Some women are likely to make fraudulent claims about being sexually abused by television personality Jimmy Savile, appeal judges have been told.
Trustees of a charity which is the major beneficiary of Savile's estate today told the Court of Appeal that compensation claims had to be scrutinised.
And they said they had concerns about a compensation scheme agreed between the executor of Savile's estate - the NatWest bank - and lawyers representing alleged victims.
Earlier this year a High Court judge approved the compensation scheme set up for victims of Savile, who died in October 2011 aged 84, despite objections from the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust.
Hats off to Robert Ham QC for his spirited stating of the, what should have been obvious to the three Lords
You see, Savile's executor did NOT do what most people would have expected it to do when the ambulance chasers made their move. While you or I would have made a bloody good fist of it, the bankers did what bankers do, looked out for their own long-term interests. Mr Ham explains
No matter, the original decision was 'upheld' and, as the next useful piece explains, the claimants now numbered at least 199, thanks in part to advertisements published in the press earlier, fully endorsed by justice Scales in February 2014.
Another player in the Savile sweep, Leigh-Day solicitors had this to say in April 2014
(Sorry read second one first, if I change it now, my whole page goes Peter Tong)
The adverts were in the Times and the Daily Mirror. Weren't taking any chances that they might miss anyone were they ?
Whatever, the deed was struck, the deal was done and by December 2014, Ms Day and Ms Dux were looking forward to their nice little bonus by the summer of 2015 at the latest ! *Snork* as we say over on twitter. Slater and Gordon's fortunes have taken quite a knock since then have they not ?
Now, here's them numbers
As a matter of common sense these sort of situations are likely to attract numbers of fraudulent claims. One certainly cannot proceed on the basis that the claims are valid – or even presumptively valid.”
Ms Dux has an answer for everything, as to the idea of 'fraudulent claims'
Someone kindly do me a favour and point me towards that lengthy bit about that system of scrutiny dux alludes to ? I don't remember reading anything more than a highly ambiguous 'system'. Adding to that, the FACT that the actual process as far as those trying to defend the claims is concerned, is almost deliberately impossible, and it all starts to look like a complete scam doesn't it ?
Had Jimmy's folks had his diaries they might have stood an outside chance. Thank goodness for the Operation Newgreen report and my chance encounter with this goody
That's Page 38 of the West Yorkshire Police Report
Enter David Rose into the fray with his excellent expose of at least TWO potentially fraudulent claims, along with the impossible task confronting the Savile's
Now, as I type guys and gals, another spooky coincidence has just occured ! You see, yesterday myself and Matthew Scott had some fun discussing an excellent article, on a completely unrelated subject, by the very funny, talented journalist, Marina Hyde
And now, just now what do I find in my little old picture library, if not a piece by the SAME journalist about Jimmy Savile a peek at the diary of Jimmy Savile no less ! Seeing is believing
'Crikey o'mikey ?' Is this the closest anyone has ever got to Jimmy's Savile's 'diary' ? Goodness Gracious, I am flabbergasted, at this real-time sign ! We're still on the right track guys and gals !