Exclusive – Jeremy Apologises!
Wonders will never cease. Jeremy has apologised!
Ms Raccoon’s obsession with truth rather than fantasy has paid off. It is but a small victory, but one that gives me great pleasure.
Back at the beginning of the month, reading Hansard as I am sad enough to do of a morning – so much more informative than a newspaper – I noticed that Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for the Department of Health had solemnly told parliament that there was £40 million available ‘under management’ in Savile’s charities to pay compensation to his ‘victims’.
There isn’t. There never was. Even if there had been, the Charity Commission would never have allowed donated funds to be used in this way. I promptly rang the Charity Trustees and asked what was going on? They knew nothing of this statement, nor could they understand where Jeremy Hunt could have got this bizarre idea from. I said I would take advice as to how to go about correcting this.
First port of call was Guido at order-order – no-one knows parliamentary procedure better than he. ‘You need an MP to raise a point of order’ he said.
Helpful, but with an election so close, and not having any compliant MPs on speed dial, I didn’t fancy my chances of getting anyone to oblige. Gallingly, I thought it better to give the story away to someone who could do something effective, rather than run with it myself. I turned to the Mail on Sunday instead. David Rose, their investigative reporter, managed to get an admission from the Secretary of State that he would be issuing a correction. They ran with the story on the following Sunday.
That correction – otherwise known as an apology for misleading parliament was issued this morning.
What is especially interesting, is where Jeremy Hunt got his incorrect information from…
The £40 million figure was used by a witness in Kate Lampard’s report, though it is not reflective of the actual value of the estate.
A triple whammy. Reliable evidence that false allegations reside within Kate Lampard’s report, that the Secretary of State has been misled into believing them, and that it is the cash starved NHS which will be paying compensation – not Savile’s estate, that is earmarked for the lawyers.
My cup runneth over.
- Mudplugger
March 20, 2015 at 8:11 am -
Result ! All we need now is for Jeremy Hunt to admit to being rhyming-slang and it’s a full-house.
- The Blocked Dwarf
March 20, 2015 at 8:43 am -
You mean he’s really Cupid Stunt in disguise?! No doubt all done in the best possible taste…
- Bill Sticker
March 20, 2015 at 2:37 pm -
But that would be telling everyone the plot………….
- Bill Sticker
- Kennetator
March 21, 2015 at 9:55 am -
During the run-up to the election, in the interests of avoiding and political bias, the phrase ‘You are a Jeremy’ must be interchanged, 50:50, with ‘You are a Tristram’!
- Kennetator
March 21, 2015 at 11:19 am -
During the run-up to the election, in the interests of avoiding any political bias, the phrase ‘You are a Jeremy’ must be interchanged, 50:50, with ‘You are a Tristram’!
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Alan Douglas
March 20, 2015 at 8:40 am -
£ 18.125 + payout against £ 40,500 + costs. Ah yes, the best legal system that money can buy. Delighted you got your parliamentary correction though.
- macheath
March 20, 2015 at 8:41 am -
Chapeau, madame!
While the main satisfaction must be the uncovering of the truth, I hope that overflowing cup is filled with something suitably special.
- JuliaM
March 20, 2015 at 2:29 pm -
Seconded!
- JuliaM
- windsock
March 20, 2015 at 8:46 am -
And this man is the putative next Tory party leader (and therefore potential PM). Oh, joy.
- Flaxen Saxon
March 20, 2015 at 9:02 am -
Bugger! I thought you meant the other Jeremy! Anyway, I have no idea what you are talking about as I live in New Zealand. Our news is insular, indeed. If it happens in Australia, we might hear about it. If a New Zealander gets a cold in Mumbojomboland, we might hear about it. If an ‘All Black’ farts, anywhere in the world we know about it. Sad but true. Some argue that being divorced from reality is a boon. And I agree….
- macheath
March 20, 2015 at 10:33 am -
It’s nice to know that, even when justifiably claiming the moral high ground, Mme Raccoon is as wicked as ever.
- Engineer
March 20, 2015 at 10:36 am -
I’m not sure that insularity is limited to the New Zealand media. About the only time we in the UK will hear anything about NZ current affairs is if a large chunk of it is flattened by an earthquake. Or if our cricket team loose again….
