The BBC investigation is not the first time Al Fayed’s alleged sexual misconduct has been in the spotlight. He was the subject of pieces by Vanity Fair in 1995, ITV in 1997 and Channel 4 in 2017 and 2018.
In 2009, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), then led by Sir Keir Starmer, elected not to prosecute Al Fayed following claims he had sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl in Harrods. A 2015 police investigation did not lead to any charges.
How many of these women will have been paid hush money to sign NDAs? I wonder how it feels to have taken the money and therefore allowed numerous other women to be abused? Was it worth it?
That is often exactly the case. Every time someone takes the money, or takes the money and then opens the box, more people get abused. As a general rule, I am in total agreement.
But, and I am sure you appreciate I might only be guessing here, that may not be true in these cases. Because occasionally someone is so utterly appalling that they don't even bother with NDAs and the like.
You surely have to feel some empathy for the victims. I have not read much about the story, but I saw a bit of this mornings presser. One of the woman was in a psychiatric ward for 6 months, has not had a relationship since, and is probably scarred for life.
Nearly. But not quite.
I have considerable empathy for some of the victims. But not all.
There will be women who were pressurised terribly. And there will be women who made a (for them) rational decision that the money was worth it.
It's like with Epstein. I remember my Wife saying that she felt really sorry for the naive ones. But that, if she were a nubile 20-something unknown being invited to a major premiere by a famous older man, she would have had a clear plan for what she wanted to do when he got his kn0b out.
People lap up this sort of story without appreciating what is behind it.
So-for example-unless 1 of the limited exceptions apply, normally have to sue within 3 years for Personal Injury. Hence the 1 paraded with the psychiatric story. And the lurid details.
Because the assailant died years ago. And left Harrods 14 years ago. And it is the current owners of Harrods being sued-who were not involved in any way at the time. So the Lawyers are trying to show that some claims may not be out of time, plus major reputational damage, to squeeze a settlement out of the current owners.
Mohamed Al Fayed: How culture of fear at Harrods protected a predator
Some of these poor women are speaking out to try and explain what happened.
And some of them are telling a particular story where their main motive is money. for them and their Lawyers advising them.
Do they deserve money? In most cases, yes. But most of the legal cases look to me to be extremely difficult, due to the time delays and the fact that many of the important witnesses are now dead. Many of these cases are 35 years old.
Just a quick aside in relation to the Criminal prosecutions. 2 important things to remember:-
1. They involved isolated incidents. There was not the body of evidence that has appeared now; and 2. Al-Fayed was loudly proclaiming that his son had been killed as part of a conspiracy. I am not suggesting that was true. Or that he did not genuinely believe that. But 1 by-product of that was that any prosecution would have put major fuel on that particular fire...
Just a quick aside in relation to the Criminal prosecutions. 2 important things to remember:-
1. They involved isolated incidents. There was not the body of evidence that has appeared now; and 2. Al-Fayed was loudly proclaiming that his son had been killed as part of a conspiracy. I am not suggesting that was true. Or that he did not genuinely believe that. But 1 by-product of that was that any prosecution would have put major fuel on that particular fire...
His former assistant was on the telly this morning. It was really hard to watch the interview.
Just a quick aside in relation to the Criminal prosecutions. 2 important things to remember:-
1. They involved isolated incidents. There was not the body of evidence that has appeared now; and 2. Al-Fayed was loudly proclaiming that his son had been killed as part of a conspiracy. I am not suggesting that was true. Or that he did not genuinely believe that. But 1 by-product of that was that any prosecution would have put major fuel on that particular fire...
How many of these incidents were reported to the police at the time? At least a couple it seems. It's very difficult to criticise the police if nothing was reported BUT if they were reported surely the police and CPS had a duty to investigate fully, which should have resulted in more victims coming forward, after all there were apparently 150 of them.
There are always 2 sides to these sorts of stories. And the Lawyers acting for these ladies is doing a very good job of just portraying the 1 side of this. I suspect being on massive legal fees helps with that.
There is a strong presumption that all claims involving personal injury (a broad term which includes most/all of these claims must be started within 3 years of the injury.
The general reasons for this are straightforward. If you wait (for example) 35 years to issue proceedings, everyone's memory has faded. Important witnesses (like Al-Fayed) are dead, and so cannot be cross-examined.
When does that 3 years start to run? Normally, when you knew or should have known-so extensions for Under-18s, people with serious mental health conditions, etc. And there may also be extensions for certain fraud, undue influence etc. Which is (of course) why they are claiming he "felt like a threat til he died".
You will likely not have noticed. But there were people who intimated possible claims decades ago. And went to the police 10-30 years ago. But none of these (afaik) are being named. Simply because it would be abundantly clear that time should be running from then.
I'm a cynic. But I'm also a Dad. If a young girl is (for example) given the use of a Flat in Park Lane, or taken to Paris by an elderly Billionaire, I think we all know what is likely to be next on the agenda. Where were their families?
