What a Difference a CFA Makes! – Part Four.
Restorative v. Retributive Justice is a debate as old as civilisation. Restorative Justice is possibly the most fashionable at the moment, in that it focuses on the needs of the victim – and offender. It is a more subjective form of Justice – encouraging the offender to make repayment to society through perhaps community service, or apologising to the victim in person, to understand the wrong he has done and repent. Retributive Justice is the ‘eye for an eye’ form of punitive justice – lock him up and throw away the key.
Both forms of justice require that the offender, once proven so, is available to play his part – either by being punished or to make repayment to the victim and society.
Jimmy Savile is not available to either form of ‘Justice’ – he is dead, and was dead long before he was formally accused or found guilty by the media. So what exactly is going on with these schedules of CFA enabled ‘allegators’ who seek ‘Justice’ belatedly? Who is to pay the price for their ‘Justice’ since Jimmy Savile is not available to do so?
They would say that those who ‘enabled’ these unproven allegations to occur. A difficult ‘second hand’ concept. Since there has been no investigation into whether the events ever occurred, a matter of national policy according to Yewtree, how can you possibly prove that anyone enabled them to occur?
It is said that ‘the BBC employed him and therefore had a vicarious duty in the event of him offending’ – certainly the BBC took no steps to stop him offending – but was that because they were incompetent, willingly turning a blind eye to his offending, or simply because they had no idea that he or anyone else could be offending? Obviously they had some clue that popular celebrities and underage age girls were a dangerous mix for an employer – and presumably that is why they insisted on an ‘over 16′ regulation for those coming in contact with their celebrities. Should they have insisted that all those coming on the premises produced a birth certificate? Should they have learnt to live with the heart broken wails of 16 year olds, no doubt suffering some incurable disease who had turned up ‘for their last chance’ to meet their chosen celebrity and Dad had forgotten to bring the required paperwork?
Possibly something they will have to do in the future now that society is holding them responsible for an event never proven to have occurred, but for which they are being held responsible as though it has been proven to have occurred.
Who else is the target of these CFAs? ‘Jimmy Savile’ cries the mob! He had all those millions and gold chains and everything, he should have to give some of that to me, me, me! They might have a valid point if Savile was alive, if the allegations were true, he would be a reasonable target – but Jimmy Savile ‘lies a mouldering in his grave’ – he has no millions, no gold chains.
‘Well his family then, why should they live a life of luxury’ – sorry wrong target again, he didn’t leave his millions and his gold chains to his family.
Savile left his money to a tranche of charities. Help the Heroes, and (ironically, in the present climate) a domestic abuse and child protection charity, amongst others. That is the target that the CFAs have in their sights. Those millions rightfully belonged to the charities, minus any debts on his estate, from the very second that he died. They would have been in safe hands by now, doing good work for legless servicemen, had Savile’s great-niece not decided that she was remarkably pi**ed off at not being named in his will and come up with a tale – now formally refuted in police statements by 11 members of his family – of how she was ‘abused by him’ by their account some years before she met him. The case represented a potential debt on the estate, and so, from that moment, the executors were unable to put the money to good use, they had to sit and wait to see what happened next.
What happened next will go down in history as one of the greatest shames ever to darken British shores.
Can you even begin to explain to me how ‘Justice’ is served by using an unproven allegation, that can never be defended, as requiring Leeds General Hospital to be deprived of a much needed new life saving scanner – where does that fit on the scale between Restorative and Retributive? How does taking money from Help the Heroes ‘encourage a dead alleged offender’ to make restitution to society? Perhaps you want to tell me that if the alleged victims get their money they will be able to seek professional help to recover from their trauma – not if they live in the north of England they won’t – the charity that might have helped them won’t have the bequest they were expecting to pay their rent, the ‘alleged Victim’ will have it – so how does that work? Will the ‘closed due to lack of funding’ sign on the front door bring them closure on their trauma?
As you will have noticed, every one of the CFAs was lodged before April 1st of this year – which means that the ‘old’ rules apply. The executors know that every single one of them carries a lethal ‘double fee for success’ burden. They have all been lodged by high flying law firms with high fee rates. If the executors were to contest each one – and the case ended up in court, where the victim was awarded a measly one pound for pain and suffering from an indecent suggestion 40 years ago – then the executors still have to pay hundreds of thousands out to each law firm, or in the case of the Duncroft allegations, conveniently most with the same law firm…a cumulative sum of money that could wipe out the estate, leaving the alleged victims with a pound each, the charities with nothing, and the executors – in this case the NatWest Bank, with a filthy reputation for having doubted the word of those poor wee girls. It is a no win situation.
Little wonder that 90% of personal injury claims (and psychiatric damage is counted as a personal injury to the brain) are settled out of court, not subject to rigorous investigation or cross examination, but to a pragmatic decision to fling some dough in the claimant’s direction, settle with the brief before the bills get too high, and as they say in Sarf London, ‘wipe your lips’.
Maybe you concede me the point on the charities, but still feel that suing the BBC is the right thing to do? Aren’t they all on golden handshakes, dishonourable people little better than bankers? Surely it’s all right to aim the CFAs at them, that is harmless enough isn’t it, almost a ‘victimless crime’?
