Pages

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Dee's compo claim !

To be read in conjunction with this 
http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/abused-pt-2.html 

The other night I received notice (by way of a tweet) describing Dee Coles as the 'poster girl' of Slater and Gordon. I was still in my purple haze, so I filed this information under pending blog and went back to my Prince cd's. 

And it's true ! The woman who claims Jimmy Savile abused/attacked her, is indeed a 'client' of this awful law firm. 


cc

http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/personal-injury/sexual-and-physical-abuse/

Yes, I'm sure 'others can (and have) put it far more eloquently than you'. Slater and Gordon, for a kick off ! 
 Was she 'one of the first' to instruct you Liz ? What is her claim worth, to her that is, we know your end ! (£14-£16K). Couldn't be the biggie (£60K) surely even she has not claimed Jimmy raped her in that campervan while her mate looked on ?

The above followed her attendance at the McGowan play, an audience of liars as I like to call it. Dee wasn't entirely happy with Alistair's portrayal of Savile. He wasn't evil enough, his laugh wasn't sinister enough, it just did NOT convey the hell she went through those TWO times she visted Jim in his van ! Thank Goodness she kept the photo's of her terror !



 And thank God she's being kept in the public eye just long enough to claim her miserable compo before Slater go bust ! 
 Being the c*** I am, I asked Ollie the producer of 'abused' the untold truth (he got one thing right), a few questions about his star witness and the other liar Karin Ward. Strangely enough he didn't respond, actions speak so much louder than ..
 What is it with these people ? Why can't they accept an invitation to debate the matter, what is it they are afraid of ? 
Back to that twitter alert I told you about earlier. Here's the dialogue that ensued via Maggie's tweet 
https://twitter.com/mscjervis/status/724557674722000897?lang=en-gb

Who was grooming who - not Jimmy that's for sure !

Remember Liz Dux didn't come into our lives until a few days after Exposure. And when she did she already had 5 or so 'victims' (from memory excuse me if I'm not 100% accurate). Right on Maggie, when did Dee become Liz's 'poster girl' ?




 

41 comments:

  1. Dee's terror - captured in the three photos carefully guarded for 40-odd years but 'given away' at the time of her first known interview - was so great that it immediately turned her hair green! Poor lass, but maybe a trend-setter for the upcoming punk movement!

    Her handler at S&G recently received a slap on the back from the deranged Liz Dux:

    "Congratulations to @J__Standley on being elected Chair of Association of Women Solicitors. A great step towards modernisation"

    My hair immediately fell out upon reading that, never mind turning green!
    (Standley's timeline is a gathering of liars 'n' lunatics - Meirion Jones, Olly Lambert, Lizes Dux & MacKean, a spattering of Exaro goons... mandatory reporting & naming of the accused...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I decided to study Law as a 'mature' student, what was more of an education was the reality of 'students' in 2007 - compared to 1993/94 when I'd last treaded the academic boards. Whilst a trip to that campus for work purposes recently left me aghast - the Idiocy in the air was striking - it wasn't quite that bad 9 years ago.
      I had imagined that studying Law would mean mixing with lots of intelligent young people - sadly not quite the case. Standley will have studied Law around the same time, and therefore is of that pretty vacant ilk - kiddults trained to do as they are told. If that is the level required of being 'Chair of Association of Women Solicitors' in the UK then we are indeed doomed.
      The problem is this is 'the norm' - in law, in the police, in journalism, in the media - 'thinking' is over in all professions as they don't know how to.

      Delete
  2. Chris, there are some figures on students obtaining university degrees here: researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf

    If you see Table 8, page 20, the most striking transformation seems to be in the 1990s:

    1990 Men 43,297 Women 33,866 Total 77,163
    2000 Men 109,930 Women 133,316 Total 243,246

    (All figures are for students from all domiciles. Full-time first degree students only.)

    Presumably there were other changes taking place in society, but the university populataion changed dramatically during that period.

    @ Bandini, did we ever decide whether those two pics of Dee and Jim must have been taken on different occasions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Misa Jimmy appears to be sitting down in that second picture. One of her accounts is that he 'flashed her' the second day (can't believe I'm writing this). That chair had to get out of that campervan. Seems like a strange sort of thing to be doing in a pub/hotel car park.
      Amazing what comes into your mind when you actually consider the facts !
      Of course, she could be just a very tall lass ?

      Delete
    2. Misa, Savile seems to be wearing the same shorts/trunks in all photos, and Coles the same outfit, so it seems probable that they were taken on the same occasion.

