The Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust will appeal against a High Court decision to award charity funds to the NatWest Bank and the Australian law firm handling sex abuse compensation claims against the dead disc jockey.
The trust solicitor, Jo Summers, said today, ‘We have no doubt this decision was based on the mistaken belief that the Trust holds money that belonged originally to Jimmy Savile. This is incorrect.
‘Our records do not show any donations from Jimmy personally. Indeed generous members of the public raised these funds for charitable causes.’
Mrs Summers, a member of The Law Society’s wills and equity committee and a partner at PWT Advice LLP, represented the trustees when they unsuccessfully applied to have Natwest Bank removed as Jimmy Savile’s executors. After a 3-day hearing Mr Justice Sales approved instead a deal brokered by the lawyers for NatWest and lawyers representing 140 sex abuse claimants. Individual claimants against Savile would not need to go to court to receive compensation from £3.3 million held by the Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Charitable Trust and the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust. The judge was told that the BBC, who screened Savile’s programmes, and the National Health Service, which allowed Savile to work as a hospital porter and a £40 million fund raiser, had approved the scheme.
Liz Dux, from the Australian-owned law firm Slater & Gordon said the scheme would not guarantee payouts but would provide a framework in which claims could be analysed: ‘This is a great result for the victims of Jimmy Savile. The ratification of the scheme should allow the quickest possible closure to this horrific affair for those who were abused.’
The registered trustees of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust, set up ‘to relieve poverty and sickness’ and help old and disabled people, are Swiss-based businessman Luke Lucas and Dr Roger Bodley, former radiologist at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, now clinical senior lecturer at the University of Tasmania.
On behalf of at least one of the trustees yesterday, Mrs Summers said, ‘We were extremely concerned that NatWest took over half a million pounds in legal fees without having, at the time, any authority to do so. Again we are disappointed that the court did not criticise NatWest but instead retrospectively authorized these payments.’ In a press release she said the High Court decision to make the trust pay all court costs had been ‘outrageous’:
‘To try to take those funds to pay NatWest’s legal fees, or those of the other parties, is unjust and unreasonable. We have no doubt the court would not have reached that decision of the residue of Jimmy Savile’s estate was due to go to a different charity. We are left with no alternative but to appeal this remarkable decision, to try to protect the charity’s funds.’
Bridget - Posted: Nov 1 2012, 01:45 PM
Comment on Craig Murray's blog:Let’s take a look at the trustees of Jimmy Savile’s charities, namely the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust and the Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Charitable Trust.
Both charities now have the same group of three trustees, namely:
According to one of the charities’ financial statements, he’s a “self-made millionaire in the security industry with several confidential contracts with the Home Office”. He also happens to be a convicted criminal. When he was managing director and 94% owner of Sabrewatch, a security company which had big security contracts with Marks and Spencer, he and his company were both fined for using unlicensed guards, also known as thugs. He claimed he had to do so because of ‘terrorist’ threats. The judge, however, said he was guilty of persistently and knowingly breaking the law (see here)
Lady Gabrielle Greenbury (replaced James Collier at the JSSMCT in March 2012)
She’s married to Richard Greenbury, who was CEO at Marks and Spencer from 1988 to 1999, chairman of the pharmaceutical company Astrazeneca (giving his wife an obvious conflict of interest in her role as trustee of the said charities), and a director of Lloyds TSB. Gabrielle Greenbury was also a director of the dodgy security company Sabrewatch.
And she’s a director of Princedale, the marketing group, which is said to be a vehicle for Harry Solomon, co-founder of the Portland Trust, an obvious Zionist front described by Wikipedia as having “consistently highlighted the important role of economics in resolving the Middle East conflict”)
He’s a world-leading radiologist.
A comment on a link for Lucas says:As a former employee of Sabrewatch, and one who commanded a high ranking position at Head Office, in my opinion I can say without doubt that the company's failure and subsequent demise was down to the arrogance and poor management of one man who used to call Sabrewatch his "private army". He almost believed his own hype.
Edit: James Collier (replaced by Greenbury)TRUSTEES
James Collier We are lucky to have the experience of this gentleman. A working life as a
very senior civil servant, starting off in the Treasury, worked for eleven Chancellors before
being transferred to the NHS as a financial trouble shooter.
I worked for sabrewatch for 3-4 yrs back in the 90's, they were without doubt the most professional company of their time, admittedly there was the "private army" arrogance about it, but the clients loved it. I remember Guy the operations manager who went on to open his own company with frank "the legend" controller.
Also Frank Brunos brother Mike, who I had the greatest respect for even though he thought I was a liability!!!
Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust
OFFICERS AND ADVISORS
Stoke Mandeville Hospital Mandeville Road Aylesbury
Telephone: 01296 84111
James Collier CB We are lucky to have the experience of this gentleman. A working life as a very senior civil servant, starting off in the Treasury, worked for eleven Chancellors before being transferred to the NHS as a financial trouble shooter
Luke Lucas A self-made millionaire in the security industry with several confidential contracts with the Home Office. The youngest of the Trustees, spends regular days and nights at the NSIC and is totally dedicated to its work. Hoping to retire from business and looking forward to staying completely involved with the Trust.
Sir Jimmy Savile OBE, KCSG Started it all and is still going strong.
Dr Roger Bodley Is one of the world’s leading Radiologists, lecturing as far a field as Australia, New Zealand and all the Americas. He is a fine addition to our Trustees and also holds a very senior position in Diagnostic Radiology at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
Trustees have differing experiences and backgrounds and their roles and responsibilities require them to have an understanding of all aspects of the charity’s work
Coutts & Co
440 The Strand
FSA fines Coutts over 'unacceptable risk' it could have been handling proceeds of crime from 'politically exposed persons'
Jill Treanor - The Guardian, Monday 26 March 2012
Coutts, banker to the Queen, has been given the biggest ever fine – £8.75m – for breaches of money-laundering rules after three years of "serious" and "systemic" problems in handling the affairs of customers vulnerable to corruption because of their political links.
The fine on the bank, the private banking division of Royal Bank of Scotland, takes the total penalties levied by the City regulator against the bailed-out institution to £25m in the last 19 months.
The FSA fined Coutts because there was an "unacceptable risk" that the bank could have been handling the proceeds of crime for a three-year period up to November 2010 after failing to deal properly with customers classified as "politically exposed persons".
These so-called PEPs are defined as "an individual who is or has, at any time in the preceding year, been entrusted with a prominent public function" or a family member of such a person holding a position outside the UK or in a European Community or established international institution.
When individuals fall into this category, banks are supposed to be certain that they can verify the origins of any deposits being made, otherwise they could be allowing funds to be laundered through the account.
The FSA found, after an industry-wide review in October 2010, that Coutts was not conducting robust enough checks on such high-risk customers and was not monitoring relationships with them properly. The regulator reviewed a sample consisting of 103 high-risk customer files, and identified deficiencies in 73 of them.
The crown went on to argue that Mr Harris, who painted a picture for the Queen to celebrate her 80th birthday in 2005, before being made a CBE the following year, used his considerable reputation to hide the assaults on four children and young girls.
"Concealed behind this charming and amicable children's entertainer lay a man who exploited the very children who were drawn to him," Ms Wass said. The court heard how his alleged victims were aged between seven or eight to 19 when the "brazen" offences were said to have taken place. The abuse, which is said to have included groping, fondling and "digital penetration", was described in detail.
The prosecution said Mr Harris was known as "the octopus" at an Australian TV channel due to the way he touched women. Ms Wass said that the defendant's alleged victims were "overawed" at meeting him, adding that he was "too powerful" for them to report his alleged crimes.
Myriam Robin | Mar 21, 2014
Suppression orders are more powerful than ever, but they’re also more ineffectual. Courts are responding by issue more and more of them, but, as several media lawyers told Crikey, that’s the wrong approach to take to the issue.
On Tuesday a court on the other side of the world issued an injunction at a pre-trial hearing. Shortly afterwards in Australia, our media companies got the lawyers in.
The pre-trial hearing in the United Kingdom was about Australian children’s entertainer Rolf Harris, and what was said was suppressed by the judge in order to not influence a jury. For the Australian reporters in the court room, it was big news. Editors decided to splash the story on the front pages. But only in print.
There was a time when British courts wouldn’t have bothered Australian media barons. British courts, after all, do not have jurisdiction over Australian territory. But that means little when media companies with British assets publish in a medium that can be read from the UK. Crikey understands both Fairfax and News could have been held in contempt of court and potentially fined through their British assets, and reporters themselves could have been at risk if they had put the stories online. Fairfax went as far as to remove the journalist’s byline from the story in the newspaper.
That decision reveals much about the curious state of the suppression order. Suppression orders are more powerful than ever, but they’re also more ineffectual. As the Australian media were carefully wording their stories, Crikey found online forums freely and openly discussing what had been said in court.