- Flaxen Saxon
March 20, 2015 at 11:39 am -
O’ well, I had they pleasure of visiting the most English of cities in New Zealand, the other day. Sadly it remains devastated and is likely to remain so.
- Kennetator
March 21, 2015 at 12:43 pm -
I think that this insularity is disgraceful. I’m glad I don’t live in New… where was it?
- Flaxen Saxon
- Moor Larkin
March 20, 2015 at 10:36 am -
So how did you know about the other Jeremy?… is a natural corollary. All Black he aint…
- Flaxen Saxon
March 20, 2015 at 11:35 am -
All Black he ain’t. But news of his activities filters through to the colonies, via dat interweb thingy.
- Flaxen Saxon
- macheath
- Joe Public
March 20, 2015 at 9:07 am -
Well done. A real, quantifiable achievement getting them to admit their error(s), and forcing a correction to be published.
- Moor Larkin
March 20, 2015 at 9:18 am -
A small matter of a £37M error barely causes a ripple in the tsunami of NHS money being siphoned off by lawyers.
“The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has allocated almost a quarter of the annual health budget to cover legal claims involving medical negligence. The NHS Litigation Authority, which is responsible for handling negligence claims made against NHS bodies, has set aside £26.1 of its annual 113 billion budget to cover existing liabilities, British media reported on Monday. The large allocation of funds comes as lawsuits against the NHS have doubled under Prime Minister David Cameron. Recent figures from the Litigation Authority revealed that 11,945 lawsuits were filed against the British healthcare service over 2013-2014, compared with 6,562 in 2009-10.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/this-is-my-truth-tell-me-yours.html- MrVeryAngry
March 20, 2015 at 9:55 am -
Well, it nearly killed me. FYI I did not make a claim.
- Moor Larkin
March 20, 2015 at 10:10 am -
It’s not necessarily “you” or “me” that is the problem in this system.
“CLINICAL negligence and legal costs totalling more than £45.3m have been paid out by the trust that runs Barrow’s hospital since 2003.”
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/figures-reveal-cost-of-settling-claims-passes-the-45m-mark-1.1196951
“”In the 2003/4 financial year, £450,602 was paid out in damages – with the total bill including legal costs surpassing £769,000”Legal costs doubled the “payouts”: £450k to the patient, £319k to the lawyers.
What work do they do to merit over £300k? the same sort of work that Merchant Bankers do. The british are idiotic in their worship of “the Law”. It’s a ravening beast. - binao
March 20, 2015 at 6:29 pm -
It very nearly did for me with a botched tonsils job, must have been about the time The National Health Service started. My Dad died in the same hospital 10 or so years ago after one infection too many.
Claim? What for precisely?
I can well understand the need to ‘get closure’ as they used to say, but don’t see the need for this to be a euphemism for a wheelbarrow full of cash. If some serious health issue arises through use of the nhs, sure it’s fair that reasonable practical mitigation is arranged, but for the rest we take the risk, and on balance it works.
But the lawyers….
Seems to me we recovered the private sector from damaging union dominance. Anyone disagreeing wasn’t working in industry in the ’70s.
We seem to be left with the reform resistant public sector, also the lawyers, doctors, civil service etc.
We surely didn’t go through all that grief just to provide a larger more secure trough for them to gorge & wallow in?
- Moor Larkin
- MrVeryAngry
- The Blocked Dwarf
March 20, 2015 at 9:49 am -
Totally O/T
But even I, who has no interest at all, am outside with every other cellphone owner in the town, taking cellphone pics (which I KNOW won’t ‘work’) of the eclipse. Something very very primeval , the sun is being eaten..suddenly the theologian in me begins to comprehend a bit better all them there sun worshippin’ heathens what knew no better.
Gildas, a possible “Gildas On Sunday” piece ?
- Mudplugger
March 20, 2015 at 9:58 am -
Bit of an over-hyped non-event – on my walk to the local butcher’s for the lunchtime pork-pie shopping, the sky just darkened like it does just before a storm, it’s brightening again now. Could see the offending moon-interference through the cloud.