Then let us look at where ‘BBC money’ comes from. Not Jimmy Savile, for a start, nor was he ever ‘under contract’ to them as Moor Larkin has painstakingly proved. BBC money comes from BBC licence fee payers. It doesn’t come willingly; it is in effect, a forced tax on owning a television – whether you watch it or not. Some people are either unable, or spectacularly unwilling, to pay that licence fee. Which is why the BBC employ an army of ‘enforcers’ to go door to door catching those using a television without a licence. ‘Enforcers’ come cheaper when you only employ them during the day, rather than having to pay them extra to go out in the dark when most people are watching television.
That is why the majority of the people that they catch are unemployed – no job to go to during the day and nothing to do but watch tele. The major portion of those people have a very good reason for not having a job – they are single mothers on benefits, looking after their young children during the day. 10% of all ‘criminal’ cases passing through the magistrates court (and it has been as high as 15%) come from this category.
So when you talk of the BBC ‘millions’, not just the millions that executives receive – but also the ‘millions’ that the CFAs are aimed at, they could well come from the benefits paid to single mothers to feed those children. The BBC have put aside £33,000 for each of the 120 untested allegations as potential compensation. Do you know how many single mothers they will have to take to court next year for each of those £33,000 pots?
242, that’s how many! 242 times 120 = 29,040. And that is punishing Jimmy Savile for something we will never know that he did, or teaching him the wrong he has done – how?
So when you meet a wee bairn on the streets with no shoes and a rumbling tummy, or a little girl too frightened to go home – you explain to them how this new fangled ‘child protection’ works; I wouldn’t have the nerve to try.
You explain to them that Mum can’t feed them today because the BBC took her to court so that a 55 year old woman can get compensation for a hand on the bum 40 years ago; you explain that there is no safe house in Newcastle to give that little girl refuge from a brutal father, because the executors can’t afford that and the lawyers fees. You go and face the anxious queue for a scan in Leeds General Hospital and tell them how it is right and proper that there isn’t a second scanner – because…
Well, because what? What exactly are you going to say? I’m damned if I know.
*Ms Raccoon is going to be off-line for several days now – If you put more than one link in your comment, your comment WILL be held up in the moderation queue, and there will not be anyone to release it. Try to remember! Just one link and nice and friendly….
September 9, 2013 at 12:39
-
Prosecution currently being sliced up in the Le Vell trial:
Nick Martin
@NickMartinSKY 2m
#LeVell Defence to jury: “This has been prosecution by
cliche. He drinks, he’s troubled, he has demons. What is that supposed to
mean.”
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23levell&src=typd&mode=realtime
- September 8, 2013 at 18:47
-
September 8, 2013 at 11:31
-
According to M on Sun we have a game of pass the parcel……a picture shaped
parcel, containing an oil painting of a very well known lady in a greeny blue
dress, seated in a chair. No one will allow ownership of said parcel. Must be
contaminated with polonium or some noxious substance? Oh woe is me what a sad
tale to tell! I ponder why DM is allowed to publish such an article, based on
trivia; I thought connections might be perceived as ‘sub judice’? Or am I
being picky?
-
September 8, 2013 at 12:57
-
Funny that the same edition of the Daily Mail reports Prince Andrew being
stopped by police in the gardens of Buckingham Palace. Perhaps the Queen has
taken out an injunction.
- September 8, 2013 at 15:08
-
The unemployed father of two was apparently taking a “stroll” in the
palace gardens at around 6 p.m. when he was “approached” by two officers
who asked:
Officer #1: Hallo!
Officer #2: Hallo!
Officer #1:
Hallo!
Officer #2: What’s all this then?
” I am Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York, and Honorary Rear
Admiral, and I will tell me mum, have me bro write to the Home Office in
green ink, and call the brigade of corgis to bite your ankle if you don’t
get your jackboot orf of my neck immediately.”
No shots were fired and the two policemen were released without
charges.
-
September 8, 2013 at 15:56
-
Good job that Plod didn’t confirm his ID by checking his DNA with
that of Phil The Greek !
- September 8, 2013 at
19:44
-
It seems that you are correct. Police said:
“A review of the specific circumstances of this incident is
being carried out. No members of the Royal Family were at Buckingham
Palace at the time of the incident.”
” A likely story, you bastard Pretender seed of an ostler! Let’s
all go down the nick and discuss this with the sarge over a nice cup
of tea.”
- September 7, 2013 at 11:12
-
In the Savile case many of the media stories from complainants have
included names of particular lawyers or firms of solicitors, would those
stories be coming from those solicitors? Also, when the media says a
complainant was not paid for a story could the lawyers have been paid, who
then pass on a sum of money to their client?
-
September 7, 2013 at 10:37
-
Margaret Jervis….. Thanks for the link to thelawyer.com……. A very
interesting read outlining the history of legals involving themselves in child
abuse and psychological injury cases, amongst other work they have done.
Emphasising the seemingly lucrative non -employed vicarious liabilty issue.
Even probing into the risk to charities which allowed a certain person onto
their premises. Strangely enough, sometimes after a request from a parent to
allow this access to their facilities. Thus opening doors to more institutions
to claim from . Good news if you are an enthusiast for very thorough
investigation of every claim, but not good if the present status quo of
careless/caring acceptance is applied. I received an unsolicited letter
yesterday begging me to enter a complex claim process for Card Protection.
