# Convicted paedophile Max Clifford dead



## trashpony (Apr 26, 2013)

With sexual offences. 

Blimey the Savile enquiry really has lifted the lid on a whole host of disgusting blokes


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 26, 2013)

happy days


----------



## tony.c (Apr 26, 2013)

11 counts.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 26, 2013)

The big red dog? He always seemed so wholesome and such a good friend to Emily. 

[This was much funnier before a mod added "Max" to the title, and I am confused that it is still attracting likes.]


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 26, 2013)

who we he call


----------



## UhOhSeven (Apr 26, 2013)

One offence of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 14, in 1966
One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1974/75
Three offences of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1977/78
One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 19, in 1978
Two offences of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 16 or 17, in 1981/82
One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 19, in 1980/81
Two offences of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1984/85
Blimey, bit of a hydra-headed charge sheet there.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 26, 2013)

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


----------



## Firky (Apr 26, 2013)

Hope his arsehole gets ripped to shreds in jail.


----------



## Favelado (Apr 26, 2013)

Oh my. some cliché about karma or something. amazing!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 26, 2013)

Firky said:


> Hope his arsehole gets ripped to shreds in jail.


 
That's quite an unpleasant suggestion. Deprivation of liberty for an appropriate amount of time would be adequate.


----------



## laptop (Apr 26, 2013)

Shortest ever BBC news story:



> 26 April 2013 Last updated at 18:28
> 
> *Max Clifford charged with 11 indecent assaults*
> 
> ...


 
That's it, in its entirety, at this time.

Do I hear frantic typing?

Surely they'd have a pre-prepared page for every man who was on the telly in the 70s, 80s or 90s?


----------



## tony.c (Apr 26, 2013)

B0B2oo9 said:


> who we he call


Gaol Busters?


----------



## Maggot (Apr 26, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> The big red dog? He always seemed so wholesome and such a good friend to Emily.


No, the dragon from the Listerine ads.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2013)

laptop said:


> Shortest ever BBC news story:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what happened is i hit 'publish' by mistake


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 26, 2013)

Maggot said:


> No, the dragon from the Listerine ads.


 
Oh, him. No surprise at all, then.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2013)

UhOhSeven said:


> One offence of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 14, in 1966
> One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1974/75
> Three offences of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1977/78
> One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 19, in 1978
> ...


 
That's what he wants you to think.  You should see what he _really_ did.


----------



## newharper (Apr 26, 2013)

Will he go down publishing?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 26, 2013)

UhOhSeven said:


> One offence of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 14, in 1966
> One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1974/75
> Three offences of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1977/78
> One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 19, in 1978
> ...


nice chap it seems. christ


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> nice chap it seems. christ


and like christ let's hope he gets crucified


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 26, 2013)

that's the end of his grotty little empire. excellent.


----------



## Poot (Apr 26, 2013)

All publicity is not good publicity as it turns out.


----------



## Gerry1time (Apr 26, 2013)

I thought they only nicked him so they could search his computer for all the incriminating info it held on his clients. Seems I was wrong.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 26, 2013)

Hasn't he got dirt on all his friends in high places? Surely they're going to have to keep him quiet.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 26, 2013)

Wonder who he'll get to tout the story around the tabloids?


----------



## shifting gears (Apr 26, 2013)

Spin your way out of that one you dirty great bastard


----------



## Cid (Apr 26, 2013)

His legal team looks pretty strong...


----------



## UrbaneFox (Apr 26, 2013)

But he's got a disabled child...


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 26, 2013)

I started a stupid bin-bound thread in 2009 and plucked his name off the top of my head based on slightly unsavoury characters that give you the creeps but whom you can't pin anything on. Turns out my unconscious nonceometer is uncannily accurate.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 26, 2013)

there's got to be some jail time there.  and if he's going to jail, imma gonna get myself sent there and make his life fucking misery.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 26, 2013)

He lives near me, a couple of weeks ago I was nipping our for some vino and saw a Roller parked up outside the nice Italian restaurant with the numberplate 100MAX. SUre enough inside was the grey headed cunt. Place was pretty packed, really was so tempted to stick me head through the door and yell out "Good luck with the rape case Max!"

But I know the owner an didn't want to upset him, so I left it. Do still regret not doing it though.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 26, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> there's got to be some jail time there. and if he's going to jail, imma gonna get myself sent there and make his life fucking misery.


 
Wouldn't it be more sensible to train up as a creative writing workshop facilitator, apply for a job in whatever nick he gets sent to, and then mark his stories down for being trite and unimaginative? A criminal record severely limits one's prospects.


----------



## DRINK? (Apr 26, 2013)

Lets see him smarm his way out if this the sleazy cunt


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 26, 2013)

Wolveryeti said:


> I started a stupid bin-bound thread in 2009 and plucked his name off the top of my head based on slightly unsavoury characters that give you the creeps but whom you can't pin anything on. Turns out my unconscious nonceometer is uncannily accurate.


 
i was saying that about jimmy saville when i was so young i didnt even know what a nonce was . Just a bad man i wouldnt accept a sweet from , knew just by looking . The cut of someones jib is usually enough for suspicion .
All these fuckers always on telly and entertainment and in the showbiz world with no discernible talent..the question needs to be asked why .


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 26, 2013)

I'm starting to realise how lucky I am to grow up in the seventies and not get nonced by any of these twats. Thank christ I never wrote in to Jim'll fuck it.


----------



## DRINK? (Apr 26, 2013)

Double post derrr


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 26, 2013)

Oh fucking yes. When the news is relentlessly bad, it's a nice Friday evening present to find Mr Comeuppance come knocking at the door of someone overdue for a kicking... Cheers! *clink glass*


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 26, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> I'm starting to realise how lucky I am to grow up in the seventies and not get nonced by any of these twats. Thank christ I never wrote in to Jim'll fuck it.


 
i was talking about this before . As a kid i must have phoned noel edmonds multi coloured swap shop a million times . Not once did i ever write to Jimmll fixit . I *knew* he was wrong just from the look of him.


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 26, 2013)




----------



## Firky (Apr 26, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> That's quite an unpleasant suggestion. Deprivation of liberty for an appropriate amount of time would be adequate.


 
I know it was, that was the point of saying it.


----------



## DRINK? (Apr 26, 2013)

No doubt he'll get out his little black book of nonces, (politicians, judges, coppers, journos ) to weasel his way out of this one


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 26, 2013)

10 years if found guilty.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/23/pressandpublishing.observermagazine


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 27, 2013)

He'll get off  - the best legal team money can buy along with 25+ years ago for the allegations. He's already all over the media with the poor me schtick.


----------



## tony.c (Apr 27, 2013)

And if he gets sent down, or if he doesn't, he'll sell his story for millions.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 27, 2013)

If all the current Yewtree guys go down there is going to be one hell of a Celebrity Big Brother wing in some prison. If this happens the authorities should hook up 24/7 cameras and let us pay per view them with the proceeds going to victims of sexual abuse.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 28, 2013)

Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke, I'm so happy for him.


----------



## spliff (Apr 28, 2013)

UhOhSeven said:


> One offence of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 14, in 1966
> One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1974/75
> Three offences of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1977/78
> One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 19, in 1978
> ...


I dread to think what my history would pull up if analysed.
In the 70's during my squat days I didn't ask age, or even name. 

I see he's spreading the load with a bit more PR blurgh!


> Mr Clifford said he felt sorry for comics Freddie Starr, 70, and Jim Davidson, 59, and DJ Dave Lee Travis, 67 — who all deny any wrongdoing.
> He added: “I’ve known them for 30, 40 years. I know they are not that type either. We’re all in the same boat so you naturally sympathise with each other.”


----------



## RedDragon (Apr 28, 2013)

I wish the media would quit giving airtime to his pleas of innocents/discrediting victims/'it's all from years ago' shit and leave it to the courts to decided.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 28, 2013)

spliff said:


> I dread to think what my history would pull up if analysed.
> In the 70's during my squat days I didn't ask age, or even name.



So in your 'squat days', you regularly sexually assaulted women? Why?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

trashpony said:


> So in your 'squat days', you regularly sexually assaulted women? Why?


 
Whoa there.

I'm sure he can answer for himself but, setting aside the rather dodgy nature of his claims (and assuming that the partners involved were actually of age), I don't see evidence of previous sexual assault. If what he claims is true, on the face of it those were sexual encounters based upon mutual consent.
I think that's the difference with the accusations made against Clifford.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Whoa there.
> 
> I'm sure he can answer for himself but, setting aside the rather dodgy nature of his claims, I don't see evidence of previous sexual assault. If what he claims is true, on the face of it those were sexual encounters based upon mutual consent.
> I think that's the difference with the accusations made against Clifford.


 
Why's he mentioning it then? I don't get it. What have sexual encounters based on mutual consent got to do with indecent assault?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Why's he mentioning it then? I don't get it. What have sexual encounters based on mutual consent got to do with indecent assault?


 
I didn't say that I thought his post had any merit, it's just that to call the bragging sexual assult seemed inappropriate.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> If what he claims is true, on the face of it those were sexual encounters based upon mutual consent.


 
Consent is not legally possible under the age of consent. He mentioned not asking about age, so presumably has entertained the possibility some of his encounters may have not been consensual.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Consent is not legally possible under the age of consent. He mentioned not asking about age, so presumably has entertained the possibility some of his encounters may have not been consensual.


 True, if true.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 28, 2013)

Sorry he was 20 in 66 not much excuse.
 In the 80s he was in his 40s and sleeping  with teenagers your effectivly a sleezeball.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 28, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Consent is not legally possible under the age of consent. He mentioned not asking about age, so presumably has entertained the possibility some of his encounters may have not been consensual.


 
That's not quite strictly true.  Concession in law is recognised when someone is near the age of consent i.e. if a 15 year old girl has sex with her 16 year old boyfriend and she has consented and wants to, he is not going to be punished.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Sorry he was 20 in 66 not much excuse.
> In the 80s he was in his 40s and sleeping with teenagers your effectivly a sleezeball.


 
I'm not attempting any defence of the loathsome clifford, but that does appear, on the face of it, to be a very reactionary view. There are many people in happy relationaships with a considerable age difference. That's not, in itself, neceassily sleazy.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm not attempting any defence of the loathsome clifford, but that does appear, on the face of it, to be a very reactionary view. There are many people in happy relationaships with a considerable age difference. That's not, in itself, neceassily sleazy.


I think it's pretty sleazy to be having sex with 16 and 17 year olds when you're in your 40s.

But that's not what this is about. Indecent assault is 'unwanted sexual behaviour or touching which is forced upon people against their will'. Not having consensual sex.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 28, 2013)




----------



## pissflaps (Apr 28, 2013)

spliff said:


> I dread to think what my history would pull up if analysed.
> In the 70's during my squat days I didn't ask age, or even name.


----------



## Voley (Apr 28, 2013)

phildwyer said:


>



Is that from his 'Vile Pervert' opus?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 28, 2013)

NVP said:


> Is that from his 'Vile Pervert' opus?


 
Yes.

I have to say, I think the guy puts up a pretty stout defence there. 

Maybe more will come out about Clifford and his methods now.


----------



## coley (Apr 28, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> That's not quite strictly true.  Concession in law is recognised when someone is near the age of consent i.e. if a 15 year old girl has sex with her 16 year old boyfriend and she has consented and wants to, he is not going to be punished.


What about a 14 year old girl with a boyfriend in his late teens or early twenties? Where do you draw the line?


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 28, 2013)

coley said:


> What about a 14 year old girl with a boyfriend in his late teens or early twenties? Where do you draw the line?


Legal in most countries, isn't it?


----------



## laptop (Apr 28, 2013)

coley said:


> What about a 14 year old girl with a boyfriend in his late teens or early twenties? Where do you draw the line?


 
At the discretion of the police, the prosecutor and the court.

Would depend, ideally, on the nature of the relationship - and, crucially, who made the complaint.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2013)

laptop said:


> At* the discretion of the police, the prosecutor and the court.*


 
in the court of public opinion though, cradle snatcher


----------



## laptop (Apr 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> in the court of public opinion though, cradle snatcher


 
Oh aye. That's where the discretion comes in - "mere" cradle-snatcher, someone the parents don't like because of politics or something, OR manipulative sociopath or worse?

E2A: 'course, the bigger (a) the calendar age gap and (b) the behavioural age gap, the stronger the presumption for prosecuting.

Add in prejudices by the aforementioned police, prosecutor and court clouding the issue of discretion... and you have a good old British mess. But any attempt to write strict rules would (he said, Britishly) be worse...


----------



## existentialist (Apr 28, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Why's he mentioning it then? I don't get it. What have sexual encounters based on mutual consent got to do with indecent assault?


TBF, it doesn't have to be about "sexual assault". Back in my teens and early 20s, there wasn't quite the same consciousness of age as there is now - times have changed - and it'd be quite probable that people around at that time may well have been sexually involved with someone who turned out to be underage. There really is only so far you can go in trying to make sure that someone really is 16 or over, and if the other party's still young enough (say under 20) to be a little blasé about such things, there is potential for uncomfortable recollections...


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> There are many people in happy relationships with a considerable age difference. That's not, in itself, neceassily sleazy.


 
Quite true, but the key phrase is "in happy relationships". I might be assuming too much but I doubt these guys now in trouble for sexual assaults committed back in the day were "in happy relationships" with the people now complaining. I expect they just exploited their positions of relative fame and power to get a blowjob at the office or in a toilet or the back of a car.

But I could be totally wrong about this.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2013)

mojo pixy said:


> Quite true, but the key phrase is "in happy relationships". I might be assuming too much but I doubt these guys now in trouble for sexual assaults committed back in the day were "in happy relationships" with the people now complaining. I expect they just exploited their positions of relative fame and power to get a blowjob at the office or in a toilet or the back of a car.
> 
> But I could be totally wrong about this.


 
Agreed. I was merely observing that, of itself alone, age differential does not necessairly imply power differential and therefore abuse. The position of those investigated by Yewtree was clearly not just founded on age differential.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 28, 2013)

This whole story is actually making me happier than I think it should, especially since I found out Jim Davidson is also being named and shamed. I'm worried I might be turning into a total cunt.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 28, 2013)

Blimey new names are being brought to the pot http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-police-ageing-comedy-1857806 and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...le-police-historic-allegations-sex-abuse.html


----------



## youngian (Apr 28, 2013)

Interested to know why no police force was able to nail Saville in four decades but is now capable of so many fast track multiple arrests.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2014)

Oh dear 



> Max Clifford penis size evidence sees trial jury sent out for laughing
> 
> The jury in the trial of Max Clifford had to be sent out for laughing this afternoon as an alleged victim gave graphic evidence in relation to the man’s penis size.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Mar 20, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh dear


 The whole defence rests on the difference between small and far away.


----------



## elbows (Mar 20, 2014)

The prior stuff relating to this dimension of the case:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/14/max-clifford-model-penis-court



> Giving witness evidence at Southwark crown court in London, she said that at the first interview he exposed himself and held his penis in his hand before criticising its size, describing it as "useless" and asking: "How can I satisfy a woman with this?"
> 
> He did the same at a second interview, she said.
> 
> He twice promised the film's Italian director or producer would call her but she told the court when a man with an Italian accent called her he talked about Clifford's penis, criticising its size, and invited her to join in with the abuse. She declined to do so, she said.



http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/17/max-clifford-indecent-assault-kiss-woman



> He said he would get the director of Dynasty, Aaron Spelling, to ring her about it, and later she had a call from someone speaking in a camp American accent who identified himself as Spelling. The caller told her he was sure that Clifford fancied him, but Clifford had a hang-up about the size of his penis and that was why Clifford would not have a relationship with him.



Whenever this comes up, the defence barrister says that Cliffords penis is average size and tries to use this to discredit the witnesses testimony. Does this mean that to do their job properly, the jury need actual evidence as to the size of his penis?


----------



## Dan U (Mar 20, 2014)

The total cock defence. 

Shouldn't joke about it really as it's serious allegations but how fucking bizarre


----------



## elbows (Mar 20, 2014)

Dan U said:


> how fucking bizarre



Its got a lot of armchair psychology potential but a detailed discussion here about that will have to wait till either the outcome of the trial, or his death, depending on the outcome.


----------



## ffsear (Apr 28, 2014)

GUILTY!


----------



## ffsear (Apr 28, 2014)

http://news.sky.com/story/1250859/max-clifford-found-guilty-of-sex-charges


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 28, 2014)

Publicist Max Clifford has been found guilty of eight indecent assaults on women and girls as young as 15 by a jury at Southwark Crown Court. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 28, 2014)

dirty ole bastard, so does this mean he is going to do time ?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 28, 2014)

elbows said:


> Its got a lot of armchair psychology potential but a detailed discussion here about that will have to wait till either the outcome of the trial, or his death, depending on the outcome.



Away we go then....


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 28, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> dirty ole bastard, so does this mean he is going to do time ?



Without a doubt I would have thought.  The assault on the 15 year old would have been bad enough on its own but put it altogether and you have a serial predator.  Jail time for sure I reckon.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 28, 2014)

one would hope they might make an example of him , the kingmaker falls


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 28, 2014)

I'd rather it didnt happen, obviously - but since it has .... it couldn't happen to a bigger twat.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 28, 2014)

He will, of course, immediately appeal.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 28, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> I'd rather it didnt happen, obviously - but since it has .... it couldn't happen to a bigger twat.


 

I was thinking the same thing but couldnt quite word it properly


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 28, 2014)

Quartz said:


> He will, of course, immediately appeal.



No doubt.

I don't know the detail of the case but given a lot of these post Saville celebs seem to be getting not guilty verdicts I'm quite surprised to see him get convicted.


----------



## machine cat (Apr 28, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> dirty ole bastard, so does this mean he is going to do time ?



Definitely. When's sentencing?


----------



## chandlerp (Apr 28, 2014)

No such thing as bad publicity eh, Max?


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> I don't know the detail of the case but given a lot of these post Saville celebs seem to be getting not guilty verdicts I'm quite surprised to see him get convicted.


Maybe that's because he was as guilty as fuck? Least that's what the law says!


----------



## Balbi (Apr 28, 2014)

A rapidly descending Max deciding to free himself of some ballast and produce evidence of others wrongdoing would be handy


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2014)

Balbi said:


> A rapidly descending Max deciding to free himself of some ballast and produce evidence of others wrongdoing would be handy



I'm sure he's got plenty of dirt on plenty of people but he might need to keep that under wraps so he has some 'friends' left when he gets out of jail.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 28, 2014)

machine cat said:


> Definitely. When's sentencing?



Friday.

2nd good Friday in a month


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2014)

machine cat said:


> Definitely. When's sentencing?



Friday. Normally 'important' people like him get off pretty lightly but I suspect they'll be wanting to make an example of him here.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 28, 2014)

Appeal would surely fail. One or two accounts, maybe. But 8......


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2014)

he must have tons of dirt- I bet theres a fair few people out there shitting it about what max knows and wondering how to buy his silence


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 28, 2014)

He will have had the very best defence money can buy and as the charges relate to decades old events the witnesses must have been very compelling and believable. As he has stuck it ou to the very last it's got to mean a least a couple of years surely.

Wonder if Cowell will stick by him like he did Jonathan King.

http://maxclifford.com/Client/current


----------



## chandlerp (Apr 28, 2014)

Maximum sentence for each count is 2 years based on the laws of the time of the offences.


----------



## jakethesnake (Apr 28, 2014)

Did they resolve the issue of the size of his penis?


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 28, 2014)

I think the fact that their was contemporaneous diaries and letters was hugely important. In so many of these cases it's about memory whilst here it could be proven that he knew people he denied knowing and was at places he denied being.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 28, 2014)

so tempting.....

http://maxclifford.com/Content/Got_A_News_Story/


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 28, 2014)

just reading that he has been released on conditional bail til friday.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> just reading that he has been released on conditional bail til friday.




he's hardly a flight risk, even the most slackwitted of airport bod woiuld recognize the name if not the boat


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 28, 2014)

yeah but still , if he hadnt been famous he wouldnt be out today


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> how to buy his silence



"My other car is Jimmy Hoffa".


