OK, in simplistic terms. This is not any sort of Government issue. JS’s estate is managed by the Trustees department of a major international bank. His will left the estate’s realisable assets to a charity he had set up, some of which was apparently expected to go to Britain’s war wounded etc

After he died, and his purported paedosexualbarbarianism was broadcast to the world and his wife, a whole load of people suddenly appeared to claim that they were victims of his flagrant sexual aggression, rather than his renowned charitable activities and profligacy

As you might expect, a load of lawyers corralled these people into one – or maybe more, who’s counting? – groups to stake a claim on the estate’s dosh. Now, that might be fine if you could expect that the legal beagles would sniff out real truth and justice. Hah! The only person who gives an aerial act of copulation about those is Clark Kent, and that’s only because he ate too much of Martha’s apple pie.

Those who deal with civil cases of this type tend pursue ‘deals’, ie where the best outcome is that those claiming get the most possible while, simultaneously, those facing the claims pay out the least they can get away with all – and probably most importantly – without having to go to court to prove any of this in very expensive court proceedings. Also, it is probably in the interests of those at the receiving ends of such claims to make them ‘go away’ as soon as possible. Like yesterday. Same with the politicians. An acquaintance of JS? Not me, gov.!

Justice, in the sense that the reality of what actually happened is tested, doesn’t get much of a look in, and is often to be avoided wherever possible

So, it would appear that the lawyers came up with the sort of ‘compensation scheme’ you mention. The sort of generic settlement you might find in cases like this would be something like: the claimants will get a fixed sum, and their lawyers a fee per claimant – as ever, the exact details will vary, and they may well not be, or ever intended for, the public domain

What seems to have upset this applecart, and potentially risked, a little, the sort of juicy content that it might, is that the ‘Charity’ trustees, to whom the ‘estate’s’ assets should have gone, seem to have objected to the compensation scheme – quite rightly, as they have a legal obligation to protect what should otherwise be the charity’s assets’ – on the basis that it might well be paying out on unfounded claims.

Shrieks of horror! The victims must be believed! But of course, where claimants might get such anonymity, this can only be better for the lawyers (shurely shome mistake?), as who can possibly prove that their claimant ‘nobody’, had ‘nothing’ done to them?

As the landlady here, and David Rose in the Mail, have researched, there might well be grounds for considerable doubt about what might be being claimed for.

And if the claimants – as might reasonably be assumed – consist of much the same cadre of people as the list of ‘victims’ passed to the NHS to investigate and have, at great expense to the taxpayer, reported on, well!.

Moor Larkin in his blog has trawled in detail through the NHS reports, the landlady has provided details of others, and you would have to be amongst the most credulous people in the entire country to believe that all of those alleging that ‘crimes’ that had been purportedly committed against them had, in some cases, actually happened, in others that if an assailant really did exist that it could conceivably ever have been JS , or that, what was being presented as a ‘crime’, was then, is now, and while I would dearly like to say “ever shall be”, unfortunately, if some of the more demented members of our present day society have their way, actually may become so at some future date.

TL;DR. Parliament had nothing to do with this. It’s a civil law issue, where ‘right’ is ‘might’. Lack of conviction of JS, while alive, for anything is irrelevant. So, too, is now proving that he actually did anything to anyone. Bottom line is that if people believe everything they are being told about JS’ purported past misdemeanours, either what is said for or against, without properly checking the facts and then applying some sensible judgement and discernment, they’re idiots. And, with the world being full of those, and when the legal system is prepared to acquiesce in what seems to be similar such behaviour, what chance have any of us got?

Reply