Appendix C sets out a bewildering legal scenario. Appendix D sets out 8 steps
on the road to back payments to 2006. This letter came from the card
protection company itself, not from lawyers. Now we are nearly all sucked into
the compo trail, if we care to follow the complex process. Keep up the good
work if you can Anna, in spite of this latest set back. We have been there
twice, at the moment ‘clear’.
- September 6, 2013 at 22:04
-
Regarding compensation…I think Karin Ward said in an interview or her book
there was no force or threats made, would that impact on the amount if any
compensation? From the description she gave of events in the dressing room
involving Gary Glitter no one present seemed disturbed, upset or concerned and
it seems the girl willingly went behind the curtain, even if a person was
below the age of consent would their willingness impact on any compensation?
Didn’t a number of females from the 1960′s repeatedly go and visit Savile,
wouldn’t that reduce any compensation ?
On Gary Glitter, with his fame would he not have appeared many times on Top
of The Pops, yet so far only 1 claim of an incident at the studios, and that’s
by a witness rather than a victim?
-
September 6, 2013 at 22:24
-
@Rocky
Yes, you’re right. The absence of fear or alarm, etc, ought to
be a factor. Mind you, they could now be claiming that they were terrified
!
- September 6, 2013 at 21:50
-
Post 1. This somehow passed me by, until it happened to come to my
attention yesterday. Pannone Solicitors have somehow managed to get this
school to cough up for 30 claimants (and there are more claims coming in
through other solicitors) despite no apparent proof, no admissions, and the
only criminal trial resulted in a very speedy Not Guilty verdict.
William Henry Smith School agrees abuse settlement – Manchester News
http://www.manchesterwired.co.uk/news.php/1502394-William-Henry-Smith-School-agrees-abuse-settlement
-
September 6, 2013 at 21:56
-
Post 2. And this is a piece about the summing up. The defence counsel was
Eleanor Laws, who is now prosecuting Michael Le Vell. This link doesn’t have
full details but there are other articles from earlier days of the trial,
and the interesting thing is how she challenged the complainants about the
fact that they had got together on the internet prior to making the
complaints. And they had explored compensation before going to the
police.
It would be interesting to know why its been agreed to settle the
claims.
Judge summing up in Peter Merrick trial – Huddersfield Examiner
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/judge-summing-up-peter-merrick-4954854
- September 6, 2013 at 18:17
-
Jonathan Mason,
Re: “It seems to me that in the UK child maintenance has to be paid until
school leaving age, or up to the age of 20 if in full time education. A
financially canny husband with a good income who wanted to divorce his wife
might wait until the children were old enough not to receive statutory support
as a percentage of his income before dropping the bomb. This probably would
not go down well”
They only have to pay maintenance if they do not have regular access to
them i.e have them once/twice a week or something I think. If they have them
less than a certain amount of hours a year – then the have to pay maintenance
I think….
-
September 6, 2013 at 20:15
-
One imagines that there would be no further visitation or weekend
sleepovers in cases of incest.
-
September 6, 2013 at 20:27
-
Jonathan Mason,
Re: “One imagines that there would be no further visitation or weekend
sleepovers in cases of incest”
Probably all part of the plan….
-
September 6, 2013 at 13:18
-
Fascinating transcript of part of the cross examination of Le Vell in the
link below from the Daily Mail. I am surprised that the prosecutor seems to be
able to bring in hearsay evidence from an unnamed third party and question the
defendant about matters not directly related to the charges, but perhaps the
reported dialogue has been censored or rewritten.
- September 6, 2013 at 14:03
-
That has been the script from this morning as well, according to
Twitter.
I understand why the prosecution are asking the questions: they have
nothing better to ask about, and so are just trying to find a chink in his
armour, so that he eventually throws up his arms and says “yes, I admit it!”
The prosecution have not succeeded at all.
My understanding is that the medical evidence found that the child could
not have been penetrated. That would appear to contradict the child claiming
she had felt pain.
- September 6, 2013 at 14:31
-
I explained about this case to my wife this morning. My wife speaks
mainly Spanish as her first language and has never heard of Coronation
Street or of Le Vell, though she is not completely unfamiliar with soap
operas! Her comment was “How could the mother not know that the girl had
been raped at six years of age. The child would have had symptoms like
fever, and soreness, and bleeding. Didn’t the mother bathe her and
dress her and notice that something was wrong?
- September 6, 2013 at
14:46
-
Well, the mother claims, with hindsight, that the child started
wetting the bed around that time and got a sore.
(hxxp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live-coronation-street-actor-michael-5832144)
Suffice to say, there is nothing here. It will be a travesty if he is
convicted. I was really surprised that the Crown ended their case when
they did. I venture to say that the Crown was surprised there would be a
case at all.
- September 6, 2013 at
15:08
-
My wife relates this story about a family she knows:
In the Dominican Republic there is no free transport to school.
Parents often pay a “motoconchista de confianzia” or trusted
motor-bike taxi driver to take a child to school on a negotiated
weekly or monthly fee.