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> "My other car is Jimmy Hoffa".




I actually get your obscure reference without having to check- teamsters mob-affiliated union racketeer who done did vanish when he got inconvenient. Today is a good day


----------



## pesh (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## gosub (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 28, 2014)

edit: beaten to it.


----------



## TodayIsCaturday (Apr 28, 2014)

I thought indecent assault was like breast touching and stuff, but it seems it can basically be rape:

"The jury found Clifford guilty of four counts of indecently assaulting one victim...He later forced her to perform oral sex on him"  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600


----------



## jakejb79 (Apr 28, 2014)

jakethesnake said:


> Did they resolve the issue of the size of his penis?




I'm bigger than Max Clifford.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 28, 2014)

jakethesnake said:


> Did they resolve the issue of the size of his penis?



Im sure it will be resolved in jail, many times.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2014)

prison rape lol


----------



## jusali (Apr 28, 2014)

I doubt he'll be going to a 'real' prison


----------



## Wilf (Apr 28, 2014)

jusali said:


> I doubt he'll be going to a 'real' prison


 Big Brother house?


----------



## gosub (Apr 28, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> just reading that he has been released on conditional bail til friday.



so a man facing career ruin and four years of section 23 isn't a 'suicide' risk til Friday


----------



## jusali (Apr 28, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Big Brother house?




Wherever the Hamilton's went probably.......


----------



## Theisticle (Apr 28, 2014)

wouldn't be shocked if he killed himself before going to prison.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 28, 2014)

mirrors facing mirrors - Jonathan King's Vile Pervert seems appropriate at this moment even though he means it as a satire.


----------



## gosub (Apr 28, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> wouldn't be shocked if he killed himself before going to prison.



Think he might well be dead before Friday and the inquest verdict would be suicide, without him actually doing the deed himself


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 28, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> wouldn't be shocked if he killed himself before going to prison.



Yeah. Like you said. 'Killed himself'. That must be it. Yeah.







Fuhgeddaboutit.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 28, 2014)

jusali said:


> I doubt he'll be going to a 'real' prison



2 weeks in a real prison then off to some cushy number for the rest of his sentence to write a shit book.

It's nice that one o the last jobs he did was backing The Sun regarding Hillsborough then shortly afterwards being a convicted sex offender.


----------



## laptop (Apr 28, 2014)

Maybe more to come:




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Jenny Hopkins, deputy chief crown prosecutor for CPS London, said the verdicts had provided "a long-denied justice" to the victims.
> 
> She said the CPS would now take some time to consider its position on the verdict the jury was unable to come to a decision on.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600


----------



## Yelkcub (Apr 28, 2014)

How does he get bail having being convicted of forcing a 15 year old to go down on him?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 28, 2014)

Yelkcub said:


> How does he get bail having being convicted of forcing a 15 year old to go down on him?


 Suppose they need to give him time to transfer all his assets into his wife's name.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2014)

TodayIsCaturday said:


> I thought indecent assault was like breast touching and stuff, but it seems it can basically be rape:
> 
> "The jury found Clifford guilty of four counts of indecently assaulting one victim...He later forced her to perform oral sex on him"  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600



When you've got 'forced' and 'sex' in the same sentence that does rather suggest rape doesn't it?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 28, 2014)

Let me join in on the Glee.

Definitely a man who have lived his life in a self important lord of all he surveys can get away with anything attitude.

You ain't getting away with this lol.


----------



## Garek (Apr 28, 2014)

If he tops himself it'll be no bad thing.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 28, 2014)

Garek said:


> If he tops himself it'll be no bad thing.



Yeah. "Tops himself". Yeah.

Seriously though, does anyone really believe he has any dirt on the great and good which would encourage his 'removal' from the playing field?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 28, 2014)

I just hear someone say that they heard on the radio that he won't get a custodial sentence ( I got no proof on it, but if it happens I hope there are riots)


----------



## Wilf (Apr 28, 2014)

'Showbiz'. Yuk.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 28, 2014)

When he gets out,hes going to need some sort of slick, PR guru to help him with his image,I hear that Max Clifford is good at that sort of thing.......oh wait hang on.Something I've always wondered about,if Clifford was so good at PR why did most people consider him a cunt


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> When he gets out,hes going to need some sort of slick, PR guru to help him with his image,I hear that Max Clifford is good at that sort of thing.......oh wait hang on.Something I've always wondered about,if Clifford was so good at PR why did most people consider him a cunt



Because he is a cunt. He just happens to be a cunt who is very good at his chosen vocation of muckraking and turd-polishing. It's not like there's a wide selection of non-cuntish PR people you can hire.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> I just hear someone say that they heard on the radio that he won't get a custodial sentence ( I got no proof on it, but if it happens I hope there are riots)



From the judge's statement about his being granted bail not being a reflection on the severity of the sentence you'd think he's got to be going to jail. But then from the severity of the crimes you'd think he'd never get bail in a million years so who knows?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 28, 2014)

What exactly does the judge do between now and Friday?


----------



## laptop (Apr 28, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What exactly does the judge do between now and Friday?



Reads reports from his Mind counsellor, his Citizens' Advice benefits advisor, his probation officer...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 28, 2014)

If Clifford is in need of a new PR agent he could do worse than the folk who keep MI5 out of the spotlight for enabling child-rape by Cyril Smith. Or west Yorkshire police for their part in the savile horror.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 28, 2014)

<ed: photo of currently unconvicted person removed>


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What exactly does the judge do between now and Friday?


roll a die to see how many years


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> If Clifford is in need of a new PR agent he could do worse than the folk who keep MI5 out of the spotlight for enabling child-rape by Cyril Smith. Or west Yorkshire police for their part in the savile horror.



Ordinary PR folk can't simply doctor witness statements though. Unlike, say, West Midlands police who doctored the witness statements of Hillsborough survivors.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What exactly does the judge do between now and Friday?



Claims expenses for the whole week instead of just today.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 28, 2014)

Would any of us get bail till Friday? 

Guessing not.


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

jakethesnake said:


> Did they resolve the issue of the size of his penis?



I think his defence got a doctor to examine him and the conclusion was that his penis was 'within average range' which still doesn't exclude being on the smaller end of the scale.


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

Stuart Hall got bail in between admitting guilt and being sentenced. I doubt its that odd, and rather than being directly related to fame is indirectly related: i.e. more likely to get bail if you abused power rather than using pure violence. Also the length of time between the crimes and the court case mean that other factors such as coming into contact with victims or their families while on bail are less likely to be a factor.


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

Also thank fuck they got someone as part of Yewtree, thus keeping a wider range of narratives on the go in the press & political scene rather than the hideous and limited 'its all a waste of time/money/its a witch hunt' crap.


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

Some possible reasons he was found guilty where other cases failed:

A very particular modus operandi that had peculiar details and was reported by more than one independent victim.

A form of power abuse that was so 'classically understood by the general population' that a lot of generalised jokes about 'the casting couch' existed for many a decade.

Keeping a letter:



> Decades later, the victim wrote Clifford an anonymous letter, which was found in his bedside table when his home was searched by police.
> 
> In the letter she told Clifford he "took pleasure in degrading me", giving him an "A+ in grooming children".



Latter point quoted from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## existentialist (Apr 28, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What exactly does the judge do between now and Friday?


I'm guessing he has to make (or at least be seen to make) a balanced calculation on the basis of the severity of the offences, the fact that Clifford pleaded not guilty, etc., blah.

It does always seem odd to me that someone who has been convicted should be bailed prior to sentence, though - after all, it is unlikely that his sentence will be shorter than from now until Friday, so I can't see why he shouldn't be serving time "on account"...unless there really is a definite chance that he might get a non-custodial sentence, and that seems a little shocking to me. Even if he did, I can't see why he shouldn't enjoy a few days in chokey just to give him an idea of what it's all about.

Maybe there's something about the risk that other prisoners might pose to a celebrity inmate - hopefully one of the prison-savvy types on here might know more?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (Apr 28, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> wouldn't be shocked if he killed himself before going to prison.



Fingers crossed.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 28, 2014)

I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't go to prison TBH.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Would any of us get bail till Friday?
> 
> Guessing not.



I know people who are sitting in jail on remand pre-trial. Their alleged crimes are neither violent nor acquisitive and they have no previous form for skipping out on bail. Not quite sure where the logic is in these sorts of decisions.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't go to prison TBH.



Maybe he'll get some evil bastard lawyer to argue that because of his notoriety and the foul nature of his crimes he won't be safe in prison.

And maybe he won't be safe in prison, which is something he probably have considered before he assaulted those women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2014)

elbows said:


> Also thank fuck they got someone as part of Yewtree, thus keeping a wider range of narratives on the go in the press & political scene rather than the hideous and limited 'its all a waste of time/money/its a witch hunt' crap.


yeh we're all for a wider range of narratives from rational to utterly loopy


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I know people who are sitting in jail on remand pre-trial. Their alleged crimes are neither violent nor acquisitive and they have no previous form for skipping out on bail. Not quite sure where the logic is in these sorts of decisions.


they're not celebs


----------



## laptop (Apr 28, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I know people who are sitting in jail on remand pre-trial. Their alleged crimes are neither violent nor acquisitive and they have no previous form for skipping out on bail. Not quite sure where the logic is in these sorts of decisions.



AIUI, the standard criteria are: is the accused (a) likely to repeat the offence before trial or (b) abscond?

Don't have time to read it now, but in http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/#b02 there's an interesting note about "Exceptions for drug users in certain areas"


----------



## emanymton (Apr 28, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I know people who are sitting in jail on remand pre-trial. Their alleged crimes are neither violent nor acquisitive and they have no previous form for skipping out on bail. Not quite sure where the logic is in these sorts of decisions.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't go to prison TBH.



I would be.

These are pretty serious crimes, one involving a minor and lets not forget there's eight counts he's been found guilty of.  Also he's fought it all the way and will no doubt continue to protest his innocence.  A jail sentence is clearly warranted.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (Apr 28, 2014)

jakethesnake said:


> Did they resolve the issue of the size of his penis?



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-mattered-in-the-trial-evidence-9264629.html

Not tiny.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 28, 2014)

Re bail:
Sometimes, in legal cases the court will decide to adjourn the case before passing sentence. This may be because they wish for more time to consider the sentence or sometimes because new evidence has come to light throughout the duration of the court case. 

*Section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 states that bail should be granted to:*
“A person who, having been convicted of an offence, and whose case has been adjourned for reports to be obtained before sentence.”  This means that if a defendant has been essentially convicted but for some reason there is a delay in passing sentence, they do have the right to apply for bail.

The exception to this is that if the accused is charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment, bail need not be granted in the following circumstances:

If the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that if the defendant was to be released on bail, they would:


Fail to surrender to custody


Commit another offence whilst on bail


Interfere or intimidate witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
This shows that the right to apply for bail after conviction does not necessarily depend on the severity of the offence committed.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 28, 2014)

I don't know why the guilty verdict surprised me, somehow I have gotten used to wealthy and influential people getting off scot free. I suppose this means the rich are now to be held accountable - a good thing. I wonder if he will get jail? he probably should. Certainly the jury have decided Clifford is an abusive sleazeball and sexual predator!

Does anyone know the likely sentence for crimes like his?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (Apr 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't know why the guilty verdict surprised me, somehow I have gotten used to wealthy and influential people getting off scot free. I suppose this means the rich are now to be held accountable - a good thing. I wonder if he will get jail? he probably should. Certainly the jury have decided Clifford is an abusive sleazeball and sexual predator!
> 
> Does anyone know the likely sentence for crimes like his?



AFAIK he will be sentenced according to the guidelines at the time of the offences. So unfortunately probably not long enough.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't go to prison TBH.





Teaboy said:


> I would be.
> 
> These are pretty serious crimes, one involving a minor and lets not forget there's eight counts he's been found guilty of.  Also he's fought it all the way and will no doubt continue to protest his innocence.  A jail sentence is clearly warranted.



Probably says more about my faith in the judicial system and the technicalities which would be employed by a rich man like Clifford to exploit every leniency loophole available. But we'll see.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2014)

jusali said:


> Wherever the Hamilton's went probably.......



That'd be the Hamiltons what were found not guilty, would it?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 28, 2014)

jusali said:


> Wherever the Hamilton's went probably.......





ViolentPanda said:


> That'd be the Hamiltons what were found not guilty, would it?



UKIP


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> When you've got 'forced' and 'sex' in the same sentence that does rather suggest rape doesn't it?



The problem being that the charge relates to what such an act was considered to be at the time it was committed.
Nowadays penetration of mouth, vagina or anus by penis or foreign object is considered rape, but until recently only penile penetration of the vagina was taken as rape..
Shit, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't go to prison TBH.



Neither would I, based on a combination of his age, health and knowing where a lot of showbiz and political bodies are buried. If he does, I seriously doubt he'll be given the maximum tariff.


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 28, 2014)

That was a bit weird, standing on the courthouse steps - advised to say nothing, then stood there for ages - saying nothing  He seemed to be desperate to say something...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> AFAIK he will be sentenced according to the guidelines at the time of the offences. So unfortunately probably not long enough.



That's what's supposed to happen, but there's a possible "out" to make him spend longer inside, in that ti's at the judge's discretion whether to make him serve the sentences consecutively or concurrently..  Judges usually opt for concurrently, though, the liberal fuckwads!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> That was a bit weird, standing on the courthouse steps - advised to say nothing, then stood there for ages - saying nothing  He seemed to be desperate to say something...



Possibly sending a  covert message to the politicians watching of "this could be you, if you don't sort out a safe berth for me!".


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (Apr 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's what's supposed to happen, but there's a possible "out" to make him spend longer inside, in that ti's at the judge's discretion whether to make him serve the sentences consecutively or concurrently..  Judges usually opt for concurrently, though, the liberal fuckwads!



That didn't happen with that Welsh singer recently whose name escapes me.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 28, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> That didn't happen with that Welsh singer recently whose name escapes me.



Way more serious stuff. So undoubtedly for his own safety. And others.

Ian Watkins btw


----------



## spartacus mills (Apr 28, 2014)

elbows said:


> Some possible reasons he was found guilty where other cases failed:
> 
> A very particular modus operandi that had peculiar details and was reported by more than one independent victim.



From the reports that's what got Stuart Hall convicted.


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

spartacus mills said:


> From the reports that's what got Stuart Hall convicted.



He pled guilty though so it was never fully tested in court.

Anyway I'm so happy that there was convictions in this case, because both celebrity character witness and record of charity work stuff were used by the defence. Things that have been mentioned as a few of the factors for why Savile had a shield, though there were clearly others.

When Clifford was first questioned I think I said 'the death star shield is down!' but until this verdict it looked like the shield was going back up again.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 28, 2014)

elbows said:


> Some possible reasons he was found guilty where other cases failed:
> 
> A very particular modus operandi that had peculiar details and was reported by more than one independent victim.
> 
> ...



I don't actually get how keeping a letter acts as evidence. If someone wrote him a letter accusing him of dong something, and he kept it. How is that evidence that he did it? I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just curious how that works?


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> I don't actually get how keeping a letter acts as evidence. If someone wrote him a letter accusing him of dong something, and he kept it. How is that evidence that he did it? I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just curious how that works?



I'm not a lawyer and there are reasons to keep such a thing that wouldn't suggest guilt, I guess. Taken with other stuff though it might have cast a certain impression.

Just reading press reports and it seems his wife kept a copy of that letter too, without his knowledge, so she apparently though it worth keeping hold of.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 28, 2014)

elbows said:


> I'm not a lawyer and there are reasons to keep such a thing that wouldn't suggest guilt, I guess. Taken with other stuff though it might have cast a certain impression.
> 
> Just reading press reports and it seems his wife kept a copy of that letter too, without his knowledge, so she apparently though it worth keeping hold of.



It's one of those things that gets reported and I'm like 'but how is THAT evidence?' and then its just never explained. If someone wrote me a letter accusing me of stuff I'd keep it in case I wanted to use it as evidence against _them. _I need a lawyer to explain that one.


----------



## laptop (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> I don't actually get how keeping a letter acts as evidence. If someone wrote him a letter accusing him of dong something, and he kept it. How is that evidence that he did it? I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just curious how that works?



The fact that he kept it means that it _was_ evidence, and not landfill


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 28, 2014)

laptop said:


> The fact that he kept it means that it _was_ evidence, and not landfill



So, someone writes you a letter saying 'you raped me' and then that's is evidence that it happened? Because it's kept instead of binned? What?


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

I wasn't following every single bit of reporting during the case, so I only heard about the letter today. Probably because that particular victim granted the BBC an interview, and mentioned it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27197821



> On a letter she wrote to Clifford years later...
> I awarded him A-plus in grooming children.
> 
> I felt, obviously, very strongly when I wrote the letter and it said everything that I wanted to say to him.
> ...



I went back and found the details of the letter as reported at the time it was read out in court. I can see why it was used in court, and thats all I have to say on that for now since I can't argue legal particulars and court cases are not just about stuffy legal detail anyway, but also conveying all sorts of things to the jury that may not on their own be compelling evidence of something.

It was an amazing letter anyway. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/12/max-clifford-trial_n_4950689.html


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 28, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> That was a bit weird, standing on the courthouse steps - advised to say nothing, then stood there for ages - saying nothing  He seemed to be desperate to say something...



I imagine he was itching to say how the whole process was flawed and reiterate his complete innocence; but his lawyers told him to STFU as his protestations of innocence and calling the victims fantasists will already add to the tally come Friday morn...


----------



## Yelkcub (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> So, someone writes you a letter saying 'you raped me' and then that's is evidence that it happened? Because it's kept instead of binned? What?



It a contemporaneous record of the accusation. Pretty fucking damning in the context of multiple later allegations.

E2a. It's not. It's 35 years later. I withdraw that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> So, someone writes you a letter saying 'you raped me' and then that's is evidence that it happened? Because it's kept instead of binned? What?


It's evidence that the person made the accusation at the time the letter was written. That's all. Not sure the court will have drawn any conclusions from him keeping it. The detail contained therein, though? There is lots of checkable detail in that.

As for Friday's sentence, I would think that there is zero chance of him not going to jail. The law of the time he did this allows for jail, so off to jail he will go.


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's evidence that the person made the accusation at the time the letter was written.



Which is probably quite important given the accusations of bandwagon jumping made by the likes of Clifford. The letter was apparently written in 2011 and the Savile stuff couldn't have 'created a bandwagon' until October 2012 at the earliest.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 28, 2014)

Yelkcub said:


> It a contemporaneous record of the accusation. Pretty fucking damning in the context of multiple later allegations.





littlebabyjesus said:


> It's evidence that the person made the accusation at the time the letter was written. That's all. Not sure the court will have drawn any conclusions from him keeping it. The detail contained therein, though? There is lots of checkable detail in that.



OK, I get it. It's a record of the accusation. It's not evidence in itself, but supports wider evidence so to speak, so makes part of the prosecution's case.


----------



## Yelkcub (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> OK, I get it. It's a record of the accusation. It's not evidence in itself, but supports wider evidence so to speak, so makes part of the prosecution's case.



To be fair, that is true, but I'd thought it had been written at the time, which, to me would have been cut and dried.,


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 28, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> OK, I get it. It's a record of the accusation. It's not evidence in itself, but supports wider evidence so to speak, so makes part of the prosecution's case.


I would think so. I haven't looked at the evidence in detail, but on reading that letter, there is a lot of specific stuff. If others' stories are similar, it could really be pretty damning - the phoning up and pretending to be someone else, for instance: that sounds like a ruse that he might have used as part of his standard routine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 28, 2014)

Makes me shudder, that letter. It's proper evil stuff, a different league from a pathetic twat who gropes women's breasts on an impulse. Cold, calculated evil-doing.

'indecent assault' doesn't do it justice.


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would think so. I haven't looked at the evidence in detail, but on reading that letter, there is a lot of specific stuff. If others' stories are similar, it could really be pretty damning - the phoning up and pretending to be someone else, for instance: that sounds like a ruse that he might have used as part of his standard routine.



