Nothing for victims: The £3million left in Jimmy Savile's estate will be spent on lawyers.
- Just 22 out of 58 payout claims against Jimmy Savile have been accepted amid warnings that his estate may be swallowed up by legal fees… leaving nothing for genuine victims
- 58 damages claims have been considered under scheme for alleged victims
- There are more than 150 claims that still have to be processed
- The £3million left in Jimmy Savile’s estate is due to be spent on lawyers
- Victims deemed to be genuine cannot receive money until all are complete
- By which time there will be no money left in the estate for them to claim
Nothing for victims: The £3million left in Jimmy Savile’s estate will be spent on lawyers.
Almost two-thirds of the damages claims made for alleged sexual assaults by Jimmy Savile have so far been rejected.
Lawyers representing NatWest Bank, the executors of Savile’s will, told the Appeal Court last week that out of 58 claims which have so far been considered under a controversial compensation scheme, 36 have been thrown out, and just 22 accepted.
The scheme, set up by the bank, was approved in April by a High Court judge, and then advertised in newspapers. The hearing also confirmed that the whole of Savile’s estate is certain to be swallowed up in legal fees – leaving nothing for genuine victims.
Last month, The Mail on Sunday revealed that police have launched a criminal inquiry into a claim from Savile’s great-niece, Caroline Robinson, who says he abused her when she was aged 12 and 15. Members of her family, including her daughter, have told police they believe her allegations are false.
The court heard that of the £3 million left in Savile’s estate, just over £1 million is due to NatWest’s solicitors, Osborne Clarke.
There are more than 150 claims that still have to be processed, and under the scheme’s terms, another £2 million will be due to the law firms that represent alleged victims. Osborne Clarke’s bills take precedence over all other claims on the estate. But victims deemed to be genuine cannot receive a penny until all compensation claims are complete – by which time the pot will be empty.
Last week’s hearing was a bid by the Savile Trust, the charity to which Savile left almost all his money, to get the compensation scheme quashed and NatWest removed as executors.
The three judges expressed astonishment at the way the scheme works, and at the low level of scrutiny for weeding out fraudulent claims.
A small group of ‘consultants’ is being given only two-line summaries of each claim, containing few details.
The judges also pressed NatWest’s lawyers to explain how the scheme’s ‘tariff’ of damages – which provides for payouts from £1,500 to £60,000, as well as the enormous associated legal fees – had been calculated.
The judges said the bank had an ‘obligation’ to provide evidence of this, but NatWest failed to do so, saying only that the scheme had emerged after months of ‘negotiation’.
It was clear the hearing itself will only add to the dizzying legal costs.
There were seven QCs in court, representing the Trust, NatWest, the BBC, NHS, Barnardo’s and some of the alleged victims, as well as numerous solicitors and junior barristers.
Lady Justice Gloster, one of three judges hearing the application, commented: ‘There are so many lawyers at this party, I cringe.’ The Savile Trust had tried to ensure that there would only be its own lawyers and those representing the bank in attendance, but the bank rejected this, describing the suggestion as ‘preposterous’. NatWest and Osborne Clarke have refused to comment.
Judgment was reserved.
- JuliaM
November 9, 2014 at 9:43 am -
“The three judges expressed astonishment at the way the scheme works, and at the low level of scrutiny for weeding out fraudulent claims.”
May I express similar astonishment at the idea that we have such credulous & ignorant people on the bench?
- Eric
November 9, 2014 at 10:25 am -
Actually, to be fair, unless you’ve some experience in this area you can’t believe how dreadful the scrutiny is. You read official statements drawn up by solicitors, and you think, well that’s insane, that’s just impossible. Anna’s posted and especially so has Moor Larkin, claims that just cannot be true (let alone those that don’t conform to any sane interpretation of human behaviour, are wildly inconsistent, etc etc etc).
There’s a reason for this. This sort of grot-solicitor does this for a (lucrative) living. But they are not used to being challenged. Much of the work is done by solicitors on behalf of insurers, and this seems to often take a pattern of not “lets analyse whether this person is telling the truth or not”, which you might expect, but it’s done more as a negotiation “what will they settle for”. What has happened to Savile’s neice is almost unprecedented ; if a claim is comically obviously untrue, in the sense that it actually could not have happened, it is quietly lost.