      (The 'third' pic - with Savile shirtless - shows her fully recovered from the uncomfortable 'leg-thrusting' of Savile which so discombobulated her mere seconds earlier... well, that's her explanation for her beaming smile & two-armed neck encircling.)

      Perhaps there were some other snaps that came between? You know, some of the 'vanishing girl' with Savile - or her mum!
      I added more information beneath the previous post but it's really difficult to go much further being stuck several thousand miles away - it needs someone 'proper' on the ground to give this rug a pull. I mean, I could suggest that the green hair was likely caused by a reaction between the chlorine in the hotel's swimming-pool & the chemicals used to lighten her hair, but obviously she has claimed to have been an innocent thing not even experimenting with make-up at the time, so that wouldn't work, would it?

      Rabbitaway, let's not forget that the 'second attack' was also claimed to have taken place the same day & involved 'mystery vanishing girl' too; seeing as 'mystery vanishing girl' fled the hotel that same evening Dee had to later 'remember' this second incident differently - it's hard keeping up with it all, it really is!

      (It's pushing credibility a little far to imagine that Savile flashing his dick at someone he had previously 'violently sexually assaulted' would have encouraged Coles to have re-entered his caravan, which is what the second incident was originally supposed to have consisted of - before it changed beyond all recognition.)

      P.S. I'm not sure what you mean about the chair, Rabbitaway.

      Delete
    3. Hold that thought, Misa!

      The 'first' and 'second' photos were taken when a car was at the side of the 'rapewagon'; the 'third' was not: Dee times three.

      Maybe the 'vanishing car' carried off the 'vanishing girl'! Or maybe not - the campervan may be parked in a different spot in the 'third' pic - see the parking lines?

      Ah, should we set-up our own detective-agency?!?

      Delete
    4. One more thing - I thought we must have been viewing two DIFFERENT windows (the same in pics 1 & 2, one further towards the back of the van in the third) but this would suggest not:
      Savile arriving at Buckingham Palace video.

      If not, we have another conundrum to solve... or rather, those who have been spinning this pack of lies do: the curtain has moved considerably.

      Delete
    5. rabbitaway's first pic is surely the rear and the second is the front paddenger door.

      The disparity between my perception of dee being short and dumpy lies at the heart of my doubt she is that 5feet7in Amazon lovely hugging Sir jams.

      Delete
    6. Moor, sorry for the confusion - I was referring to the pics in the order they appear in the screenshot from 'Abused' in the link 'Dee times three' above.

      Delete
    7. oh, I see what you mean. Yes, deceiving when focus closes in. Not the rear at all, although at a glance it could have been... :-)

      Delete
    8. "He came out and... got this girl to take some photos of me and him. The first two he is really pulling me into him and sort of thrusting his leg between my legs and it is... aaah... I can tell when I look at the expression on my face, I'm like... I'm not comfortable with it.

      And then the third one I do remember because he said, er he took his vest off and got me to stand behind him. I was more relaxed in that one because he wasn't like pushing in to me.
      And then we got invited in to see the van."

      Aye, after the car had been moved (and/or possibly the van itself) and after Mrs. Mopp the cleaning lady had folded over the curtain inside Dee & friend entered...

      Delete
    9. Bandini, I really shouldn't encourage you, should I, but I thought I remembered the 'took his vest off' line, and thought, "Well his hair looks awfully neat for a man who's just taken off his vest and hat. And he's put his bag and (surely not!) cigar down. And are those even the same sun glasses?" But perhaps I shouldn't think such things - that way lies madness.

      Delete
    10. But I'm glad you did, Misa, or I'd never have noticed the car - parked, I assume - that was moved, nor the spot of housework carried out.
      I wondered myself about the specs, but maybe just down to them appearing less dark due to no shade from the hat?

      (I wrongly stated above that the 'three dees pic' was from 'Abused'; it and the following are screenshots from the first Lucy Manning interview.)

      Here she is having one last glance at the photos she is 'giving away' [Oct.2012]. Feel the suffering!

      'Tis curtains for this story!

      Delete
    11. On the subject of madness...you realise that the shadows have moved? Maybe it was 'before' and 'after'. Or maybe NASA were faking it a carpark in the Channel Islands.

      Delete
    12. Misa, it's incredible what one can miss - I was looking at the shadows caused by the van and completely missed that! You are absolutely correct - the third photo was clearly not taken at the same time as the first two (unless the van had been moved).

      I hope people are paying attention to this! I wouldn't like to guess as to how many hours passed between them (if the van hadn't been moved) but it's certainly not a question of minutes.

      Top spotting, Misa!