A shortcut rather than wade through evidence are these snippets I posted during the trial, specifically relating to the phoning up pretending to be someone stuff. With added small penis dimension 

#75

I don't feel like proceeding with the amateur psychology that I mentioned back then today though, I'll leave today and sentencing day for the victims. Doubt I can resist comment on that shit for too long though.


----------



## HST (Apr 28, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Maybe he'll get some evil bastard lawyer to argue that because of his notoriety and the foul nature of his crimes he won't be safe in prison.
> 
> And maybe he won't be safe in prison, which is something he probably have considered before he assaulted those women.



Prisons have wings for vulnerable prisoners - sex offenders, grasses, bent cops  and the like.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 28, 2014)

elbows said:


> It was an amazing letter anyway. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/12/max-clifford-trial_n_4950689.html




Jesus, that is some letter!


----------



## Badgers (Apr 28, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:
			
		

> Jesus, that is some letter!



Same dead link as me then?


----------



## LiamO (Apr 28, 2014)

I'm wondering if there is one more wriggle left in him.


----------



## HST (Apr 28, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> AFAIK he will be sentenced according to the guidelines at the time of the offences. So unfortunately probably not long enough.



If the offences took place before 15 September 1985 the maximum for indecent assault is two years. 
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/guidelines/guidelines-to-download.htm


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

Badgers said:


> Same dead link as me then?



If you have a bit about QUOTE on the end of the link that is breaking it, remove the characters after .html in your browsers address bar and reload the page.


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/max-clifford-indecent-assaults---7043466



> The Hersham resident was a patron for Woking & Sam Beare Hospices (WSB), as well as giving his time to other good causes and fundraising events in the county.
> 
> But WSB chief executive Nigel Harding said on Monday: "The charity of Woking & Sam Beare Hospices has noted the decision of the court today and will be informing Mr Clifford that we no longer wish him to act as a patron for the charity."





> As well as visiting charity balls and launching Santa fun runs for WSB, Clifford also supported fundraising events for Shooting Star CHASE in Surrey.
> 
> He became a patron of the organisation in 2011, and was previously an active supporter of CHASE Hospice Care for Children before it joined up with Shooting Star.
> 
> A statement released on Monday read: "In light of Mr Clifford being found guilty of indecent assault, Shooting Star CHASE can confirm that Mr Clifford is no longer a patron of the charity."


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 28, 2014)

Fucking  arrogant tosser.....


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 28, 2014)

Badgers said:


> Same dead link as me then?



Nope, a truly harrowing read if you can sort out yer puter.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 28, 2014)

LiamO said:


> I'm wondering if there is one more wriggle left in him.



Will you please stop thinking about his penis


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 28, 2014)

HST said:


> If the offences took place before 15 September 1985 the maximum for indecent assault is two years.
> http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/guidelines/guidelines-to-download.htm



Four days for the judge to learn how to say CONSECUTIVE then.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## LiamO (Apr 28, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Will you please stop thinking about his penis



I wasn't actually, but you plainly were.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## Badgers (Apr 28, 2014)

elbows said:
			
		

> If you have a bit about QUOTE on the end of the link that is breaking it, remove the characters after .html in your browsers address bar and reload the page.



Cheers, just read it 

Oof


----------



## elbows (Apr 28, 2014)

Yep. Heavy.

On a far more flippant note, a few images of him in his slightly younger days. As a teenager, this period is around the time I remember being sadly first made aware of his existence.


----------



## T & P (Apr 28, 2014)

Is she that Spanish woman who had an affair with an MP or something?


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> he must have tons of dirt- I bet theres a fair few people out there shitting it about what max knows and wondering how to buy his silence


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 28, 2014)

Gromit said:


> Let me join in on the Glee.
> 
> Definitely a man who have lived his life in a self important lord of all he surveys can get away with anything attitude.
> 
> You ain't getting away with this lol.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 28, 2014)

T & P said:


> Is she that Spanish woman who had an affair with an MP or something?






The lovely David Mellor.....


----------



## chandlerp (Apr 28, 2014)

Phwooar


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## tim (Apr 29, 2014)

Make hay while the sun shines comrades. The bastard'll appeal the verdict and be exonerated


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 29, 2014)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 29, 2014)

tim said:


> Make hay while the sun shines comrades. The bastard'll appeal the verdict and be exonerated


Or have his sentence lengthened...

Moar hay!

He is not influential any more. He is ruined.


----------



## tim (Apr 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Or have his sentence lengthened...
> 
> Moar hay!



Optimism invariably leads to disappointment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 29, 2014)

tim said:


> Optimism invariably leads to disappointment.




he's not getting out from under 8 counts


----------



## elbows (Apr 29, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> The lovely David Mellor.....



And as for Antonia de Sancha, as of just over a year ago...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...tell-lover-who-brought-down-David-Mellor.html



> For a few weeks in 1992, de Sancha was hot property, managed to perfection by Max Clifford, then king of kiss-and-tell PR. She earned £35,000 from her disclosures, but there was a cost to her theatrical career.





> In 2002, she stated that she “didn’t have a pot to piss in”, while admitting that much of the Mellor story was fabricated.
> 
> “The Chelsea strip was made up. I went along with everything at the time. It was almost like I was having an out-of-body experience.”
> 
> ...



Also features many words by Clifford, making out that they still had cordial relations. And all his usual shit. Not sure that quite matches the end of the piece though.



> The public did not warm to de Sancha particularly, but maybe they should have done. She is a tough character, articulate, devoid of self- pity, still striking in her second half century. And equipped, too, with a mordant wit.
> 
> Asked to sum up her situation, she replied with a smile: “Screwed by Mellor, screwed by Max.”


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 29, 2014)

I'd like to think that he's lodged a few envelopes with his solicitor: 'To be opened in the event of my conviction or death', with a few bombshells inside. A cunt, but not a daft one.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 29, 2014)

http://maxclifford.com/Content/Got_A_News_Story/
Wonder would they be interested in a story about a very famous sleazy scummy PR spiv whos just been convicted of serious sexual assault


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 29, 2014)

David Mellor just been on Radio 5 Live. As much as i detest the man he spoke quite well about the nature of Clifford. "A man with a cruel streak" someone who seemed to get real satisfaction out of embrassing, ruining and showing up other people. A classic psychopath if you like.


----------



## yardbird (Apr 29, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> David Mellor just been on Radio 5 Live. As much as i detest the man he spoke quite well about the nature of Clifford. "A man with a cruel streak" someone who seemed to get real satisfaction out of embrassing, ruining and showing up other people. A classic psychopath if you like.


I heard Mellor too. I thought he got it right.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 29, 2014)

Sad fact is he only succeeded because people buy this trashy shit. I can only hope it's a stage we're going through.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

yardbird said:


> I heard Mellor too. I thought he got it right.


 He gave it both barrels on R4 this morning as well...and much as he accurately nailed Clifford...I felt pretty queasy listening to a minister of thatcher expounding on criminally psychopathic traits in others.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 29, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> Sad fact is he only succeeded because people buy this trashy shit. I can only hope it's a stage we're going through.



Classic signs of the end of a civilisation innit? I think pretty much every civilisation turned to spectacle in its last days.


----------



## RedDragon (Apr 29, 2014)

When he described a couple of the victims as "silly little girls" I'd been hoping he'd be found guilty.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 29, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Classic signs of the end of a civilisation innit? I think pretty much every civilisation turned to spectacle in its last days.



http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empire-Illusion-256-Chris-Hedges/dp/1568586132


----------



## gosub (Apr 29, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> When he described a couple of the victims as "silly little girls" I'd been hoping he'd be found guilty.



Reading yesterday about his phone calls pretending to be famous directors/producers, they were exceedingly gullible.To use that as a defence or mitigation though, arrogant idiocy that must of had his silk cringing with despair.  A predatory psychopath who deserves to languish regardless of how much help he he can now offer the authorities.


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 29, 2014)

gosub said:


> Reading yesterday about his phone calls pretending to be famous directors/producers, they were exceedingly gullible.To use that as a defence or mitigation though, arrogant idiocy that must of had his silk cringing with despair.  A predatory psychopath who deserves to languish regardless of how much help he he can now offer the authorities.



Someone should phone him up pretending to be the judge 
_
I say Max, it turns out theres been some important paperwork gone missing, the evidence was therefore  inadmissable..technicality..etc_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 29, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> So, someone writes you a letter saying 'you raped me' and then that's is evidence that it happened? Because it's kept instead of binned? What?



For all we know, the letter had forensic evidence on it - jism splashes from where Clifford had flogged his pony while reading the letter.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> For all we know, the letter had forensic evidence on it - jism splashes from where Clifford had flogged his pony while reading the letter.



Thanks for the image


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 29, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Thanks for the image



You're just jealous that you didn't think of it!


----------



## clicker (Apr 29, 2014)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 29, 2014)

Was just reading how his wife's now leaving him too and planning to take him to the cleaners on the way.

Normally feel a bit sorry for people who fuck up their lives badly and have everything they've built up destroyed, but for some reason I can't find any of that for this creepy sleazoid.


----------



## mod (Apr 29, 2014)

UhOhSeven said:


> One offence of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 14, in 1966
> One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1974/75
> Three offences of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1977/78
> One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 19, in 1978
> ...



I reckon all the members of The Who, Kinks, the beatles, Rolling Stones etc etc will have had sex with many many girls /women within this age bracket during the high of their fame. Not justifying it but it must have gone on loads. If she looked vaguely 16+ and the pop star and victim (participant) were all hammered then surely they'd be invited in to the hotel room to join the 'party'. 

I bet there are many many aging rock stars very nervous these last couple of years.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 29, 2014)

mod said:


> I reckon all the members of The Who, Kinks, the beatles, Rolling Stones etc etc will have had sex with many many girls /women within this age bracket during the high of their fame. Not justifying it but it must have gone on loads. If she looked vaguely 16+ and the pop star and victim (participant) were all hammered then surely they'd be invited in to the hotel room to join the 'party'.
> 
> I bet there are many many aging rock stars very nervous these last couple of years.


Yes and no.  It's not the age bracket in most of Clifford's cases - most of the women were over the age of consent, it was the non consensual nature of it, the fact that it was an assault.  To say "bet loads of people were nervous" makes it seem normal, like all men assault women, well, they don't and only men like Max Clifford tell themselves that they do.


----------



## gosub (Apr 29, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Was just reading how his wife's now leaving him too and planning to take him to the cleaners on the way.
> 
> Normally feel a bit sorry for people who fuck up their lives badly and have everything they've built up destroyed, but for some reason I can't find any of that for this creepy, sleazoid.



ex PA, only married her in 2010


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2014)

gosub said:


> ex PA, only married her in 2010


now ex-wife


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> The lovely David Mellor.....


don't forget the chelsea strip


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> don't forget the chelsea strip


Yuck Mellor in a Chelsea strip....talk about a turn off


----------



## gosub (Apr 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> now ex-wife


not yet but she has engaged a divorce lawyer apparently


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 29, 2014)

gosub said:


> not yet but she has engaged a divorce lawyer apparently



well that's ok, he won't be needing any money where he's going.


----------



## gosub (Apr 29, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Yeah. "Tops himself". Yeah.
> 
> Seriously though, does anyone really believe he has any dirt on the great and good which would encourage his 'removal' from the playing field?



He ran discreet sex parties and helped get kiss and tell stories not related to his parties into the papers...Self fuelling dirt hoover.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> don't forget the chelsea strip



A factoid made up by Rapist Max Clifford.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 29, 2014)

His site has been taken down

http://maxclifford.com


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 29, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> A factoid made up by Rapist Max Clifford.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/antonia-the-truth-about-mellor-6310450.html
Indeed.....


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 29, 2014)

Anyone remember the episode of Louis Theroux, 'When Louis Met Max Clifford' - some very revealing insights into the way he manipulated people and sets things up, and tried to set Theroux up too in Spearmint Rhino. It all came a bit unstuck when he was caught on microphone telling porkies. Horrible man.


----------



## Sue (Apr 29, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> Yuck Mellor in a Chelsea strip....talk about a turn off


Whereas Mellor not in a Chelsea top...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> Anyone remember the episode of Louis Theroux, 'When Louis Met Max Clifford' - some very revealing insights into the way he manipulated people and sets things up, and tried to set Theroux up too in Spearmint Rhino. It all came a bit unstuck when he was caught on microphone telling porkies. Horrible man.




Impressive hit rate from Louis; Savile and Clifford...wonder if there's any more from those 2 series?


----------



## existentialist (Apr 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Impressive hit rate from Louis; Savile and Clifford...wonder if there's any more from those 2 series?


Didn't he interview Phred Felps?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> Anyone remember the episode of Louis Theroux, 'When Louis Met Max Clifford' - some very revealing insights into the way he manipulated people and sets things up, and tried to set Theroux up too in Spearmint Rhino. It all came a bit unstuck when he was caught on microphone telling porkies. Horrible man.



perhaps they should just nick everyone theroux's interviewed


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps they should just nick everyone theroux's interviewed



Impressively, Neil and Christine Hamilton _were _nicked as he was filming. I reckon he just got lucky, but they are very dense.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Impressive hit rate from Louis; Savile and Clifford...wonder if there's any more from those 2 series?




Orville must be shitting himself......


----------



## paulhackett (Apr 29, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> View attachment 53031
> 
> Orville must be shitting himself......



Hopefully he'll have the decency to let La La Harris remove his hand first


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 29, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> View attachment 53031
> 
> Orville must be shitting himself......


He looks like he is shitting out a peculiar man


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 29, 2014)

Orville will never face justice for his crimes. He is too powerful.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 29, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> Orville will never face justice for his crimes. He is too powerful.


 
The 32 year old fowl was quoted as saying ".....the "nightmare is continuing".


----------



## tim (Apr 29, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> Impressively, Neil and Christine Hamilton _were _nicked as he was filming. I reckon he just got lucky, but they are very dense.




Actually I think the accusations made against them were proved to be untrue because they were alleged to have happened at the time when they were actually filming with Theroux - so he was their alibi.  The allegations in question were made by Nadine Milroy Sloan a client of Britain's leading self-publicising PR agent. She was subsequently gaoled for perjury, and the, Surrey based, PR chap is claimed to have handsomely compensated the Hamiltons

I'm sure  that Neil and Christina won't be particularly distressed  about what has happened to Max.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2014)

I hope Clifford gets time.
But I don't know how likely that is.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 29, 2014)

tim said:


> Actually I think the accusations made against them were proved to be untrue because they were alleged to have happened at the time when they were actually filming with Theroux - so he was their alibi.  The allegations in question were made by Nadine Milroy Sloan a client of Britain's leading self-publicising PR agent. She was subsequently gaoled for perjury, and the, Surrey based, PR chap is claimed to have handsomely compensated the Hamiltons
> 
> I'm sure  that Neil and Christina won't be particularly distressed  about what has happened to Max.



Yes she got three years for making false allegations of rape; what's the betting Max gets less for what would now be considered multiple rape?


----------



## xenon (Apr 29, 2014)

Wait til Friday and if needs be.

https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence


----------



## tim (Apr 29, 2014)

More details here they weren't with Theroux but had a water-tight paper-trail proving they were elsewhere on the date of the alleged attack



> Very quickly, it became apparent that the Hamiltons had a cast-iron alibi. That Saturday evening, they were holding a candlelit dinner party for four friends at their Battersea flat. On the menu, along with baked fish and champagne, was a speciality of Christine's that was to become infamous - jellied Bloody Marys. Earlier, they had been shopping on King's Road in Chelsea, stopping at Waitrose. They dropped off their purchases at their flat before popping out for a quick drink at Claridge's with six other people. Their mobile phone records and receipts supported these movements.



Clifford's involvement n the case



> Milroy-Sloan, living on benefits, admits that she saw the opportunity to sell a story. But she says it was her uncle, Tony Iles-Blackmore, who first suggested approaching the publicist Max Clifford. On May 1, she took a coach down to London to see her 87-year-old grandmother at her home in Bermondsey. Two days later, Milroy-Sloan went with her uncle and his son to see Clifford in his Bond Street offices. Milroy-Sloan, overdramatically anxious about being recognised, borrowed a pair of sunglasses and a baseball cap from her aunt.
> 
> According to Milroy-Sloan, Clifford was encouraging. She says he told her that she could earn six-figure sums if her story stood up - a vast amount to her. She just needed proof. Clifford said, "On this occasion I did what I always do - asked her whether she had any way to prove the allegations that she was making." These allegations did not involve criminal acts, simply internet chat.



The words petard own and hoisted come to mind.


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 29, 2014)

tim said:


> The words petard own and hoisted come to mind.



along with ponce, nonce, sex case , pervert, disgusting and ponce .


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 29, 2014)

gosub said:


> not yet but she has engaged a divorce lawyer apparently



cant wait till she sells her story to the papers. Cherry on the cake that one.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 29, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> View attachment 53031
> 
> Orville must be shitting himself......



That would explain why he's still wearing nappies at his age.


----------



## elbows (Apr 29, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I hope Clifford gets time.
> But I don't know how likely that is.



Pretty bloody likely in this particular era, despite the constraints that historical sentencing guidelines impose.

Words said back when Stuart Halls sentence was reviewed and then doubled indicate some of the reasons why the justice system, establishment etc will not want to be seen as soft on these crimes, especially post-Savile.

For example:



> Earlier, Mr Grieve had told the court that the original sentence "failed adequately to reflect the gravity of the offences and the public concern about offences of this nature".
> 
> "Even if the individual sentences for each count are appropriate given the statutory maximum available, some should have been made to run consecutively so that the total sentence passed reflected the culpability of the offender, the harm caused and [would] deter others," he said.



( From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23460778 )


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 29, 2014)

id say theres some serious horse trading going on right now


----------



## framed (Apr 30, 2014)

Wasn't he Derek Hatton's PR man too?


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 30, 2014)

http://www.surreylife.co.uk/people/charity/max_clifford_joins_the_children_in_need_team_1_1646391

that fucking Esther Rantzen sure can pick them

eh ? eh ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> Chelsea....talk about a turn off



Fixed that for you.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 30, 2014)

These learned 'friends' figure that he could get 3 1/2 years tops ...

warning - explicit details

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/04/28/max-clifford-guilty-verdicts-in-historic-sex-cases/


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 30, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> His site has been taken down
> 
> http://maxclifford.com



You can run but not hide from the Internet Tardis

http://web.archive.org/web/20140225082328/http://www.maxclifford.com/


----------



## elbows (Apr 30, 2014)

No surprise, his PR firm is expected to close at the end of the week.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/30/max-clifford-pr-company-close



> The future of the company has looked uncertain after a number of clients sought to distance themselves from Clifford, including Simon Cowell and Dragons' Den star Theo Paphitis.
> 
> A spokesman for Paphitis' lingerie brand Boux Avenue said the company "gave notice of termination of their celebrity contract to MCA in late 2013."
> 
> Channel 4 star Dave Fishwick has also cut ties with MCA, with a spokesman saying: "Fishwick Vehicle Sales is no longer a client of MCA associates and will not be seeking their services in the future."


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 30, 2014)

urban75 MAX CLIFFORD EXCLUSIVE - MCA to close - OFFICIAL !

Did an email just to see ....

*Are you still in business*
Inbox
x
*> *

6:44 PM (7 minutes ago)

















I have a tabloid potential story that would have been a perfect fit for Max normally. Have made some tentative approaches to Mirror / Sun / Express as good targets but would appreciate some further insight before I pursue further.

Are you guys still in business and able to help ?

Kind regards

xxxxxxx




*XXXXX <xxxx@maxclifford.com> *
6:46 PM (7 minutes ago)












to me




Max clifford associates is no more, however, I have brokered stories for a number of years and may be able to assist you within my new company.

Do you have a contact number at all?

Kind regards

XXXXX


----------



## Quartz (Apr 30, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> These learned 'friends' figure that he could get 3 1/2 years tops ...