A Haitian girl of 10 became sick and the mother took her to the
doctor, who discovered that she had been raped. She was then asked who
had done this and identified her motoconcho driver. The family of the
child then demanded financial compensation from the family of the
motoconcho driver, which was paid to avoid taking the matter to the
police. Of course the payment had to be in cash, not in credits for
free transportation, as that driver no longer had the confidence of
the family.
Perhaps Le Vell regrets not paying off his allegator earlier.
-
September 6, 2013 at 17:12
-
Duncan Disorderly,
Re: “Well, the mother claims, with hindsight, that the child
started wetting the bed around that time and got a sore”
I started wetting the bed when I was about that age too (7), eeek….
- September 7, 2013 at 14:38
-
Apparently the girl had lichen schlerosis, an auto-immune skin
condition which is quite common in post menopausal women, but also
found in young girls. It has often been mistaken for sexual abuse
and several people’s lives have been ruined as a result.
-
September 6, 2013 at 17:08
-
Jonathan Mason,
Re: “Perhaps Le Vell regrets not paying off his allegator earlier”
Some might view that as an admission or acceptance of guilt though and
there would be nothing stopping the accusers threatening to go to the
police again when the money runs out…
- September 6, 2013 at 17:31
-
It seems to me that in the UK child maintenance has to be paid until
school leaving age, or up to the age of 20 if in full time education. A
financially canny husband with a good income who wanted to divorce his
wife might wait until the children were old enough not to receive
statutory support as a percentage of his income before dropping the
bomb. This probably would not go down well.
- September 6, 2013 at 13:10
-
It worries me a little but I think I am on the side of the law firms here.
They seem to be serving a useful purpose. Reminding the BBC that they do have
some responsibility for the behaviour of staff and contractors on their
premises is not without its merits. I feel for the charities concerned that
will lose JS’s money but then how many local residents of Leeds would want a
scanner paid for by JS’s estate? We are not talking billions here so it is not
as if the entire charity sector is dependent on this.
A very nasty episode, however it ends up.
- September 6, 2013 at 13:30
-
There is already a scanner at the LGI the monies for which were given by
Sir Jimmy (£500,000) – this was 2 years prior to his death and there was a
brass plaque confirming he had donated it – there are now four screw holes
following the plaques removal. If you need a scanner, you need a scanner – I
doubt very much, I would even go on to say 100% of Leeds folk would not
care, they care more about their treatment. One thing to remember, IF he is
guilty of absolutely everything that is being thrown at him, he could’ve had
a bloody good time just spending his money, he didn’t have to donate
ANYTHING – most of his donations were anonymous anyway (see Moor Larkin’s
Blog).
I don’t know, it makes me sad, Philanthropy was not a gimmick for him,
NOR was it a way (according to the lawyers) for him to gain access to people
for him to abuse. Example, where would he have found “victims” when
presenting the scanner eh??!!?? How sad, how very, very sad.
- September 6, 2013 at 13:32
-
Just re-read my reply and would like to make it clear it mean most of
Leeds folk would not care if it was Sir Jimmy who had donated the scanner,
they would be just glad there WAS a scanner.
- September 6, 2013 at 13:37
-
Sorry for going on a bit, but I know many charities who would be
grateful of even a few hundred pounds, so please do not have a downer on
the reality of small charity donations if they are not in the
Billions…….. I can ASSURE you his £3.4 Million WILL make a difference,
certainly more than on Lawyers fees – because I don’t know if you are
aware serviceman, but the claimants may only get a tiny proportion of
what the lawyers are due to get.
So the question is Lawyers Vs Charities – which would you choose?
- September 6, 2013 at
16:05
-
“how many local residents of Leeds would want a scanner paid for by JS’s
estate”.
The regulars will tell you that I don’t often bite – and perhaps unwisely
on this occasion, but you are about to get both bloody barrels Mr
Servicemen.
Speaking as someone who has been kept alive for past two years thanks to
a donated scanner, and is currently resting after emerging from an allergic
reaction to yet another scan yesterday to be told that my cancer is back –
Fuck you! – if you were ever in that position you wouldn’t give a rats arse
who had paid for the scanner or what else they may or may not have done in
their life.
Now get your backside off my bar stool, fuck off out of here and leave me
in peace to have a long glass of wine with Mr G and work out what I am going
to do next.
I’m out of here – if that idiot isn’t gone in two minutes, call me back –
I’ll shift him.
You really did pick the wrong moment to bestow your moronic thinking in
this establishment.
- September 6, 2013 at 17:17
-
Big hugs Anna………..
Your little ray of sunshine!!
xxx
-
September 6, 2013 at 17:26
-
Anna
This is awful news. Everyone here will, I’m sure, join me in
saying how very sorry I am, and now wish you the best of treatment and
care, and hope you can, once again, make a recovery. As soon as I read
yesterday about the cancer research that JS had been funding or proposing
to be funded, I thought of you, and realised that you have real reason to
care passionately about the injustice you’ve described so eloquently.
- September 6, 2013 at 17:32
-
Me too.
- September 6, 2013 at 18:49
-
Anna, I am so sorry to hear you have a recurrence and hope it can be
treated. Perhaps not the best time to tell you but my scan was fine, no
more check ups for a year and I wish you the same news one day. The idiot
who posted about the scanner definately does not belong in your pub! Look
after yourself.