I’m sure as a pre-historic heathen, I may have anticipated turmoil for a few moments, but it soon passed and I’d get back to slaying that woolly mammoth for lunch.- The Blocked Dwarf
March 20, 2015 at 10:03 am -
“Bit of an over-hyped non-event ”
I agree entirely or so I thought until, whilst having a smoke outside, I looked up and found myself constantly looking back up and then grabbing my phone. Even took a Selfy (SHOOT ME NOW PLEASE) with the eclipse reflected in the phone’s screen.
Had a sudden mental image of a horde of them there Aztecs infront of one of them pyramidey things , all hands raised to supplicate the Sun , then I looked around me at the hordes with raised cellphones to supplicate the Sun….
- Ian B
March 20, 2015 at 10:09 am -
Partials are always like that. You won’t know it’s happening unless you look at the Sun. That’s why with a total you get that sudden swoop down into the eerie darkness, because you need almost total coverage for it to be apparent.
- Moor Larkin
March 20, 2015 at 10:11 am -
I find that looking at the Sun means I have even less idea of what is happening than before I took it off the news stand.
- Mudplugger
March 20, 2015 at 10:19 am -
Although looking at the Sun does usually offer a view of one or two glorious orbs each day.
- The Blocked Dwarf
March 20, 2015 at 10:25 am -
” one or two glorious orbs each day.”
With which we return nicely to the actual topic of the day *a tip of the Blocked Dwarf horned helmet to the Landlady*
PS. the Norfolk edition probably offers 3…or more…orbs for their Readers (*snork*) delight.
- Moor Larkin
March 20, 2015 at 10:31 am -
With the number of extra eyes you imply the Nor folk may have, then clearly this is nature finding a balance.
- Moor Larkin
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Mudplugger
- Moor Larkin
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Bandini
March 20, 2015 at 10:02 am -
We were out early this morning with our pinhole projecting shoe-boxes, without noticing very much at all. I remember experiencing one during a London afternoon maybe 15 or so years ago, and it did provoke an uneasy sensation in me. Likewise with a minor UK earthquake. Not being a biblical scholar I think more in Ray Harryhausen-type gods having a barney ‘up there’ causing mayhem ‘down here’.
Regarding the Hunt apology – congratulations to The Landlady in securing this.
- Mudplugger
- Tom O’Carroll
March 20, 2015 at 9:53 am -
Brilliant work, Anna!
And coming so soon after announcement of your Edinburgh University research grant success too! :http://www.thelancashiremagazine.co.uk/news/north-west/jimmy-savile-moral-panic-tracked-by-computer-in-dordogne/
- MrVeryAngry
March 20, 2015 at 9:53 am -
Except, strictly speaking, it’s not the NHS that pays this compo, is it? It is again the Poor Bloody Taxpayer.
And well done on getting this done. Even if the egregious Hunt resorted as ever to ‘weasel words’.
- Ian B
March 20, 2015 at 10:11 am -
Well done Anna, and it’s illuminating to see that the lawyers got twice as much as their clients.
- Misa
March 20, 2015 at 10:19 am -
Anna, great work, again!
I’m just trying to make sense of this statement, can anyone explain:
1) 61 claims in total against the NHS directly – NOT against Savile’s estate – why would that be? Personal choice? Legal reason? Even lower standard of evidence?
2) Some of the claims against the estate will be related to the NHS, some not. But the estate must first settle the non-NHS claims , then any NHS-related claims will be paid by first the estate if there’s anything left, and then the NHSLA will pick up the remainder. Have I understood that correctly? If the non-NHS-related claims exceed the value of the estate, will those claimants have to take a haircut?
3) …liabilities inherited by the Secretary for State from NHS orgainsations which no longer exist. Erm…all of them? If the organisations were part of the NHS does the NHS not simply remain liable? Might individual NHS Trusts or NHS Foundation Trusts have been directly liable had this happened on their watch(es), or would the NHSLA still have been the one to pay? What is he talking about?
4) Is it possible that some of the people who have registered claims against the NHS have ALSO registered claims against the estate? So they might end up being paid twice – both by the NHS/taxpayer?