What I would like to know is why the solicitor’s fees are paid for out of the fund at all by default. If they ‘win’ – the claim is accepted – then yes, as with any other claim, it should be met by the estate, but the ones they lose they should either swallow themselves or charge the person making the claim.
- Eric
November 9, 2014 at 10:27 am -
Additionally ; another part reason for the approach is a civil claim is ‘balance of probability’. Once a conviction has been made, or often simply someone has been charged, the default assumption is that any claim is proven on the ‘balance of probability’ ; this is why these things start off with 2 or 3 claims and mushroom to thousands.
- Fat Steve
November 9, 2014 at 11:12 am -
@Eric. In my opinion you are completely accurate as to both the outcome and the reasons why the Tort Law system in the UK has reached the shambolic state it has.. If it was nothing more than just a massive waste of resources that would be one thing but it is its corrosive effect on Society that is far more pernicious. The objective of bankers is to ensure the EFFICIENT allocation of a scarce commodity (viz capital) and from this perspective the objective of the legal system is the EFFICIENT allocation of that commodity that is rather more precious known as Justice. When the Banking system failed because capital was allocated foolishly it only impoverished Society but with the failure of the Legal System I suggest it destroys something less tangible but rather more crucial viz a belief that when one wakes up in the morning it is to a Society that has some basic structure based on commonly shared principles of what is right and what is wrong …..its not the rule of law but rather the supremacy of justice that makes a Society worth living in. I will leave aside the issue of what might constitute justice this winter morning but its difficult to argue that ( save for those who are not entirely self cantered and who judge ‘justice’ as being what is good for them) there is not some shared notion of what is just. What has come about is that the practice of law has become the end in itself rather than a means to an end .
- Fat Steve
- GildasTheMonk
November 9, 2014 at 2:48 pm -
Good insight Eric. Spot on
- johnbull
November 9, 2014 at 10:02 pm -
There is a persistent and naive notion that there is some correlation between the law and justice. There is not, nor has there ever been. The former is a function of society the latter is a question of philosophy. Changing the law is attritous, as society will always meld the change to its own prevailing political status. Example: in Britain we use the anti terrorist laws to peruse people who put the ‘wrong’ refuse in their dust (garbage) bins. This use of the law is patently not just, but logically legal. As to the Legal Profession; it not only drafts the law, it interprets it and administers it. Finally we, the law-less, pay for it. Yet still there are good people who are surprised by articles such as David Rose’s Daily Mail piece.
- AdrianS
November 9, 2014 at 10:31 pm -
How many times do we have to say RIPA is not an anti terror law. It came about because in some terror trials defence lawyers started going down the route of asking where the legal authority was to carry out surveillance . The government of the time plugged this gap with RIPA, but it regulates all surveillance activities by law enforcement agencies and is quite strictly checked. It means that before someone carries out covert surveillance someone has to authorise this , which will be a senior officer, and the reason and justification for it is recorded.
- johnbull
November 10, 2014 at 1:21 pm -
AdrianS.
I stand corrected, thank you.
I was trying, in my clumsy way, to show an example of a law, perceived by many as an anti major crime and terror instrument, which had subsequently been manipulated by the Legal Profession. (That, after all, is how they earn their fee. Nothing wrong with that.) The use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to rummage through dustbins is legal; but few Clapham Omnibusers see it as just. - Andrew Duffin
November 10, 2014 at 5:31 pm -
Well yes, it isn’t an anti-terror law, you are correct.
But it was sold to the public as being something that (a) was absolutely essential to the war on terrorism and (b) would only be used in the pursuance of same. If its true nature and purpose had been openly admitted, there would have been an uproar, and probably the law would never have come into being. Rather like the EU.
