This in my opinion is outrageous:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27103873
Anyone, in principle, could claim they had been abused by Jimmy Saville.
How to get £60,000
-
whitedesire
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:46 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 14 times
Re: How to get £60,000
The article clearly states that you'd have to provide credible evidence. That narrows it down quite a bit, at least you'd have to show that JS had an opportunity to abuse you at some point.
What's really outrageous is that this cashed up child molester was allowed to die in peace, because nobody in the know came forward when he was still alive.
What's really outrageous is that this cashed up child molester was allowed to die in peace, because nobody in the know came forward when he was still alive.
-
whitedesire
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:46 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 14 times
Re: How to get £60,000
Actually, the evidence in my opinion will be negligible - how are they going to confirm such incidents, especially if someone was young, there will be people out there who have read the newspapers day after day about this case and "go for it" - the lawyers won't be able to prove it in any shape or form.
Re: How to get £60,000
I'm not sure if I understand why you think that this is outrageous, because some of your statements seem to contradict each other directly. So which one is it?
(a) It's outrageous, in your opinion, because people who weren't actually abused by JS can easily get money by falsely claiming they were abused.
(b) It's outrageous, in your opinion, because people who were in fact abused by JS won't be able to prove it and thus won't get any money.
My guess is this, as there are lawyers on both sides: They'll have a good look at the pool of claims, establish some kind of a ranking regarding their credibility and make a deal to pay those whose claims are above a certain ranking threshold. This will ensure at least three different things: First, the "damage" to the estate is somewhat limited, so the estate's lawyers are seen as doing a good job protecting the assets. Second, those with the most credible claims will receive compensation, so their lawyers can pat themselves on the back as well. Third, the lawyers working this case on both sides will get their cut. Win-Win-Win.
Granted, this isn't the US, but I'd be surprised if it won't be the lawyers who will ultimately benefit the most from the whole mess.
(a) It's outrageous, in your opinion, because people who weren't actually abused by JS can easily get money by falsely claiming they were abused.
(b) It's outrageous, in your opinion, because people who were in fact abused by JS won't be able to prove it and thus won't get any money.
My guess is this, as there are lawyers on both sides: They'll have a good look at the pool of claims, establish some kind of a ranking regarding their credibility and make a deal to pay those whose claims are above a certain ranking threshold. This will ensure at least three different things: First, the "damage" to the estate is somewhat limited, so the estate's lawyers are seen as doing a good job protecting the assets. Second, those with the most credible claims will receive compensation, so their lawyers can pat themselves on the back as well. Third, the lawyers working this case on both sides will get their cut. Win-Win-Win.
Granted, this isn't the US, but I'd be surprised if it won't be the lawyers who will ultimately benefit the most from the whole mess.
Re: How to get £60,000
The newspaper article, in my view, is poorly written and should have easily explained the process. And it seems it was written with a writer's bias (typical "journalism" these days) to encourage the reader to be somewhat outraged. Rather than report the news, it seems they are always actively attempting to create a reaction.
I'm not outraged at all. To the extent that any minor was abused, he/she ought to be compensated and I could give a tinker's damn if all the claims bankrupted Saville's estate. As concerns the lawyers, I'm not sure how it works in the UK but I would note that most states in the US limit the percentage that a personal injury lawyer can receive (and require plainly-written retainer agreements with each client before the attorney can begin the representation).
There are probably abuses or claims we might believe are less-than-100% certain in every case involving multiple litigants; however, it is unlikely (one surely knows that the estate's lawyers will aggressively contest any phony claims and, besides, the claim managers and judges have to see some reasonable evidence before they'll approve a claim) that there will be any significant percentage in this litigation.
As concerns the amount (60,000 pounds), that's hardly anywhere near fair compensation for any minor sexually abused by this pig.
I'm not outraged at all. To the extent that any minor was abused, he/she ought to be compensated and I could give a tinker's damn if all the claims bankrupted Saville's estate. As concerns the lawyers, I'm not sure how it works in the UK but I would note that most states in the US limit the percentage that a personal injury lawyer can receive (and require plainly-written retainer agreements with each client before the attorney can begin the representation).
There are probably abuses or claims we might believe are less-than-100% certain in every case involving multiple litigants; however, it is unlikely (one surely knows that the estate's lawyers will aggressively contest any phony claims and, besides, the claim managers and judges have to see some reasonable evidence before they'll approve a claim) that there will be any significant percentage in this litigation.
As concerns the amount (60,000 pounds), that's hardly anywhere near fair compensation for any minor sexually abused by this pig.