The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Page 13 of 15 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by aiyoyo on 02.05.14 19:31

@diatribe wrote:A totally disproportionate sentence in the vein that the average sentence handed down in the 1970's/80's for rape was 5 yrs. At the time of these offences, the average sentence for indecent assault would have varied from that of non custodial to 3 mths. imp.

I have no sympathy for Max Clifford and consider him an odious character, but this is a McCarthy type witch hunt sentence., why even in the american justice system where sentences resemble mobile phone nos. Tyson only received 6 yrs. for rape, Max Clifford's were of indecent assault which is at the very bottom of the sexual offences scale.

MC deserves what's coming to him
I agree with you only in that bit that the sentencing seems disproportionate when comparing to recent similar case.

Stuart Hall charged with 14 counts was sentenced to 15 months later doubled due to public outrage, last offence occurred 27 years ago vs Max Clifford charged with 8 counts, sentenced to 8 years, last offence occurred 29 years ago. Almost similar period when crimes were committed.

MC's lawyer did say they'd made an example of his client and that MC was scapegoated to compensate for the last few failed prosecutions of celebrities for similar type crimes.

The marked difference between the two guys is that Stuart Hall was a popular figure (I think, not that I know of him)  prior to his fall from grace, while Max Clifford is seen as a dirty rotten scoundrel who also happened to make his millions from selling false image of rich and infamous and he was no difference from his clients, hence completely different class of people profession wise.
Stuart Hall's profession was regarded as respectable whereas Max Clifford's profession was seen as ? don't know what word best described it, but not nice anyway.
The other thing is Stuart Hall pleaded guilty which probably went towards his favour when sentencing.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by sallypelt on 02.05.14 20:17

If someone who committed murder back in 1961, and wasn't caught until 2014, for example, should that person be executed, because that was the punishment at that time?

Just a thought.

sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Constablekid on 02.05.14 20:28

Here's the clip where MC tries to make a joke behind the reporter. Shows his total lack of respect for his victims IMO and he clearly didn't take the case seriously. What was he thinking???

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cKIPZggUWYo&feature=youtu.be

Constablekid

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by ChippyM on 02.05.14 20:34

Aiyoyo - "MC deserves what's coming to him
I agree with you only in that bit that the sentencing seems disproportionate when comparing to recent similar case."




   I totally agree with this, 8 years seemed excessive when I read it but when you consider it's split up for each offence ... good riddance!  

It's just a pity not all offenders have got these kinds of sentences. If you consider how being assaulted in your teenage years may have affected you or someone in your family for years after, it's not that much. I'm sure the judge considered the manipulation and the character of the individual and the likelihood that he did this kind of stuff to many others.

ChippyM

Posts : 910
Reputation : 129
Join date : 2013-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Gillyspot on 02.05.14 20:46

I don't think Clifford's sentence is lenient TBH. His victims are serving life sentences!

Look at Graham Ovenden (unrepentent convicted child abuser) initially given non jail sentence then ONLY got 2 years! - Shocking IMO

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/09/artist-graham-ovenden-two-years-jail

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Tilly-flop on 02.05.14 20:50

SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT

REGINA
 -v-
MAXWELL CLIFFORD


 
SENTENCING REMARKS
 
1.  You have been convicted of eight offences of indecent assault. These offences may have taken place a long time ago when inappropriate and trivial sexual misbehaviour was more likely to be tolerated or overlooked, but your offending is not trivial but of a very serious nature and any perception to the contrary on your part is misconceived.
2.  You were charged with indecent assault under an Act passed in 1956. The maximum sentence for these offences was set at two years imprisonment. By the time that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force, the maximum sentence for sexual assault was increased to 10 years. What is more, some of the sexual acts of which you have now been found guilty would now be charged as rape or assault by penetration for each of which Parliament has laid down a maximum term of life imprisonment.
3.  These are historic offences which took place between 30 and 37 years ago. I judge that the reason why they were not brought to light sooner is because of your own dominant character and your position in the world of entertainment which meant that your victims thought you were untouchable, something I judge that you, too, believed and traded upon. This features in the evidence. By way of example the victim of Count 11 told the jury that, as you were pulling up your trousers after a sexual act and as she was leaving, you said something like “no one is going to believe you” and it was said as if to make her not tell anyone.
4.  In respect of the victim of Counts 3-6, it was because of the trauma she had experienced at your hands and her wish not to cause grief to her parents whose confidence you had gained so as to let you take her out in the evening, that she delayed reporting what you had done. It was only after protracted counselling and the realisation that the police would listen to a complaint against someone so firmly in the public eye that she felt able to come forward. In light of these factors, whilst I shall make some allowance for the age of the offences, I judge that you were largely responsible for the delay in the victims coming forward and ought not to benefit from it.
5.  I am going to set out the facts of these offences in some detail. The victim of Counts 3-6 met you when she was on holiday. She was 15 years old. You told her and her family that she was pretty and that you could help her get
1
 
 
      
    
                 
     
  
               
     
      
          
       
             