- AdrianS
November 10, 2014 at 7:13 pm -
I don’t think it was sold to the public as just for anti terror purposes, the act was drafted to covert all types of surveillance . It would be illogical to regulate for just one type of crime, so it would need to cover all types. For example if fraudsters emptied your bank account you would want it investigated. Now if the trail led to no 4 xyz street, and the authorities needed to indentify the individuals concerned, you would be more than fed up if the police said, no we can’t do it as we cannot legally carry out surveillance except for terror cases.
- AdrianS
- roger
January 9, 2015 at 12:22 pm -
So the police etc. was doing things that were both illegal and against natural law, some ‘smart’ (not the same as clever) government lawyers crafted RIPA and lo, what was illegal now became legal. Wow.
- johnbull
- Peter Raite
November 11, 2014 at 4:02 pm -
The reality is that if powers can be abused, they will be abused.
Example:
http://metro.co.uk/2008/08/27/police-terror-law-used-on-underage-drinkers-431361/
“Police terror law used on underage drinkers
Underage drinkers are being arrested by police using laws brought in to combat organised crime, terrorism and identity theft, it has emerged.
Teenagers using fake, borrowed or stolen ID to get into pubs are being targeted using the Identity Card Act. Offenders can be jailed for up to ten years.
‘The Act was brought out for terrorism but it suits us very nicely,’ said Insp Neil Mutch of South Yorkshire Police.
Campaigners have criticised the move, saying it risks criminalising young people for minor offences because the incident shows up on their criminal record.
The initiative in South Yorkshire began six weeks ago and 30 people have been arrested so far. Police are mostly issuing reprimands but this is still revealed by extended Criminal Records Bureau checks.
Insp Mutch said something had to be done to tackle frequent use of false ID.
‘We have been getting lots of abuse of documents, with people using different people’s passports,’ he added. Children were also putting themselves at risk of robbery or assault while drunk.
The Home Office backed the move, saying a ‘robust and secure way’ to check identities was necessary.
But the Children’s Rights Alliance questioned why there was no alternative but to use such heavy-handed legislation.”
- AdrianS
- johnbull
- Lucozade
November 10, 2014 at 2:19 pm -
Eric,
Re: “What I would like to know is why the solicitor’s fees are paid for out of the fund at all by default. If they ‘win’ – the claim is accepted – then yes, as with any other claim, it should be met by the estate, but the ones they lose they should either swallow themselves or charge the person making the claim”
Good point…
- Eric
- Eric
- Peter Whale
November 9, 2014 at 10:10 am -
Cynical old me not an ounce of astonishment at all. What would have astonished me would have been for the trust to be allowed to use the money as it was intended.
- Flaxen Saxon
November 9, 2014 at 10:16 am -
I agree with the Whale. No surprise here. I think we have seen it all before. If I wasn’t cynical enough, I’d retch.
- Tedioustantrums
November 9, 2014 at 10:53 am -
Has there actually been any victim of J Saville who has proven their allegation beyond real doubt?
I’m just asking since there seems to be none?
- Jonathan King
November 9, 2014 at 11:10 am -
The can of worms decides not just to open but to explode. I’m still waiting for the moment when the forger of that original letter realises that much more reward will make its way to her when she reveals to police who gave her the old Surrey Police letter heading and why. Then the GREAT STORY will be published (paying her a substantial fee for spilling the beans) and ITV will start to squeal.
- Joe Public
November 9, 2014 at 11:11 am -
1. I’m surprised some of the soliciting fraternity haven’t offered to represent the true victims of this saga on a no-win-no-fee basis.
2. Have any of the ‘false claimant’ opportunists been prosecuted yet? Rhetorical question to our dogged landlady: This & perhaps most other readers here will wonder if not, why not?
- Eric
November 9, 2014 at 2:13 pm -
1. They do, or do so at not much cost. This didn’t start with Savile, there are other victims of this rubbish – including, AFAICS, Mr King above – but mostly people who worked in residential establishments, most famously perhaps David Jones who used to manage Cardiff City.
No-one really wants to know though. There are a few – David Rose has been involved for years – but not many.