      Delete
    13. Of course, it's quite possible that this is not her at all! As Moor has consistently pointed out, the girl in the photo is pretty tall. I wonder whether it could be that Dee really was there...taking pics of the second girl.

      Delete
  3. That photograph of Dee & Olly really says it all for me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Massively off-topic, but further proof - if any were needed - that there really is nowt so strange as folk: "I honestly don't know how he thought he could ever get away with it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ironic that a kipper should turn out to be a red herring... ☺

      Delete
    2. His big mistake was in not having secured the backing of legal parasites, ambitious media types & 'warriors' eager to exploit him for financial, professional & cultural purposes; if he had done so, he'd maybe have been able to eek out a few more years of fantastical bullshitting... but he'd have been rumbled in the end, no mistake.

      Delete
  5. Is it just me or does Dee look like Wee Jimmy Krankie? - sorry to taint your image, Wee Jimmy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. she seems something of a chameleon like many of these folk. http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5867891.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/saville.jpg

      Delete
    2. I recently watched the latest series of 'Mid Morning Matters with Alan Partridge' in which the topic of Savile is tackled in the first episode.

      Yewtree is somewhat of a recurring theme, and Wee Jimmy Krankie is employed as a... well, I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it, but it could be viewed as quite subtly subversive in the way it highlights the ludicrous nature of 'the hunt'.

      Having jokes made about Savile in this age of 'triggering' & immediate social-media outrage is possibly the best one can hope for at the moment; seeing Alan Partridge nervously counter insinuations that HE may be expecting a knock on the door from the Yewtree plod (having once been employed by the BBC) is quite a clever way of showing what a farce it all is.
      It's also very funny!

      Delete
  6. All this Hillsborough information that South Yorkshire Police changed witnesses' information to suit their agenda and how the Murdoch rag was in on the cover-up...... I am sure Operation Yewtree is not a cover-up by Murdoch, the CPS and corrupt police forces (!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has to be said that Murdoch was way ebhind the news curve on Yewtree. That may have been because Jamie Pyatt was arrested just after Jimmy died.

      Delete
    2. Oh, yes. Thanks for the reminder, Moor.

      But The Sun were quick on the uptake to jump on the bandwagon with ludicrous stories. A couple that spring to mind "Savile's Glass Eye" and "Savile Stalks Broadmoor". I won't bother putting links to the stories; it would mean using The Sun's website.
      I mustn't blame just the Sun. Every media outlet. I had loads of respect for ITN who like to bash the BBC to make themselves look good. Why don't anybody report on the facts that these unbiased blogs are telling us about: THE TRUTH (and not The Sun's version of the truth).

      Delete
  7. Thanks for all the comments e/one, I was away for the day/night yesterday ! LOL, 'sick of yewtree' - welcome aboard !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really don't know how you do it Rabbit. I'veen trying for days to write a blog post summarising some of you'rs and Moor's 'Savile Files' but I've found myself so thoroughly sickened and repelled at people's' mendacity and capacity for lying that I've just given up!

      Delete
    2. Mrs G, I don't think it's possible to summarise it to be fair. It's evolving and expanding all the time. Like when you go in the shops for three things & you come out with 20 ! Big smiley face to you x

      Delete
  8. Friend of Prince (Standing) ;-)29 April 2016 at 03:12

    The difference is also your heart Rabbit, it's just in the right place and you've had plenty of 'karma' signs pointing you in the right direction. You're all fabulous and SJS would be very grateful - all will be well one day - if the Hillsborough families can wait 27 years so can we - in the words of Jimmy "no good deed ever went unpunished" no truer words, but you lovely folk know what you're up against. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you 'Friend of Prince (Standing) it's a pleasure - Friend of Prince (Sitting) LOL x

      Delete
  9. A reminder of Coles' extensive promotional work for ITV (and bear in mind that she 'really didn't want to be there'):

    - ITV 2nd October 2012.
    - ITV 10th October 2012.
    - ITV 23rd October 2012.
    - ITV 11th January 2013.

    That last one is interesting as Coles was "abused when she was 15" - it's hard sticking to the facts when there aren't any, of course. For reference, here's a screenshot of how she appeared at the time.

    Regarding her height, it's hard to tell; she appears to be walking tall in this screenshot from 'Abused'. I wonder who this shoulder belongs to - Mr Dean Coles, perhaps.

    'Tis about time those invested in this shaggy-dog story 'took a haircut'... anyone know a barber?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clip 4 of 9 (Ref: T11011301 2133) on the following page manages to combine the Lucy Manning-factoid that 'Coles was 14' (2nd October 2012) with the Kate Bunkall-interview for ITV Meridian in which 'Coles was 15' (11th January 2013, both links provided above).