                              
promotional work. Back in this country you spoke to her on the telephone pretending to be someone called Terry Miller. You made her repeat dirty words over the telephone which you said Max Clifford would like to hear her say and you got her to come to your office. You began to groom her by telling her that she could be the UK’s version of Jodie Foster which blew her away, and you made her show you her breasts although she did not want to.
6.  Sometime later you went to her home which was not far from your own. You got the trust of her parents who allowed their daughter to come out in the evening with you. They thought their daughter was going to meet people who could help her with her career.
7.  She went out in the car with you perhaps 10 times in all between September 1977 and January 1978. You would park up in different places and would persuade her that what you were doing was essential to establish a basis of trust between you.
8.  On occasions you exposed your erect penis and told her to masturbate you, having shown her what to do. Count 3 reflects one of about 7 occasions on which this happened.
9.  On one occasion you penetrated her with two of your fingers. That offending is reflected in Count 4 and, had this offence taken place after the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force, it would have been charged as an assault by penetration.
10.  On another occasion you degraded her by taking her to buy a revealing wonderbra and then taking her to the home of a friend of yours and telling her to dress in bra and pants and try to seduce the man whilst you watched.
11.  Counts 5 and 6 reflect the first and third occasions on which you told her to perform oral sex on you. You instructed her how to do it and criticised her performance.
12.  On the second time it happened, you told her that, on the last occasion she had given you oral sex, a photographer had taken photographs from a position so close in the bushes that you could see her freckles on the photograph.
13.  She thought her life was over. You told her not to worry because you had lots of connections with the press. If this was your attempt to make her even more subservient to your wishes, it backfired. The next time you met she was in a dreadful state and told you that she was going to kill herself. I do not judge that it was an idle threat. She gave evidence of the bridge she had chosen from which to commit suicide and that she knew it had been used before. She told the court that she could not tell her parents because you had duped them into
2
 
 
    
          
                                   
           
          
       
         
  
                            
                                    
I
letting her go off with you and even provided her with stories to tell her parents about who you had met.
14.  You did not contact her again. Had these offence been committed after the 2003 Act was in force, each would have resulted in a conviction for rape. would have found under the guidelines that this was in category 2 in respect of harm, bearing in mind the psychological harm caused to the victim, her vulnerability and potentially her humiliation, and in category A in respect of culpability having regard to the degree of planning and grooming, and abuse of her parents’ trust in allowing you to take her away in the evening. That would have given me a starting point for a single offence of 10 years. Bearing in mind that there are two such offences and the background of other sexual offending in relation to this victim and taking into account any mitigating circumstances, I doubt that my overall sentence would have been below 8 years.
15.  It was only after she had told her sister what you had done to her that she decided to seek counselling. This started in April 2011 and she attended over 33 meetings to help her with the lasting effects of what you did to her.
16.  She gained the courage to send you the letter which was found by the police in your bedside cabinet when you were arrested and which further supports the effect that your behaviour had on her.
17.  I have read her impact statement and additions to it. I accept that what you did to her at a young age has affected her early relationships with men and has even had an effect on her relationship with her husband. It also affected her relationship with her own parents. She sets out the effect it has had on her wider family.
18.  She speaks of the trauma of the trial process and I accept that, whatever steps the courts take to make the process less stressful for complainants, it is bound to remain a very difficult and distressing period for them. I accept the submissions that Mr Horwell QC has made about how much I should pay regard to what the effect of giving evidence has had on the victim, but you know that, by denying these offences, you have lost any benefit you may otherwise have obtained from a guilty plea.
19.  Not unnaturally, what she looks for is some sort of apology from you or an acknowledgment as to what you have been responsible for. She has been extremely upset by your public denials before trial, the reports of your attitude during trial – laughing and shaking your head in the dock at the accusations made against you. For my part I would add something that since the jury have returned verdicts I have discovered that you appeared behind a reporter outside this court whilst he was making his report of your evidence and during which
3
 
 
         
                   
                           
                     
         
         
         
            
                     
you mimicked his actions in a way that was designed to trivialise these events. I find your behaviour to be quite extraordinary and a further indication that you show no remorse.
20.  Whilst there is a difference in degree between your reaction to what then were allegations of indecent assault and those of a defendant who makes public denials and then pleads guilty, this additional element of trauma caused by your contemptuous attitude is something that I shall take into account in sentence. I can only hope that these proceedings will provide all your victims with some sort of closure.
21.  The jury heard some compelling evidence of other sexual incidents in which you were involved. I disagree with Mr Horwell QC’s submission that on the basis of the two verdicts of not guilty and the failure of the jury to decide on one count I should ignore this behaviour entirely. Those three alleged offences had specific features and complexities in respect of the circumstances in which it was said they had taken place which make the jury’s findings wholly explicable. I do not find in relation to the bad character evidence which they heard any similar difficulties and, so long as I am sure that the events took place, as I am, I can take them into account insofar as the evidence informs me as to the offences for which you are to be sentenced.
22.  Pertinent to count 3-6 is the evidence of what you did to a 12 year old girl whilst she was on holiday in Puerto Cabopino. I am satisfied so that I am sure on the evidence which the jury heard that this amounted to another sexual offence against a young child. Had the offence not taken place abroad and at a time when it was not justiciable here you would have been charged with indecent assault in relation to it.
23.  This girl became a holiday friend of your daughter. Having groomed her by playing a tickling game with her in the swimming pool, you got her parents’ permission to take her to a Jacuzzi in the hotel complex.
24.  Whilst your daughter was absent and you were in the Jacuzzi with the 12 year old you put your hand down her bikini and onto her pubic mound and asked if she was ticklish there. You then got hold of her hand and moved it onto your erect penis and started moving her hand up and down quite slowly. You stopped when your daughter came to the Jacuzzi.
25.  The offences reflected by Counts 3-6 are the most serious and the other matters I can take more shortly. The 20 year old victim of count 8 approached you to assist her with her acting career as a retired gymnast. You used a familiar technique by pretending that she would be considered for a new Charles Bronson film for which she would be perfect.
4
 