2. It is almost unheard of. Jones’ prosecution fell apart because, most if not all the witnesses admitted they weren’t telling the truth. Nothing happens to them because the next question is going to be “why”, and the answer to that is very often “well, the Police basically told me what to say”. It is not uncommon for claimants to apparently be psychic and make claims against people they have never actually been anywhere near. I know of an instance where one young man, who claimed to be beaten up by a staff member, had his story corroborated in incredible detail by another young man. It looked like absolutely superb supporting evidence. The only problem was, the second young man entered the establishment several years after the first young man left it. Usually it isn’t the claimants, it is the police, the questioning tends to consist of telling them things, getting them to say “yes” and then writing it up as if they’d said it verbatim.
- Eric
- Alex
November 9, 2014 at 11:29 am -
Truly outrageous. But I’ve reached that point in life where I can see that the only “winners” in legal matters are the lawyers. As someone once said “lawyers are the pimples on the arse of society”.
I must be thick. Right from the start of the Savile story and through all those that followed, I always said “where’s the tangible evidence?” – surely it’s just a case of “he said, she said”?. Then I read on this blog and elsewhere that in these cases if enough people on one side say more or less the same thing, then that side is believed – which to me, being thick, seems incredible, especially when one considers the trawling methods employed to get other alleged “victims” to come forward.
If enough evil minded people decide to take against someone what chance does that person have? None it seems.- Eric
November 9, 2014 at 2:16 pm -
This goes back to the changes in “similar fact” evidence which date from the late 1990s ; before that it had to be “Brides in the Bath” type evidence (this was the original case) where there was similar means and behaviour. Nowadays all evidence is put in court, however irrelevant, it is just a mud slinging exercise. This is why recent cases have included people who think they were abused but can’t remember it, for example.
- Backwoodsman
November 9, 2014 at 4:29 pm -
Jarnadyce vs Jarnadyce, not just fiction !
- Eric
- Jonathan King
November 9, 2014 at 11:42 am -
Ah the problem with prosecuting false accusers is that then they commit suicide and the wonderful Home Secretary at the time demands an explanation from the CPS as to why they pursued the case. Although she (or he) is less concerned when an innocent person has falsely been accused (and often also kills themselves). There are times when I swear I see a white rabbit heading down that media hole.
- Eric
November 9, 2014 at 2:20 pm -
One thing the Police either don’t know or don’t care about is often the claimants aren’t actually lying per se, or they don’t *think* they are. They actually come to believe that what they are saying is true. They are very often highly suggestible people, which is partly why the Police use them ; “use” is appropriate ; once they have no more use for them, they just abandon them. In this sense, the claimants are often victims, but not of the accused.
Once it gets into the lawyers/compo stage though, most of the claimants are fully aware they are lying through their teeth.
- Eric
- Ergathones
November 9, 2014 at 11:50 am -
With seemingly no prospect of compensation now, it will indeed be interesting to see for how many of the claimants it really is “just about closure”. “It’s not the money, it’s the principle…” But is it?
- Moor Larkin
November 9, 2014 at 11:54 am -
The only reason the Tort Lawyers were able to get their teeth into this is because the Police and the CPS declared Jimmy Savile guilty in law. It is the the Tort Lawyers who are corrupt – they are just doing what they are paid for. The Justice System itself has been corrupted. There are individuals responsible for that and a politically driven dogma about “victims being believed”.
This case is staggering.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29952090
That man was taken to court four times thirty or forty years ago on abuse allegations. Each time he was either declared not guilty or the case collapsed. Now, at 95, he is being charged yet again, and Tort lawyers have been advertising… yes ADVERTISING, on the internet for “victims” to come forward. That the Judicial system is not rising up and dealing with this corruption demonstrates it is currently unworthy of any respect. The very law itself is turning against the people and if it’s not you, it might be your father, or your brother… or your son. It’s only a matter of time.- Fat Steve
November 9, 2014 at 12:33 pm -
@Moor Larkin if it’s not you, it might be your father, or your brother… or your son. It’s only a matter of time.
Exactly Moor …..when the bell tolls over the death (of Justice) for an individual ……ask not for whom it tolls …….it tolls for thee - Ho Hum
November 9, 2014 at 12:41 pm -
+1, a million times
The problem with Justice being blind, was that she never saw who murdered her.