Minter Ellison lawyer Peter Bartlett, who counts Fairfax Media among his clients, says media companies respect suppression orders and will go out of their way to make sure they don’t breach them. These days, that effectively prohibits publication online, given geoblocking (checking the location of someone’s IP address before allowing them to access your website) is easy to get around. “As I understand it, media companies are looking at [geo-blocking], but it’s not that easy,” Bartlett said. “And the consequences of making an error are significant. A company that breaches a suppression order in Victoria is liable for a penalty of up to $420,000.”
Individuals in Victoria are liable for up to $84,000 or time in jail if they refuse to pay, such as Derryn Hinch’s recent 50-day stint behind bars. Hinch makes a habit of breaching suppression orders, but as the media fragments and everyone is empowered to publish freely and widely, suppression orders risk becoming unworkable altogether.
The reaction to this has been to beef up the justice system’s powers of suppression. Most Australian states and territories have introduced laws allowing them to issue national suppression orders, and overseas, particularly in the UK, the power of judges and magistrates has expanded even further.
Enter the British super-injunction — an all-encompassing suppression order that suppresses mention of not only the proceedings, but also suppresses mention of the order itself. The argument for them was that suppressing defendants’ identities wouldn’t be enough, as the public would be able to guess identities from circumstantial facts. The system’s ineffectiveness was demonstrated by a super-injunction surrounding any mention of British footballer Ryan Giggs’ love affair. Social media users in the hundreds of thousands began wilfully breaching the order, and Giggs was eventually named in Parliament by a campaigning Lib Dem.
Michael Bradley, managing partner at Marque Lawyers, says suppression orders are “out of control”. He says they’re important when it comes to protecting the identity of victims and to ensure the accused gets a fair trial, but now they’re being issued to prevent reputational and commercial damage to people involved in court cases.
“Historically, courts have been very reticent to issue such orders,” he said. “Their brief was open justice, so they would bend over backwards to maintain that and only suppress things when there was a compelling public-interest reason. That’s largely gone out the window now.”
It’s likely that yesterday alone, Bartlett says, seven or eight suppression orders would have been issued just in the state of Victoria. Concern about this led to the introduction of the Open Courts Act in 2013, which requires courts to operate under a “presumption in favour of disclosure”. Bartlett says he has yet to notice a drop in the number of suppression orders issued in the state, but a similar law in South Australia has had that effect.
Mark Pearson, professor in journalism and social media at Griffith University, says courts need to consider very seriously the point of a suppression order. Being able to justify the order, he says, is becoming increasingly important where the key breachers of an order are not media organisations, but the broader public. “If a suppression order is to protect say a victim of a sexual assault from being identified, you can see very good reasons why that might be the case,” he said. “If it’s to protect an accused from a prejudiced jury, then I think the days are passing where that can be at all effective.”
Bradley says it’s the courts and justice system that have to change. Courts need to reconsider their assumptions about juries, or, if they can’t do that, to reconsider whether we need jury trials at all.
“This is an attitude created from the days when the media was controllable,” he says. “The creation of the internet blew everything up, and that created far more danger for the court system and for justice.
“As soon as someone is charged, the internet lights up with their entire criminal and personal history. It’s a feeding frenzy, and completely uncontrollable. That provokes the courts into overreaching to get some control back. And of course, they can’t. What’s happened is a predictable reaction, but it’s completely the wrong way to approach it. The horse has bolted, and you can’t shut down the internet. If the courts want to manage this, they need to think of different ways of preserving their integrity. Other than making court orders that aren’t going to work.”
At least 500 girls and boys - some as young as two - were abused by disgraced television presenter Jimmy Savile making him one of the UK's most prolific sex offenders, new research has found.
A study by the NSPCC, commissioned for BBC Panorama, reveals confidential documents that shed light on the extent of Savile's offending and his unprecedented access to Broadmoor hospital, where some of his abuse took place.
The report said the scale of Savile's offending inside Broadmoor is higher than previously thought and found the most common age group for Savile's victims was 13 to 15 – with the youngest alleged victim being just two-years-old.
Peter Watt, the NSPCC's director of child protection, said: "There's no doubt that Savile is one of the most, if not the most, prolific sex offender that we at the NSPCC have ever come across. What you have is somebody who at his most prolific lost no opportunity to identify vulnerable victims and abuse them."
The joint BBC investigation between Panorama and The World At One, which airs on Monday on BBC One and BBC Radio 4, asks how the DJ got so close to the heart of Britain's establishment and why in 1972 the BBC failed to take effective action that might have saved young people from abuse.
It comes ahead of the publication of BBC's own review to be carried out by Dame Janet Smith. That report, whose publication has been repeatedly delayed, is expected to uncover up to a thousand victims and reveal a culture of ignorance which protected Savile.