With the usual time off for good behaviour, that would be less than 2 years inside. But he plead Not Guilty, so I hope they throw the book at him. AIUI he's been convicted of 8 offences which carry a maximum of 2 years inside. That's a possible total of 16 years and he can expect to be out in 8. That sounds more reasonable but it won't happen. Here's hoping for 10-12 years.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2014)

They'll stick him in a fancy open prison and he'll be picking up clients all day long - fallen businessmen and former MPs needing someone to tell their side of the story. Good for business, put yourself where the clients are.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (Apr 30, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> They'll stick him in a fancy open prison and he'll be picking up clients all day long - fallen businessmen and former MPs needing someone to tell their side of the story. Good for business, put yourself where the clients are.



Would anybody risk dealing with him after being outed as a serial rapist, honestly?


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 30, 2014)

And what money he has left after the younger very angry wife gets her substantial cut will be used to pay off the hard men on the wing to offer protection. He's not a fully fledged nonce in the prison accepted version - so he may attract some sympathy from the hard nuts (she was asking fer it - yer know hat what I mean - couldn't help myself line of defence) . That coupled with an inside track to his fetid mine grassing up some prison exclusives on the great and the good may lead once he gets used to it a less than satisfactory penal experience that U75 want and would require for justice to be done in this case. Let's hope his victims get lottery style and life changing wins for the civil court cases.

We live in hope....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 30, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> A *He's not a fully fledged nonce *in the prison accepted version - so he may attract some sympathy from the hard nuts (she was asking fer it - yer know hat what I mean - couldn't help myself line of defence) ..


 I'm not an expert on prison culture, but this sounds highly fucking unlikely.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not an expert on prison culture, but this sounds highly fucking unlikely.



neither am I  but his substantial wealth I'm sure will buy him privilege on the inside - I hope your sceptisim proves true. Jonathon King didn't get much grief by all accounts.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> neither am I  but his substantial wealth I'm sure will buy him privilege on the inside - I hope your sceptisim proves true. Jonathon King didn't get much grief by all accounts.


It'll also make him a target.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 30, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> neither am I  but his substantial wealth I'm sure will buy him privilege on the inside - I hope your sceptisim proves true. Jonathon King didn't get much grief by all accounts.


I'm not hoping he's raped in jail or anything. I do hope he remains ruined when he comes out, and loses everything that is important to him for good. That's more important to me.

Edit: Slight correction: That is what is important to me. I don't wish violence on anyone in jail. I don't cheer on cunts who think they have the right to beat people up or rape them.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 30, 2014)

Hope he fucks off into well deserved obscurity.....


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 30, 2014)

Well, I think the question of who will be in charge of the publicity campaign for the lostprophets comeback tour has been answered.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Well, I think the question of who will be in charge of the publicity campaign for the lostprophets comeback tour has been answered.



With Jonathon King working as producer, music mogul impressario - Gary Glitter could do support along with Stuart Hall Mceeing the event in his inimitable way and getting the 'crowd' worked up for the main event. A maudlin Freddie Starr could haunt the foyer having souvenir polaroids taken and a chance to get his point of view across. 

Of course the ghostly presence of Sir Jimmeee will be felt in all parts of the theatre and it maybe necessary to utter a few foul mouthed Macbeths to act as a counterpoint to the 'murder' of paedos wherein.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 30, 2014)

LOL child rape funnies.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 30, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> LOL child rape funnies.



surely MEGA LOLZ ....


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (Apr 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Well, I think the question of who will be in charge of the publicity campaign for the lostprophets comeback tour has been answered.



Wasnt there something about the lost prophets in the media in recent months?... Oh, I see what you did there. Good one.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 30, 2014)

He has already made plenty of money I am sure.

A more valid punishment might be to jail him for a reasonable period but make him pay multimillion pound compensation to his victims, enough to leave him on a standard state pension.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 30, 2014)

You know, the prison service being outsourced may have its benefits:

"Ah, Mr Clifford. Sorry to see you here. We had expected to put you in <insert cushy prison number here> unfortunately the austerity cuts have taken their toll. G4S can put you up there but funding is lacking. Debit card only, payable in advance."


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> You know, the prison service being outsourced may have its benefits:
> 
> "Ah, Mr Clifford. Sorry to see you here. We had expected to put you in <insert cushy prison number here> unfortunately the austerity cuts have taken their toll. G4S can put you up there but funding is lacking. Debit card only, payable in advance."


You think that him being able to buy his way to cushy numbers would be a good thing?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Apr 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> With the usual time off for good behaviour, that would be less than 2 years inside. But he plead Not Guilty, so I hope they throw the book at him. AIUI he's been convicted of 8 offences which carry a maximum of 2 years inside. That's a possible total of 16 years and he can expect to be out in 8. That sounds more reasonable but it won't happen. Here's hoping for 10-12 years.


Consecutive sentencing is quite unusual in this country; it's normally concurrent unless you're a properly dangerous shit. I'd be surprised if he gets more than four or five.


----------



## Casually Red (May 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> He has already made plenty of money I am sure.
> 
> A more valid punishment might be to jail him for a reasonable period but make him pay multimillion pound compensation to his victims, enough to leave him on a standard state pension.




was reading one of those shit rags in the works canteen tonight. One of his former clients..octomum..says despite her having 8 miscarriages and almost dying Clifford was setting her up for interviews all over the place. She said she was being interviewed by some german channel and she got about 25 grand for it. Afterwards they told her theyd offered Clifford almost half a million quid.

cunt


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 1, 2014)

last I heard of Octomom she was having her house repossessed and doing masturbation porn and strip club shows in Vegas. Very sad stuff.


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> was reading one of those shit rags in the works canteen tonight. One of his former clients..octomum..says despite her having 8 miscarriages and almost dying Clifford was setting her up for interviews all over the place. She said she was being interviewed by some german channel and she got about 25 grand for it. Afterwards they told her theyd offered Clifford almost half a million quid.
> 
> cunt


Unfortunately being a cunt isn't illegal


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not an expert on prison culture, but this sounds highly fucking unlikely.



He'll be sent to a cat B for dispersal.  That means a couple of weeks on an induction wing (if the cat B has been "modernised" in the last 20 years).  He can choose to ask to spend his time in the VPU (vulnerable prisoner unit) if he's worried about getting his head kicked in or otherwise harmed.
From there, he'll be sent to a prison whose categorisation is commensurate with the seriousness of his offence, but his health and age will be (should be) taken into consideration.  I'm not sure he'll be sent to an open prison, but I've little doubt he'll be sent to a smaller rural nick (that won't have a VPU) and take his lumps.  If he's scared, he can apply for a transfer to a larger nick with a VPU, but then you're exposed to a harsher regime.  Very much swings and roundabouts, and whether he can front it out or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It'll also make him a target.



Very much so.  Protection rackets are big business.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> He has already made plenty of money I am sure.
> 
> A more valid punishment might be to jail him for a reasonable period but make him pay multimillion pound compensation to his victims, enough to leave him on a standard state pension.



The state can't compel him much, in that respect.  IIRC the most they can get him for is to reimburse the state if any Criminal Injuries Compensation has been paid out to his victims.
The victims can, however, start private prosecution proceedings against him, for compensation.  I suspect that ambulance-chasers are already badgering them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2014)

Damarr said:


> Consecutive sentencing is quite unusual in this country; it's normally concurrent unless you're a properly dangerous shit. I'd be surprised if he gets more than four or five.



It's very rare, mostly due to our good friends the Tories looking to minimise expenditure in the late '80s/early '90s.  It's one of the reasons I have a good laugh at any Tory who gives it the biggun about law and order.  Their own party caused a lot of the problems that are happening today.


----------



## Teaboy (May 1, 2014)

So basically what we're saying here is that he's going to get two years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 1, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> So basically what we're saying here is that he's going to get two years.


Reckon so, yes.


----------



## Badgers (May 2, 2014)

Might go and watch V for Vendetta to build up the good mood before sentencing


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

Remanded in custody till 2pm sentencing.


----------



## Teaboy (May 2, 2014)

I hope he's got an overnight bag with him.


----------



## Badgers (May 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:
			
		

> I hope he's got an overnight bag with him.



Big one on wheels I hear


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The victims can, however, start private prosecution proceedings against him, for compensation.  I suspect that ambulance-chasers are already badgering them.



Sky News reports this: 





> It has also emerged that earlier this year, Clifford took out an unexplained £3.5m mortgage on his Surrey mansion.
> It is suggested he wanted to put his money out of reach of victims looking for compensation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sky News reports this:



Hopefully, he'll be penalised as Hall was, when he was found to have done similar to secure his dosh.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hopefully, he'll be penalised as Hall was, when he was found to have done similar to secure his dosh.



And also like Hall he'll pay a heavy price for this shit he said when he arrived at the court this morning:



> But when asked by Sky's Tom Parmenter whether he had anything to say to his victims, he replied: "I stand by everything I've said in the past - everything."



We can only hope!


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Consecutive sentences it is.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

Judge says he'll impose consecutive sentences.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

So 8 in  total?


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

8 Years!


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 2, 2014)

"After the case was adjourned ahead of sentencing at 14:00 BST, Clifford waved to supporters who waved back and blew kisses."

paid extras


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2014)

8 is a lucky number


----------



## xsunnysuex (May 2, 2014)

8yrs jail.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> "After the case was adjourned ahead of sentencing at 14:00 BST, Clifford waved to supporters who waved back and blew kisses."
> 
> paid extras


 Let's hope he continues to get 'kisses' where he's going.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Let's hope he continues to get 'kisses' where he's going.


rape lol


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Let's hope he continues to get 'kisses' where he's going.


 
People never fucking tire of this do they?  Endless hours of amusement they get.


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 2, 2014)

Judge Anthony Leonard "And unless there is anything else, you may _*go down*_"


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2014)

the irl banhammer has been strong today


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 2, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Let's hope he continues to get 'kisses' where he's going.



Post reported. This 'prison rape lol' stuff has got to stop.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2014)

Eight is far too steep for a cushy open nick, reckon at least the first two years of his four inside will be in a proper gaff


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 2, 2014)

8 years, good


----------



## seventh bullet (May 2, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Let's hope he continues to get 'kisses' where he's going.



Beaten up or raped or both, lol?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> rape lol


 
I've found the correlation between those who make "hur-hur prizon rape hur hur" snickerings and inadequate wankers to be close on 100%.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 2, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Eight is far too steep for a cushy open nick, reckon at least the first two years of his four inside will be in a proper gaff


 
at least then there's a chance he'll get some much-deserved justice.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

5t3IIa said:


> Post reported. This 'prison rape lol' stuff has got to stop.


 
Nah, let them carry on and out themselves.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2014)

dunno if the 'half served' thing applies in cases this serious, but if it does then its out in 4.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 2, 2014)

I wouldnt be surprised if it was ' dead ' in 2


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> dunno if the 'half served' thing applies in cases this serious, but if it does then its out in 4.



The judge said 1/2 to be served in stir.


----------



## RedDragon (May 2, 2014)

Wow, that pleasently surprised me, I was expecting a 2 years sentence followed by a tagged-release after two weeks in a holiday inn.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

Judge took into account his ongoing medical conditions. Don't know how serious these are but maybe why he got 8 & not 16. Also said he was probably guilty of assault of twelve year old in Spain but could not be tried for it here.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

5t3IIa said:


> Post reported. This 'prison rape lol' stuff has got to stop.


 Error of judgement on my part. Fully accepted....think I got over excited by unexpectedly heavy sentence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 2, 2014)

Glad to see the sentences will run consecutively. I don't get the concurrent sentence thing. If the charges were tried separately they wouldn't say, 'three years, but as you've done three years for something else already you're free to go'. 

I'm not a fan of prison in most cases, but Clifford needs to be put away for a long time. He's a wrong 'un to the marrow of his bones.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Also said he was probably guilty of assault of twelve year old in Spain but could not be tried for it here.


That's an odd thing to mention. Hope it wasn't given as a factor in sentencing or it might be grounds for appeal.


----------



## Teaboy (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Also said he was probably guilty of assault of twelve year old in Spain but could not be tried for it here.



I'm surprised the judge is allowed to mention things like that.

Anyway its decent news and much more than I expected.  I can't help thinking the supreme arrogance he has shown throughout has contributed to the length of his sentence.


----------



## Celt (May 2, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27259318

He got 8 years, good.


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 2, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Error of judgement on my part. Fully accepted....think I got over excited by unexpectedly heavy sentence.



Oh dear, the weight of opinion on twitter dictates that I have to ban you. Sorry.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 2, 2014)

So he'll be forced to live out the second half of his sentence in his multi-million pound mansion? 

Hopefully victims will have sued him out of everything but a shoebox and a bed pan by then.


----------



## Ponyutd (May 2, 2014)

Wonder if Simon Cowell will pop in and see him?


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 2, 2014)

Schadenfreude is lovely sometimes.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> Wonder if Simon Cowell will pop in and see him?


 fwiw...



> The X Factor's Simon Cowell, with whom Clifford has shared a warm and long friendship, was the first to desert the kiss-and-tell merchant after the guilty verdicts, followed quickly by a string of other high-profile clients,


----------



## Ponyutd (May 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> I'm surprised the judge is allowed to mention things like that.
> 
> Anyway its decent news and much more than I expected.  I can't help thinking the supreme arrogance he has shown throughout has contributed to the length of his sentence.


It did. The judge pointed this out.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 2, 2014)

Good to see him get a decent sentence.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 2, 2014)

> Dara Ó Briain ‏@daraobriain  4m
> Interviewed Clifford on an Irish chat show. Asked him about defending dodgy clients; he said “How do I know you’re not a paedo?” Touché Max


----------



## Gromit (May 2, 2014)

I was going to quote my post where i predicted 8 years because someone else said the maximum sentence was 2 years per count.

Unfortunately I can't gloat about predicting it right because i was in fact busy and never got around to actually writing that post 

... but i was right


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> I'm surprised the judge is allowed to mention things like that.
> 
> Anyway its decent news and much more than I expected.  I can't help thinking the supreme arrogance he has shown throughout has contributed to the length of his sentence.


As reported by Danny Shaw (BBC) on twitter
*Danny Shaw* ‏@DannyShawBBC  32m
#Clifford Judge says he's sure Clifford indecently assaulted 12-yr-old girl in jacuzzi in Spain though prosecution couldn't be brought

Also 'Judge says under current rules Clifford would get jail term of not less than 8 years for offences against 15-year-old'

'#Clifford's behaviour in mimicking Sky reporter "extraordinary" & shows he has no remorse says judge'

'Judge describes Clifford's attitude as "contemptuous"'


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

Judge told him this morning what he would have got had the offences occurred more recently...



> At a mitigation hearing this morning the judge told Clifford, who was convicted of eight counts of indecent assault earlier this week, said that if the offences had been committed today he would have been charged with rape and *his starting point would be 10 years' imprisonment.*


----------



## Ponyutd (May 2, 2014)

I said eight as well...but forgot also.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Briscoe got consecutives as well yesterday. Doesn't happen that often.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the irl banhammer has been strong today



Ye, channel 4 news will be good tonight.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 2, 2014)

Bloke is a psychopath, best place for him.


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 2, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> Bloke is a psychopath, best place for him.


I agree absolutely no remorse whatsoever, I'll bet he's even feeling sorry for himself


----------



## sojourner (May 2, 2014)

I don't understand why it wasn't rape now then?


----------



## Santino (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Briscoe got consecutives as well yesterday. Doesn't happen that often.


 Now it's happening one after the other.


----------



## Gromit (May 2, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> I said eight as well...but forgot also.



I'll believe you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

sojourner said:


> I don't understand why it wasn't rape now then?


You are tried under the law as it was at the time the offence was committed. Unpalatable, but fair, I think. Judge got around that by imposing consecutive sentences anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2014)

Wonder if the judiacry are feeling a particular need to hammer on the 'high and mighty' because of outside events or if this is just a case where two high profile absolute pisstakers happened to get their stretches handed out on the same day


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Santino said:


> Now it's happening one after the other.


Nicely done.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 2, 2014)

sojourner said:


> I don't understand why it wasn't rape now then?



Because at the time the offences were committed, they'd have been classified as indecent assault, not rape. 

You'd think if a law's worth changing, it's worth backdating those changes. This would cut both ways as well, for example people convicted of consensual homosexual acts wouldn't now be seeing coppers on their doorstep demanding DNA samples.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You'd think if a law's worth changing, it's worth backdating those changes. This would cut both ways as well, for example people convicted of consensual homosexual acts wouldn't now be seeing coppers on their doorstep demanding DNA samples.



Bearing in mind that Iain Duncan Smith got away with retrospectively changing the law so his department hadn't unlawfully denied thousands of people their benefits. Whatever the rule is on this, someone should fucking write it down and make sure it's the same rule for everyone.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You'd think if a law's worth changing, it's worth backdating those changes.


Not really, no. Ignorance of the law is no defence, but ignorance of how the law might change in the future is. 

Your example of persecution of men convicted for homosexual acts can be got around in other ways - for instance, an admission that the law was wrong and a blanket retrospective pardon for anyone convicted under it.


----------



## ibilly99 (May 2, 2014)




----------



## Dan U (May 2, 2014)

Apparently the judge didn't like that appearance he made behind the sky news reporter and said it showed his contempt for the proceedings. Bet he regrets that now.

ETA see that's been done already.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


>




I bet he is shitting em now.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 2, 2014)

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke. What's the odds on him finding religion inside, then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke. What's the odds on him finding religion inside, then?


Nah. I agree with previous posters that he may very well be a text-book psychopath. 

Anyway, who cares? I hope this is the last he is seen or heard of in any media.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah. I agree with previous posters that he may very well be a text-book psychopath.
> 
> Anyway, who cares? I hope this is the last he is seen or heard of in any media.


 
Should have put 'finding religion' in inverted commas. But you're right. Good riddance.


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


>



 trial is set to begin at Southwark Crown Court on Tuesday, May 6.

Only the _Maidenhead Advertiser_ comes up on a famous web search engine - oh, und die Neue Zuercher Zeitung in the past few minutes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

What kind of 'indecent assault' is Harris charged with, does anyone know? Is it the rapey kind, too?


----------



## sojourner (May 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Because at the time the offences were committed, they'd have been classified as indecent assault, not rape.
> 
> You'd think if a law's worth changing, it's worth backdating those changes. This would cut both ways as well, for example people convicted of consensual homosexual acts wouldn't now be seeing coppers on their doorstep demanding DNA samples.


Aren't they the same thing?


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

Aren't what the same _what_?


----------



## sojourner (May 2, 2014)

laptop said:


> Aren't what the same _what_?


Rape and indecent assault - what else?


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ...I hope this is the last he is seen or heard of in any media.



His lawyers are considering appealing against both conviction & sentencing.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What kind of 'indecent assault' is Harris charged with, does anyone know? Is it the rapey kind, too?



Images I believe.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Rape and indecent assault - what else?


Rape is about penetration. Vaginal, anal or oral. Indecent assault is just about anything else sexual.


----------



## ChrisD (May 2, 2014)

this judgement is not for the feinthearted....

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...ntencing-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Images I believe.



Plus indecent assault and sexual assault, one of which involves a 7 year old girl


----------



## sojourner (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Rape is about penetration. Virginal, anal or oral. Indecent assault is just about anything else sexual.


But rape can also be described legally as indecent assault, can't it?


----------



## cesare (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Rape is about penetration. Virginal, anal or oral. Indecent assault is just about anything else sexual.


Vaginal?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Aren't they the same thing?


In 2003, the legal definition of 'rape' was extended to include forced oral sex. That's why Clifford would have been tried for rape today. So indecent assault is - legally - any forcing of yourself on someone sexually that does not fall under 'rape'. So forcing someone to wank you off would not be rape but would be indecent assault, which is now called 'sexual assault', a better term, I think. 

Sorry, writing stuff like that out is a bit weird, but here's a page with it on.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

cesare said:


> Vaginal?


----------



## RedDragon (May 2, 2014)




----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Rape and indecent assault - what else?



You could have been saying homosexual acts and indecent assault were the same, or something else. I didn't know, which is why I asked.