- Eric
November 9, 2014 at 2:32 pm -
Unfortunately, it’s not staggering, it’s normal. Advertising for victims (often in Prison !) has been going on for years.
Savile may have a benefit in the medium term, in that people may eventually clue in that the whole thing is absurdly broken. We currently have a system where allegations are made for financial benefit and believed without any evidence whatsoever. and as I think Steve says the hit is pretty random ; and why any sane person would work in Residential Care or Education at the moment is beyond me.
The solution, irritatingly, is relatively simple ; enforce the statutory time limits to something like three years after the incident or three years after reaching 18, whichever is later. No exceptions. e
It’s the money which drives it ; without the money very few will bother.
- Moor Larkin
November 9, 2014 at 3:44 pm -
@ Unfortunately, it’s not staggering, it’s normal. Advertising for victims (often in Prison !) has been going on for years. @
The staggering bit is that this is not just a normal case. This man was subject to the law at the time, with all the advantages of contemporary evidence, at the time. He was prosecuted by the police four times and every single time the evidence or the vailidity of the case was found wanting. This is not just pursuing a novelty historical claim, this case is basically saying that the law thirty and forty years ago was not “fit for purpose” (to use a favoured New Labour phrase when fucking up the Establishment). if it proceeds anyone who was found not guilty under the old regime could have a reasonable expectation of being brought back to court and tried again, and this time the victims will be believed and they will go down.
- zippgun
November 9, 2014 at 5:32 pm -
…and New Labour got rid of that most ancient of defenses for the citizen against the state pursuing someone relentlessly and endlessly in court, double jeopardy (for “serious crimes”). Another from Blunkett, I think.
- zippgun
- AdrianS
November 9, 2014 at 10:39 pm -
As said a statue of limitations should be in place for most crimes except murder, this would save a lot of money and stop the shark lawyers feeding frenzy in the murky waters of the past. Also it should spur genuine victims to come forward much quicker allowing a better chance of investigating any crime
- Moor Larkin
- Fat Steve
- The Jannie
November 9, 2014 at 12:03 pm -
As the saying goes, “never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.”
- Ho Hum
November 9, 2014 at 12:25 pm -
The ‘behind the scenes’ consequences, and potential fall out from this, are worth considering. Things to wonder about are
– what are the pollies now going to be making of the originating organisational reports that went from mere ‘accusation’ to established ‘victimhood’, sometimes even within a paragraph?
– how many of the the Yewtree guys and gals – I don’t buy into their being either conspiracy perpetrating nutjobs, or stupid – are going to be saying ‘told you so’?
– how much you might want to bet on those NHS reports that were just about to be published, but were ever so strangely withheld, being given a very quick re-edit. or maybe even a rewrite?
– will relationships between the compensation lawyers and the other participating major charities change, given how the former now seem to have performed? Will this continue to be as close, as you could maybe think it has appeared to be, in the past? Will we see in the future the same sort of co-incidental timing of report releases and PR appearances, or will the charities now be seen to be at some distance from that sort of circus?
– if any of the rejected claimants can be directly tracked back to the Yewtree allegators, should they be prosecuted for wasting police time? – not to say anything of how much the taxpayer might have spent, and wasted, investigating their claims via NHS avenues? Here, I’d put money on them not being . The pollies will want this to go away, and the CPS will almost certainly say that it’s not in the public interest.
– how much longer can the Beeb, et al, now get away with parroting the outcomes of the NHS and other reports as if they were the ‘gospel truth’ ? And will they ‘recant and correct’, or just bury the bodies and hope no-one desecrates, or digs up the graves?
And, finally, watching what is now done by the original allegators, if they made claims which are rejected, and those individual media organisation who promoted and supported them, is going to be very interesting. Will the biters get bitten? Will they start to eat each other?
But, as Anna said at the very outset of this whole sorry tale, let’s not forget that there are still some real kids out there, having horrible things done to them, by some really nasty people, and whatever else happens, let’s make sure that they don’t get lost sight of in this, by ourselves or anyone else as there. In that regard, we’re all on the same side. Aren’t we?