Erm, I’m in a bit of a tangle here. Any of you hotshots care to straighten things out?
- Moor Larkin
March 20, 2015 at 10:26 am -
What is especially shocking is that madame has demonstrated that the Reports in many cases declare that there is no evidence that Jimmy was even there, but Kate Lampard’s over-arching control means that they are declared victims anyway. Once declared a victim they are then guaranteed some compo and their lawyers guaranteed a pay-day, which in $later & Gordon’s case has been agreed at £16k per head on plate as served up by ex-Barrister Lampard. This whole thing is a like some Mafia Cartel feeding off the idiotic NHS managers who couldnlt litigate the skin off a rice pudding. I worked out that if the lawyers can ramp up just 50,ooo claimants they can literally consume the entire NHS Budget. The sooner this whole thing goes bust the better.
- Chris
March 20, 2015 at 10:36 am -
Don’t forget that Slater & Moron’s mission statements are all out there on YouTube – “The law in the UK will be changing” etc. It’s like something they’d have featured in a 70s Dr Who storyline https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSNkPv_GbfI
- Chris
- Moor Larkin
- Peter Raite
March 20, 2015 at 10:46 am -
So basically three claimants have got £18,125 between them – averaging a mere £6,042 each – while the lawyers have raked in more than double at £40,500 – £13,500 per case!
- Mr Wray
March 20, 2015 at 12:00 pm -
Does anyone know what the ‘evidence’ in these three cases amounts to? I haven’t seen anything yet that comes close to anything other than an allegation.
- Anon
March 20, 2015 at 1:22 pm -
I’m interested to see if any of these Claims are still under scrutiny or have even be declined by the Estate – via the Estate is the only scutiny that is happening – you’ll never know though if the Estate declined a claim, but the NHS accepted it – cos it’s top secret you see – confused?
- Anon
- Mr Wray
- Engineer
March 20, 2015 at 11:06 am -
I can think of easier and more certain ways to obtain £6000. Earning it, for example. As the Landlady has shown, the chances of many of them having been abused by Savile are quite low on the balance of published ‘evidence’. I suppose it’s possible that some of the claimants have been sexually abused in the past, and psychologically damaged by that abuse, but that doesn’t make the obtaining of money under false pretences any more acceptable. As to the lawyers – well, others have said it better than I can. There are many decent people out there working in the legal profession to uphold the law by applying it fairly and decently, and not by exploiting it; they must be truly sickened by the actions of their more rapacious and cynical colleagues.
- Chris
March 20, 2015 at 11:24 am -
I’m sure there must be biblical equivalents of corrupt avaricious peasants being bought off with crumbs in order to feed The Greater Bad.
All Fall Down - Peter Raite
March 20, 2015 at 12:44 pm -
It probably marginally more taxing than getting some company to claim back PPI for you.
- Chris
- Jonathan King
March 20, 2015 at 11:55 am -
Yet again what amazes me is the lack of national media coverage on this. We all know the only motive with media is “It’s a great story”. And this is a great story. Are Editors all controlled by others (David Icke’s conclusion)? Or are they all universally falling apart mentally? Hopefully this will be the Mail on Sunday’s front page on the 22nd March. It can be slanted against Labour and the BBC, can’t it?
- Moor Larkin
March 20, 2015 at 4:43 pm -
* Are Editors all controlled by others (David Icke’s conclusion)? Or are they all universally falling apart mentally? *
They fell apart mentally between August and October 2012 along with most everyone else in the country.
All they are doing is now is strapping asbestos to their sorry arses, along with everyone else in the country.
Like they say about the politicians, we get the journalism we deserve.
- Moor Larkin
- Alex
March 20, 2015 at 12:19 pm -
The more this issue continues, the more it reads like a Franz Kafka novel. Again, three cheers, for the landlady!
- acousticvillage
March 20, 2015 at 12:32 pm -
A small victory perhaps in the grand scheme of things. But what a victory! And there is more truthful information in this small victory than in all of the reports.
So the amount in the pot is £2.9m.
Any claims against the NHS that exceed what’s in the pot will be paid by the taxpayer.
Out of all the millions / thousands / hundreds / tens / ??? of people who were “abused” by Saville, to date a mere 61 are being investigated and a paltry £18ooo has actually been awarded as compo – £40,000 to the lawyers of course.
No mention of non-NHS litigants.- Peter Raite
March 20, 2015 at 12:48 pm -
On the other hand, if the remaining 61 complaints attract the same sort of damages and fees as the first three, the total bill for all 64 will “only” be £1.25 million.
- Moor Larkin
March 20, 2015 at 12:50 pm -
* to date a mere 61 are being investigated *
None are being investigated.MET police:
“As we have said from the outset, our work was never going to take us into a police investigation into Jimmy Savile.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/is-age-just-number.htmlThe logic was that since Savile was dead and therefore beyond the reach of the law then to investigate would be to “not believe the victim” and therefore investigation was proscribed from the very beginning. Whether these idiots appreciated the legal ramifications of Compo isn’t clear but I suspect that since it wasn’t their money they really didn’t give a toss and wanted to suck up to the DPP’s Office.
- Peter Raite
- Schrödinger’s cat
March 20, 2015 at 12:54 pm -
It is not a small victory at all. It is an essential one.
Your rigour has done what a complete government machine cannot do: establish a fact and use it to correct a minister. And uncover the all-too-familiar can of worms.
One can look into all manner of reasons how this was allowed to happen. Political grandstanding, party chauvinism, attention diverted by upcoming election, bad research, over-reliance upon others, poor education and lack of breadth in experience and understanding. Maybe a bit of everything in this list. Oh! nearly forgot. Skulduggery.
So why did you spot it? May I suggest because you have a greater reach of understanding. This comes from not having confined yourself to one narrow area of life since leaving school. Being multi-dimensional, mentally, if you will.
In a world of specialisation, where so many leave education and go straight into politics without finding anything out about life, it is all too possible. The latest Labour breed are likely to end up this way. But there are similar in the other main parties too.
To be able to discover such error, one needs to have in-depth knowledge in more than one field. One also requires an understanding where knowledge crosses over into other disciplines and where it does not. It is not easy, nor is it acquired in just a few years.
My plea is for the polymath to be encouraged again and to have less people scurrying down the hole of specialisation, where they become completely divorced from life.
There are people in this who do well whatever happens. As you are aware, they have always been known as The Establishment.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
- Wigner’s Friend
March 20, 2015 at 1:00 pm -
Well done Anna, that’s twice you have persuaded the Mail to go where the rest of the MSM fear to tread.
- Anon
March 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm -
“The amount in the Estate does not cover all the valid claims”
Another apology needed Mr Hunt, how the hell do you know? They are STILL under scrutiny and new evidence for the defence is being uncovered on a regular basis! OR is he saying, all the claims are valid! They definitely are NOT Mr Hunt., not by a long shot sir!
Speechless with frustration and disgust – again!
- Anon
March 20, 2015 at 1:14 pm -
Thank you Anna, but he’s still putting his foot in it!
- Bill Quango MP
March 20, 2015 at 2:24 pm -
Fabulous work. Well done.
- corevalue
March 20, 2015 at 2:27 pm -
But no admission from Jeremy on the probablility that most or all of the claims are false. The document is riddled with “..Savile was so powerful…” statements and how it must not happen again. We need MP with balls to ask why the NHS should be paying out these vast sums against unproven allegations.
If the claimants have history of therapy from Savile’s actions pre-2012, then there would be some substance to the claims, but afaik nobody has claimed that. That seems to me that whatever happened, no harm was done. I’m sure most of us all here had traumatic experiences such as seeing an eccentric DJ in the car park, but which has not left us unable to cope with day-to-day life.
- Lewis Deane
March 20, 2015 at 2:30 pm -
They always apologise – the cowards – there bread is buttered the same side as there soul. Which might be amusing if it wasn’t equally as light weight. Alexander Pope’s Queen Anne poem (in her dog’s collar):
I’m the Queens Anne dog at Kew:
Pray whose dog are you?- Bill Sticker
March 20, 2015 at 2:55 pm -
Ahem. Correct attribution.