I seem to recall there being some controversy at the time the Sexual Offences Act was being debated about exactly the question you raise. 

Wasn't there a draft that didn't use the word "rape" but dealt with sexual assault of varying degrees of nastiness?


----------



## andysays (May 2, 2014)

.


----------



## Quartz (May 2, 2014)

8 years - of which he'll only serve 4 - and a hint to the Spanish courts to try him when he's released. Not as severe as I'd hoped, but it's a sentence I can respect.


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 2, 2014)

RedDragon said:


>



The Judge even commented on this video when he was summing up saying it showed a lack of remorse


----------



## Gingerman (May 2, 2014)

Celt said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27259318
> 
> He got 8 years, good.


PR your way out of that Maxy boy.........


----------



## The Octagon (May 2, 2014)

I like the idea that his stupidity / ego have added to his time inside.

Hope his victims are satisfied with the verdicts / sentence.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

Was any mitigation offered by the the defence?


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Was any mitigation offered by the the defence?


 There was a mitigation hearing this am.


----------



## The Octagon (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Was any mitigation offered by the the defence?


 
Yep, it's referred to in the judgement, basically - no offences in 27 years since, loads of charity work, man of advanced age, etc, etc.

The judge appears to have taken a dim view of most of it.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

The Octagon said:


> Yep, it's referred to in the judgement, basically - no offences in 27 years since, loads of charity work, man of advanced age, etc, etc.
> 
> The judge appears to have taken a dim view of most of it.



Ye, thats not mitigation really.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

The Octagon said:


> Yep, it's referred to in the judgement, basically - no offences in 27 years since, loads of charity work, man of advanced age, etc, etc.
> 
> The judge appears to have taken a dim view of most of it.



Im reading the judgement in between things. Pretty grim.


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

The Octagon said:


> The judge appears to have taken a dim view of most of it.



Reported as saying that Clifford had relied on "good character" and the jury had rather nullified that


----------



## elbows (May 2, 2014)

Yeah, these were the mitigation arguments, sorry about the Daily Mail link....



> Before sentencing, Richard Horwell QC, for Clifford, warned that his client should not be sentenced with an eye on the fact that his is the first successful prosecution under Operation Yewtree, launched after the Jimmy Savile child sex revelations.
> 
> Mr Horwell told the court: 'He is not to be made an example of for a number of failed prosecutions.
> 
> 'He is to be sentenced for these eight counts and no more, and the totality principle must apply.





> Mr Horwell also drew attention to Clifford's charity work over many years, saying he had raised hundreds of thousands of pounds 'if not millions' for good causes.
> 
> Mr Horwell added: 'This is a man who, in other times of his life, has shown true compassion and understanding for those who have suffered indescribable misfortune and grief.
> 
> ...





> The court also heard from a number of women who said Clifford had always behaved appropriately towards them and the children with whom he spent time.
> 
> Mr Horwell added that his age and physical condition also mean that he is unlikely to reoffend.
> 
> He said: 'This shows, in our submission, that there is no risk of his reoffending. The public do not require protection from him today.'



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ttacks-admitting-fears-worst-sent-prison.html


----------



## Wolveryeti (May 2, 2014)

The Octagon said:


> Yep, it's referred to in the judgement, basically - no offences in 27 years since, loads of charity work, man of advanced age, etc, etc.


 Jimmy Savile could have claimed similar tbh.


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Images I believe.



Er, no: from the link I gave:



> The Australian-born star has pleaded not guilty to nine counts of indecent assault and three counts of sexual assault.
> 
> The Bray-based presenter, artist and musician is accused of assaulting four girls, aged from seven to 19, between 1968 and 1986.
> 
> http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co...rial-to-start-on-Tuesday-April-6-24042014.htm


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Wolveryeti said:


> Jimmy Savile could have claimed similar tbh.


Why did you post that?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

laptop said:


> Er, no: from the link I gave:



Ye, I was going on memory and by the time I had being on Google and my nexus had stopped throwing a wobbler it was pointless editing my post.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

Misjudgement even bringing up his charity work, I would think. And the other stuff - he didn't assault every child he met! Well no shit - he just assaulted the vulnerable ones where he thought he could get away with it.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

How can the judge mention the alleged assault on the 12 year old girl in Spain? And he also says, if I'm understanding it correctly, that he is using some instances which the jury couldn't agree, or found him not guilty of in sentencing.


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> How can the judge mention the alleged assault on the 12 year old girl in Spain?



"SO SUE ME!"


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

laptop said:


> "SO SUE ME!"



Don't get it?


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> How can the judge mention the alleged assault on the 12 year old girl in Spain? And he also says, if I'm understanding it correctly, that he is using some instances which the jury couldn't agree, or found him not guilty of in sentencing.


His statement is very clear on what he was actually sentencing Clifford for - each count gets a chunk of time - so nobody can complain that he has snuck in a few months for a count not convicted for.

But, in the same way that vague handwaving grandstanding is permissible in mitigation, presumably the judge has a certain amount of latitude within which he can present what he sees as aggravating factors, too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

laptop said:


> "SO SUE ME!"


I'm surprised by it as well. I'm also surprised by the judge's repeated mention of what he would have been charged with today. Seems unwise to me - gives the impression that he wanted to give longer sentences than the guidelines allow for.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 2, 2014)




----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> How can the judge mention the alleged assault on the 12 year old girl in Spain?



Because it came up in evidence, even although it wasn't possible to deal with those specific offences. It was a kind thing for the judge to do, basically saying to that victim (who was in court) "I believe you". I hope that helped her a bit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Because it came up in evidence, even although it wasn't possible to deal with those specific offences. It was a kind thing for the judge to do, basically saying to that vistim (who was in court) "I believe you". I hope that helped her a bit.


I hope it helped her, too. But it is not the judge's place to believe her in that way. Judges can be arrogant twats sometimes - to me, that is itself showing contempt for the legal process: 'I'm entitled to comment on stuff that hasn't been tested in court'.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm surprised by it as well. I'm also surprised by the judge's repeated mention of what he would have been charged with today. Seems unwise to me - gives the impression that he wanted to give longer sentences than the guidelines allow for.



Ye. That's what I was getting it. Could it be used by some crafty cunt of a barrister on appeal?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Because it came up in evidence, even although it wasn't possible to deal with those specific offences. It was a kind thing for the judge to do, basically saying to that victim (who was in court) "I believe you". I hope that helped her a bit.



I hope it helped her, but he hasn't being convicted of that offence.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I hope it helped her, too. But it is not the judge's place to believe her in that way. Judges can be arrogant twats sometimes - to me, that is itself showing contempt for the legal process:



Exactly that, and somebody in their position should know better.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Exactly that, and somebody in their position should know better.



I guess he might not be aware of what he's allowed to say, I suppose.


----------



## ibilly99 (May 2, 2014)

*The things they say....*

_There is, however, another twist in this tale because Cowell's generosity did not go down at all well with his spokesman and friend, PR guru Max Clifford.

Clifford famously despises King and was partly responsible for putting him behind bars after three of the pop impresario's victims came to him with their stories of abuse.

"I didn't know about the bail money at the time, but obviously it has come out in conversation with Simon since," says Clifford. I have set him straight about what kind of man King is.

"And I know better than anyone since I spoke at length to several of King's victims and I am proud to say I have a letter from Surrey police thanking me for my help in putting this evil paedophile behind bars."

Clifford had the letter framed and has hung it in his Bond Street office._


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-332299/Simons-shame.html


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> How can the judge mention the alleged assault on the 12 year old girl in Spain? And he also says, if I'm understanding it correctly, that he is using some instances which the jury couldn't agree, or found him not guilty of in sentencing.



Had he got whacked off by a 12 year old in a jacuzzi in Spain today he could be tried for that in the UK, if a UK nonce does some noncing anywhere in the world they can get done for it in the UK.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Had he got whacked off by a 12 year old in a jacuzzi in Spain today he could be tried for that in the UK, if a UK nonce does some noncing anywhere in the world they can get done for it in the UK.


And?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm surprised by it as well. I'm also surprised by the judge's repeated mention of what he would have been charged with today. Seems unwise to me - gives the impression that he wanted to give longer sentences than the guidelines allow for.


How many times was it repeated? He may well have wanted to give a longer sentence. Legally - so what? That's irrelevant given the almost mandatory sentencing we have now. That will be no defence in any sentencing appeal.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And?



And that's why the judge mentioned it. Same as he mentioned that the forced oral copulation would today be classed as rape.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Exactly that, and somebody in their position should know better.


Explain why it should not been said - in your best legalese please.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I guess he might not be aware of what he's allowed to say, I suppose.



It shouldn't have being mentioned.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And?


 that's good?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And that's why the judge mentioned it. Same as he mentioned that the forced oral copulation would today be classed as rape.


It''s almost like he was talking from some legal basis and that it had some relevance isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> It shouldn't have being mentioned.


Why not? Under what rule?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Explain why it should not been said - in your best legalese please.



Because he hasn't been convicted of it. Quite easy!


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It''s almost like he was talking from some legal basis and that it had some relevance isn't it?



No.


----------



## Greebo (May 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> dunno if the 'half served' thing applies in cases this serious, but if it does then its out in 4.


AFAIK it depends on whether he's found to show remorse and take an active part in his rehabilitation.  This rehabilitation and reoffending prevention  may or may not be available.  If it's not, tough shit.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why not? Under what rule?



You tell me?


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Because he hasn't been convicted of it. Quite easy!


I can't see why that makes a difference.

The sentencing is transparently clear as to what the various chunks of the sentence are for - all counts on which Clifford was convicted.

So any additional remarks the judge made have no bearing on how long the final sentence was, and are presumably not appealable on that basis.


----------



## elbows (May 2, 2014)

Much like Savile, its not as if there were no clues in his memoirs...



> Behind this image of suburban respectability, Clifford was busy organising sex parties for his friends at a mate's maisonette in Colliers Wood, South-West London — 'good honest filth', he called it.
> 
> In his memoirs, he boasts about several girls having a 'wonderful time' with a guest they were informed was a film producer. In fact, he was a plumber.



http://www.twimovies.com/news/latest-news/world-news/58160-max-clifford-s-most-ruthless-pr-con.html


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> dunno if the 'half served' thing applies in cases this serious, but if it does then its out in 4.



I've got an idea that if the sentence is over either 4 or 5 years (can't remember which), it's two thirds rather than half.

E2a but if his sentence is four 2 yearers consecutive he'll do half of each so yeah, four.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> You tell me?


The poster on a board ignorant of all rules think that it shouldn't have been. A rule, i think, that has been challenged.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> No.


I think the judge probably knows why and the legal relevance. In fact, he outlined it.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The poster on a board ignorant of all rules think that it shouldn't have been. A rule, i think, that has been challenged.



I've no idea what you are on about.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Because he hasn't been convicted of it. Quite easy!


Now, have a look at why it was mentioned. Better if you had done this first though.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> I've no idea what you are on about.


No, you really don't do you._ I think something shouldn't have happened. I have no idea how to defend that when the reason it happened is outlined either mind._


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm surprised by it as well. I'm also surprised by the judge's repeated mention of what he would have been charged with today. Seems unwise to me - gives the impression that he wanted to give longer sentences than the guidelines allow for.



I think that any Appeal Court would find that it was, generally speaking, in the interests of justice that he explained to the public how the sentence was arrived at.

I haven't read it. Did he refer to precedents - other cases, Appeal Court rulings?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

laptop said:


> I think that any Appeal Court would find that it was, generally speaking, in the interests of justice that he explained to the public how the sentence was arrived at.
> 
> I haven't read it. Did he refer to precedents - other cases, Appeal Court rulings?


Why it wasn't longer being the key one here.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Cue lbj and others actually reading what they're pontificating about now.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Cue lbj and others actually reading what they're pontificating about now.



Pot and kettle.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Cue lbj and others actually reading what they're pontificating about now.


It's in para 49. It reads very oddly to me to bring it up in reference to sentencing. But hey ho, you know better.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Pot and kettle.


What a fantastic original informed counter-thrust.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's in para 49. It reads very oddly to me to bring it up in reference to sentencing. But hey ho, you know better.



Para 21 and 22 are more relevant I think.


----------



## equationgirl (May 2, 2014)

gosub said:


> *Reading yesterday about his phone calls pretending to be famous directors/producers, they were exceedingly gullible*.To use that as a defence or mitigation though, arrogant idiocy that must of had his silk cringing with despair.  A predatory psychopath who deserves to languish regardless of how much help he he can now offer the authorities.


Perhaps I'm misreading what you're writing, but are you describing the victims as gullible?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's in para 49. It reads very oddly to me to bring it up in reference to sentencing. But hey ho, you know better.


Ideal tpye: _In laying before you the reasons behind my sentencing, some of you may feel i err on the side of leniency - let me explain the legal basis for my sentencing today._

That's how you insure against appeal rather than give grounds for appeal.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Perhaps I'm misreading what you're writing, but are you describing the victims as gullible?



Hope I get the tone of this reply right, and apologies if I don't, but an experienced predator chooses victims carefully.

Edit: "Naive" rather than "gullible" though


----------



## elbows (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Perhaps I'm misreading what you're writing, but are you describing the victims as gullible?



If so, its a wrong thing to say on an additional level because the victims didn't exactly fall for these calls at the time. Dodgy fake accents and an inability to resist steering the conversation towards Cliffords knob size were a bit of a give-away to the victims at the time as far as I understood their evidence in court.


----------



## yardbird (May 2, 2014)

BBC - More alleged victims have come forward during the trial.
The police are considering their next move.


----------



## equationgirl (May 2, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Hope I get the tone of this reply right, and apologies if I don't, but an experienced predator chooses victims carefully.
> 
> Edit: "Naive" rather than "gullible" though


I'd agree that he thought they were naive or going on the evidence given in court it was clear that they probably weren't as naive as he thought. 

I think gosub should explain why he thinks the victims were gullible, given the connotations of choosing this word in this particular context.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Perhaps I'm misreading what you're writing, but are you describing the victims as gullible?



They probably were gullible in some cases which makes the acts even more heinous.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2014)

its not gullible is it, its that max had vastly greater social capital, money and age on his victims. So when he did what he did they had at the time fuck all comeback. But post-saville/yewtree/etc the balance of accuser/accused has shifted enough for them to come forward.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its not gullible is it, its that max had vastly greater social capital, money and age on his victims. So when he did what he did they had at the time fuck all comeback. But post-saville/yewtree/etc the balance of accuser/accused has shifted enough for them to come forward.



Gullible/naive? I reckon he knew or relied on the fact that some of the girls/women were.


----------



## Dan U (May 2, 2014)

Did dwyer predict this?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> _Clifford famously despises King and was partly responsible for putting him behind bars after three of the pop impresario's victims came to him with their stories of abuse.
> 
> "I didn't know about the bail money at the time, but obviously it has come out in conversation with Simon since," says Clifford. I have set him straight about what kind of man King is.
> 
> ...


 
King must be laughing now...


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Did dwyer predict this?


 
Aye.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> He's a wrong 'un to the marrow of his bones.



Here's a thing for broader consideration : PR and celeb bibble is very much central to public life and media content, it's something of a national obsession really. When it turns out that such a  predominant figure in that world was a systemic predator and horrendous abuser, should it not cause us to look at our "culture" rather closer? Of course, it's unlikely to happen, but what's likely to happen is the continued objectification of females and over-emphasis on sex as if nothing could possibly go rong.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

He's a 71 year old bloke who was the go to bloke for people on the public eye growing up in the 50s.  Whatever it says about today, it says it about a long ago today.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Here's a thing for broader consideration : PR and celeb bibble is very much central to public life and media content, it's something of a national obsession really. When it turns out that such a  predominant figure in that world was a systemic predator and horrendous abuser, should it not cause us to look at our "culture" rather closer? Of course, it's unlikely to happen, but what's likely to happen is the continued objectification of females and over-emphasis on sex as if nothing could possibly go rong.


It already has happened, and the bringing of this case is a part of that. There were various rumours about Clifford for years, as there were about Savile and about Rolf Harris. Such rumours are much less likely to remain just rumours now, I would suggest, where there is substance behind them.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Did dwyer predict this?


 
I knew the judge would throw the book at him after that daft stunt he pulled about imitating the TV reporter.  I reckon this cost him 5 years:


----------



## Geri (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It already has happened, and the bringing of this case is a part of that. There were various rumours about Clifford for years, as there were about Savile and about Rolf Harris. Such rumours are much less likely to remain just rumours now, I would suggest, where there is substance behind them.


 
I never heard any rumours about Rolf Harris before he was arrested.


----------



## cesare (May 2, 2014)

Geri said:


> I never heard any rumours about Rolf Harris before he was arrested.


Me neither


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I knew the judge would throw the book at him after that daft stunt he pulled about imitating the TV reporter.  I reckon this cost him 5 years:




Fucking hell, I know that the judgment mentioned this, but I hadn't seen it before. Clifford's QC must have been pleased.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Fucking hell, I know that the judgment mentioned this, but I hadn't seen it before. Clifford's QC must have been pleased.


 
Innit.  Silly bugger obviously can't help himself.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2014)

Geri said:


> I never heard any rumours about Rolf Harris before he was arrested.





cesare said:


> Me neither


you must have been the only two people in the country who hadn't. even my mum had and she doesn't much follow the news.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Did dwyer predict this?


no


----------



## Buckaroo (May 2, 2014)

jeff_leigh said:


> I agree absolutely no remorse whatsoever, I'll bet he's even feeling sorry for himself


Psychopaths don't feel sorry for themselves, they eat an ice-cream and move on, it's the victims and people like Richard and Judy I feel sorry for.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

Geri said:


> I never heard any rumours about Rolf Harris before he was arrested.


I didn't hear any about Max Clifford, but it turns out that they were there among people who knew him. That's the point, really, not that everyone in the country had heard rumours, and of course, rumours can be simply that.

In the case of Harris, I heard rumours a few years ago, although I have no connection to him at all.

Also, 'rumours' can be code for 'hearsay'. I'd make a distinction here - there's a difference between hearing someone say 'I've heard he's gropey' and 'he groped me'. Both would count as rumour if passed on.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't hear any about Max Clifford, but it turns out that they were there among people who knew him. That's the point, really, not that everyone in the country had heard rumours, and of course, rumours can be simply that.
> 
> In the case of Harris, I heard rumours a few years ago, although I have no connection to him at all.


That's pretty piss poor.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Psychopaths don't feel sorry for themselves, they eat an ice-cream and move on, it's the victims and people like Richard and Judy I feel sorry for.


ftfy


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's a 71 year old bloke who was the go to bloke for people on the public eye growing up in the 50s.  Whatever it says about today, it says it about a long ago today.


he was born in 1943 so unlikely to have been the go-to bloke for people in the public eye growing up in the 50s.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> ftfy


Cheers! No mention. Only place I ever seen him.


----------



## yardbird (May 2, 2014)

I heard from a mate who was in The Young Generation about Harris and some of the girls.
That was a long, long time ago.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> he was born in 1943 so unlikely to have been the go-to bloke for people in the public eye growing up in the 50s.


That would make him exactly the right age for people growing up in the 50s to go to when they needed representation from the 60s onwards.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That would make him exactly the right age for people growing up in the 50s to go to when they needed representation from the 60s onwards.


only people with unusual perspicacity and foresight.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2014)

yardbird said:


> I heard from a mate who was in The Young Generation about Harris and some of the girls.
> That was a long, long time ago.


which generation is your mate in now?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> only people with unusual perspicacity and foresight.


Or just growing up in the 50s.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Or just growing up in the 50s.


your post #457 made it sound like he had started representing people in the 50s.

anyway, moving on...


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Perhaps I'm misreading what you're writing, but are you describing the victims as gullible?


I do think they were, in large part, very suggestible - partly, perhaps, because of their age and inexperience, partly because Clifford was using his image to sell a dream that has always been a very alluring one to young people, especially women, and partly because he seems to have been adept at targeting vulnerable or easily manipulated people.

"Gullible" is a loaded word, which probably makes it a rather unfortunate term to use in this context.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

Wrong word in this instance, imo. It's important for his victims to know that what happened to them was not their fault.


----------



## equationgirl (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I do think they were, in large part, very suggestible - partly, perhaps, because of their age and inexperience, partly because Clifford was using his image to sell a dream that has always been a very alluring one to young people, especially women, and partly because he seems to have been adept at targeting vulnerable or easily manipulated people.
> 
> "Gullible" is a loaded word, which probably makes it a rather unfortunate term to use in this context.


I think he did deliberately target young, inexperienced women because they would not necessarily have the life experience to know he was manipulating them for his own ends. He is a predator of the worst kind.

I just don't think that describing them as gullible is helpful or even correct. No victim of a rape or sexual assault should be described in such a way. It was absolutely not their fault. This is a public forum and there are hundreds of lurkers. We should be mindful that anyone could read these posts.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's a 71 year old bloke who was the go to bloke for people on the public eye growing up in the 50s.  Whatever it says about today, it says it about a long ago today.


I think a lot of the influences and attitudes still prevail. Perhaps a modern-day Clifford might not be able to trade so heavily on naivety and ignorance, but you only have to look at the influence of shows like X-Factor, Big Brother, etc., to realise how glossily alluring the celebrity world is to many people, generally younger, and the lengths to which they will go (in some cases including deliberate humiliation as part of the show's _schtick_) for that celebrity. It's only a short hop from there to a Cliffordesque svengali figure offering it all for a quick grope on his leather sofa...and if he can use a little blackmail along the way, well, there you go.

And I don't think we've made nearly enough permanent change post-Savile to be able to be sure that the paradigm really has shifted - I'd want to see a consistent change in attitudes for quite a long time before I was ready to believe that someone being Clifforded in five years' time could go to the police the day after and have an expectation of being taken seriously. You only have to look at the mutterings all over the reactionary press, FB, etc. about "gold diggers" and so on to realise that the gains we've made could easily be undermined.


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> This is a public forum and there are hundreds of lurkers. We should be mindful that anyone could read these posts.



True but 10/10 on the pompous scale.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2014)

yardbird said:


> BBC - More alleged victims have come forward during the trial.
> The police are considering their next move.


 Yes, I believe the BBC were reporting that the details were already with the CPS. Mark Williams-Thomas was on C4 News tonight arguing strongly in favour of the naming of those charged with such offences on the basis of the number of additional disclosures that have been made since Clifford was charged.

It seems, rather than for an appeal, Clifford will next appear in court to face additional charges...as Hall did.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 2, 2014)




----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you must have been the only two people in the country who hadn't. even my mum had and she doesn't much follow the news.



Make that three.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Now, the papers and other media outlets he relied on and who had cosy relationships with - where are they in this? Anywhere?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's a 71 year old bloke who was the go to bloke for people on the public eye growing up in the 50s.  Whatever it says about today, it says it about a long ago today.



How so?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I think a lot of the influences and attitudes still prevail. Perhaps a modern-day Clifford might not be able to trade so heavily on naivety and ignorance, but you only have to look at the influence of shows like X-Factor, Big Brother, etc., to realise how glossily alluring the celebrity world is to many people, generally younger, and the lengths to which they will go (in some cases including deliberate humiliation as part of the show's _schtick_) for that celebrity. It's only a short hop from there to a Cliffordesque svengali figure offering it all for a quick grope on his leather sofa...and if he can use a little blackmail along the way, well, there you go.
> 
> And I don't think we've made nearly enough permanent change post-Savile to be able to be sure that the paradigm really has shifted - I'd want to see a consistent change in attitudes for quite a long time before I was ready to believe that someone being Clifforded in five years' time could go to the police the day after and have an expectation of being taken seriously. You only have to look at the mutterings all over the reactionary press, FB, etc. about "gold diggers" and so on to realise that the gains we've made could easily be undermined.


Yes, there's remnants and left-overs of the rather crude way these old blokes did it - but the point taffboy brought up wasn't really to so with the limited aspect of culture/culture that's to do x-factor (where class distaste dominates criticisms) but wider "objectification of females and over-emphasis on sex " - and frankly, he and his generation don't play much of a role in the way this is manifested today. They're pretty irrelevant.  His thing was the use of confidential info - selling that - and then turning it on its head and defending people in the media accused of the sort of stuff that he had fed to the media.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> His thing was the use of confidential info - selling that - and then turning it on its head and defending people in the media accused of the sort of stuff that he had fed to the media.


 
Actually his main thing was keeping stuff _out _of the papers, not putting it in.


----------



## equationgirl (May 2, 2014)

kenny g said:


> True but 10/10 on the pompous scale.


What was pompous about gently reminding people that these very victims might stumble across posts describing them as gullible?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Actually his main thing was keeping stuff _out _of the papers, not putting it in.


Oh how sweetly naive you are phillip.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Actually his main thing was keeping stuff _out _of the papers, not putting it in.


No, not true. He boasted that he could get you onto the front page of The Sun - for a fee. And he could. That's what he did.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Innit.  Silly bugger obviously can't help himself.


Clifford's appearance after conviction was incredibly stupid. 'My lawyers have advised me not to say anything' and then standing around smirking like an arrogant shit. And he did exactly the same thing this morning when Sky News approached him at his house, but added that he stood by what he had said in the past when asked about his victims (i.e. that they were liars). Way to maximise your sentence, you horrible idiot.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, there's remnants and left-overs of the rather crude way these old blokes did it - but the point taffboy brought up wasn't really to so with the limited aspect of culture/culture that's to do x-factor (where class distaste dominates criticisms) but wider "objectification of females and over-emphasis on sex " - and frankly, he and his generation don't play much of a role in the way this is manifested today. They're pretty irrelevant.  His thing was the use of confidential info - selling that - and then turning it on its head and defending people in the media accused of the sort of stuff that he had fed to the media.


No, Clifford and his generation don't, but I'd eat one of my several hats if there isn't a contemporary equivalent out there today, doing just what Clifford did only different.

I know you're not suggesting that it's all "job done, all sorted", but I think your post prompted me to feel I needed to sound that cautionary note - as a society, we are always all too ready to reassure ourselves that we've fixed the problem, lightning doesn't strike twice, etc., to our eventual regret.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, not true. He boasted that he could get you onto the front page of The Sun - for a fee. And he could. That's what he did.


 
Heh, you're soooo naive sometimes.  It's _absolutely _true.  Sure he could get you on the front page of The Sun.  But his real money was made by keeping people _off _the front page of The Sun--far more expensive than getting them in.  That's how it works.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> No, Clifford and his generation don't, but I'd eat one of my several hats if there isn't a contemporary equivalent out there today, doing just what Clifford did only different.
> 
> I know you're not suggesting that it's all "job done, all sorted", but I think your post prompted me to feel I needed to sound that cautionary note - as a society, we are always all too ready to reassure ourselves that we've fixed the problem, lightning doesn't strike twice, etc., to our eventual regret.


Fair enough. My post was intended to suggest the opposite - that this hasn't gone away, but it's not likely to be people like Hastings types influencing how its done _today_.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Heh, you're soo naive sometimes.  It's _absolutely _true.  Sure he could get you on the front page of The Sun.  But his real money was made by keeping people _off _the front page of The Sun--far more expensive than getting them in.


Sure, he did both. Getting you into the papers with stories you want there, and keeping the stories you don't want in there out. In other words, he was a _publicist_.


----------



## cesare (May 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you must have been the only two people in the country who hadn't. even my mum had and she doesn't much follow the news.


Had your mum heard any rumours prior to the Jimmy Savile-geddon?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh how sweetly naive you are phillip.


 
Heh.  It's nothing to be proud of, but I believe I know more about Fleet Street than you do.  Trust me on this one: Clifford's genius was for the _avoidance _of publicity.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure, he did both. Getting you into the papers with stories you want there, and keeping the stories you don't want in there out. In other words, he was a _publicist_.


 
I've heard some of the stories he told in his semi-private chats to various newsrooms.  If even a tenth of them are true (and he'd no reason to lie in these contexts), he squashed about twenty times more salacious stories than he instigated.

Anyone else hear his story about Hillary Clinton for instance?


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Actually his main thing was keeping stuff _out _of the papers, not putting it in.


Well, making sure that what went _in_ the papers suited _him_ and his own agenda - a slightly different thing...


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> What was pompous about gently reminding people that these very victims might stumble across posts describing them as gullible?



I understand the connotations of the word gullible but it doesn't mean some of them weren't indeed gullible... Caught up in the lime light or whatever.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Actually his main thing was keeping stuff _out _of the papers, not putting it in.



No it wasn't. Freddie Starr ate my hamster etc.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh how sweetly naive you are phillip.



Hmm, he's fishing, don't take the bait.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Well, making sure that what went _in_ the papers suited _him_ and his own agenda - a slightly different thing...


 
Making sure that what went in the papers accorded with his ability to make the  most money--_that _was his thing.

And under the right circumstances famous people will pay far, far more money to keep out of the papers than to get into them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> No it wasn't. Freddie Starr ate my hamster etc.


tbf we don't know the stuff he kept out. I have no idea what proportion of his income went on each side of it. Suffice to say that he did both. It might have been in his interests to talk up the idea that he knew really bad stuff, though. Sounds odd and unprofessional to me that he'd reveal stories he'd sat on in casual private chats. Maybe he did, but it's not a wise thing to do and a reputation for a loose tongue would not have been good for him.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> I understand the connotations of the word gullible but it doesn't mean some of them weren't indeed gullible... Caught up in the lime light or whatever.


But the thing is that labelling them "gullible" at the very least implies a transfer of some part of the responsibility for what happened onto them.

I don't think that's reasonable. What Clifford - and Savile, and all the others before him - did was to exploit their position and, as someone neatly put it, social capital to take advantage of the naivety - and, if you must, gullibility - of people for their own gratification. 

Exploit.

When we bandy words like "gullible" around, we take a step or two down the road of legitimising the way in which people like Clifford make use of such a characteristic, because it's there.

I'm sure that's not what you're meaning to say, but I am equally sure that you can see how such a term is very easily misconstrued, and why it might therefore be a good idea to try to find less loaded and victim-blaming words to use, in the same way that we wouldn't nowadays tend to remark on the way a woman is dressed in connection with, say, rape.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2014)

cesare said:


> your mum


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Anyone else hear his story about Hillary Clinton for instance?



No, and frankly couldn't care less


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> No it wasn't. Freddie Starr ate my hamster etc.


 
Darling, do you know what an iceberg is?


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> What was pompous about gently reminding people that these very victims might stumble across posts describing them as gullible?



Referring to the hundreds of lurkers might be thought of as pompous by some people who happen to stumble across this thread.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Making sure that what went in the papers accorded with his ability to make the  most money--_that _was his thing.
> 
> And under the right circumstances famous people will pay far, far more money to keep out of the papers than to get into them.



He was a racketeer/blackmailer then?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> No, and frankly couldn't care less


 
If you couldn't care less about Hillary Clinton's misdemeanors, you're a fool.  She's only the next leader of the free world, nothing important like.

Anyway, Clifford reckoned the story was unpublishable.  But it's a very good story.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> He was a racketeer/blackmailer then?


 
You catch on fast sunshine.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> But the thing is that labelling them "gullible" at the very least implies a transfer of some part of the responsibility for what happened onto them.



I'm replying to this snippet rather than the eniterety of your post. The fact that that victim may have being gullible, and at such a young age they probably were, aggrivates the severity of the offence in that he consciously used that as a tool in his offending.

Yes, I understand the difference both literarily and in common usage of the words gullible and naive.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> If you couldn't care less about Hillary Clinton's misdemeanors, you're a fool.  She's only the next leader of the free world, nothing important like.
> 
> Anyway, Clifford reckoned the story was unpublishable.  But it's a very good story.



I heard she sucked off Bill Clinton.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Anyway, Clifford reckoned the story was unpublishable.  But it's a very good story.



Couldn't give a flying fuck!


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 2, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


>




Look at how his photochromic glasses get increasingly darker the longer he speaks. Like a kind of nonce Pinocchio.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> If you couldn't care less about Hillary Clinton's misdemeanors, you're a fool.  She's only the next leader of the free world, nothing important like.
> 
> Anyway, Clifford reckoned the story was unpublishable.  But it's a very good story.



Couldn't give a single solitary fuck quite frankly.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I heard she sucked off Bill Clinton.



Who hasn't?


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> I'm replying to this snippet rather than the eniterety of your post. The fact that that victim may have being gullible, and at such a young age they probably were, aggrivates the severity of the offence in that he consciously used that as a tool in his offending.
> 
> Yes, I understand the difference both literarily and in common usage of the words gullible and naive.


But I suspect you are failing to appreciate that others won't (_vide_ your "lurkers" comment above).

It wasn't pompous of equationgirl to suggest that we have a care about the terms we use. Maybe it's not on the scale of N-word type stuff, but labelling victims of abuse as "gullible" does undermine what is almost certainly an already fragile position. There's no law against it - I just think you were being asked to be thoughtful: it's not just about dictionary definitions.


----------



## equationgirl (May 2, 2014)

kenny g said:


> Referring to the hundreds of lurkers might be thought of as pompous by some people who happen to stumble across this thread.


Why? At the moment there are 244 guest lurkers on the forum - which increases significantly when there's a hot topic on the news.

It's a statement of fact.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> But I suspect you are failing to appreciate that others won't (_vide_ your "lurkers" comment above).
> 
> It wasn't pompous of equationgirl to suggest that we have a care about the terms we use. Maybe it's not on the scale of N-word type stuff, but labelling victims of abuse as "gullible" does undermine what is almost certainly an already fragile position. There's no law against it - I just think you were being asked to be thoughtful: it's not just about dictionary definitions.



I never mentioned lurkers, you have me mixed up with another poster.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> I never mentioned lurkers, you have me mixed up with another poster.


You responded to another poster who was talking about lurkers. It was what we sometimes refer to as a..."conversation". It happens.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> You responded to another poster who was talking about lurkers. It was what we sometimes refer to as a..."conversation". It happens.



Oh right, sorry. Link the post? I've had a few glasses of red.


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> It's a statement of fact.



True, although it may be thought somewhat  pompous to draw one's attention to it. I did say, 



> True but 10/10 on the pompous scale.


 after all.


----------



## equationgirl (May 2, 2014)

kenny g said:


> True, although it may be thought somewhat  pompous to draw one's attention to it. I did say,
> 
> after all.


I think you need to look up the definition of pompous.


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I think you need to look up the definition of pompous.



Is there any contradiction between a statement of fact being a pompous one?


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2014)

and what?


----------



## equationgirl (May 2, 2014)

kenny g said:


> Is there any contradiction between a statement of fact being a pompous one?


Give it a rest.


----------



## emanymton (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> If you couldn't care less about Hillary Clinton's misdemeanors, you're a fool.  She's only the next leader of the free world, nothing important like.
> 
> Anyway, Clifford reckoned the story was unpublishable.  But it's a very good story.


I knew a story about Chelsea Clinton, which to be frank isn't that interesting, bet yours isn't either.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

Breakdown of his sentence.

The judge handed down the following sentences:


*Twelve months* and *18 months* relating to a girl who said Clifford abused her on a number of occasions after he met her family on holiday in Torremolinos in Spain in 1977 when she was 15. She claimed he would go to her house, impressing her parents and speaking about how he could make her a star, before taking her out in his car and molesting her
*Two terms of 24 months* (each to be served *concurrently to each other* but consecutively to the other sentences) relating to the same girl
*Six months* relating to a woman, who was an extra in the film Octopussy, who claimed she was targeted at Clifford's office in 1981 or 1982, aged 19. After she had spoken on the phone to a man claiming to be actor Charles Bronson, Clifford pinned her down on a sofa but she fought him off
*Six months* and *21 months* (to be served *concurrently to each other* but consecutively to the other sentences) relating to a girl who was an aspiring model who went to Clifford's office in the early 1980s, when she was in her late teens. She said Clifford groped her and tried to force her to perform a sex act
*Fifteen months* relating to a woman who was an 18-year-old dancer when Clifford took her into a nightclub toilet in the early 1980s and forced her to touch him intimately, saying: "Who is going to believe you?"


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Oh right, sorry. Link the post? I've had a few glasses of red.


So have I. I'll do it in the morning, if I remember 

ETA: *wobble, swerve*


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Fifteen* months* relating to a woman who was an 18-year-old dancer when Clifford took her into a nightclub toilet in the early 1980s and forced her to touch him intimately, saying: "Who is going to believe you?"



He got somebody to wank him off whilst asking "who is going to believe you?" Don't copy and paste misleading bullshit.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2014)

I wonder if he will write an expose on his celeb clients while in the nick..

If a civil case for damages goes ahead, he may need extra cash.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> He got somebody to wank him off whilst asking "who is going to believe you?" Don't copy and paste misleading bullshit.


Sorry I was only quoting from the BBC website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27259318

Presumably what the judge summed up but I might be wrong. I was not at the summing up.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I wonder if he will write an expose on his celeb clients while in the nick..
> 
> If a civil case for damages goes ahead, he may need extra cash.


_Hello max, i'm a massive paedo - can you keep it out the papers. Here's some money. Just to be sure, i am a massive fucking paedo and i'm telling you that i am._

FACT.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

i hope clifford gets raped and murdered whilst inside. fingers crossed.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i hope clifford gets raped and murdered whilst inside. fingers crossed.



Raped? No. Muderered by his own petard? Yes.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Hello max, i'm a massive paedo - can you keep it out the papers. Here's some money. Just to be sure, i am a massive fucking paedo and i'm telling you that i am._
> 
> FACT.


hmm....

He did allude (in an interview) to a rich man whose affair he managed to keep secret from their wife, for which he was well paid, I imagine things more like that rather than actual paedos.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Raped? No. Muderered by his own petard? Yes.


i'm sorry, who the fuck are you?
give your reasons.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i hope clifford gets raped and murdered whilst inside. fingers crossed.


Prison rape. LOL.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

> He did allude (in an interview) to a rich man whose affair he managed to keep secret from their wife, for which he was well paid, I imagine things more like that rather than actual paedos.



And this rich man said: Hello max, i'm a massive **** - can you keep it out the papers. Here's some money. Just to be sure, i am a massive fucking *** and i'm telling you that i am.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Prison rape. LOL.


i'm not loling. it wasn't a joke. i hope they do to him three times over what he did to others.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Raped? No. Muderered by his own petard? Yes.


Are you Max Clifford's on line agent?


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i'm not loling. it wasn't a joke. i hope they do to him three times over what he did to others.


And I guess, if you were his cellmate, you'd be quite happy to do the deed, right?


----------



## equationgirl (May 2, 2014)

Rape LOL 

ffs discokermit


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> And I guess, if you were his cellmate, you'd be quite happy to do the deed, right?


me? no. not at all. i'm keeping me nose clean guvnor.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Rape LOL
> 
> ffs discokermit


where's the 'lol'?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Are you Max Clifford's on line agent?



???


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i'm sorry, who the fuck are you?
> give your reasons.



My reasons? Well, forced sex is wrong, maybe you disagree?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> I've had a few glasses of red.


 
No kidding.  Bedtime maybe?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i'm not loling. it wasn't a joke. i hope they do to him three times over what he did to others.


Go rapists.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> My reasons? Well, forced sex is wrong, maybe you disagree?


but killing people isn't?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I knew a story about Chelsea Clinton, which to be frank isn't that interesting, bet yours isn't either.


 
I'll take that bet Sir.

Shall we say a tenner?

Cool.  Now we need an impartial judge.  Is Butchersapron acceptable to you in that role?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> My reasons? Well, forced sex is wrong, maybe you disagree?


 
Go to bed you fucking idiot.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> but killing people isn't?


Hey, let's stick to the forced sex for now, given that it seems to be getting you quite excited...


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> ???


Well what is wrong to post a quote from the BBC website a fairly reliable source but if you think that is unjustified then that is up to you.

Maybe you are being rude about monkeys.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> but killing people isn't?