- Joe Public
November 9, 2014 at 4:01 pm -
“– how much you might want to bet on those NHS reports that were just about to be published, but were ever so strangely withheld, being given a very quick re-edit. or maybe even a rewrite?”
Genuine question: Could FOI enquiries help determine by how much, “conclusions” have been revised?
- AdrianS
November 9, 2014 at 10:42 pm -
Perhaps once the Saville pot is empty , some of the victims started going after the BBC then we will see them squirm. If what the victims say is true someone at thee BBC must have known what Jim was like, and lord knows the sponsored , promoted him enough
- carl
November 10, 2014 at 12:57 am -
The ‘victims’ do not want to be called victims anymore, I think they realise that the word has been so debased as to be virtually meaningless, they now wish to be called ‘survivors’. Ms May obliged in the H of C. Another meaningless word as any of us alive today are ‘survivors’ by the very fact of still being alive.
- Ian B
November 10, 2014 at 5:09 pm -
“Survivor” has been around a long time, since the The Courage To Heal era or thereabouts.
- Ian B
- carl
- Joe Public
- Bill Sticker
November 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm -
Anna, there’s a book in this somewhere. How’s ‘Pride and Perjury – The real Savile scandal’ for a title?
- Helga
November 9, 2014 at 4:46 pm -
Now that less honest members of the public know they can sue charitable trusts set up by aging or dead celebs, trusts which were set up to help charities raise money FOR those charities, how many generous kindhearted people will now stop giving, not knowing whether somebody will pop up 30 years down the line, once the charity leader dies ??? The charitable trusts were not set up to pay off complainants. They were set up to help charities. Or maybe false complainants believe that charity starts at home……
Why did they not go to the CICA? They pay out on the balance of probabilities (courtesy of the the tax payer). If a complainant goes to the police, receives a criminal reference number, and complains about alleged abuse happening decades ago, then it ‘probably’ happened.
Oh hang on, CICA don’t pay out as much as in private claims to dead peoples’ estates…..
- Alexander Baron
November 9, 2014 at 4:54 pm -
If I live as long as him I hope I see the day when an 85 year old Alison Saunders is dragged from her bed at 6am and accused of holding down young women while her husband raped them.
What a total crock.
- carl
November 10, 2014 at 12:15 am -
Just slightly off topic Anna. I don’t have the link for this story but I think you will be interested. The Sunday Express and a Scottish newspaper are helping two charities in Scotland revive the Satanic Abuse saga, with tales of ritual child murder and the other usual tosh. According to the Express the Scottish government and police, are taking these claims ‘ incredibly seriously’ , and calls are being made for an ‘Overreaching Public Enquiry’. Have the policians and police in this country gone completely mad, (the media has been for years) ?
- Giles2008
November 10, 2014 at 12:40 am -
- carl
November 10, 2014 at 12:51 am -
Thanks for posting the link.
- Cloudberry
November 10, 2014 at 12:29 pm -
- Eric
November 12, 2014 at 10:51 am -
Ah Garsden ; from memory, in 2001 the only person aside from Plod who thought that he’d never had any claimant lie.
- Eric
- Cloudberry
- Ian B
November 10, 2014 at 5:11 pm -
The Daily Express seems to have consistently pro-SRA stance.
- Moor Larkin
November 10, 2014 at 5:22 pm -
This Blog has a long and discursive article on the various manifestations, and is lambasted by it’s commentors….
It was sparked by an Express article.Christina • 2 years ago
You call this research? This is a joke! You haven’t even mentioned anything about MK Ultra or any of the investigators such as Ted Gunderson and Malachi Martin or the hundreds of testimony or the fact that the director of the False Memory Foundation wrote article supporting pedophilia. All you are doing is disenfranchising these people who suffered abuse.
http://wideshut.co.uk/satanic-panic-reemerges-in-jimmy-savile-scandal/
LORRAINE • a year ago
There is plenty of proof out there that satanic ritual abuse is real, but I don’t think you are really interested in proof are you. For example, there is Father Malachi Martin, who stated that there are at LEAST 8,000 satanic covens across the United States, possibly many more. Fr. Martin also admitted that the vatican itself has been infiltrated by paedo satanists! Father Martin died in 1999, but how wonderful to know that at least one priest in the world was prepared to expose this vile wickedness.Can’t please all the people all of the time it seems…
- Moor Larkin
- guthrie
November 11, 2014 at 12:10 am -
Leading charities? What makes you a leading charity? Of course I’ve never heard of these charities, but suspect they are one man or woman and a dog.