Carol
-
September 6, 2013 at 19:48
-
I am sorry to hear this disappointing news for you. Thankfully, because
of the kindness of individuals not only are scanners provided by donation,
but money for much needed research as well into many diseases that can be
held at bay and even cured. It must be remembered that Sir Jimmy Savile
did much to raise millions to help improve the lives of others, and also
inspired others to do likewise. He didn’t have the mighty BBC putting it
all together as they do for ‘Children in Need’ (and I do admire the people
who raise millions to help children on this fundraiser), he did it alone.
Inspiration from people like JS is so important and I for one am grateful
for that. It spurs us all on.
I hope all will go well for you Anna.
-
September 6, 2013 at 19:56
-
charlotte,
Re: “I am sorry to hear this disappointing news for you. Thankfully,
because of the kindness of individuals not only are scanners provided by
donation, but money for much needed research as well into many diseases
that can be held at bay and even cured. It must be remembered that Sir
Jimmy Savile did much to raise millions to help improve the lives of
others, and also inspired others to do likewise. He didn’t have the
mighty BBC putting it all together as they do for ‘Children in Need’
(and I do admire the people who raise millions to help children on this
fundraiser), he did it alone. Inspiration from people like JS is so
important and I for one am grateful for that. It spurs us all on.I hope
all will go well for you Anna”
I agree
Anna Raccoon,
Hope you get well soon Anna, take care x
x
-
September 6, 2013 at 19:51
-
No need to shift him yourself, Anna – the regulars in this snug have
muscles in their spit when faced with that sort. Right now the only ones
worthy of your full attentions are yourself and Mr G – you’ve cracked it
before, together we can crack it again. Strength.
-
September 6, 2013 at 21:52
-
I am shattered in light of the results of the new scan but hopeful for
an exit-route from the worst news. All I can say is that Ms Raccoon has,
to me, been the best friend anyone could ever have wished for in grim
circumstances and if I she needs that kind of friend at any time, then
I’ll be there for her, Mr G. and the World’s Nicest Dog, because to love
one is to love them all.
- September 8, 2013 at 16:29
-
” to be told that my cancer is back”
Fuck.
Can’t think of anything that says it better. Sometimes Anglo Saxon IS
more expressive than any other language. Forget the poetry of French, the
romance of Italian, the colostomological precision of German …sometimes
English (bastardized Friesen
dialect-that-should-by-rights-be-extinct-by-now) HAS the right word, the
only word.
Keep on challenging that bloke with the long curvy knife to another
round of Twister, girl, y’hear?
- September 9, 2013 at 15:33
-
So sorry to hear that Anna. My thoughts are with you and I am sure you
can win through again.
-
September 6, 2013 at 12:55
-
Cripes, postman’s knock! Don’t get that started, or there will be a whole
new round of law suits.
-
September 6, 2013 at 16:55
-
And we all remember ‘Spin The Bottle’, when it was nothing to do with a
former Lib-Dem leader’s press cover-up operation.
-
September 6, 2013 at 10:00
-
Hope the news is good Anna. Enjoy your time away from all this stupid legal
artful dodgery. A snippet from the distant past has cropped up in my readings
on Kindle. Based on a Picture Post article 19/11/55, Concerning Btitain in the
mid fifties when I was twenty. Featuring the early pop scene. Frankie Vaughan,
then 27, used to sing at youth clubs in Liverpool, to keep the future yobs
grandparents entertained as ‘tiny boppers’. He was shocked and angry at the
‘screaming and hooting’ and raucous behaviour that developed as he became more
famous. Upset that girls kept demanding to be kissed. He stopped singing and
told them using modern terms, that ‘their behaviour was unacceptable to him’.
I have a so called ‘recovered memory’ that tongue in mouth kiss was fairly
standard post dance in those ‘boring ‘ fifties. Not consensual of course….more
droit de senor. Even, would you believe, at post man’s knock at parties when
much younger.
-
September 6, 2013 at 03:17
-
Anna
Again you show insight into what is becoming a national
scandal.
They always say when in a hole stop digging, with you it’s a case of praise
the lord and pass the shovel.
Best wishes
Moley
-
September 6, 2013 at 01:56
-
I hope that between us all we have pushed this lumbering vehicle of
judicial malfeasance out of the ditch and back onto the road. It may have
taken a few loser opportunists from Duncroft to drive it there, but if
Duncroft has a legacy, it’s this blog and all the contributors. That would
include the detractors.
- September 5, 2013 at 21:32
-
Anna you are a wonderful honest lady a true gem love S x
- September 5, 2013 at 21:04
-
Anna. Perhaps this little item in the Telegraph (If you haven’t already
read it) may cheer and speed your recovery.
From Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High
Court.
- September 5, 2013 at 20:48
-
good wishes to the landlady. Hast ye back
- September 5, 2013 at 17:36
-
The allegators, lawyers and the BBC should all hang their heads in shame
for what they are doing, I would rather the BBC used my license money to
really fight a case than pay any sort of compensation to alleged victims and
their greedy lawyers. Do these people have no conscience? they would steal
from charities and taxpayers too. Good luck with your scan Anna, I await my
results tomorrow with some apprehension but what will be will be, hope to hear
you are alright soon.
- September 5, 2013 at 15:56
-
Intriguing development on the periphery of the Le Vell case, in light of
what was being discussed yesterday…
No one here I trust!
And it’s late in the day, but my very best wishes to you too, Ms. Raccoon.
The hours of job-hunting are much less crushing when broken up by your
inspired and thought-provoking prose!
-
September 5, 2013 at 16:30
-
Apparently two men were arrested, one in Gloucestershire and the other in
Manchester. No word as to who they are, or whether they are in any way
related to the defendant or the allegators (or both).
- September 5, 2013 at 17:14
-
I suggest they have drawn the inferences we have all drawn from the
information that is legitimately in the public domain, but have been stupid
enough to put their conclusions on Twitter.
-
September 5, 2013 at 18:42
-
@Duncan
Yes, I actually saw a post on a forum yesterday that said,
‘is it …………. ?’
I believe that there was a chap arrested for tweeting a name way back
when the charges were brought.
- September 5, 2013 at 20:22
-
I think there is a difference between drawing inferences and posting a
name.
- September 5, 2013 at 20:24
-
I don’t know why I should care since I am a US citizen and haven’t
set foot in England for more than a decade, but I suppose one would want
to be protective of Anna’s blog and reputation.
- September 5, 2013 at 15:15
-
I recall watching TOTP in the 70s after the BBC had decreed that only over
16s would be allowed on the show. Tony Blackburn was presenting and asked the
girl standing next to him how old she was. “Fi….sixteen!” she replied.
-
September 5, 2013 at 20:50
-
Probably it was her birthday treat and she was intellectually overwhelmed
by the proximity to a great mind like Tony Blackburn.
-
September 5, 2013 at 14:22
-
I have read that Satanic ceremonies in England often involve cutting the
throat of a fowl. I have seen this done a number of times here in the
Dominican Republic at the ceremony called “barbacoa”. The bird is tied to a
fence by the feet, the throat cut, then thrown into a cauldron of boiling
water for a minute or two, removed from the water and has all its feathers
(now loose) plucked, then disembowelled, dismembered, and placed on an altar
of fire on a grid above the flames of wood or propane and coated with a blend
of spices the colour of dark blood. Meanwhile congregants drink intoxicants
made from barley and sing tribal songs. Then, horrible to relate, they make an
invocation to their deity, then EAT the sacrificial bird to make sure it does
not rise again like the Phoenix. Even worse, I have to admit to having
participated, and it was finger-licking good.
When one hears of Satanic rites in the more remote islands off the coast of
northern Scotland, then perhaps it is all a question of misunderstanding a
local party at a picnic barbecue in a backward part of the UK that does not
have Sainsburys.
-
September 5, 2013 at 15:41
-
Gosh. I thought we all did that. It makes the feathers so much more easy
to pull out. As I was told by this frightful old French biddy who thought I
was her personal servant. Every old French woman should have one, preferably
English. But she taught me a thing or two about killing, plucking and
gutting chickens.
I didn’t half miss her when she died. Bloody awful old
bat.
- September 5, 2013 at 20:15
-
Yes. Christmas Day 1955 my father killed the family’s pet goose that
had been bought in summer and fattened up for Christmas dinner, a sad day
and a recovered memory for me thanks to my mother. I remember the goose,
though not the day of its death. It took my father hours to pluck the
beast and he swore he would never do it again, ever. Had the Internet
existed, it would have taken him a minute to Google “pluck goose quickly”
and he would have found:
By placing the carcases in hot water, feathers can be removed much more
easily than by the dry method. Care must be taken not to spoil the carcase
by having the water too hot or immersing the birds for too long. The water
temperature should be about 60°C and the birds immersed for up to 2
minutes while the operator holds on to their legs. When the feathers can
be easily removed by rubbing, it is time to take the carcase out of the
water.”
But at that time phone calls were expensive, especially “trunk” calls,
and I don’t think we even had a phone anyway, so the goose was cooked, but
very late. Being C of E, my did didn’t even know a Satanist to consult,
though there may have been a few Labour Party supporters in the village
who could have stood in at a pinch!
-
September 5, 2013 at 20:19
-
He’d only have made a trunk call if he’d needed to pluck an
elephant.
(Sorry…)
- September 5, 2013 at
20:33
-
That would be a mammoth task.
- September 6, 2013 at 08:19
- September 5, 2013 at
21:07
-
I once had my Christmas Dinner at six o’clock in the morning, here in
France. Christmas Eve being the right time for the French. But I was so
pissed by then that I simply cannot remember.
No, dinner isn’t ready.
Have another drink. God knows how I got home. But I must have done since
I am still here.
I never fell for that one again.
-
September 5, 2013 at 20:15
-
Hence the saying when thirsty ‘spitting feathers.’
- September 5, 2013 at 20:45
-
The mythical Satanic Ceremonies from the 80′s and 90′s strongly resemble
the equally mythical evil ceremonies that early Christians were said to
practice in the Roman Empire, or the Satanic Ceremonies that small Christian
sects were said to practice in the middle ages. All manner of sexual
degeneracy and disgusting rites were said to take place in these
ceremonies.
The historian Norman Cohn wrote some brilliant books about this, like
‘Europe’s Inner Demons’ that I’m reading now.
-
September 5, 2013 at 13:17
-
Regarding the Satanic Abuse nonsense that was talked about on the last
posting, readers will be interested to read about a little known abuse case in
1994 that resulted in a number of people being sent down for non-existent
crimes. The details are absolutely incredible.
This is a fine account of the
case:
hxxp://blogs.forteana.org/node/131
Topically, I found this recent story about a man claiming comp-en-say-shin
for these
non-crimes:
hxxp://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/10239091.Victim_of_Pembroke_child_sex_abuse_ring_fights_for_compensation/
I wonder if the ‘local boy of nine’ and ‘Steven’ refer to the same
person.
(Reposted as web links in original. Change the hxxp to http)
-
September 5, 2013 at 13:31
-
@ Duncan Attended that trial Duncan – wrote about it with Bob Woffinden
in the Sunday Indie – in part – just before the appeal – which was a
whitewash – very important case. We wrote another article which wasn’t
published. Someone from the Sunday Telegraph who came from there wrote some
intersting pieces later. Formed the title and preface of my unfinished and
unpublished book – The Dauphin of Pembroke. Can send the preface if you’re
interested.
Also see commentary on chrissaltrese.co.uk competence and ?something in
the courts – the case is D and others and referenced within and think it is
on bailii.
- September 5, 2013 at
14:03
-
I just noticed you had co-written the article at the Indy – small
world! Yes, I would be very interested in reading your material. My email
is duncan(dot)disord(at)hotmail(dot)co(dot)uk.
I read Brendan Rodgers articles about the case in his book and it is
nightmarish.
- September 5, 2013 at
17:14
-
Byron Rodgers, darn it!
-
September 5, 2013 at 18:50
-
@Margaret Jervis
ooh, Bob Woffendin – he did good work with Richard Webster, didn’t
he?
- September 5, 2013 at 21:02
-
sometimes lesser working mortals get left behind while covering other
duties. I did meet Richard and had to disabuse him of some presumptions
for which he was truly grateful and took off from there. I also happened
to introduce him to Bob….
my memoirs – as yet unpublished (and nothing personal mind) may
coincide with ??? who knows – lots of ups and down – I work on in the
field of truth and justice, tedious as it is – for the avoidance of
doubt I’m not paid for my contributions here – self-employed. Hence my
real name.
- September 5, 2013 at
22:08
-
@Margaret Jervis
I’m probably a bit thick, but understood barely
a word of your post, I’m afraid. I’m sure nobody thinks you’re being
paid.
-
September 5, 2013 at 12:42
-
Darren Little @DarrenLittleSky 4m
The crown has now completed its case
against Michael #LeVell the defence will call the Coronation Street actor to
give evidence at 2pm.
Gosh, the Crown had a really strong case against him, didn’t they? Unless
the defence have been lobotomised, they are going to take the case apart. I
note that many twitterers seem to be of the BELIEVE THE VICTIM mentality.
-
September 5, 2013 at 18:48
-
@Duncan
I agree, it ought to be a walk in the park for the Defence.
Average forum members must be slightly more intelligent than average
twits – there seems to be a reasonable level of skepticism across the
forums.
-
September 5, 2013 at 11:11
-
I think a sitting ovation of undeleted expletives is called for in support
of our landlady – here’s mine sofj4etl4a – that’s another random Nokia model
said to be found….
(the bum mobile phone case has been adjourned pending
further complainants)
Here’s looking at your chair Anna! – get back soon .
x
-
September 5, 2013 at 15:32
-
Oh, thanks. I have just bought a Nokia. Not that I know what to do with
it because I haven’t actually managed to extract it from the packet yet. And
the instructions are all in French anyway.
Will it talk to me in French
when I finally get it going? That could be a bumer.
But this really nice man told me that I can only get the money updated if
I go to Leclerc, which is some twenty miles away from me, and I really don’t
want to do that every bloody month. So is this true? Or can I do it On
Ligne?
- September 5, 2013 at 17:40
-
Elena, this is completely OT but you should be able to download the
English manual for your phone if you need it. When I had a PAYG phone from
Leclerc I could either get the topup number by paying in one of their
stores or by going on-line with a card.
This is really, really OT. Depending on who your ISP is you might be
able to get free mobile calls. Check out free.fr
- September 5, 2013 at
18:29
-
Thank you, Ivan. This is really useful. But it had occurred to me
that I might be able to do the top up On Line. If only I knew how, or
even if I could. I certainly don’t want to have to bomb off to Pontivy
every bloody month.
Actually, I don’t expect anyone to phone me, and
I only want the bloody thing for emergencies around rural
France.
Sheesh, I have avoided this for the last twenty years, and
now I’ve got this God awful piece of plastic that I don’t know what to
do with. I am seriously getting too old for this.
But thank you so
much. I now know that I don’t have to drive twenty kilometres to Pontivy
to get it topped up.
You have made my day. OT or not.
- September 5, 2013 at
18:30
-
Oh, my ISP is France Telecom. Or Orange, whatever. Wanadoo, in
fact.
-
September 5, 2013 at 10:55
-
Sorry, falling about laughing here. If only it were funny.
Lots of love coming your way, Anna. All will be well. Somehow or
another.
- September 5, 2013 at 10:22
-
Excellent series of posts!
The comments about paying out a “small” sum, probably “without prejudice”,
rather than incurring very large legal fees (even if you win) is only really
valid where there is either just one claimant, or at most a very few claimants
in respect of the same incident. The BBC should pick one at random and fight
it all the way, thereby testing any “evidence” in Court. Then see what happens
if the case is thrown out.
To do otherwise is being profligate with OUR money!
So, how do we make them do so?
- September 5, 2013 at 09:34
-
8m
Say NO to the legalised theft of Jimmy Savile’s estate. Money that should
go to good causes, gone while the BBC hands over YOUR license
fee
Expand
Anna Raccoon @AnnaRaccoon2010 1h
What a Difference a CFA Makes! – Part Four. http://wp.me/p1arsM-82x
Retweeted by Rabbit
Away
Expand
Rabbit Away @rabbitaway 9h
54 days to go – Oct 29th Roundhay Park Leeds 1pm – Justice For Jimmy Savile
– Time to reclaim Jimmy’s good name !
Expand
-
September 5, 2013 at 10:53
-
I do so hope that loads of people turn up. This isn’t about Child Abuse.
It’s about Justice.
-
September 5, 2013 at 14:52
-
That may well be so Elena, but the British legal system has long since
ceased to have anything to do with justice…
- September 5, 2013 at
16:02
-
Keep on hoping, Ted Treen. Some of us do.
- September 5, 2013 at 09:12
-
@ nor was he ever ‘under contract’ to them as Moor Larkin has painstakingly
proved. @
I’m not sure Anna’s implied link quite works, so I will take the
liberty of expanding/clarifying her point slightly:
Jimmy Savile was never under contract to BBC TV. He was contracted to BBC
radio on a rolling basis in the Sixties but this was always related to his
production of shows – not on any guaranteed “salary” basis. I think it would
be most accurate to say he was never a salaried employee of the BBC ever. By
1973 BBC radio were resisting renewal of even Savile’s “rolling contract”. By
1977 he had no ongoing contracts with any BBC affiliate whatsoever, and simply
worked on a deal at a time basis. Full details and documentation can be
reviewed at this Link:
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/we-were-all-taken-in.html
-
September 5, 2013 at 10:34
-
Not under contract – that’s the strange role of coincidence – for just as
Newsnight were planning their ‘scoop’ back in Novemeber 11 a new ruling on
vicarious liaibility had been issued in the high court – the Portsmouth
Diocese ‘Father Christmas’case – it augured a bumper sleigh of presents for
adult children far and wide – courtesy of vicarious liability being extended
beyond employment to relationships that were ‘akin’. Mr Justice McDuff felt
that justice to a complainant concerning a long dead priest in the diocese
could only be met if unrelated parishioners coughed up the lolly.
But the Diocese decided to appeal and not just that – had the audacity to
say the complainant was lying – is this the way we expect our church leaders
to behave? Why can’t they learn from their elders and betters like the BBC
and the Met?
Anyway went to the Court of Appeal in July 2012 – where – as before on
these sensitive issues the rewriting of the law was affirmed. And so….
And Liz Dux, performing her promotional duties at the RWT superstore,
immediately invited all and sundry into Santa’s grotto . October 12th
2012
Did you mean: liz dux savile ROW
RJW on standby for claims against BBC and Stoke Mandeville …
http://www.thelawyer.com/rjw-on-standby-for-claims-against-bbc-and-stoke-mandeville-hospit..
“She
added that it was not necessary to prove managers at the BBC or Stoke
Mandeville were aware of the alleged abuse to secure a vicarious liability
ruling against each organisation.”
She even added ‘counsel has not yet been instructed’ which seemed a bit
premature and presumptious at the time – some rather tart comments from
‘Anonymous’ beneath.
More amusingly, as a coincidence, my search engine stated
‘Did you mean: liz dux savile ROW’
The cosmic joke is not lost of the gods of the internet…
- September 5, 2013 at 09:00
-
Thanks for ALL your efforts Anna.
And the irony is, you’re not subject to the Telly Tax anyway!
- September 5, 2013 at 08:40
-
Bravo. Puts the situation in black and white, simply and powerfully. If
only just one of these women would find their conscience and come clean.
Heavens, she might even find herself being paid far more by the media in her
role of exposing the whole, massive, sham than she stands to make by claiming.
Think of the book she could sell! Anna is right, they could end up with
peanuts.
- September 5, 2013 at 07:44
-
May your God go with you Anna x
-
September 5, 2013 at 08:39
-
Seconded.
- September 5, 2013 at 09:14
-
Thirded.
- September 5, 2013 at 11:16
-
4thed -I’d pray for your safe return but I think HE “14528**(at
prompt)”-ed my calls long back.
-
September 5, 2013 at 11:33
-
Fifthed.
(Yes – I know it’s a rather trite and unoriginal comment, but I
don’t care because I mean it.)
- September 6, 2013 at 08:21
{ 96 comments }