

Here's a little something for the 52 who got on average, less than £10K of OUR money !



Update 22st January 2019

I've been asked to publish the following information sent to me by Amanda. Exactly as she worded it to me 

'The NHS just paid out "nuisance claims". It was cheaper than investigating them ..... The scrutineers worked for free and proved many were lies but the NHS just paid. Was their evidence shared with the NHS ? We'll never know, nor will we ever know if they took any notice of it. The lawyers won't say who did and who didn't get paid out. Surely the NHS and the BBC should .... It's our money and they are public bodies.
Did you know that multiple claims were made ? ..... Nothing stopping any claimant getting money from the NHS his estate and the BBC i.e "assaulted in xyz hospital then at TOTP. That would make three separate claims'.

Someone should ask the NHS and the solicitors, questions based upon the above statement. Shouldn't they ?





5 comments:

  1. Excellent blog...... Yes its our money given away without any evidence that there was a crime committed, too many people were too scared to call out false claims. Heartbreaking. More to come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't wait to hear more !!! When you're ready :-)

      Delete
  2. this old piece in the Funday Times has a curious quote: "VICTIMS raped by Jimmy Savile are being offered “very low” compensation offers of £40,000" Without getting into semantics, it would seem that only three actual "rapes" were ever accepted. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/savile-victims-payouts-to-be-as-low-as-pound7000-mxn6fztr72m

    Not a very high "hit-rate" for the worst sexual offender in UK history.

    (Apologies to Jimmy's worthwhile family. I don't believe a word of any of the crap thrown at his name, but the police/legal/media lies are so ineptly stupid, I thought that the above might be worth pointing out)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Off-topic, but here's another cracker from The Sun in which NITPIC's Pete Saunders is - once again - outraged, this time by a photo of "a man wearing a Jim’ll Fix It-style medal and gear like the paedophile DJ’s [who] fondles fake plastic boobs strapped to a female fellow partygoer mocked up as the Duchess of Cambridge."

    Speed-dial Saunders whines that "It’s very sick and not funny." Ho ho ho!

    And from the University of Strathclyde comes an academic paper: 'Television and/as testimony in the Jimmy Savile case'.

    Penned by Karen Boyle, "Director of the Centre for Gender and Feminist Studies and the only Professor of Feminist Media Studies in the UK" it reunites us with a couple of old pals: "Ward and Coles - the two women who can, in different ways, lay claim to being 'victim zero' in the Savile case".

    Indeed!

    Boyle's interest in "archiving & historicising the feminist anti-violence movement" is maybe what leads her to focus on - yes! - those three damned photographs of a smiling, at ease young woman; perhaps buried beneath the dreary rhetoric lie some interesting points regarding the media's exploitation of the same 'victims' over and over, but then again, probably not:

    "Notably, there are no feminist organisations or commentators used in any of the documentaries."

    None except, er, Dee Coles! Working with wimmin's groups since the early 1970s...

    "Coles was 14 years old and on holiday in Jersey when Savile raped her." Oh dear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://barthsnotes.com/2019/01/31/some-notes-on-david-aaronovitchs-times-child-abuse-fantasists-column/#comment-2002339

      Delete