 
     
   
                                     
       
      
            
          
         
                                       
26.  You telephoned her between meetings pretending to be Terry Denton. You told her that Max Clifford thought she was really lovely and fancied her and that if she played her cards right she would become very famous.
27.  When she came to your office for the second time you persuaded her that Bronson needed to see photographs of her and you gave her money to go out and buy underwear which would show off her figure. On her return you took pictures and tried to persuade her to put her legs apart for the camera. When she had changed you engineered a telephone conversation between her and either you or someone who was in cahoots with you pretending to be Bronson. She was encouraged to believe that Bronson was interested in her starring in his film. When you reappeared you lunged towards her and tried to kiss her. When she resisted and you pushed her down onto the sofa. She was really frightened and she was just screaming to leave her alone. She had the courage to kick you between the legs.
28.  In her impact statement she identifies how it affected her ability to pursue a career as a stunt double and the distress she was caused by giving evidence. Counsel can only act on instructions and it is therefore you who bears responsibility for the distress caused to her by allegations being made that she had lied in order to obtain notoriety or money.
29.  I accept that the taking of photographs, even if there was film in the camera, is not an aggravating feature of this offence, but it was a ruse to make her compliant with what you then went on to do.
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.
5
 
 
  
  
       
      
                    
                                   
                         
     
     
              
              
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.
34.  In her impact statement she explained how your regular appearances on television over the years has made it difficult for her to forget what had happened and get on with her life. She was upset by the hypocrisy that you showed in portraying yourself as someone who exposes the truth in respect of celebrities when you were living with your own lie. She felt she could not tell anyone what you did because you were so good at manipulating the press. She shows remarkable powers of forgiveness in her concern for the effect of this hearing on your wife and daughter. All she would have wanted from you is an acknowledgement of what you had done.
35.  The victim of Count 11 was 18 or 19 when she went one morning to Xenon nightclub just off Piccadilly for an audition. You happened to be there having a meeting with three other men. As she left the dance area you approached her and asked her if she would be interested in acting which she was. You enticed her by saying that you could get her a screen test for a Bond film. You pretended to telephone Cubby Broccoli and when the person on the other end of the telephone spoke to her she was told that, before she could get a screen test she had to do something else.
36.  He asked her if Max Clifford was circumcised and asked her to look. He had to say it again and you stood beside her smiling. You then led her by the hand to the gentleman’s lavatory and, once inside, locked the door. You put her hand on your erect penis and told her to masturbate you. You pulled down the front of her leotard and pulled at her nipples.
37.  She told the court that she had just had her first relationship and it ruined it. They split up. In her impact statement she explained how her experiences left her unable to attempt to pursue a modelling career and how you had made her feel worthless. Whilst the experience of giving evidence was daunting she has felt so relieved since.
38.  I have already explained why I feel able to take into account as context to the offences which I am to sentence you for the other matters about which the jury heard convincing evidence.
39.  In particular a 19 or 20 year old who was working in fashion, was encouraged by you to think she could get a part in the series Dynasty. She got a call from
6
 
 
     
          
                     
               
              
                         
           
            
                
