Surely the charities could only have been responsible for any compensation payments if they had had a duty-of-care to any of Savile's victims at the time of the abuse – had it happened on their premises, for example? How I wish his abuse had come out during his lifetime – and it so very nearly did on so many occasions, not least towards the end of his life. Then it would have been him paying compensation!ohsocynical wrote:In a statement to the House last week, Mr Hunt pledged that Savile’s charities are responsible for paying up to £40 million due. But this newspaper can reveal that the charities are exempt – and that it is the NHS which is liable.AngryAsWell wrote:"Nobody from John Humphrys in the morning to Evan Davis at night dares mention a scandal at the BBC. It undermines their reporting of every abuse whistleblowers reveal. It reinforces the dirty common sense of British life that you must keep your head down if you want to keep your job."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... mmy-savile" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Mail on Sunday has also learnt that a further bill, which may eventually be as large, will be met by BBC licence payers
As it is, the BBC did have a duty of care to youngsters who were abused on their premises or in the course of their business; and so did the NHS. The latter spends a fortune in insurance premiums, each year, although I don't know what they're covered against other than medical negligence - possibly breakdown or theft of equipment, and perhaps workplace accidents/injury. But, as far as whatever happened on NHS premises is concerned, in effect, it's the tax-payer who pays. Same with many of the Children's Homes, too, except any run by charities, possibly.
Passing thought: would 'the establishment' – government, police, etc., – be more keen to quickly and fully investigate child-abuse if it was sold as being more cost-effective than leaving it until after the death of the perpetrator?