      - ITN 11th January 2013 take two.

      i.e. the local media footage is re-used, but with the age once again reduced to that all-important 14.

      (If she had been 15 the nonsense about abandoning school at 14 because of Savile's 'attack' & descending into a hell of drink 'n' drugs 'n' shoplifting would look, well, plain impossible.)

      Delete
  10. If anybody of you lovely lot is on Twitter (I'm not), could anybody give Tony Blackburn a link to this blog, and then Mr Blackburn will see the mistake of slating SJS so publicly to avoid undue attention passing to Tony. Hypothetically, a public apology from a long-time colleague of SJS may help propel Sir Jimmy's good name back into the limelight. Or am I clutching at straws?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Coincidentally, if anyone else watches the Top of the Pops repeats, last month BBC Four mercifully kept in that week's presenter/DJ Richard Skinner introduce a song called Back To The 60s from Tight Fit "and you may see a very famous DJ (in the group)" and there were two Jimmy Savile lookalikes in the band.

    What's happened to Richard Skinner? I'd forgotten about him. Can't he speak in defence of Sir Jimmy?!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello Rabbit!
    Fascinated to read your blog. You've done so much hard work, well done for speaking out. I read it all the other day, and have just been thinking about it. Do you really think that SJS never did any of this stuff? I'm sure there are a lot of compo hunters out there, but do we really think that the 500+ men and women are all lying? Seems unlikely to me, but maybe I haven't read enough. Why would the SJS estate pay out to so many if they couldn't prove it was true? I'm really puzzled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous - welcome back ! I'll ignore that Q about whether Jimmy did any of this or not. Been there, done that, sick of the repetition. Jimmy's 'estate' was frozen the moment these claims came in. It had already been on hold following a paternity claim. Jimmy made the mistake of making a bank his executor. The compo scheme was agreed by Nat West thus making payments to those who passed 'scrutiny', inevitable. You need to read my earlier bolgs about the practically non-existent, scrutiny process. As for the 500+, I'm only surprised there haven't been more. Only 216 had the brass neck to claim compensation, knowing full well that their stories would never be tested anywhere !
      Sorry if you are not the same 'anonymous' who every so often shows up with the same questions. My resolve remains, it is for the accuser to establish guilt, not the other way round !

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, I hope you'll understand that Rabbit has been over this a few times (Rabbit, maybe you could have something on the clipboard for when this question comes up again!), but I think it's a perfectly sensible question.

      500 'victims' does seem overwhelming; even the rather lower number of claimants seems, well, they can't all be lying, can they?

      I think it's worth noting that initially a small group of people claimed to have been harmed. None of their stories stood up to examination.

      Then hundreds more people came forward in response to media coverage which had suggested that SJS was definitely guilty - this guilt had even been publicly proclaimed by a Metropolitan Police Commander.

      But when we know that a lying liar lied, how should we treat all those who say, "Me too?"

      I would suggest that each story needs to be examined very carefully. Fortunately for us, Rabbit seems to be on a mission to do just that!

      Delete
    3. Thanks Misa, spot on as always x

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous
      Another way of looking at this is, if there are 500 victims, why is Dee seemingly the BEST they can come up with? It's laughable.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous, I've just been reminded elsewhere of Hogan-Hogwash's quote:

      “The remarkable thing about Savile wasn’t the handful of people who had made allegations during his lifetime, it was the hundreds who didn’t.”

      Remarkable indeed - or unbelievable.

      And that handful of brave souls - what was the nature of their allegations? Rape of small children? Complicity in groups of 'VIP child torturers/murderers' (thanks for this one, Exaro!)? Abuse of children as they lay dying in hospital? The wheeling of corpses towards the crypt to be fiddled about with...?

      No.
      A kiss. A grope. A bum-pat.

      I suggest a reading of the police investigation which took place while he was living, those Duncroft rascals who were tracked-down by the coppers & the best they could come up with was someone who - once the obligatory 'confusion' over age was clarified - made the devastating allegation that Savile had asked for 'oral relief', she had said 'no', and that was the end of it.

      That she was of legal age, that Savile had accepted the refusal, and that NO CRIME WHATSOEVER took place (even if we accept the word of the allegator) did not stop her from being labelled a 'victim' by the police.

      The remarkable thing about Savile is those who believe the hundreds of far-fetched allegations made after his death, and ignore the low-level claims from that 'handful of people' made while he was still living.

      Delete