A BBC spokesman said: "The BBC has said it is appalled at Jimmy Savile's crimes. We're unable to give a commentary on statements in these specific documents as they are over 40 years old, but the Dame Janet Smith review is considering the culture and practices of the BBC during this period and has had our full cooperation. We will await their full r
And as "entertainment" it was also very strange. Here is another song from the Petula Clark show. It is about famous people who were born under the sign of Scorpio.
Petula Clark walks along a row of giant boards - turning each round to reveal another giant portrait of a Scorpio that she then sings to. The list of people she serenades goes beyond weird - and the last one takes you directly to the sinister heart of this odd world.
semper occultus » Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:02 am wrote:Suspicions: Ex-Lambeth social services employees say they suspect a cover-up involving a former Labour minister. (Lambeth Town Hall, pictured left). Paedophile Michael John Carroll (right) ran the children's home
But the inquiry into alleged attacks at the home was halted soon after an ex-social services boss told police of alleged early evening visits by a Labour politician, believed to be a minister.
The Daily Mirror reported Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll was taken off the case and faced disciplinary proceedings for allegedly naming the MP among the suspects.
He was questioned under caution by Met Police officers and removed from Lambeth borough force before the disciplinary proceedings were later dropped...
Two former social services employees who were involved in the case have now revealed they suspect the minister's involvement was covered up.
One, a former manager who alerted police in 1998, told the Mirror: 'One wonders why Scotland Yard would be so desperate to stop it being investigated.
'I believe it was stopped because somebody in power was trying to prevent any further investigation into the politician.'
Was Bulic Forsythe killed to protect paedophile ring 'linked to future minister in Tony Blair’s government?'
Cold case detectives are probing the murder of a council official who vowed to expose a paedophile ring allegedly linked to a future minister in Tony Blair’s government.
The daughter of Bulic Forsythe believes her father may have been killed because he uncovered a children’s home vice ring involving powerful figures.
Bulic told a new witness, tracked down in a Mirror investigation, that he suspected vulnerable youngsters were being assaulted by an organised gang at one home said to have been visited by the Labour politician.
But days later Bulic, 42, was beaten to death in his flat and the case has remained unsolved for 21 years.
Documents reveal detective Clive Driscoll advised the investigation should be reopened when he found potential links to his 1998 children’s homes probe in Lambeth, South London.
But Mr Driscoll was removed from the case for naming the Blair minister as a suspect and Bulic’s murder file has not been touched for 14 years.
Scotland Yard’s Serious Crime Review Group are finally looking at it afresh after the Daily Mirror tracked down the daughter he never met.
Kiddist Forsythe – born three months after Bulic’s murder and 21 next week – said: “Police must examine whether my dad was killed because of what he knew about child sex abuse in Lambeth and if it was linked to people in power.
“We know that he told more than one person he was going to expose wrongdoing in the borough shortly before he was murdered and that his killer or killers remain free.”
Firefighters burst into Bulic’s blazing flat early on Friday, February 6, 1993, and found his blood-soaked body.
The social services manager’s skull had been fractured by a heavy weapon.
In the months before his murder, Bulic had told colleagues at Lambeth Council he was on the verge of exposing child sex abuse and corruption.
A new witness told detectives for the first time last year that a terrified Bulic confided in her shortly before his death.
Speaking after she was tracked down by the Mirror, the former Lambeth worker said: “Bulic said, ‘With what I’m about to tell you I’m taking a big risk.
"What if I was to say that council buildings are being used for child sexual abuse on a regular basis’.”
The witness added: “Bulic came to me a second time because South Vale [youth assessment centre in West Norwood] had closed and he asked me who had the keys.
"He said, ‘People are saying they are using it to make films’. He was very frightened about something and then he was murdered.”
Bulic died at the time of an internal Lambeth council probe into alleged sexual abuse in the housing department where he had worked.
The resulting report, obtained by the Mirror, details allegations of rape, sexual assault and the swapping of child abuse videos and violent porn within the council. It implicated senior Lambeth officers as well as police and local politicians.
The report, signed by chair of the panel Eithne Harris, states: “The murder of Bulic Forsythe was seen by some witnesses as a possible outcome for anyone who strayed too far in their investigation or who asked too many questions.”
Published internally in December 1993, it adds: “The panel heard evidence about BF [Bulic Forsythe] while he was working in Social Services, speaking to a colleague and telling her he was going to ‘spill the beans’.
"Three days later he was killed.”
guruilla » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:34 pm wrote:Savile's Armies of Darkness had somehow trampled over my own childhood/psyche with their steel-toed winkle-pickers, glam-rock flares and child-catching top hats.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests