Leather man Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 It would seem so, considering some of these women had sold full page stories in the major tabloids within 24 hours of his conviction. Yeah, that sticks in my throat a bit that but hey, if some seedy publication wants that kind of thing on their pages then thats up to them i suppose. No, what gets me is Clifford didnt make his money from his crimes. His crimes were committed because he was wealthy and powerful. So yeah, lock him up and throw the key away for all i care but why should his family suffer? Why should his kids inheritance be touched? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coutts Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 No, what gets me is Clifford didnt make his money from his crimes. His crimes were committed because he was wealthy and powerful. So yeah, lock him up and throw the key away for all i care but why should his family suffer? Why should his kids inheritance be touched? I honestly don't know enough about it, just the little I've read in the newspapers. Like spike said, the jury heard all the evidence. I didn't. But, if you're going to convict someone of being a child abuser on the basis that they promised young women acting roles in blockbuster movies in exchange for sexual favours which then didn't materialise after the consented act, you better go and arrest most of Hollywood and their studio owners since the invention of the motion picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Yeah, that sticks in my throat a bit that but hey, if some seedy publication wants that kind of thing on their pages then thats up to them i suppose. No, what gets me is Clifford didnt make his money from his crimes. His crimes were committed because he was wealthy and powerful. So yeah, lock him up and throw the key away for all i care but why should his family suffer? Why should his kids inheritance be touched? What a load of blithering tosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 a dick drove into the back of me on october, I tore a muscle in my neck and may have problems with it for the rest of my life - I'm suing him and will relish every penny I can wrest from his insurance company - it's not even the cash that matters (though it will be nice) it's the sense of justice that matters. Sex offence victims - same applies - I'm guessing he has already moved his £s (like stuart hall did pre trial), but I hope the women he attacked strip him and his family bare, every last penny. So you agree with the concept of "sippenhaft" or kin liability? Some pretty disgusting regimes have used this system. If your family member commits a crime do you think you should be punished? Aren't most of his crimes to do with promising girls breaks in the industry for sexual favours? I have no sympathy for girls who are duped in this manner. However, there should be a prison sentence for the 15 year old victim alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leather man Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 What a load of blithering tosh. A sterling contribution. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 So you agree with the concept of "sippenhaft" or kin liability? Some pretty disgusting regimes have used this system. If your family member commits a crime do you think you should be punished? Aren't most of his crimes to do with promising girls breaks in the industry for sexual favours? I have no sympathy for girls who are duped in this manner. However, there should be a prison sentence for the 15 year old victim alone. Eh?? - no I don't agree with (whatever you said) - I think wronged people have the right to get compensation & the likes of stuart hall (another conviction today - more to come it seems) and Clifford should not be able to ferret their money away in relatives names to avoid paying their dues to their victims - if Clifford's family are a bit less rich, then that's OK - I'd google sippenhaft, but can't be bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 I honestly don't know enough about it, just the little I've read in the newspapers. Like spike said, the jury heard all the evidence. I didn't. But, if you're going to convict someone of being a child abuser on the basis that they promised young women acting roles in blockbuster movies in exchange for sexual favours which then didn't materialise after the consented act, you better go and arrest most of Hollywood and their studio owners since the invention of the motion picture. You've hit the nail on the head there. Max Clifford may be a particularly unpleasant person but he seems to have been given a particularly harsh sentence. There has always been that casting couch thing about the entertainment industry and there will always be naive young girls who think performing a sex act on an influential person will get them a part in a movie, a record deal or a modelling contract. It would take a great deal of willpower for any red blooded male to resist such advances. At the end of the day his so-called victims did voluntarily go to his office, get into his car or share a toilet cubicle with him so to suddenly decide 30 years later that they've been abused is a bit unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 You've hit the nail on the head there. Max Clifford may be a particularly unpleasant person but he seems to have been given a particularly harsh sentence. There has always been that casting couch thing about the entertainment industry and there will always be naive young girls who think performing a sex act on an influential person will get them a part in a movie, a record deal or a modelling contract. It would take a great deal of willpower for any red blooded male to resist such advances. At the end of the day his so-called victims did voluntarily go to his office, get into his car or share a toilet cubicle with him so to suddenly decide 30 years later that they've been abused is a bit unbelievable. Your power of philosophical reasoning is breathless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 There should be a minimum tariff for people that mess about with kids, give them all a 15 stretch as standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 oh goody, hopefully they can extend his stay at her majesties pleasure with this new case. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33386914 Former celebrity publicist Max Clifford has been charged with an indecent assault allegedly committed in 1981, the Crown Prosecution Service has said. Mr Clifford, 71, was arrested on 12 March at Littlehey Prison, in Cambridgeshire, where he is serving a sentence for sex-related offences. He was arrested as part of Operation Yewtree, the Met Police investigation into sexual abuse allegations. Mr Clifford will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 21 July. Baljit Ubhey, chief crown prosecutor for CPS London, said: "We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Clifford to be charged with one offence of indecent assault." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts