Max Clifford.

[Big J R]

I have just finished reading the prosecution opening statements at this latest 'celebrity' trial and seen a line up of the people listed to give evidence and a synopsis of their testimony.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574631/PR-guru-Max-Clifford-used-celebrity-contacts-bully-naive-young-girls-sex-used-office-sexual-fiefdom.html

 

Me-thinks this one is going to be quite interesting.

 

Comments, anyone ????

Edited March 7, 2014 by Big J R

[Rhodes]

Me-thinks this one is going to be quite interesting.

Yes, very much so

[Eastside Urchin]

Problem is, he is so hated it's going to be hard for the prosecutors to prove who is actually genuine,not many at all is my guess.

[Rhodes]

I see that Clifford took the stand yesterday and admitted cheating on his first wife and said that he 'enjoyed plenty of slap and tickle in the the 1960's and 1970's', the trial at Southwark Crown Court continues so watch this space for news, it could go either way couldn't it.

[Big J R]

I think the most damning evidence is yet to come.

 

Cliffords evidence seemed to me to be a plea to the jury that what went on in the 'good old days'  was perfectly OK  !!

[missunderstood]

I think the most damning evidence is yet to come.

 

Cliffords evidence seemed to me to be a plea to the jury that what went on in the 'good old days'  was perfectly OK  !!

The problem the jury, and Max Clifford has is that what WAS acceptable in the "good old days" was acceptable. My own opinion is that memories of what occurred 40 or 50 years ago can be unreliable, and although the victims deserve justice, they should have reported their concerns at the time, if for no other reason than to protect vulnerable woman from suffering the same fate.

[Big J R]

It is strange that most of these present 'celebrity' sex case juries are returning Not Guilty verdict, probably quite correctly.

 

I have a feeling the Clifford trial might be different.

 

Still  -  Innocent until proved guilty !

[cup of tea]

The problem the jury, and Max Clifford has is that what WAS acceptable in the "good old days" was acceptable. My own opinion is that memories of what occurred 40 or 50 years ago can be unreliable, and although the victims deserve justice, they should have reported their concerns at the time, if for no other reason than to protect vulnerable woman from suffering the same fate.

 

But that's easier said than done Alan when no-one seems to want to listen to you or hear the truth and you get accused of being a troublemaker which is what happened with some of Jimmy Saville's victims when they came forward. Having said that, Max Clifford deserves a fair trial.

[RegF]

This is very interesting from afar as I get no direct updates as Max Clifford (as far as I know) has never represented (I use that term very loosely!) any Aussie Rules Footballers so we have no media coverage here.

 

That aside the "accepted" actions in the "good old days" are still unacceptable now and should of been back then.

 

God only knows (no pun intended) had we continued to allow all the kiddie fiddlers in the Catholic church (and all the others too) to not be prosecuted and finally outed where would we be?

 

I would like to think that justice gets a fair trial but not sure if that will actually happen?

[Eastside Urchin]

The bloke has made a fortune stitching people up,to be honest I haven't really kept an eye on the ins and outs of the case so there may be some evidence I've missed but I get the impression that he may be getting stitched up himself

[RegF]

...good point and maybe the old saying, "what goes around, comes around" applies to Mr Clifford?....

[Eastside Urchin]

Yes it probably does but two wrongs don't neccesarily make a right.

Most of the people he has dug the dirt on and made a living from over the years have invariably done something wrong,if he has fine something ,then he deserves all he gets but if he hasn't,as much as I loathe the man,it's not right that he should go through this if innocent

[Rhodes]

but I get the impression that he may be getting stitched up himself

Yes, like the likes of Rolf Harris, Ken Barlow, DLT and Jim Davidson

[Big J R]

Now it could be prison time then  !!

 

Friday's the big day for sentencing !!!!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600

[Big J R]

Anyone care to have a guess as to what the sentence will be on Friday ??

 

I bet he'll appeal against sentence, whatever it is !!

Edited April 30, 2014 by Big J R

[Loose]

I read that because of the age of the crimes and the decades they were committed in that the most he could get for any one case was 2 years. The suggestion being that they would run concurrently so we should be able to do the maths....

[Rhodes]

I thought you might have an opinion. Don't you think it's perhaps a little unfair to be unceremoniously convicted now for a bit of slap and tickle in the promiscuous 1960's and 1970's, it was a different World back then wasn't it and so many lives are being ruined now as a result such as Clifford, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Ken Barlow and DLT for example.

[Loose]

I thought you might have an opinion. Don't you think it's perhaps a little unfair to be unceremoniously convicted now for a bit of slap and tickle in the promiscuous 1960's and 1970's, it was a different World back then wasn't it and so many lives are being ruined now as a result such as Clifford, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Ken Barlow and DLT for example.

You know Rhodesly, if ever anyone thinks to themselves "I wonder what to make of that Rhodesly? Is he a decent bloke?" could do worse than take the above on board and conclude what an utter c unt you are.

 

Case rested.

[Rhodes]

Loosely - I'm not defending the likes of Clifford and Stuart Hall for what they did, all I'm pointing out is that their crimes were carried out a long time ago. I'm sure you have a skeleton or two in your cupboard from the promiscuous 60's and 70's don't you but haven't been arrested because you're a nobody, ie. not famous.

[Loose]

Loosely - I'm not defending the likes of Clifford and Stuart Hall for what they did, all I'm pointing out is that their crimes were carried out a long time ago. I'm sure you have a skeleton or two in your cupboard from the promiscuous 60's and 70's don't you but haven't been arrested because you're a nobody, ie. not famous.

Don't be so ridiculous Rhodesly.

 

What is unfortunate about a complete tw@t such as yourself is that you judge others by your own pathetic standards and excuse others by the same.

 

Personally I was a wide eyed teenager by the end of the 70s and wouldn't have dreamt of abusing anyone. Obviously we can't say the same of your grimy dreams and aspirations.