you pretending to be the producer, Aaron Spelling, and spoke to her about the size of your penis.
40.  When she next saw you in your office you took your penis out and asked her to masturbate you. You ejaculated onto her hand.
41.  You took an 18 year old on as your receptionist. You asked her to masturbate you on two or three occasions and she felt that she had no choice but to comply. You ejaculated into her hand and tissues. You fondled her breasts. You asked her to give you oral sex in exchange for being taken to meet David Bowie.
42.  In 1986 an 18 year old dancer and part time model, having been told by you that she had something quite special for a career in films and mentioning a particular film for which she might be suitable, was persuaded to come to your girlfriend’s flat in Kingston to have photographs taken by Barry Ryan.
43.  She told the court that she now understood that you were grooming her. After the session and when the two of you were on your own you exposed your penis and asked her to touch it to make it get bigger. It freaked her out so she got up and left.
44.  When you met a 16 turning 17 year old interested in getting into modelling, she told you about sexual abuse she had suffered at her father’s hands. You therefore knew she was vulnerable. With her you played an elaborate game making her go over to Fenwicks to receive a call purportedly from a film director but in fact from you. Having asked her to discover what your Achilles Heel was it led to you exposing your penis to her and eventually to you taking her to the lavatory at your office and making her masturbate you until you ejaculated over the toilet.
45.  Later you told her that you had arranged for her to be taken by someone else, who either pretended to be or was a film director interested in her for a part in a film, to his home. This other person put his arm round her and tried to kiss her. She told the court that was the only thing you ever did to further her career.
46.  I turn to your mitigation. You have had a very successful career as a PR consultant, Max Clifford Associates being one of the leaders in the industry.
47.  You are now just 71; you keep yourself fit but I do not ignore your underlying medical problems. You told the jury that, from the 1960’s onwards you have been in a privileged position to assist various charitable causes helping very sick children through “Dreams Come True” and becoming involved with the Royal Marsden and with Children Hospices UK and in particular two
7
 
 
  
  
           
                     
        
           
                         
                                            
         
  
children’s hospices in Surrey. You are the patron of a number of charities across a broad spectrum.
48.  A number of charity workers have spoken highly of your dedicated work to raise funds for the charities and the real concern you showed for patients and staff alike.
49.  Although your charitable work has gone on long after your offending ceased, I cannot ignore that for decades you were leading a double existence. The care which you showed to those in the hospices and to your own daughter was not shown to the 15 year old, the subject of counts 3-6 or, in my judgment to the 12 year old who you abused whilst on holiday.
50.  Whilst at the trial you were able to rely on your good character, on the jury’s verdicts you lost your good character in 1977 when you were aged 34. I accept your counsel’s submission that 29 years have passed since your last offence and these have been years of positive charitable conduct which you have never sought to publicise. I will make allowance for the good that you have done over the years and for the opinions of your friends and colleagues as to your character.
51.  I have also had regard to Mr Horwell QC’s submissions that you bare no responsibility for the result of other Yew Tree investigations and that I should not lose sight of the fact that in considering the use of maximum sentences these were not the gravest offences of their type imaginable. He urges me to make the sentences proportionate and that I should bear in mind that you are no longer a danger to women.
52.  In deciding the appropriate sentences I have taken into account the guidance provided in the authorities I have been shown and the assistance given at p.155 of the latest Definitive Guidelines. I intend to impose consecutive sentences and, in doing so, have had to consider the totality of the sentence I am to pass. As a result some of the individual sentences may be lower than I would have passed if you had not been facing eight separate counts involving four separate victims. On the other hand I have felt it right in respect of counts 3 to 6 to impose consecutive sentences to reflect insofar as I can the sentencing guidelines now applicable.
53.  I have also take into account that there were multiple victims, that your offending extended over a period of 7 years, and that you targeted vulnerable women who you thought would comply because they were desperate to succeed in a career where success can be illusive.
8
 
 
       
              
  
 
          
 
   
   
  
      
 
54.  In respect of costs, I have made a reduction in the figure applied for to reflect the charges of which you were acquitted. You must pay £55,000 towards the prosecution’s costs and you have 28 days to pay.
55.  The offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified and the least possible sentence I can impose having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case which I have set out together with everything that your counsel has said on your behalf is as follows:­
56.  You will go to prison on count 3 for 12 months
57.  On count 4 for 18 months consecutive to the sentence on count 3
58.  On counts 5 and 6 for 24 months on each concurrently but consecutively to counts 3 and 4, making a total in respect of this victim of 4½ years
59.  On count 8 for 6 months consecutive to the other sentences
60.  On count 9 for 6 months and on count 10 for 21 months to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the other sentences.
61.  On count 11 for 15 months, to run consecutively with the other sentences.
62.  Your total sentence is one of 8 years imprisonment
63.  You will serve up to one half of your sentence in custody before you are released on licence; you must abide by the terms of the licence and commit no further offence or you will be liable to be recalled and you will then serve the remainder of the sentence in custody.
64.  The notification requirements apply indefinitely.
9

Tilly-flop

Posts : 37
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Nina on 02.05.14 21:38

Sickening isn't it?
Well tonight he begins his sentence and I hope that every second of that, whether waking or sleeping he will reflect on the horrors he has committed, sadly I don't think that he will.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by diatribe on 02.05.14 21:43

@sallypelt wrote:
Diatribe, what a hypocrite. When I said that my daughter is a law student to make a point, you slated me, now you are doing exactly the same thing to make YOUR point, by stating "My friend does a bit of glamour modelling....".

There is a distinct difference, Sally, you were implying that your daughter being a law student meant that you had knowledge of the law, one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Whereas I was directly quoting my lady friend when I stated that she wouldn't have further dealings with photographers who acted inappropriately towards her whilst she was working.  I wasn't implying that her work entitled me to give an informed opinion on the lingerie business. I did actually make this point to you before, unfortunately it was deleted.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by diatribe on 02.05.14 21:52

@aquila wrote:
@diatribe wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@diatribe wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:




  that is irrelevant...the girls allowing themselves to be coerced due to their ambitions was not a criminal act. Your remark here reminds me of the old attitude shown by the media when innocent women [ as opposed to experienced women or prostitutes ] were sexually assaulted or raped.

