Max Clifford Charged On 11 Counts

[bibblebub]

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-04-26/max-clifford-charged-indecent-assaults/

11 counts of indecent assault between 1966 and 1985, victimes aged from 14 to 19.

Perhaps we are now getting to the sharp end of all these investigations.

[emmie]

as already pointed out innocent till proven guilty, and the killers of Stephen Lawrence were defended by those paid to defend them, whether they believed in the accused guilt or not, and just because Max Clifford did so was that any reason to suppose he thought they were guilty as hell. He can choose who he represents, in pretty much the way you can choose to call him names, doesn't mean to say you are correct, it is just your opinion.
I have never liked his brand of PR, but i don't know the man, or indeed what he has supposedly done, only what has been in the news, so let us wait for the law to decide his crimes, if he has committed any.

[sir.prize]

postman44 - that is a very good question.

[Sqad]

\\\\Postman44 - that is a very good question. \\\

and the answer is...........financial gain.

Why do you think that perpetrators of "similar crimes" who have no wealth have not been similarly accused?

[Sharingan]

Who knows, perhaps they feel only now is there a climate in which they will be believed (assuming they are telling the truth). I think that is the crux of it though, most people could be persuaded that one or two people might have felt unable to come forward at the time, but 10? 50? 500? 1500 in the case of Jimmy Savile? I can easily imagine that unless the ladies concerned come over very well in court that, since these are very, very old allegations, it might be viewed by a jury as better to err on the side of caution and find not guilty than to damn someone on what will have to be one person's word against another. I'd just like to point out I have no reason to personally disbelieve any of the accusers nor indeed any of the defendants, but I do await the trials with interest.

[sir.prize]

Sqad - that is a very good answer.

[emmie]

postman
if for example they weren't believed before, and the evidence matches up, though the women are not known to each other, then the police can build a case, 40 years or not. Others have been caught this way, prosecuted and sent to prison, rapists, murderers...

[emmie]

that isn't a good answer, that is a mean thing to say, that some only come forward because of financial gain, those people would be weeded out pretty damn quick. And if the police didn't think they had a case to follow, then surely they wouldn't have charged him.

[Sqad]

em.

\\\ those people would be weeded out pretty damn quick.\\

How? How would you sort the "wheat from the chaff?"

All would give accounts of similar sexual acts against them.........30-40 years on.

It is as Shari has implied.......who comes over best in cross examination.

[emmie]

he is a very slick and practised PR man, knows the ropes, and has been in the business a very long time. The girls concerned may have made allegations to the police at the time, they may not have not been believed, we shall have to wait and see. To automatically dismiss them as gold diggers beggars belief.

[sir.prize]

All this celeb bashing is preventing Plod from chasing the scourge of our society - the motorist.

[emmie]

so if a celeb raped a girl some years back, you wouldn't want them punished, rather the motorist who breaks the speed limit, or someone taking points for them, strange reasoning i must say.

[sir.prize]

Well - - you read that wrongly em.

[hc4361]

Many 'ordinary' men and women are accused of historical sexual offences.

All the allegations will be investigated, people will be arrested and some will be charged and appear in court. Some of those will be found guilty, others innocent.

The difference being that these arrests don't make the headlines and often are only reported when the accused is in court, especially if the accused is a close relative of the victim.

To say these offences are only alleged for financial gain is very wrong. There may be a few who are prepared to undergo the scrutiny of a prosecution but with the threat of a prison sentence for wasting police time those allegations are usually withdrawn very early on.

[anotheoldgit]

Kromovaracun

/// But he represented the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, so he has always a scumbag in my book ever since. ///

/// Gromit did make clear that he isn't judging Clifford's guilt in this case. ///

/// Outside of it, however, he's perfectly entitled to comment on Clifford's character. A pretty accurate one too, in my opinion. ///

Two wrongs never made a right.

Do either you or Gromit know Max Clifford personally, or had any contact with him, enough to make such abusive insults?

[Gromit]

AOG

You can judge people on their actions. Max Clifford chose to work for these people after the Daily Mail had outed them as killers. His motive was money. I do not have to know him personally to know I do not like the man. I never knew Hiltler but that doesn't stop me forming an opinion of him.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// Some lawyers are scumbags. It is their duty to represent clients but they often know when their clients are guilty and often get them off. ///

Are you saying that no one should be allowed the services of a defence lawyer?

As much as it may seem totally repulsive to some who know little about the law or the actual crime committed, each person is entitled to the services of someone to speak in their defence.

I think such as you would be the first to complain if you yourself happened to find yourself fell foul of the law and they refused to allow anyone to speak in your defence.

Who would be in the position to say "he or she is that guilty they will not be allowed a defence lawyer"?

[Kromovaracun]

"Do either you or Gromit know Max Clifford personally, or had any contact with him, enough to make such abusive insults?"

Assuming Gromit will allow me to answer on his behalf for a moment, neither he or I are making judgements of Clifford as a private individual. Additionally, neither of us has made any comment on the criminal charges made against Clifford, because as yet there has been no verdict. Gromit made this abundantly clear.

What Gromit's comment was based on was Clifford's actions in the public sphere, which are simply a matter of record and are eminently deserving of criticism.

This really isn't a particularly complex distinction. I don't see why so much fuss has been kicked up over it.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// You can judge people on their actions. Max Clifford chose to work for these people after the Daily Mail had outed them as killers. ///

*** after the Daily Mail had outed them as killers ***.

Oh that is a new one for you, you generally accuse the Daily Mail of being rather 'economical with the truth', what made them change enough for you to agree with them, or like most do you only do so if they act in ways that support your own agenda?

[DTCwordfan]

//What Gromit's comment was based on was Clifford's actions in the public sphere, which are simply a matter of record and are eminently deserving of criticism.//

Public relations can be a very important platform to achieving a not guilty verdict, working in conjunction with what happens on the legal process. Is it obscurification of the case? perhaps; is it legal? - yes. ....so don't assume that he is a scumbag.

A very close friend of mine knows him very well and says that he is actually a very caring and considerate man, that the facade is just an image for his business and one shouldn't judge him by just what we see on TV or read about in the Wail or other shyte-sheets....

[shaneystar2]

I met him on a weekly basis for several years .He used to be a customer at the shop where I worked in South London .He used to come in for his bread and then slum it in the cafe next door for his breakfast .One thing he isn't is a snob. He was always very nice to us staff ,always had a laugh and a joke and was very well liked round that area as it was where he grew up .
His business practices may leave something to be desired but he's not a bad bloke and I find it hard to believe he would have done these things .He was also really devoted to his first wife.