- carl
- Carol42
November 10, 2014 at 3:42 am -
Having been slightly involved in this area at the time in Scotland I simply cannot believe it is being revived. Didnt they do enough damage to innocent families the last time? Three people are insane, will the madness never end? I despair.
- Moor Larkin
November 10, 2014 at 11:01 am -
Now we know why we used to have Lunatic Asylums. With nowhere else to go they all end up living on Fleet Street…
- Moor Larkin
- Giles2008
- Carol42
November 10, 2014 at 3:43 am -
Sorry meant these people must remember to check before I post but it made me so angry.
- Cascadian
November 10, 2014 at 5:36 am -
This is of course a very serious issue, brought to the public’s attention almost single-handedly by the landlady.
However egregious the state of tort law and compo claims, please consider this:
http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/08/britain-poised-to-silence-extremist-spee
All you extremists, complaining about the administration of law could soon face silencing by the home secretary, “Last month, May unveiled her ambition to “eliminate extremism in all its forms.” Whether you’re a neo-Nazi or an Islamist, or just someone who says things which betray, in May’s words, a lack of “respect for the rule of law” and “respect for minorities”, then you could be served with an extremism disruption order (EDO).” Your lack of respect for the rule of law is simply shocking, and yes lawyers are a minority (sarcasm) it will not be tolerated by your superiors, plebs are not allowed their own opinions.
You are entering a very dangerous time in yUK.
- Moor Larkin
November 10, 2014 at 10:59 am -
And to think that all Maggie ever asked for was that they were made to speak in a funny voice.
- Moor Larkin
- Joe Public
November 10, 2014 at 10:38 am -
Yet another dead celebrity who could potentially be accused of ‘sexual abuse’!
- Joe Public
November 10, 2014 at 10:41 am -
Relates to the “Turing ‘kissed me’ ” comment.
- Moor Larkin
November 10, 2014 at 11:04 am -
Enigmas don’t come harder to crack than the female of the species.
- Ho Hum
November 10, 2014 at 11:34 am -
Applause
- Ho Hum
- Moor Larkin
- Joe Public
- Ms Mildred
November 10, 2014 at 12:59 pm -
Just read a book on breaking the enigma code on my Kindle. Not much mention of sex in it! Apart from the naturally usual love affairs, as there were many female clerks there, it was in the sticks, wartime, got bombed. So you feared for your life, even there in the countryside. The Turing romance was given an airing too. Good for both of them. She caring for a rather strange, mixed up man and him for striving have a heterosexual relationship. How sad that he was persecuted later on. His amazing contribution to victory over the nazis only recently recognised. Good job he didn’t live on to see what a mess we are getting into. Even though homosexuality is now legal. There is a lot of closet prejudice against gays, that shows in not so subtle ways. Especially by entangling it in paedophile allegations.
- Peter Raite
November 11, 2014 at 3:48 pm -
It’s remarkable that even with such a low bar being applied to the claims, they still managed to reject the majority of them. It seems logical that with greater scrutiny, even more would fail.
- Opus
November 12, 2014 at 1:01 am -
Let us not forget that Saint Alan of Turing was ‘abusing’ minors. As a one-time ‘victim’ – but without compensation – of men like Turing, Turing worship disgusts me.
- Peter Raite
November 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm -
By “minor” you presumably mean the willing 19 year old whose friend subsequently burgled Turing’s home?
- Moor Larkin
November 12, 2014 at 3:36 pm -
Altogether illegal at any age old chap…
- Moor Larkin
- Peter Raite
{ 67 comments… read them below or add one }