But is it irrelevant, Russian, I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but weren't all of the offences that Clifford was convicted of against the same two women and further, were they not offences committed on separate occasions, hence the separate indictments.

My friend does a bit of glamour modelling and she has categorically informed me that if on a shoot, a photographer in any way acted inappropriately towards her, she sure as hell wouldn't go back for seconds.
This case was brought to a court diatribe, there was defence (no doubt very expensive, top lawyers) there was a prosecutor and a jury. The jury found Clifford guilty.

Are you insinuating in some way that a jury is incapable of coming to a decision?

Perhaps you think a jury lacks intellectual capacity?

Perhaps you think a jury ought to have an intelligence test?

Perhaps the defence counsel would agree with you.

Calm down, Aquila, no need for heart attack time, I was not inferring that the jury had arrived at the wrong decision, nor that they were intellectually challenged. I was merely replying to Russian's assertion that just because a female is a wannabe actress/model doesn't necessarily mean that they are fair game for every pervert on the planet to exploit.

I agree that is not the case, I was merely stating that in this instance, as was the case with William Roache, the women can't have objected too strongly to unwarranted attention, otherwise they wouldn't have returned to suffer further indignites, nor would they have waited nearly 30 yrs. to make a complaint.

As for defence counsels requiring juries to undergo intelligence testing prior to casting judgement on their clients, I'd have thought that in most cases, that would be the last thing they'd want.
I'm perfectly calm thank you although I find the comment quite weird as I find the other part of your post I've underlined weird.

I'm afraid I fail to understand why you find the part of my previous posting that you have underlined to be weird, perhaps you'll be gracious enough to explain your reason to me.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by diatribe on 02.05.14 22:40

@aiyoyo wrote:

The other thing is Stuart Hall pleaded guilty which probably went towards his favour when sentencing.

I think the discount rate for a guilty plea is around the 20% mark, Aiyoya, which would take his sentence down to 6 yrs 8 months, still a tad on the high side for indecent assault charges. 

The CPS realise he will probably be their only success and are obliging him to pick up the tab. I suppose it'll be a cold comfort for Max Clifford to know that he's doing his bit for Queen and country on behalf of Jimmy Savile. I'm actually surprised they haven't exhumed his body and propped him up in the no. 1 court of the Old Bailey, although it might be too late to derive their pound of flesh. big grin

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by aquila on 03.05.14 7:47

@diatribe wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@diatribe wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@diatribe wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:




  that is irrelevant...the girls allowing themselves to be coerced due to their ambitions was not a criminal act. Your remark here reminds me of the old attitude shown by the media when innocent women [ as opposed to experienced women or prostitutes ] were sexually assaulted or raped.

But is it irrelevant, Russian, I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but weren't all of the offences that Clifford was convicted of against the same two women and further, were they not offences committed on separate occasions, hence the separate indictments.

My friend does a bit of glamour modelling and she has categorically informed me that if on a shoot, a photographer in any way acted inappropriately towards her, she sure as hell wouldn't go back for seconds.
This case was brought to a court diatribe, there was defence (no doubt very expensive, top lawyers) there was a prosecutor and a jury. The jury found Clifford guilty.

Are you insinuating in some way that a jury is incapable of coming to a decision?

Perhaps you think a jury lacks intellectual capacity?

Perhaps you think a jury ought to have an intelligence test?

Perhaps the defence counsel would agree with you.

Calm down, Aquila, no need for heart attack time, I was not inferring that the jury had arrived at the wrong decision, nor that they were intellectually challenged. I was merely replying to Russian's assertion that just because a female is a wannabe actress/model doesn't necessarily mean that they are fair game for every pervert on the planet to exploit.

I agree that is not the case, I was merely stating that in this instance, as was the case with William Roache, the women can't have objected too strongly to unwarranted attention, otherwise they wouldn't have returned to suffer further indignites, nor would they have waited nearly 30 yrs. to make a complaint.

As for defence counsels requiring juries to undergo intelligence testing prior to casting judgement on their clients, I'd have thought that in most cases, that would be the last thing they'd want.
I'm perfectly calm thank you although I find the comment quite weird as I find the other part of your post I've underlined weird.

I'm afraid I fail to understand why you find the part of my previous posting that you have underlined to be weird, perhaps you'll be gracious enough to explain your reason to me.
the women can't have objected too strongly to unwarranted attention, otherwise they wouldn't have returned to suffer further indignites, nor would they have waited nearly 30 yrs. to make a complaint.

In my opinion this comment shows a complete lack of understanding with regards to sexual abuse and borders on mysogyny.  It's the stuff that defence lawyers rely on. It's the stuff that Max Clifford and most sexual predators, especially those with a high profile/in positions of power rely on.