“I am his Highness’ dog at Kew”
“Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?”Epigram on the collar of a dog given to Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales by Alexander Pope.
http://www.bartleby.com/203/110.html- Lewis Deane
March 20, 2015 at 8:25 pm -
- Lewis Deane
March 20, 2015 at 8:26 pm -
If one does this from memory one always gets it wrong!!
- Lewis Deane
- Lewis Deane
March 20, 2015 at 8:41 pm -
Mine is an improvement!
- Lewis Deane
- Bill Sticker
- Lewis Deane
March 20, 2015 at 2:36 pm -
Sorry, got the irony wrong!!!
- Carol42
March 20, 2015 at 2:44 pm -
I just hope I live long enough to see the Edinburgh report. Well done Anna, again, I did wonder when I first read about the charities 40 million how donated money could possibly be used to compensate alleged victims. Very glad you managed to get it corrected, you deserve s medal for your work on this.
- Bill Sticker
March 20, 2015 at 2:57 pm -
There is a little satisfaction in knowing that the flood of asset stripping vultures will be lucky to see a fraction of the riches they dreamed of. Fifty pence each after the lawyers take their bite?
- The Vatman Cometh
March 20, 2015 at 3:01 pm -
It’s interesting that, in this case, as soon as the mistake is pointed out and brought to the attention of the media, the people making the statement backs down almost immediately. How many of the others accusations and suppositions regarding Jimmy Savile, other Operation Yewtree targets and the current VIP Paedo Conspiracy would wither away if the spotlight fell on them and they were actively investigated and challenged rather than having the current lazy and casual acceptance of everything that is put forward as “fact” without any corroboration at all?
- The Vatman Cometh
March 20, 2015 at 3:02 pm -
And hearty congratulations to Anna Raccoon an important little victory !!
- suffolkgirl
March 20, 2015 at 7:56 pm -
Yes, top work. Thanks for the information about the ‘flat fee’ system too, which I hadn’t realised was in effect.
I’m taking it from what Anna says that any final analysis of the claims against the Savile estate as a totality effectively remains blocked by the order of Mr Justice Sales, so one will only be able to guess at the damage the fee agreement caused.
- Tachybaptus
March 21, 2015 at 12:30 am -
It must be rather hard for David Rose having the same name as Johan Hari’s fictitious alter ego. Not sure whether Hari was pretending to be the real David Rose or whether it’s a coincidence.
- General Mayhem
March 21, 2015 at 10:10 am -
Did I hear right on the news just now? That the police now need victims of historic sex abuse to come forward, as without victims they cannot progress the investigation of the crimes.
Is this not arse about face?
- Ms Mildred
March 21, 2015 at 11:23 am -
On LBC yesterday I heard a man called Mark, dunno who he was, sounding rather like a witch hunter/Mc Carthy type calling someone or other ‘victim predators’. He was being toadied to by his interviewer. Smug that he was on the radio.Getting hot under the collar about evil MPs wanting anonimity for accused molesters…..oh calamity and conspiracy. How dare they discuss a levelling of the legal playing field for those later found to be innocent/falsely accused. How dare anybody challenge guilty before being proven to be innocent. A caller came on and asked ‘What if you are the accused?’ Silence. I had triumphantly switched off the radio. Recalling the gross innaccuracy in high places, carelessly published about Savile charity leavings, and the larger than the victim’s amount of money scooped up by those ‘victim predators’, the lawyers. I pondered how much of this Marks past delvings into the remote past were well researched.
- The Vatman Cometh
March 21, 2015 at 11:37 am -
I suspect that the Mark in question was Mark Watts, head honcho of Exaro who was on James O’Brien’s show yesterday (he was boasting about it on Twitter yesterday). He is one of the main spreader of VIP paedo conspiracy stories thanks to the appearance, via Exaro, of Dolphin Square “Nick” and other anonymous sources. Interesting to note that the Met are now pleading for “victims” (surely they’re survivors aren’t they?) – it sounds like they may be struggling a bit more than the media have led us to believe despite all the “witnesses” who have popped up …
- The Vatman Cometh
{ 91 comments… read them below or add one }