If they choose to do it their selves.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> If they choose to do it their selves.


 
Go to bed you twat.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Go to bed you fucking idiot.



I'm in my Jim jams but I may pour another glass just to see where its going. You think that raping a person is okay Phil?


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Hey, let's stick to the forced sex for now, given that it seems to be getting you quite excited...


the 'excited' bit is in your imagination. what i'm saying is it would be good if he suffered some of what he dished out. eye for an eye, like. except multiplied a bit. maybe 'murdered' was over the top.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> I'm in my Jim jams but I may pour another glass just to see where its going. You think that raping a person is okay Phil?


Twat. Re-read what you have posted in the morning then look in the mirror.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> ???


 
Fuck off.

Now, anyone else up for a bet?  The bet is that my gossip on Hillary is interesting.  Odds are evens, stake is a tenner.  Butchers is the judge.  Anyone in has to say so by 11pm.

The book is now open ladies and gents...


----------



## Kesher (May 2, 2014)

Re rape:

I suspect hardly any prisoners would relish the thought of shagging a 71 year old man's arse. Surely that's a grim prospect in virtually anyone's book; a beating is most likely. And anyway, I was under the impression that homosexual rape was a US penitentiary thing not a UK one


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Fuck off.
> 
> Now, anyone else up for a bet?  The bet is that my gossip on Hillary is interesting.  Odds are evens, stake is a tenner.  Butchers is the judge.  Anyone in has to say so by 11pm.
> 
> The book is now open ladies and gents...



Nobody cares.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

Another quote from twitter (if that is allowed!!!)

*Paul Whitelaw* ‏@paulwhitelaw  1h
The thought of Max Clifford crying himself to sleep in prison should be an immense source of comfort and amusement to society as a whole.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Twat. Re-read what you have posted in the morning then look in the mirror.



Explain it now. I may be drunk but my morals don't falter.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And this rich man said: Hello max, i'm a massive **** - can you keep it out the papers. Here's some money. Just to be sure, i am a massive fucking *** and i'm telling you that i am.


 
Not sure why this strikes you as unlikely.  Or even _if _it strikes you as unlikely.  But it's late.  Are you still alright to hold the money for our bet?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> but killing people isn't?



Do you not know the phrase  about "ones own petard"?


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

Kesher said:


> Re rape:
> 
> I suspect hardly any prisoners would relish the thought of shagging a 71 year old man's arse.


that's not what rape is about.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> the 'excited' bit is in your imagination. what i'm saying is it would be good if he suffered some of what he dished out. eye for an eye, like. except multiplied a bit. maybe 'murdered' was over the top.


I expect the excitement made you go a bit over the top.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Explain it now. I may be drunk but my morals don't falter.


 
Just to confirm, you're in for a tenner. Right?  Butchers is going to announce the verdict in 8 minutes, so this is your last chance to withdraw.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

Kesher said:


> Re rape:
> 
> I suspect hardly any prisoners would relish the thought of shagging a 71 year old man's arse. Surely that's a grim prospect in virtually anyone's book; a beating is most likely. And anyway, I was under the impression that homosexual rape was a US penitentiary thing not a UK one



I don't think that happens in UK nicks.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Do you not know the phrase  about "ones own petard"?


fuck off you pissed up cunt.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Do you not know the phrase  about "ones own petard"?


 
There's no such phrase you fucking idiot.  Six minutes left if you want to back out.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Not sure why this strikes you as unlikely.  Or even _if _it strikes you as unlikely.  But it's late.  Are you still alright to hold the money for our bet?


It isn't that it's unlikely, more impossible. What mechanism would he use to keep it out of the papers?


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2014)

Personally I am happy with the sentence, and the possibility of a civil trial for damages.
I hope nothing "else" happens to Clifford inside.
Two wrongs don't make a right!


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> It isn't that it's unlikely, more impossible. What mechanism would he use to keep it out of the papers?


 
Simple, he threatens not to give them any more stories if they don't do him this favor.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I expect the excitement made you go a bit over the top.


not at all. where have i indicated excitement?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Hello, i'll tell you my massive crimes, you noted grass to the papers of secrets for money, here's some money not to sell it to the papers. Have a you a pen, good, then, i'll start...


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> I don't think that happens in UK nicks.


 
Shut up.  You've got more serious things on your mind now.  Tell me you if want to back out, you've only got three minutes left now...


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Explain it now. I may be drunk but my morals don't falter.


Explain what? I have quoted from a reliable source (or are you questioning that?) and you try to make me out to be a cunt. what is there to explain? Where does this go against your morals?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> There's no such phrase you fucking idiot.  Six minutes left if you want to back out.



You don't know Shakespeare then my friend!


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> not at all. where have i indicated excitement?


No idea. Perhaps it was the way in which you seemed so enthusiastic about him being raped/murdered in prison that gave it away?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hello, i'll tell you my massive crimes, you noted grass to the papers of secrets for money, here's some money not to sell it to the papers. Have a you a pen, good, then, i'll start...


 
No dude.  It's more like: "Yo Max, I'm in trouble, the press have found out I like to get blow-jobs off baby turtles, can you get them off my back, here's a million quid to grease the wheels..."

Seriously, this is how Mr. World likes to work.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> You don't know Shakespeare then my friend!


 
One minute.  Speak now or forever hold your piece.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Do you not know the phrase  about "ones own petard"?


A small bomb used for blowing up your own arse?


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> No idea. Perhaps it was the way in which you seemed so enthusiastic about him being raped/murdered in prison that gave it away?


so, first you thought i was joking, now you think i'm frothing?

'i hope i've got enough milk for my cornflakes tomorrow' .  how do you read that? frothing? jokey?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> A small bomb used for blowing up your own arse?


How do you blow up your own arse? I think _new poster_ monkeywhatever might be able to help here.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No dude.  It's more like: "Yo Max, I'm in trouble, the press have found out I like to get blow-jobs off baby turtles, can you get them off my back, here's a million quid to grease the wheels..."
> 
> Seriously, this is how Mr. World likes to work.


and yet he'll reveal these secrets - which he's taken a 7-figure sum to silence the world's media - in an after dinner speech to you and your mates (or whatever it was)? chinny reckon.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> A small bomb used for blowing up your own arse?



Quick qoogle search?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Simple, he threatens not to give them any more stories if they don't do him this favor.


Ah, so there's a balance here. On that balance, the value of the stories he gives them must outweigh the value of the stories he wants withheld. I'd think one real scandal would equal quite a few made-up hamster-in-your-arse scoops. 

So what about the papers that don't give a shit about his made-up celebrity gossip? How did he work his magic with them? 

I suspect that the truth is rather more mundane. He placed a series of mostly made-up celebrity gossip stories and managed to have a number of equally irrelevant gossippy real stories withheld. All he knows is who shagged whom, and perhaps the odd closet homosexual film star. I suspect that there is far less to Clifford than he'd like people to believe.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How do you blow up your own arse? I think _new poster_ monkeywhatever might be able to help here.


Stick a petard up it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Actually. Not sure Friday night persiflage is right for this thread. So i'm stopping.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Quick qoogle search?


No I read a lot of Bernard Cornwell books.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Stick a petard up it.


(I meant talk into your own anus and hear an echo -a la other posters)


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> and yet he'll reveal these secrets - which he's taken a 7-figure sum to silence the world's media - in an after dinner speech to you and your mates (or whatever it was)? chinny reckon.


 
Not to me and my mates.  To a rather more select gathering.  It's 100% true.  If you know anyone in London meeja just ask around about it, if not feel free to PM me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> chinny reckon.


You put it more elegantly than me.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Quick qoogle search?


 
Right, time's up.  You owe me a tenner.  Tell him Butchers.

PM me for details of a suitable charity.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Not to me and my mates.  To a rather more select gathering.  It's 100% true.  If you know anyone in London meeja just ask around about it, if not feel free to PM me.


I don't doubt he may have told some coked up media wankers some bullshit story about Hilary Clinton. That bit sounds very plausible.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> so, first you thought i was joking, now you think i'm frothing?
> 
> 'i hope i've got enough milk for my cornflakes tomorrow' .  how do you read that? frothing? jokey?


Depends how much you heat the milk up, I guess. I tend to find it needs to be quite warm to be frothing, and then the cornflakes go soggy rather fast.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> I don't doubt he may have told some coked up media wankers some bullshit story about Hilary Clinton. That bit sounds very plausible.


 
I agree.  But to me it sounds far more plausible that he told said wankers a _true _story about Hillary Clinton.  As I said before, why would he lie in that context?

Anyway, this is not exactly what you'd call a well-kept secret, there are at least two posters on these boards who have certain knowledge of it.  Nor is Hillary the only such ace up his sleeve...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> I don't doubt he may have told some coked up media wankers some bullshit story about Hilary Clinton. That bit sounds very plausible.


Some coked up media wanker told phildwyer some bullshit story about Max Clifford telling them some crap about Hilary Clinton. There's the real story.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

clifford is always bigging himself up. he's a massive liar. why would anyone believe anything he told them? you mug dwyer.

in the end he could only get pauline fucking quirk and des o fucking connor to speak up for him, that's what a master manipulator/cleaner upper he is. the cunt.


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I agree.  But to me it sounds far more plausible that he told said wankers a _true _story about Hillary Clinton.  As I said before, why would he lie in that context?
> 
> Anyway, this is not exactly what you'd call a well-kept secret, there are at least two posters on these boards who have certain knowledge of it.  Nor is Hillary the only such ace up his sleeve...



Nobody cares about Hilary Clinton!! Ffs give it a rest.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Nobody cares about Hilary Clinton!! Ffs give it a rest.


 
Are you going to pay up now then?  Welshers aren't welcome around here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> clifford is always bigging himself up. he's a massive liar. why would anyone believe anything he told them? you mug dwyer.
> 
> in the end he could only get pauline fucking quirk and des o fucking connor to speak up for him, that's what a master manipulator/cleaner upper he is. the cunt.


Indeed. 

And now nobody will be listening to anything he has to say. Let him write his book. Nobody will publish it. Nobody will touch him now. He is finished.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> clifford is always bigging himself up. he's a massive liar. why would anyone believe anything he told them? you mug dwyer.


 
Jesus Christ.  Alright, look, let's take this bit by bit.

Do you think it unlikely that Clifford has the dirt on loads of celebs?

Do you think it unlikely that much of said dirt is borderline publishable?

Do you think it unlikely that Clifford would boast about said stories in a context where he felt himself secure?

Or what?  Just what is so freaking unlikely about this?  Eh?  And hurry up please or that tosser will try to wriggle out of paying my money.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Welshers aren't welcome around here.


 Nobody has used that word for about 50 years.

*packs bags*


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Are you going to pay up now then?  Welshers aren't welcome around here.



Short answer is no, sorry love.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2014)

It's just bullshit phil. You blatantly don't even believe it yourself. I dunno why I'm bothering, you barely are.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> It's just bullshit phil. You blatantly don't even believe it yourself. I dunno why I'm bothering, you barely are.


 
Well I see that Welshing fucker is banned now, so I guess it's irrelevant.  Good, very good. People should fucking pay up when thy lose their fucking bets, that's what I say.  And if they don't--BAN them. No mercy.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> It's just bullshit phil. You blatantly don't even believe it yourself. I dunno why I'm bothering, you barely are.


this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Jesus Christ.  Alright, look, let's take this bit by bit.
> 
> Do you think it unlikely that Clifford has the dirt on loads of celebs?
> 
> ...


He was publicist to a bunch of twats, though. Mostly talentless, desperate twats. Nobody will care about what he knows.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's a 71 year old bloke who was the go to bloke for people on the public eye growing up in the 50s.  Whatever it says about today, it says it about a long ago today.



His clients included Simon Cowell, orchestrator of probably the most hyped TV spectacles of the last 10 years, and followed by people who are still growing up now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> His clients included Simon Cowell, orchestrator of probably the most hyped TV spectacles of the last 10 years, and followed by people who are still growing up now.


Exactly. Who gives a shit what Clifford knows about that twat?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

Mind you, I'll open another book tomorrow if anyone's up for it.  Butchers still has the chalk.  And anyone else Welshing will also be BANNED--permanently.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> His clients included Simon Cowell, orchestrator of probably the most hyped TV spectacles of the last 10 years, and followed by people who are still growing up now.


Who conducts how all poplar culture takes places. Well, if you by looking  down your nose at popular culture as you do.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> .. And now nobody will be listening to anything he has to say. Let him write his book. Nobody will publish it. Nobody will touch him now. He is finished.


I am not convinced.
Many prominent people who are gaoled do seem to disappear afterwards, but .. well we will see.


----------



## MrSki (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Well I see that Welshing fucker is banned now, so I guess it's irrelevant.  Good, very good. People should fucking pay up when thy lose their fucking bets, that's what I say.


I think you will find it is welching on a bet.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I am not convinced.
> Many prominent people who are gaoled do seem to disappear afterwards, but .. well we will see.


He's 71. If he had clout he'd have used it to get out of this mess. He's not the fucking mafia.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Who conducts how all poplar culture takes places. Well, if you by looking  down your nose at popular culture as you do.



What are you on about? Are you changing the subject because you were so clunkingly wrong?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I think you will find it is welching on a bet.


Not in Phillips case.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I think you will find it is welching on a bet.


 
That's a bit racist innit?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What are you on about? Are you changing the subject because you were so clunkingly wrong?


Changing the subject? What? Clunkingly wrong? Where


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I think you will find it is welching on a bet.


Phil was playing up its etymology - slagging off the Welsh. 

He's being edgy. Like a drunken uncle dancing badly to Blur.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody has used that word for about 50 years.
> 
> *packs bags*


Not true. I used it about 41 years ago. 

When I was 9.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I am not convinced.
> Many prominent people who are gaoled do seem to disappear afterwards, but .. well we will see.


He's finished. Nobody cares about what he knows, even if they were prepared to listen to him, which they're not.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's finished. Nobody cares about what he knows, even if they were prepared to listen to him, which they're not.


 
You speak very confidently about a man to whom the most famous people in their world have been confiding their secrets for over 30 years.

He's not finished.  No-one who knows what he knows will ever be finished.  Exactly how he can exert his influence now is another question, but exert it he most certainly will.


----------



## Greebo (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> <snip> He's being edgy. Like a drunken uncle dancing badly to Blur.


Almost, but not quite; he's _trying to be edgy, _just not succeeding.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You speak very confidently about a man to whom the most famous people in their world have been confiding their secrets for over 30 years.
> 
> He's not finished.  No-one who knows what he knows will ever be finished.  Exactly how he can exert his influence now is another question, but exert it he most certainly will.


kermit nailed it. Pauline Quirk and Des O'Connor, both of whom probably now feel very foolish. His level was The Sun, The Mirror, The Star. Soap operas and reality TV shows. People barely cared even when it was current.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Almost, but not quite; he's _trying to be edgy, _just not succeeding.


Like all our favourite uncles. But they think they look groovy...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

Oh, and 'the most famous people in the world have been confiding'

Deserves a lol. That's quite good, phil. You do a decent straight face. ;|


----------



## Greebo (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Like all our favourite uncles. But they think they look groovy...


He's trying alright.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

Greebo said:


> He's trying alright.


Indeed. Very.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> kermit nailed it. Pauline Quirk and Des O'Connor, both of whom probably now feel very foolish. His level was The Sun, The Mirror, The Star. Soap operas and reality TV shows. People barely cared even when it was current.


 
Yeah right.  No-one ever cared what Max Clifford thought.  Very few people ever paid him any attention.  He was an entirely powerless figure.  No influence to exert.  No reason for anyone to fear him.  A minor character, easily forgotten now.

You are a BABY.  That's not a bad thing to be.  But that's what you are.


----------



## discokermit (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Pauline Quirk and Des O'Connor, both of whom probably now feel very foolish.


i doubt it, having seen their professional output. these people have no shame.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Yeah right.  No-one ever cared what Max Clifford thought.  Very few people ever paid him any attention.  He was an entirely powerless figure.  No influence to exert.  No reason for anyone to fear him.  A minor character, easily forgotten now.
> 
> You are a BABY.  That's not a bad thing to be.  But that's what you are.


Oh, they cared what he thought because he got them stories. He now cannot get them stories. Who cares about _last year's gossip_?


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh, they cared what he thought because he got them stories. He now cannot get them stories. Who cares about _last year's gossip_?


 
That's (partly) why he's still sitting on the biggest stories he has.  _Plenty _of people still fear him, trust me on this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2014)

His 'biggest' client was Simon Cowell, no? 

Simon. Cowell. 

I would wager that the only secret he has is that he actually has no secrets worth knowing. The boring, talentless twat that he is.


----------



## discokermit (May 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That's (partly) why he's still sitting on the biggest stories he has.  _Plenty _of people still fear him, trust me on this.


trust you, trusting clifford? that's like shiftyness squared!


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>You are a BABY.  That's not a bad thing to be.  But that's what you are.


Ad hominems are the last resort of somebody losing the debate and you know it.


phildwyer said:


> That's (partly) why he's still sitting on the biggest stories he has.  _Plenty _of people still fear him, trust me on this.


Time then, for those people to do the one thing which every blackmailer fears; go public while they've still got a chance of influencing the spin and before they're pushed into it.


----------



## discokermit (May 3, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Time then, for those people to do the one thing which every blackmailer fears; go public while they've still got a chance of influencing the spin and before they're pushed into it.


i'll beat them to it: des o'connor and pauline quirk are having an affair.


----------



## Belushi (May 3, 2014)

I want to know what he has on Phil.


----------



## MrSki (May 3, 2014)

What will out will but I doubt it will be that interesting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2014)

MrSki said:


> What will out will but I doubt it will be that interesting.


I bet not a single thing originating from Clifford comes out, interesting or not. Not a single thing. Nobody will even ask him.


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I want to know what he has on Phil.


"Them that ask no questions isn't told a lie"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Ad hominems are the last resort of somebody losing the debate and you know it.


It's alright. I'm a BIG BABY now.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Changing the subject? What? Clunkingly wrong? Where



hahahahahahaha

How long have you been doing this stuff now?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> hahahahahahaha
> 
> How long have you been doing this stuff now?


What? Seriously. Sort yourself out. I've responded to your original post - and in some detail (also to others who became involved in the discussion). In return i get nothing.

Come on -  post 12 piss posts. They're probably your best on reflection. At least they're short and don't mention  jesus.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2014)

i liked the bit in private eye where they reported that his modus operandi was _the more you tell me, the more you can trust me_.

bet there's a fair few people shitting their pants now. and let's hope max clifford is one of them, pervy fuckwit.


----------



## likesfish (May 3, 2014)

Well if he commits "sucicide" in jail in the next fortnight he conspriacy theorists will wank themselves to death over the implications.
 Otherwise he will just be forgotten.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 3, 2014)

Having a bit of 'mythology' about knowing all the secrets is a useful thing to cultivate in his trade, part ego, part 'good for the business'. The truth doesn't necessarily measure up.

Savile was something of a bullshitter too, wasn't he, playing it all gangster?


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2014)

There's a bit in this guardian article that says all you need to know:



> Halfway through our two-hour meeting, his phone rang. It always rings in meetings with him, partly because he is a busy man and partly because it gives him a chance to show off. It's normally Simon (Cowell) or Kerry (Katona) or Louis (Walsh), calling for advice. (There is no way of knowing if it really _is _Simon or Kerry or Louis, short of snatching the phone from him.) "Don't thank me, thank Beyoncé. Yes, darling, it's a pleasure. Yes, of course, darling, I'll tell Beyoncé how grateful you are." He got off the phone and resumed our conversation as if nothing had happened.



A liar and a vain show-off. He's got nothing now.


----------



## phildwyer (May 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Savile was something of a bullshitter too, wasn't he, playing it all gangster?


 
I don't think that was bullshit either.


----------



## Ponyutd (May 3, 2014)

killer b said:


> There's a bit in this guardian article that says all you need to know:
> 
> 
> 
> A liar and a vain show-off. He's got nothing now.


Except for the clamour of his biography. He's got the front to do it.