Ask anyone who's been abused if they would agree with your statement diatribe. Or perhaps you are one of the 'old school' who thinks 'it happened a long time ago, just shut up and get on with your life'.

It's agonising to even admit that you have been sexually abused. It's complex. The impact of sexual abuse isn't just about a victim's relationship with their abuser it's about their relationship with those around them and in some cases their relationship with the abuser too.

I have nothing but admiration for women and men who come forward and are willing to risk being disbelieved, humiliated and relive their agony under the scrutiny of a defence counsel in a public court. I have nothing but admiration for the police and subsequently the CPS who brought Clifford to trial and won.

Diatribe, you seem to suggest that Clifford's sentence is somehow disproportionate to his crimes and possibly he's being made a scapegoat or there is a need to display a triumph of justice in light Savile/Operation Yew Tree  and the CPS. I don't share that view.

I understand the points you are trying to make with regards to the law etc. btw. No doubt Clifford's appeal will be very much based upon your observations.

In the meantime I'm very pleased Clifford is in prison for defiling young women and I hope there will be more successful cases in the future.

ETA: I await to be told to 'calm down' (it was only missing the 'dear').

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Guest on 03.05.14 8:52

Seems more people have had the courage to come forward with allegations since he was sentenced. 

Should imagine there will be lots more who will want to speak up now.

He's never coming out. 


New Clifford Claims Under Police Review

As the shamed publicist starts his eight-year jail term, detectives say more people have come forward with allegations.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Watching on 03.05.14 9:18

Diatribe

Diatribe said:


the women can't have objected too strongly to unwarranted attention, otherwise they wouldn't have returned to suffer further indignites, nor would they have waited nearly 30 yrs. to make a complaint


Aquila said:

In my opinion this comment shows a complete lack of understanding with regards to sexual abuse and borders on mysogyny.  It's the stuff that defence lawyers rely on. It's the stuff that Max Clifford and most sexual predators, especially those with a high profile/in positions of power rely on.

Ask anyone who's been abused if they would agree with your statement diatribe. Or perhaps you are one of the 'old school' who thinks 'it happened a long time ago, just shut up and get on with your life'.

It's agonising to even admit that you have been sexually abused. It's complex. The impact of sexual abuse isn't just about a victim's relationship with their abuser it's about their relationship with those around them and in some cases their relationship with the abuser too.

I have nothing but admiration for women and men who come forward and are willing to risk being disbelieved, humiliated and relive their agony under the scrutiny of a defence counsel in a public court. I have nothing but admiration for the police and subsequently the CPS who brought Clifford to trial and won.

Diatribe, you seem to suggest that Clifford's sentence is somehow disproportionate to his crimes and possibly he's being made a scapegoat or there is a need to display a triumph of justice in light Savile/Operation Yew Tree  and the CPS. I don't share that view.

I understand the points you are trying to make with regards to the law etc. btw. No doubt Clifford's appeal will be very much based upon your observations.

In the meantime I'm very pleased Clifford is in prison for defiling young women and I hope there will be more successful cases in the future.

ETA: I await to be told to 'calm down' (it was only missing the 'dear').
 Aquila

I don't believe Diatribe is condoning in any way the most serious assaults on these young females by the despicable and low life who is Max Clifford - but I am sure there are a lot of us who have also wondered, given thought as to why (some) victims in these 'celeb cases' after a first sexual assault upon them return to the abuser time after time.  It is difficult to understand why they would, when they were not forced to go back, and when they were of an age and in such a position where they were able to stay away.  And whether we like it or not, the young females were seeking fame and fortune, and unfortunately this has to have played a part in their returning. It does not excuse Clifford in any way, far from it, perhaps makes his actions worse as this is what Clifford counted on, knowing the females wanted fame, and relied upon his own celeb status as a way of keeping them silent, telling them no one would believe them. It would seem any female was a target for Clifford, but it is a fact for those who sought fame and fortune, a career in the limelight, that that fact alone made them more vulnerable, easier targets for the abuser Clifford and his type who abused the power they had. 

Then there are the very young female victims, they were truly but children, frightened children, a whole different ball game, making Clifford not only a sex offender but a paedophile a sick batsard - 8 years was not enough - but as UT explained (before sentencing of Clifford) that his sentence would be under a different Act than it would if the crimes had been committed in more recent times.

There are, no doubt, many other victims of Clifford, some who after being abused once didn't return, and some who when they realised what the guy had in store for them, go the hell out.  Which begs the question too, what makes some 'get the hell out' while others keep returning?

It is complex Aquila, I complete agree with you, and I see where you are coming from, but I also see that Diatribe is not condoning Clifford's actions, but trying to understand the actions of the young women, trying to understand what made them return.  It is a fair question to ask, to try and make sense of.  I don't know that I completely understand why they would.

Our children and young adult children must be made aware of the dangers of people like Clifford, those who bring harm to them (without frightening life out of them) but when they do become young adults, it becomes very difficult to protect them when they are making decisions to be with persons who they know will harm them, and have harmed them.

I don't believe any decent person would condone Clifford, his assaults on any of those who had the courage to came forward whether they were of an age in a position to walk away or not.  I believe we have a very long way to go in understanding sex crimes, and whilst the case of Clifford seems a step forward, in having these types punished, a shot across the bow to others like him, sadly there will always be those who are more vulnerable to predators easier to manipulate, and there will also be those who seek fame and fortune, hoping the celeb can bring them this.  When they are then abused by that celeb, it makes it extremely difficult to have the perpetrators successfully prosecuted  when the victim has gone willingly into the lions den and more importantly, gone there knowing what the celeb wanted from them.  And that has to be addressed also. We cannot just ignore that some knew what they were going to be doing when they met up with Clifford.   It makes it so very difficult for the Court to perhaps reach the proper judgement in such cases.  And it is detrimental I would think to those cases which are otherwise, doesn't help victims in general.  It simply serves and assists the perpetrators.

And of course we will also get the the other low lives who will jump on the bandwagon making false claims - they too are detrimental to genuine victims getting justice, it is this that can prevent victims coming forward too, threats by the perpetrators of not being believed, and when victims hear of these false claims being outed, that too can stop innocents coming forward for fear of not being believed.

Sadly it is not clean cut, complex as you say.

Watching

Posts : 289
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Guest on 03.05.14 9:31

Too many posts being quoted!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Guest on 03.05.14 9:37

You beat me to it, Candyfloss!

Please could everyone just post their own comments without copying earlier ones.

It's a bit like some TV programmes which keep recapping certain points!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by diatribe on 03.05.14 15:38

Firstly, I'll clarify my position vis a vis Max Clifford, as previously stated, I have no sympathy for his cause and find him to be an odious character. With regards to Max Clifford's 'Tabloid' sentence of 8 yrs. imp. In my considered opinion, it isn't a matter of whether it was deserved, but more a matter of whether it was justifiable and sustainable. Apparently I am not the only person raising concerns over the disproportionate length of this sentence.

Simon McKay, a criminal human rights lawyer at McKay Law, said he was "very surprised" at the length of the sentence, because it "creates the opportunity for the sentence to be appealed", adding: "And I don't think that's good for the victims."

There may also be appealable grounds against the conviction itself. I appreciate that the 2003 Criminal Justice Act allows for bad character evidence to be admissible in UK criminal trials, but until the jury in this case returned guilty verdicts, Max Clifford was a person of previous good character. Therefore there may 'possibly' be grounds of appeal against the admissibility of some of the evidence. The evidence I am referring to relates to the woman who testified that Clifford had molested her whilst on holiday in Spain when she was 12 yrs. old. Prior to 2003 this evidence would not have been admissible, because he was never even charged with such an offence, let alone convicted, also it bore no direct relation to any of the charges that he was being tried for and didn’t form part of the indictments.. Therefore there ‘may’ be arguable grounds that the prejudicial value of this evidence outweighed the probative value. Without being privy to the trial transcripts,  I am unable to comment on the judge’s summation, although if his remarks during sentencing  are anything to go by, his summation may also be biased in favour of the prosecution.

With regards to the victims, if we are to judge others by today’s 'Politically Correct' draconian standards, then where does it end, for instance, are we to see just about every movie producer and director of the major part of the 20th century posthumously tried for adopting the casting couch gambit when deciding which actor or actress got the role. Undoubtably, Max Clifford’s victims were fully aware at the time that they were in a quid pro quo situation whereby he would supposedly help them in their aspiring careers and they in turn would provide him with sexual favours.  

Then we have to address the matter of why these women did not make complaints  of  sexual abuse at the time, some of which occurred 37 yrs. ago,  Thirty seven yrs. the world has changed beyond recognition since then. They state that they were too traumatised and didn’t think they would be believed due to Max Clifford’s stature and influence. However, in 1977, the aforementioned would have carried little influence and merely been an insignificant, unknown con artist in the publicity business with  spartan financial resources at his disposal. Not unnaturally perhaps, there would be a school of thought which would subscribe to the hypothesis that the reason these women didn’t complain at the time was because they weren’t particularly bothered about what transpired between themselves and Max Clifford, but perhaps most poignantly, there would have been no financial gain in doing so.

So, what’s changed that has enabled these women to overcome their traumatised conditions and finally find the courage to make allegations of a sexual nature against Max Clifford, Have they found inspiration from their religious beliefs, have they become devout feminists etc.etc. or is it simply a matter of claiming financial reward from a rich man in this era of a compensation culture. ‘All we ever wanted was an apology,’ ‘he ruined our careers and lives,’’ we can’t experience normal relationships,’ the pitiful cries reverberate across the stage,  but appearing through the haze of misty eyes and shattered lives we begin to hear the word compensation being echoed at an ever higher pitch  Abracadabra, from being shy, retiring women requiring counselling to give evidence, they are beginning to parade themselves like strutting peacocks across the  tabloid catwalks. Whatever happened to those traumatised women whose lives were forever ruined by those horrendous sexual encounters with that Big bad, predatory ogre, Max Clifford.

 

Cathy come home. 


