Savile's victims to sue for millions

[flipnflap]

....that's according to today's Daily Mail. But how can they as they have no evidence, and the guy is not here to defend himself? I am definitely not saying these people are lying, but i thought proof was vital in court. And without proof surely anyopne can step forward and say Savile abused them, to claim a payout, can't they?

[Answerprancer]

I heard that the Daily Mail is going to print pictures of the victims around the age they were at the time of the assaults next to pictures of them at present, they will be labelled "now" "then "now" "then"....

[ojread2]

bad taste, prancer, bad taste

Could see it coming a mile off
It wont make them feel any better IMO as He isn't here to admit what he did

[rockyracoon]

The level of evidence needed in civil court is less than that of a criminal court so there may well be enough to sue successfully.

[ummmm]

Some of these victims were in secure hospital units, a school for vulnerable kids and mainstream NHS hospital. They were suppose to be taken care of.

[rockyracoon]

Even if he was here there'd be no evidence in the physical sense as there rarely is in a paedo case, he'd just deny it. The evidence will be that the stories corroborate each other, hopefully the 'live' ones (if there were any) that were involved will be outed and punished.

[EDDIE51]

Watch the TV licence fee go up to pay the compensation !.

[mumsie_wumsie]

No way is my money (license fee) going towards paying compensation for something that should have been stopped and investigated at the time it was going on. Horrible,vile little man. Let the BBC find any money from their own pockets. Let the people that turned a blind eye to all this put their hands in their pockets too.

[jake-the-peg]

You have to remember that the DM has a long history of running campaigns against the BBC.

The DM group actually owns a large chunk of ITN and so the BBC is a direct competitor - they'll do anything they can to stoke the flames here

[ummmm]

Did you watch Panorama last night, Jake?

[Smowball]

I watched it.

[EvianBaby]

I didn't see the programme last night so not sure my comment will be worth anything but I have two (sort of) problems with this, it it's true.

Firstly, I have no doubt that many people were abused by him but I also believe there are a number of people who have simply jumped on a bandwagon and over boiled what may have happened. How does it get decided who was really abused and who wasn't?

Also, I'm never quite sure how financial settlements help people in cases like this.

[jake-the-peg]

No, I did hear the original report on the matter before it all got crazy on the subject.

Whether or not the BBC was corporately liable is beyond my legal expertise - I would imagine that it would have to be shown that they were institutionally reckless in their behaviour over and above the actions of one or two people and with the timescales that I believe are involved here that could be rather difficult.

My point is rather that you have to remeber that many media outlets have television interests and so are not exactly impartial.

Indeed a number will see it as a perfect opportunity to deflect attention from their own hacking misdeeds - I'd expect the Mirror will be much more interested in reporting the prospects of Saville victims suing the BBC than the fact that phone hacking victims are sueing them!

[Smowball]

Agree with you there EB. There will always be people trying it on in cases on this scale.

[ummmm]

Evian - you lived in a pub. You must have crossed paths with a few unsavoury characters?

I remember being young and some older men, at one time or another, acting inappropriate. When they died and people saying 'ahh.. he was a lovely man' and I'd always say 'NO, he wasn't...he was a perv'

I think that's what many of these victims are doing.

The majority won't get compensation.

[ummmm]

Jake - //I'd expect the Mirror will be much more interested in reporting the prospects of Saville victims suing the BBC than the fact that phone hacking victims are sueing them! //

The Mirror did it's own investigation on Jimmy Savile and then dropped the story....!!

[EvianBaby]

I definitely remember some very creepy types, and particularly as I was 12-18 when we lived there I 'attracted' all the weirdos, but they were invariably drunks.

I guess you're right, I'm sure if I could probably regale a story or two about inappropriate behaviour if something came up about one of them. Although I don't think I'd actually want to.

[sandyRoe]

Curious how some stories take a twist that turns the original victims into money hungry schemers.

[ummmm]

Sandy - I don't believe they are.

[youngmafbog]

Jake, its not just the BBC it is the cash strapped NHS and the education system the pond life lawyers are going for.

And I have not seen anyone answer the vital question. How can we tell 'alleged' true victims from those jump[ing on the gravy train and have nothing genuine to claim even if he did it to others

[youngmafbog]

Personally I think this should be the call for the BBC to be scrapped.

This left wing organization takes taxpayers money and lines individuals pockets and then are clearly prepared to cover anything they like up.

Of course if you are Jake it is all lies and the BBC is whiter than white.