So it would seem that Slater & Gordon were demanding to be the sole arbiters of who was entitled to be a claimant in respect of alleged sexual assault- surely an obvious conflict of interest.
In addition if someone is accused of assault they have the right to know who their accuser is in order that they may provide a defense and in this matter surely that is no difference. Slater & Gordon appear to be sorely lacking in ethics and do deserve the label of ambulance chaser.

Very erudite Margaret Jervis. So what the law was really doing, until the Trustees objected, was facilitating the compo-cavaliers to just take the money and run, and nobody was even allowed to know them from Adam! Makes you proud to be British and no mistake.

“I’m the dandy highwayman who you’re too scared to mention
I spend my cash on looking flash and grabbing your attention
The devil take your stereo and your record collection!
The way you look you’ll qualify for next year’s old age pension!

Stand and deliver your money or your life!
Try and use a mirror no bullet or a knife! “

By the time all this legalising and arguing is over and done with……if ever, the only beneficiaries will be the legals and the bank with small portions left over……if any, for the poor anonymous victims of these mouldy old ‘crimes’, that are alleged to have occured so long in the past. No named charity to help the truly needy will get the benefit of his years of do gooding, that have been obliterated by his alleged do badding. Give up your names girls and go get the money that was due to these charities. Live with your conscience afterward if you are not a completely truthfully genuine claimant for personal injury.

I can see the issue of disclosure of names causing difficulty —legally and ethically—–and that it should be addressed with sensitivity —-I suggest its wrong not to acknowledge the principle of anonymity of a victim of an alleged sexual assault because the law acknowledges it —I think Slater and Gordon took the point badly and in too heavy handed a way and lost and in so doing may (I don’t know the details adequately to aver positive failing) but there could or might have been opportunity to procure undertakings that protected anonymity in so far as it was not detrimental to addressing the issues in hand. A slick lawyer on the other side might have offered these undertakings on notice that the anonymity point was being taken –but if one finds ones opponent a little self righteous and believing they know not just better than one does but the Court itself,—-and might seek to negotiate and construe the undertaking too restrictively its sometime best not to extend too much kindness and courtesy since it is misconstrued. Oh gosh they say criminal law is a middle class game played with working class pawns —increasingly this sounds like a game of middle ages inter village football with television commentary.

* very bad karma will descend upon those who are false claimants. *

There have always been frauds and con-men and there always will be. A humane Society defends itself against them in a humane way, using facts and reason and so refusing to enter their made-up world. The complete abandonment of those principles of Fact and Reason by the policing and legal establishments of the Crown has left Society prey for the criminal classes, of which plainly lawyers are now among, along with bankers and other over-paid elites that have created an aura of invincibility around themselves in recent decades. The fantasies about the “power of Savile” merely reflects their own world-view, wherein they know that they can get away with anything, and so assume others are just as capable of it, and would want to own that power.

Our civic governance has become far more dangerous to us the people, than our political governance. UK Politicians have been reduced to puppets only able to sign off endless Inquiries, which can be profitably pursued by the same echelon of civics that created the perceived need for the inquiry in the first place and can be guaranteed to back up their mendacious buddies.

A humane Society defends itself against them in a humane way, using facts and reason and so refusing to enter their made-up world.
True Moor Larkin and I suggest humane requires kindness, courtesy and understanding in the first instance ……..but malice ……malice for action (but not malice for the individual necessarily) when those humane principles are abused.

What happens if the claimant does NOT give consent to their name being provided to the BBC etc ?

I shall digest these recent posts and ponder upon the same
G the M

One of the points not covered in this piece – and they are legion – is that the judge ruled that ‘claimants’ were effectively equivalent to creditors in insolvency disputes and should take precedence over beneficiaries. Although he recognised that there was no equivalence, he allowed the principle to prevail. This means that if a person makes a claim against a deceased person’s estate, even though this claim may be totally unfounded, it will be considered prior to the testator’s intended beneficiaries, with of course the resultant costs depleting the estate. In this he is effectively equating a documented unpaid debt in life with a hypothetical ‘debt’ by way of posthumous claim of abuse and damages, which could of course have a wide bearing on any future posthumous claims regarding any estate. This I would think was the gravamen of the judgment. And personally think it was decided on such question-begging basis that it ought to be subject to appeal as a matter of law and principle. Testators beware!

Yes – have no idea about this Reay intervention , but it was that that extended the time limit on the distribution of the estate. Of course if it could be proven there were a conspiracy to this effect, then the entire shebang would be negated. And more. There is of course also the co-incidental JGE v Portsmouth diocese case in the courts which I have previously mentioned as to relevance and synchronicity/coincidence.

And just by way of coincidence, just before the instant case judgment was published, with the parties knowing the arguments and the decisions of the judge, there was a strange bout of scaremongering about anonymity re the BBC Janet Smith review and the ‘Sex off Act’ by Mark Williams-Thomas which appeared to have been responded to positively by Liz Dux – otherwise known as ‘PI Claimants’ on Twitter. I won’t go into this as others have the necessary evidence. But it appeared that Dux, without any scrutiny of her own, was underwriting this ‘scare’ by MWT.

Independent enquiries with the review established that this was unfounded and that MWT would be written to accordingly.MWT made no comment on this on Twitter having deleted a demand of an apology from me as to questioning this requirement (all in good faith ,I did not have any access at the time to the Chancery case or judgment ) but failing to apologise to claimants and others including me.

Dux made a dislocated comment about it being confirmed as to anonymity by the BBC. But of course Dux would have been intimately acquainted with the arguments of PI claimants in the case as they were hers. And accordingly in the tweet ‘exchange’ she might have been minded to question what the ‘Sex off Act’ cited by MWT was – was it the very same shroud waver that had failed to convince Mr Justice Sales?

We don’t know because despite being asked on Twitter, MTW would not reveal details of this nor the ‘Item 5′ which he claimed obliged ‘victims’ (claimants) to forego ‘anonymity’ – thus obviously raising unfounded alarm that claimants wouldaahve their names plastered across the the mainstream media. It all sounds like a pre-planned conceit to