Max Clifford Confirmed Pervert

[cronus]

This just shows the ridiculous state of the law.

Fifteen-year-old girls are treated the same as if they were eight-year-old virgins. Not as if they were just a few months under the age of consent.

He should have got a bit of probation. Or a warning. Not that I like him. Nobody does. I think that's why he lost the case. It's hardly fair, though.

Um - he's not been charged with having sex with minors, he's been found guilty of sexual assault of several women, including a girl of 15.

More ALLEGED victims are now coming forward. What's the betting that the total passes a hundred?
He's worth millions, it's worth a go.

On the age, the judge said that he was going to the maximum term on sentencing, because today, under current laws, some of the incidents would have been classed as rape.
Sounds like more than sexual assault to me.
Can you rape someone, without fucking them? I dunno.

The way it is going the idea is enough for the crime? Some men can do it with their eyes alone? And should face the consequences?

[Hermit]

More ALLEGED victims are now coming forward. What's the betting that the total passes a hundred?

So? Does that absolve him from the crimes he IS guilty of?

[mistermack]

More ALLEGED victims are now coming forward. What's the betting that the total passes a hundred?

So? Does that absolve him from the crimes he IS guilty of?

Found guilty of.
The jury weren't there. But they chose to believe one side.

He was guessed to be guilty.

If I was him, I'd be appealing straight away. Especially the sentence.
The judge's comments that he was going near to the maximum, because the charges would be worse today, are clear grounds for appeal.

[cronus]

Given how corrupt the British judiciary is nowadays and the number of high profile knives out for him you can't guarantee he is guilty. I put it at 50/50 he's been stitched up. I'd never have believed 'hearsay' alone as evidence for such a public figure.

[Hermit]

Well, that's two people in denial for purely emotional reasons. I won't bother to mention the underlying motive.

[HomerJay]

The Judge's sentencing remarks:

30. The victim of counts 9 and 10 was 17 or 18 when she was introduced to you for advice on pursuing a modelling career. You took her into your office and told her how you could help and how lucky she was to be represented by you.

31. You told her to take her dress off because you needed to see her figure. You told her that she turned you on and your hands moved over her body, chest and hips. This is reflected in Count 9.

32. She put her dress back on and, whilst you took a call from your wife, you masturbated yourself. When you had finished the call you came over to her and tried to get her to take your erect penis in her mouth whilst you continued to masturbate. You were trying to force your penis into her mouth, even putting your hand round her head to force it in and you managed to achieve a partial entry. You ejaculated over the left side of her face but mainly on her collar bone. Your behaviour is reflected in Count 10. This would now amount to the offence of rape. Ejaculation amounts to an aggravating feature of this offence.

33. You caused her further degradation by telling her that she was to be invited to dinner with your wife and that Cubby Broccoli would be there who would get her into a Bond film. You wanted her to masturbate you under the table whilst you sat next to your wife and you made it clear that she must come to the dinner. You rang her several times after that to ask if she was going to come to dinner.

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-max-clifford

[HomerJay]

It is only possible in the UK for sentences to be the maximum for the offence at the time they were committed, hence all these offences had a 2 year maximum and some would no be prosecuted as rape not sexual assault.

Hence the judge has run the sentences together mostly consecutively rather than concurrently, which means they add up to 8 years.

It's quite stiff (o'er) given his age and health. Stuart Hall admitted offences against girls as young as 9 but got 15 months, doubled to 30 months on appeal.

[cronus]

He's probably guilty. My own reckoning is 51% given the lapse of time. It isn't like he was famous and had a reputation for being 'untouchable' whatever that means when the offences occurred, so why no legal action then?

[cronus]

It's like waiting five or ten years before Skepchicks go after Papa for incitement to rape for a flippant ill-judged comment he slightly miscalculated a while ago? Could happen, maybe they are building a case, or waiting for his star to rise before kicking it down? Perhaps he has done nothing wrong but the feminists could push for a 51% in a court of law, believing in and pushing for his Machiavellian cunning rather than accidental sound-farting? I try to be objective yet sexual ethics and anti-ethics invites the opposite. Don't rejoice in cases like this, the fine-grained details should remain in the court of law, and it is slightly repugnant for the details themselves to appear here in this forum?

[mistermack]

The reason I hate this isn't about sexual assault. It could be any offence, and I'd still be disgusted with this. The reasons are

1) It's one person's word against another's.
2) It all happened between 30 and 37 years ago.
3) There was no complaint for about 35 years.
4) The accused is now worth millions, which gives a big motive for people to try their luck.
5) The ludicrous Saville affair has shown people that they really are in with a chance of a payday.

Bearing all that in mind, you would expect that the evidence required to convict would have to be far stronger than for something that happened yesterday. The accusers may have had a consenting encounter, all they need to do is to get their story straight, that it wasn't consenting, and they've had an average of 35 years to do that.

The guy may be an asshole, he might even have been guilty. But would you bet your house on it?
I'll bet none of the jurors would have bet THEIR houses on the accusations being true, if there was some way to prove it.

It's easy for them to gamble on him being guilty. They've got nothing to lose.

[cronus]

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/05/02/has ... battersea/

[mistermack]

I wonder if anyone has yet made a claim that both Jimmy Saville and Max Clifford raped them?
It's bound to happen.

I'm willing to bet that Max Clifford was far richer than Jimmy Saville, so he would be a better target.
And there are about five hundred people now after Jimmy Saville's money pot, so Cliffords dosh could be split between fewer tragic victims, making it an attractive proposition.

I'll bet there is a lot of competition to be his cell mate. He can hardly deny that he spent the night with you.