Much is spoken about "justice". IMHO "justice" is suing a man who does this. Not letting him carry on doing this for decades. Not letting him sell his business interests for untold millions. Not letting him die and pass all his money to people of his choosing. Putting him on a Witness stand, and making him feel just as scared as those poor women. Not getting money from the current owners, who had precisely nothing to do with all of this.
This is sensationalism with a very clear legal purpose. To maximise potential commercial harm to the current owners of Harrods. To pick their pockets.
Shame they didn’t do something while he was alive Maybe just me but if they were after cash it’s a bit late he’s none now Crown prosecutor lol if you’re a pedo or abuse your power to rape woman you get off lightly to continue your abusing as Kier didn’t prosecute… riots happen because off yet again kids being killed.. wrongly advertised online by some as an asylum seeker.. at the end off the day someone in his family came here to work or seek asylum.. and it appears he’s another one let down with mental health issues.. But if we protest against immigration we’re racist .. so av an idea for all these folk that shout your welcome here you lot take them into your homes and save the tax payers millions on hotels cause we’ve no houses My friends daughter two you kids been in homeless 4years 8 months kids are 6 n 7 now Top off housing list for a house passed over for the 4th time to give another asylum seeker a home in front off her This is all wrong …. Rioting will get worse if this policy continues Give them tents they won’t come then empty hotels deport the lot sort out our people in this country first … no ifs no buts that’s what needs doing
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9j0kxgmvyo
And some of them are telling a particular story where their main motive is money. for them and their Lawyers advising them.
Do they deserve money? In most cases, yes. But most of the legal cases look to me to be extremely difficult, due to the time delays and the fact that many of the important witnesses are now dead. Many of these cases are 35 years old.
1. They involved isolated incidents. There was not the body of evidence that has appeared now; and
2. Al-Fayed was loudly proclaiming that his son had been killed as part of a conspiracy. I am not suggesting that was true. Or that he did not genuinely believe that. But 1 by-product of that was that any prosecution would have put major fuel on that particular fire...
It was really hard to watch the interview.
Looks like the police/CPS may have failed, again.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/knew-mohamed-doing-fayed-security-040002352.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/doctor-denies-carrying-sexual-health-061016390.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/mohammed-al-fayed-bugged-flat-100005140.html
There are always 2 sides to these sorts of stories. And the Lawyers acting for these ladies is doing a very good job of just portraying the 1 side of this. I suspect being on massive legal fees helps with that.
There is a strong presumption that all claims involving personal injury (a broad term which includes most/all of these claims must be started within 3 years of the injury.
The general reasons for this are straightforward. If you wait (for example) 35 years to issue proceedings, everyone's memory has faded. Important witnesses (like Al-Fayed) are dead, and so cannot be cross-examined.
When does that 3 years start to run? Normally, when you knew or should have known-so extensions for Under-18s, people with serious mental health conditions, etc. And there may also be extensions for certain fraud, undue influence etc. Which is (of course) why they are claiming he "felt like a threat til he died".
You will likely not have noticed. But there were people who intimated possible claims decades ago. And went to the police 10-30 years ago. But none of these (afaik) are being named. Simply because it would be abundantly clear that time should be running from then.
I'm a cynic. But I'm also a Dad. If a young girl is (for example) given the use of a Flat in Park Lane, or taken to Paris by an elderly Billionaire, I think we all know what is likely to be next on the agenda. Where were their families?
Much is spoken about "justice". IMHO "justice" is suing a man who does this. Not letting him carry on doing this for decades. Not letting him sell his business interests for untold millions. Not letting him die and pass all his money to people of his choosing. Putting him on a Witness stand, and making him feel just as scared as those poor women. Not getting money from the current owners, who had precisely nothing to do with all of this.
This is sensationalism with a very clear legal purpose. To maximise potential commercial harm to the current owners of Harrods. To pick their pockets.
Instead of the Monster.
Maybe just me but if they were after cash it’s a bit late he’s none now
Crown prosecutor lol if you’re a pedo or abuse your power to rape woman you get off lightly to continue your abusing as Kier didn’t prosecute… riots happen because off yet again kids being killed.. wrongly advertised online by some as an asylum seeker.. at the end off the day someone in his family came here to work or seek asylum.. and it appears he’s another one let down with mental health issues..
But if we protest against immigration we’re racist ..
so av an idea for all these folk that shout your welcome here you lot take them into your homes and save the tax payers millions on hotels cause we’ve no houses
My friends daughter two you kids been in homeless 4years 8 months kids are 6 n 7 now
Top off housing list for a house passed over for the 4th time to give another asylum seeker a home in front off her
This is all wrong …. Rioting will get worse if this policy continues
Give them tents they won’t come then empty hotels deport the lot sort out our people in this country first … no ifs no buts that’s what needs doing