Cathy Johnson, aged 20, pictured in 1982. She has partially waived her anonymity to speak out about the abuse.

Partially waived her anonymity, yor 'avving a laff, aincha!

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Guest on 03.05.14 16:06

I don't believe that any male can understand or empathise with a young woman's experience of being sexually violated by a male who she has trusted.  I'm not stating this to be argumentative or deny anyone the right to express their opinion on these issues.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by diatribe on 03.05.14 16:09

Ladyinred wrote:I don't believe that any male can understand or empathise with a young woman's experience of being sexually violated by a male who she has trusted.  I'm not stating this to be argumentative or deny anyone the right to express their opinion on these issues.

That's a very astute and fair comment, Ladyinred.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by PeterMac on 03.05.14 18:32

I think some men might argue that to be violated by another man, against their will, was potentially worse.
Or at least the same.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by Guest on 03.05.14 19:04

II agree. Being violated doesn't make a difference between sexes. It's violation, period.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by aquila on 03.05.14 19:04

@PeterMac wrote:I think some men might argue that to be violated by another man, against their will, was potentially worse.
Or at least the same.
I think some women will argue that they fully understand the trauma of both male and female victims of sexual abuse - that's because we're women and on the whole (I'm waiting to be battered for this comment) we don't commit sexual crimes and we give birth to children of both sexes.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by PeterMac on 03.05.14 20:38

Châtelaine wrote:II agree. Being violated doesn't make a difference between sexes. It's violation, period.

It is.
And I don't think we necessarily want to explore this much further, but for a man this will also involve deep issues of his 'sexuality' as well as the trauma of the violation itself.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by diatribe on 03.05.14 22:55

Well folks, I guess its onto the next venue on Tuesday and whether or not you agree with dear ole Max's sentence being disproportionate, its sure as hell going to have caused some palpitations with Rolf's didgerydoo. big grin

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by rainbow-fairy on 04.05.14 2:11

@diatribe wrote:
SNIPPED...
"So, what’s changed that has enabled these women to overcome their traumatised conditions and finally find the courage to make allegations of a sexual nature against Max Clifford, Have they found inspiration from their religious beliefs, have they become devout feminists etc.etc. or is it simply a matter of claiming financial reward from a rich man in this era of a compensation culture."

Seeing as this is something you have mentioned several times, and seem to puzzle over, I'll try to help.

Women hopefully get stronger. When it is something they have 'dealt with'. It is nothing to do with religious belief, or becoming a devout feminist. I sincerely doubt financial reward either.
Truly, it is not uncommon for disclosures to take this long, or to never be disclosed.

Yes, I know from experience.
19 years ago something happened to me that (referring to your previous comment) I strongly objected to. Yet at the time I did not tell anyone.
Why?
Let's just say what happened was horrible enough. The very thought of re-living it out loud (I was re-living it in my head every day) was enough to break me.
It came out eventually when my sister found a poem I had written about it, the only way I could deal with it.
When I did finally tell a couple of other people, one said they had heard similar from a couple of other girls (who also hadn't officially reported it). One person berated me for not reporting it because 'if he did it again, it would be your fault'.
Even now, it is ridiculously hard to get a conviction for rape or assault, years ago even more so. Yes I would go as far as saying that the reporting and court case, if it came to that, would be like being raped again with the inevitable Defence questions of "Were you dressed provocatively?" "Were you asking for it?"Etc etc.

I will never condemn anyone for waiting nor wonder why it has taken them so long.

19 years on I am only now considering reporting what happened as I could deal with the fallout, where it to come to that. I no longer have to fight every day not to think of it. It will never go away, but I am in a better place.

I hope that helps you to understand why reports may not be immediate or even close to immediate.


____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Update: Max Clifford convicted and sentenced to 8 years: 2nd May 2014

Post by aiyoyo on 04.05.14 3:13

Had the victims tried to get their greviances addressed by the law earlier very likely they would have hit brick wall given the denial mentality of the institutions/authorities, the public idolisation and media fawning of the celebrities and influential, and the general belief those kinds are incapable of predator behavior, combined with abusers confidently knowing they're untouchable because victims stand no chance of being believed.

In today's climate with the knowledge coming to light that sexual aggressions against girls and women were rampant among celebrities rich and infamous using their fame to lure, trick and groom their victims, or access victims on the back of their charities works,  it is only proper that sexual predators are exposed and tried for their crimes.  Historic crimes they may be but time should not be an impeding factor to the victims to seek justice.

What I  fail to understand is why MC's victim blow her identity to talk to the Papers (paid presumably) after she's got her justice ?
She'd remained anonymous for decades and as victim her right not to be named as provided by the law was observed during the trial so you'd think she would want to retain dignity by continuing to safeguard her identity and just move on with her life.  Instead post justice she didn't mind her friends, neighbours and work colleagues,  the whole nation in fact,  knowing / learning respectively of her identity.

 How weird is that ? I just don't get it  !
She isn't going to get the apology she sought just because she reveals herself - not as simple as that.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 13 of 15 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum