General Chat

If any claims are made which isnt to say they will,,,,,,very many will not be against the Beep or any NHS,,,,,,as if all peoples relevations are proved not all took place within the walls of any instuition.

As with any proven Will it has to be carried out to the letter..cash to these charities could be an ongoing payment from trusts set up by JS....maybe not even in this country,,,,could even have off shore accounts where anual cash from from.........

The money isnt tainted as what was raised over the time and was donated by the good will of the people......only JS was the unsavoury one, and the charity money raised wasnt his for his personal use......

Mau

Yes, that was what I read. I think they wanted to have his body moved for same reason, but a lot of red tape before you can move a body.



John,

Before putting down what you THINK the family wanted to do with JS's body.

Please get your FACTS right..

JS's Nephew has said the body will NOT BE MOVED. and I have lived all my life in Leeds and have watched this with thread with interest.

The headstone was NOT vandalised it was removed out of respect for the other peoples family buried in Woodlands Cemetery especially the soldiers that have died in Afghanistan who is bureid right next to JS;s grave,the soldier being buried first.

Targets for compo will be NHS and BBC, I feel sure. Bottomless pits and plenty of solicitors to talk to solicitors of claimants and settle out of court. Nudge, nudge, wink wink.

Any compensation will affect people like us - either in more expensive services from these two public bodies. Or, most probably less new programmes, less service, less drugs, higher waiting times etc

Some claimants may well need some compensation and deserve it. But many just want to be taken seriously and put bad experiences to bed.

According to the www he left £4m that won't go far in compensation claims will it?

"and let's face it - the Saville family rolled over without a word - they had the gravestone removed almost immediately"


I would think that once the Savile family were shown the Exposure programme as they themselves were named individually (their parents)on the gravestone as his siblings, it wouldn't take them long to suggest the removal. -jl

It's only a year since he died, I doubt that all his assets have been liquidated yet. We don't even know if probate has been granted. Even if it had I shouldn't think all the monry has been spent.

Most charities sit on a lot of reserves. Maybe lawyers will get it frozen until claims have been heard.

The money is tainted - I wouldn't want to benefit from that money.

OH used to be treasurer for a charity and bequests were rarely spent within a year.

Gwynne

How can the charities pay? I said before they cannot deconstruct wards or return scanners or sack extra surgeons!

I would think that there will be a test case against the BBC and NHS and if that succeeds then a class action would be considered. At that stage both culpable parties will offer settlements before it got anywhere near a court. The only winners there are the solicitors and barristers and they won't be working these pro bono for sure.

Can't see how on earth it would be feasible to sue a charity.

Re his body if the usual protocol for child molesters/murderers is followed he would exhumed, cremated and ashes scattered.

Mau

Yes, that was what I read. I think they wanted to have his body moved for same reason, but a lot of red tape before you can move a body.

No way do they want to go to a cemetery and look at a gravestone and think about their loved one when there are press and people who want to give them grief in vicinity.

I think eventually they will bury him somewhere very quiet and not mark the grave at all. Not quite what the great showman would have wanted - but tough.

It was reported that his family had the headstone removed because it was being vandalised and they wanted to show respect to other family graves in the cemetery.

Mau

This story gets more nasty by the day. Someone said to me today "have you heard latest about Jimmy Savile". Had better not say what she said but it involved him working in mortuaries :-( :-( :-( It seems the Duchess had not taught him difference between right and wrong

I am so glad jim didnt flippin fix it for meeeeeeeeeeeeee

well said Gwynne - of course it should

The thread is about sexual abuse of children not domestic violence, Ann, not sure why you raised that subject.

Savile sexually abused children. The police have reports dating back to 1959. Many of these children reported the abuse at the time and weren't believed. It is widely acknowledged that this abuse did take place and that it followed the same pattern.

Savile died a rich man. It's only right that those who suffered evil at his hands get compensation. And it should come from his estate.

Gwynne

Not the same circumstances at all Ann, and it's not 30 or 40 years after death it's less than a year...in normal circumstances the child of an abusive parent could have contested the will, if they wished to do so.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that compensation will be paid out if no case can be proven.

we have paid the over inflated wages of these pervs
via our TV licences

its time to scrap the TV licences full stop :-D

So any child who has been traumatised by seeing one parent beaten by the other, has suffered mental/ physical cruelty or any other abuse by a parent or other should be able to claim compensation from them if that is the case, even 30 or 40 years later after the offender/parent has died and the estate been shared out?

and let's face it - the Saville family rolled over without a word - they had the gravestone removed almost immediately - if they thought he was innocent would they not have said something like "innocent until proven guilty"?

The trauma of sexual abuse at a young age can ruin a whole life and the lives of those who love and care for the victim - the victims are never free of the thoughts in their head - their lives are blighted and the victims of JS will not even have the closure of him getting what he deserves

Imagine how the parent of a victim feels - their child, the child they set out to protect from all harm, abused by a piece of filth like JS - they too will feel guilt for the rest of their lives because they failed to protect their precious child

Fred West was never convicted for the murders he committed, yet we all know he did them.

The charities benefited by some £40 MIliion when he was alive...and in all that time the girls had to live with the consequences of what JS did.... surely they also deserve some 'help' or is that only for the 'deserving' who didn't perhaps have a troubled life to start with?.

Why is the unfortunate person who has spinal injuries more deserving than someone who had a dysfunctional childhood, time in care,and sexual abuse from an adult under the cover of 'good works'?

If one person told a story, then there might be room for saying it may not be true...when a number of people tell the same , very detailed story, including people who have nothing to gain from it ( ie the people who 'knew' rather than the victims themselves) isn't that at least an indicator that this may well be proven?

I agree with Roy about keeping an open mind until all the facts are known. There are too many 'amateur experts' speculating at the moment. I think it will be interesting when the press have become bored with JS and start investigating the pasts of some of the 'victims' as surely they will.

On the subject of compensation, just think what that could lead to. There can be many other ways for a child's life to be traumatised. After all, where is the perfect mother, father, uncle, aunt, sibling, family friend etc and some children are more sensitive than others. Mental as well as physical cruelty can also blight a child's life and ruin future prospects, earning potential, social relationships etc and equally may not be spoken of out of fear or shame. If compensation was considered for the cases in the press, should every child that considers it has been traumatised by it's parents, relations etc be able to claim compensation from it's family in the same way? Or would it only be if they have a bit of 'dosh?' The consequences of any decisions will need to be carefully considered.

The charities should keep the money to carry on doing good with. Otherwise you are creating more victims.