----------



## andysays (May 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I don't think that was bullshit either.



On the evidence of this thread, your bullshit detector needs new batteries, at the very least, and more likely returning to the manufacturer as it's clearly unfit for purpose.


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> Except for the clamour of his biography. He's got the front to do it.


Who'd buy it? Who's going to buy the autobiography of a nonce? There's no market for it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 3, 2014)

killer b said:


> ...this guardian article...





> Clifford's house, on a private road in *Hersham*



Seems to have been rather busy out that way


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2014)

remind me?


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 3, 2014)

killer b said:


> remind me?


Chris Denning, Jonathan King, Tam Paton etc, all linked to the Walton Hop


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2014)

Aaah. He hated King though didn't he? Someone posted something the other day about how he'd boasted about being proud of being involved with getting him jailed. 

Ponyutd - look how people clamoured for King's story once he got out. That's what Clifford has to look forward to. No-one will touch him.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 3, 2014)

Does anyone know which prison he's gone to? Presumably he's there now so someone knows?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2014)

one of the shit ones that haven't had a refurb since they held napoleonic POW's hopefully


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 3, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> Does anyone know which prison he's gone to? Presumably he's there now so someone knows?



Wandsworth


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 3, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Seems to have been rather busy out that way



Burwood Park, nearest train station Walton-on-Thames. If anyone fancies squatting...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 3, 2014)

killer b said:


> He's got nothing now.




Yes he has.


Eight years


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Wandsworth


A 50:50 chance of him being sent there for induction - it's near the court and the right category.


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> one of the shit ones that haven't had a refurb since they held napoleonic POW's hopefully


Even Wandsworth has been done up in the last 20 years, although it was one of the last to get rid of slopping out.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 3, 2014)

Greebo said:


> A 50:50 chance of him being sent there for induction - it's near the court and the right category.



There was some reporter stood outside there last night. Hope he falls for the "Right lad, time to see the prison barber" trick. Would hate for that barnet to have to do 8 years with him.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 3, 2014)

Very occasionally I love the Mail:



> The judge said that if the offences had taken place today – since sentencing guidelines were toughened in 2003 – Clifford would have been regarded as a multiple rapist for which he would have been locked up for life.



The judge didn't say that, but way to stick the boot in!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2014)

thats some poetic license- judge said 'starting point would have been ten years' and they've ramped that up to life. They literally just make shit up!


----------



## existentialist (May 3, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There was some reporter stood outside there last night. Hope he falls for the "Right lad, time to see the prison barber" trick. Would hate for that barnet to have to do 8 years with him.


What's the "Right lad, time to see the prison barber" trick?

I mean, which bit of it is a trick?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> thats some poetic license- judge said 'starting point would have been ten years' and they've ramped that up to life. They literally just make shit up!


He said the starting point would have been ten (from which he could go down as well as up) and that he wouldn't have considered less than eight even after mitigation for age, health, etc. He appears to have worked out a way to give Clifford exactly the sentence he would have given under today's rules. 

I still find some of the judgement a bit puzzling and unwise, especially the references to something he wasn't convicted for, but I don't think Clifford will get any joy out of an appeal. Everyone hates him, including, probably, all the judges in the country.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Eight is far too steep for a cushy open nick, reckon at least the first two years of his four inside will be in a proper gaff



Pretty much what I said to Greebo when she told me he'd got eight years. He'll spend at least 2 in a cat B, and as a sex offender, he'll have to undergo a "Sex Offender Treatment Programme" *and* pass it, before he'll be considered for early release.
T'ther good thing is that the Hall case set a precedent for giving consecutive sentences for convictions on historic sex offences, so any appeal won't fly on that basis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> at least then there's a chance he'll get some much-deserved justice.



For a self-satisfied corn-fed dickhead like Clifford, the strictures of a cat B nick will cut deep, even without the inevitable hustling and muscling he'll get.
Also, unless he changes his tune sharpish when inside, and admits his guilt, he'll do the full 8.  Successfully completing a treatment programme is compulsory before early release (i.e. what used to be called "time off for good behaviour) is considered.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> dunno if the 'half served' thing applies in cases this serious, but if it does then its out in 4.



He'll have to complete an SOTP in order to be eligible for any time off.  Given that he pled "not guilty", and refuses to acknowledge guilt, then unless he does a 180 degree turn, he's going to be hearing the sound of slamming doors for the next 8 years.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> What's the "Right lad, time to see the prison barber" trick?
> 
> I mean, which bit of it is a trick?



Screws at Wanno tell you a haircut is mandatory, then send you off for a grade 2 if you're daft enough to believe them.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2014)

shaved bonce is wise in jail, to avoid lice or a handhold for possible assailants.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He said the starting point would have been ten (from which he could go down as well as up) and that he wouldn't have considered less than eight even after mitigation for age, health, etc. He appears to have worked out a way to give Clifford exactly the sentence he would have given under today's rules.
> 
> I still find some of the judgement a bit puzzling and unwise, especially the references to something he wasn't convicted for, but I don't think Clifford will get any joy out of an appeal. Everyone hates him, including, probably, all the judges in the country.


 especially the ones whose peccadilloes he has on file


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Successfully completing a treatment programme is compulsory before early release (i.e. what used to be called "time off for good behaviour) is considered.



I thought psychopathy was untreatable. It's certainly incurable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Glad to see the sentences will run consecutively. I don't get the concurrent sentence thing. If the charges were tried separately they wouldn't say, 'three years, but as you've done three years for something else already you're free to go'.
> 
> I'm not a fan of prison in most cases, but Clifford needs to be put away for a long time. He's a wrong 'un to the marrow of his bones.



Concurrent sentences used to mostly be issue for two major sets of reasons:
1) When someone had committed multiple crimes that warranted a whole life tariff (makes the judiciary look humane, relatively) and
2) When an offender is charged with multiple minor crimes of the same type where the standard tariff issued consecutively would mean the offender doing 20 years for the theft of say 40 bicycles over a period of time.  Rather than give the person the bottom end of the tariff multiplied by 40, they give them the upper end of the tariff (say 2 years) for each crime, but to be served concurrently. It's a fairly rational approach to sentencing for non-violent crimes, where a long sentence wouldn't benefit the public or the offender.

Then, around the 1980s, the use of concurrent sentencing was widened.  As the Tories criminalised more people, and sent them nick-wards, the slack was taken out of the penal accommodation system, and ways *short of early release* had to be used to stop the system becoming logjammed.  A massive expansion of concurrent sentencing helped with that, even though the scope of offences over which it could be applied also widened.
For a party of Law and Order, the Tories of the '80s and '90s were two-faced, to say the least!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I thought psychopathy was untreatable. It's certainly incurable.



He'll have been psychiatrically-assessed, and found not to have a relevant personality disorder.  He's not a psychopath.  Now, a narcissist, that's a label I wouldn't argue with.


----------



## existentialist (May 3, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I thought psychopathy was untreatable. It's certainly incurable.


I think we have to be careful about our terms here.

It may be that Clifford has exhibited behaviours that we might describe informally as "psychopathic", but that does not necessarily mean that he is, clinically speaking, a psychopath. Like pretty much every other aspect of mental functioning, these things exist on a spectrum, at one end of which are "normal" (and sometimes desirable) behaviours, and at the other end extreme behaviours that are dangerous, disturbing, or distressing, either to the subject or to those affected by the behaviours. And a lot of those behaviours will be common to several disorders - if you look at the criteria that DSM-V uses to classify disorders, it's very much a case of "perm 5 from 9" . And those 9 are a subset of a fairly finite list of behaviours that crop up for many different disorders.

Without a full, proper, psychiatric evaluation (and arguably even after that) it would not be possible to say that Clifford is definitively a psychopath and therefore definitively incurable. It's also worth noting that psychopathy is regarded as unusual in that the additional insights that can be gained through therapy and talking treatments - usually regarded as universally beneficial - are in this case potentially risky, as they can be used by a person with psychopathic tendencies to increase their ability to manipulate others.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Aren't they the same thing?



Since (IIRC) 2005 any penetration of mouth, vagina or anus with a penis, digit or object has constituted rape.
Prior to that, vaginal penetration with penis constituted rape, all other penetrative assaults constituted varying degrees of indecent assault (male-on-male rape was also constituted as indecent assault until the mid-noughties).

Just yet another example of how "loaded" the criminal justice system is with regard to sexual offences against females.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 3, 2014)

Perv-rag The Daily Mail is running an exclusive with one of Max Cliffords victims, abused from the age of 15.

Exciting as it may be for some of their "journalists" and readers, they also felt it neccessary to accompany the article with a photo of her as a teen in a bikini.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He'll have been psychiatrically-assessed, and found not to have a relevant personality disorder.  He's not a psychopath.  Now, a narcissist, that's a label I wouldn't argue with.



Let's him off the hook a bit as well if he were a real psychopath. His contempt for his victims makes me wonder though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

Kesher said:


> Re rape:
> 
> I suspect hardly any prisoners would relish the thought of shagging a 71 year old man's arse. Surely that's a grim prospect in virtually anyone's book; a beating is most likely. And anyway, I was under the impression that homosexual rape was a US penitentiary thing not a UK one



Happens in UK nicks, but not often.  What used to be called "prison poofery" (not by me!) was turned a blind eye to (i.e. if two inmates were having a casual relationship), but in temrs of cowing people/revenge-seeking, it's never been a "thing" over here like it is in the states.

Clifford will probably have to get his jollies when having his haemorrhoids (inevitable after a couple of years of prison food) pushed back in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i'll beat them to it: des o'connor and pauline quirk are having an affair.


Poor Pauline.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 3, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Let's him off the hook a bit as well if he were a real psychopath.


How so? There's a difference between explaining and excusing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I want to know what he has on Phil.



probably the thing about the ********** **** and the ******** with the candlestick.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Well if he commits "sucicide" in jail in the next fortnight he conspriacy theorists will wank themselves to death over the implications.
> Otherwise he will just be forgotten.



Given that he'll be on induction for the first fortnight, he *should* also be on suicide watch.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Seems to have been rather busy out that way



Personally, I blame Jimmy Pursey, giving people the idea that Hersham was full of bits of rough wearing "laced up boots and corduroys".


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 3, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How so? There's a difference between explaining and excusing.



I meant in his treatment of his victims in court. If he genuinely has no feelings of empathy for others then that would go some way towards explaining his cuntitude. Can you excuse somebody for being a psychopath? Probably not.


----------



## MrSki (May 3, 2014)

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...ntencing-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf

Read the whole story from the judges mouth.


----------



## PursuedByBears (May 3, 2014)

Saw that earlier, makes uncomfortable reading.  What a cunt.


----------



## equationgirl (May 3, 2014)

PursuedByBears said:


> Saw that earlier, makes uncomfortable reading.  What a cunt.


^^^This.


----------



## free spirit (May 4, 2014)

MrSki said:


> http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...ntencing-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf
> 
> Read the whole story from the judges mouth.





> 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
> ...



Evidence that he wasn't acting alone.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 4, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Evidence that he wasn't acting alone.




I thought he was impersonating all the people on the phone??


----------



## ibilly99 (May 4, 2014)

One who got away sadly 






http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10806464/The-stark-truth-of-Peter-Sellers-sidekick.html


----------



## free spirit (May 4, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I thought he was impersonating all the people on the phone??


not when he's actually stood next to the girl at the time and handed her the phone to speak with someone else.

"...and you stood beside her smiling"


----------



## extra dry (May 4, 2014)

An awful human being.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 4, 2014)

What's he done wrong?


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2014)

It was the lefts fault.


----------



## elbows (May 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It was the lefts fault.



If they wanted to pick on a Guardian article, I felt that some parts of the following article got the tone wrong, especially earlier on. Other parts of the very same article get it right. But apart from that the article is also bloated, so I'm not actually advising anyone to bother reading it..

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/02/max-clifford-sex-politics-tabloids-simon-hattenstone


----------



## Gingerman (May 7, 2014)

Let's not mention which PM recomended Jimmy Vile for a  knighthood despite misgivings from others......


----------



## laptop (May 7, 2014)

elbows said:


> If they wanted to pick on a Guardian article, I felt that some parts of the following article got the tone wrong, especially earlier on. Other parts of the very same article get it right. But apart from that the article is also bloated, so I'm not actually advising anyone to bother reading it..
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/02/max-clifford-sex-politics-tabloids-simon-hattenstone



That was an interesting exercise in the mechanics of journalism and publishing, in that almost all of it must have been written and on page before the verdicts. Had the jury taken even longer, it'd have been an even stranger mishmash...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (May 7, 2014)

What a sick bastard. I kinda wish the media would actually report properly on this so people can know the full extent of his crimes, rather than having to seek out the court document to get the full picture.


----------



## Quartz (May 7, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I kinda wish the media would actually report properly on this so people can know the full extent of his crimes



I wonder if they're waiting for the inevitable appeal to be rejected?


----------



## MrSki (May 30, 2014)

just read on Twitter that he is appealing sentence but no mention of an appeal for the verdict.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 30, 2014)

<deleted>


----------



## Cid (May 30, 2014)

MrSki said:


> just read on Twitter that he is appealing sentence but no mention of an appeal for the verdict.



I imagine they asked for permission but it was declined. Appeal from the Crown Court is to the court of appeal, and there really need to be grounds to show that the conviction may have been unsafe (e.g judge giving poor advice to the jury) or points of law that need closer examination. I don't think either apply in this case, at least I've no idea whether the judge gave poor advice, but it would be a pretty colossal fuck up in such a high profile case. 

Appeal against sentence is fairly safe bet provided you have the money; the Court can't increase it (which is possible on appeal from magistrate's to Crown), just confirm that it's correct or reduce it.


----------



## MrSki (May 30, 2014)

Cid said:


> I imagine they asked for permission but it was declined. Appeal from the Crown Court is to the court of appeal, and there really need to be grounds to show that the conviction may have been unsafe (e.g judge giving poor advice to the jury) or points of law that need closer examination. I don't think either apply in this case, at least I've no idea whether the judge gave poor advice, but it would be a pretty colossal fuck up in such a high profile case.
> 
> Appeal against sentence is fairly safe bet provided you have the money; the Court can't increase it (which is possible on appeal from magistrate's to Crown), just confirm that it's correct or reduce it.


I can remember his lawyer saying in an interview that an appeal for both was being considered after sentencing was announced. Obviously could not find any grounds to appeal on verdict.


----------



## existentialist (May 30, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I can remember his lawyer saying in an interview that an appeal for both was being considered after sentencing was announced. Obviously could not find any grounds to appeal on verdict.


I have a theory that this is part of the news management in a high profile case, to mitigate the impact of the verdict - your brief announces publicly that the verdict will be appealed, signifying your repudiation of it and hopefully casting some doubt in the public mind. Then the matter is allowed to quietly fade away, especially if leave to appeal isn't actually granted, thereby leaving the uncritical wing of the Great Unwashed with a nagging sense that the process wasn't quite a done deal.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

i knew it was those  bastards that didn't do anything's fault. I bet they read the mail as well.


----------



## Red Cat (May 31, 2014)

existentialist said:


> the uncritical wing of the Great Unwashed



You what?


----------



## existentialist (May 31, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You what?


Talking from the mindset of the kind of people who defend people like Clifford.


----------



## seventh bullet (May 31, 2014)

existentialist said:


> the uncritical wing of the Great Unwashed



Oh dear.


----------



## Betsy (May 31, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> One who got away sadly
> 
> 
> 
> ...




From the article...

_"The attitude of those days is summed up by what an archbishop said in 1993, when Catholic child abuse cases came to light: “They’re kids, they don’t know anything about sex, they’ll forget about it.”
_
I wonder which archbishop it was who said that?


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Talking from the mindset of the kind of people who defend people like Clifford.


 do they actually exist?


----------



## Red Cat (May 31, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Talking from the mindset of the kind of people who defend people like Clifford.



The thinkers vs the stinkers. Know your enemy!


----------



## existentialist (May 31, 2014)

killer b said:


> do they actually exist?


Well, presumably SOMEONE suggested that announcing an appeal was a good move...


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

Was it the great unwashed - or maybe Clifford's legal team?

This great unwashed have a hard time of it - banging on vans demanding instant justice one minute and defending convicted sex abusers the next. Whey faced harridans letting us all down.


----------



## existentialist (May 31, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> The thinkers vs the stinkers. Know your enemy!


Whether we like it or not, there are a lot of people who do see the world in such black and white terms. After all, pretty much the entire editorial line of the Daily Mail is predicated on that view - "us" vs "them", "deserving" vs "undeserving", etc. 

It's a very unsavoury view, but popular enough that it wouldn't pay to discount that it exists.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Was it the great unwashed - or maybe Clifford's legal team?
> 
> This great unwashed have a hard time of it - banging on vans demanding instant justice one minute and defending convicted sex abusers the next. Whey faced harridans letting us all down.


 one moment demanding the head of every paediatrician in the land, the next defending a convicted child rapist. Blown like a plastic bag in the breeze by the editorial line of the daily mail.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2014)

(probably an asda plastic bag, too)


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I have a theory that this is part of the news management in a high profile case, to mitigate the impact of the verdict - your brief announces publicly that the verdict will be appealed, signifying your repudiation of it and hopefully casting some doubt in the public mind. Then the matter is allowed to quietly fade away, especially if leave to appeal isn't actually granted, thereby leaving the uncritical wing of the Great Unwashed with a nagging sense that the process wasn't quite a done deal.



I think that's precisely why such announcements of intention to appeal are made.

Except that a significant number of the uncritical at whom they're aimed have a shelf bearing the full range of Mr Sheen products, standing to attention and sorrted by colour.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2014)

Pretty sure when you appeal sentence there is a risk of it going up. If not everyone would as a matter of course, like in the US.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 1, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Pretty sure when you appeal sentence there is a risk of it going up. If not everyone would as a matter of course, like in the US.


You mean like when you're playing blackjack and trying to win your losses back ?


----------



## existentialist (Jun 1, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Pretty sure when you appeal sentence there is a risk of it going up. If not everyone would as a matter of course, like in the US.


I suspect that the best tactic is to make a lot of noise about appealing the sentence/verdict, but not actually to do so.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I suspect that the best tactic is to make a lot of noise about appealing the sentence/verdict, but not actually to do so.



I reckon the best thing Clifford could have done is not been a rapist in the first place. IMHO.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 1, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I reckon the best thing Clifford could have done is not been a rapist in the first place. IMHO.


Well, yes, quite. But then I guess that stops being one of the available options when one is standing in the dock, having just been convicted of several serious sexual assaults...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2014)

Anyways, Max is still banged up, which is nice.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 2, 2014)

Other news of Rolf Harris.
Ooops.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27663966


----------



## existentialist (Jun 2, 2014)

yardbird said:


> Other news of Rolf Harris.
> Ooops.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27663966


I suppose the only defence they have is "I wasn't there", or "He/she is lying", but it is unpleasant to see, and must be awful for the victim(s) to endure. Here's hoping that justice is served...


----------



## yardbird (Jun 2, 2014)

"Ms Woodley asked Harris if he had been accused by daughter Bindi of molesting her friend - one of the alleged victims in the case. The entertainer replied: 'Not as far as I remember."


I think I'd remember if my daughter accused me of molesting her friend.

The trial continues


----------



## existentialist (Jun 2, 2014)

yardbird said:


> Ms Woodley asked Harris if he had been accused by daughter Bindi of molesting her friend - one of the alleged victims in the case. The entertainer replied: 'Not as far as I remember.'
> 
> 
> I think I'd remember if my daughter accused me of molesting her friend.
> ...


I must admit - though I can well accept that a man of his age might be getting a little forgetful - that he does seem to be very vague on certain details, while at the same time very categorical about others. It might just be my perception, but there does seem to be a bit of a pattern on vague versus categorical. Ah well, I don't suppose it'll be lost on the jury.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 2, 2014)

'Right Rolf, you're doing a TV prog, the coach will pick you up at 9.00.  It's in the city of...'
'No, no, don't tell me! I'm not interested which city it is and I won't be looking at the roadsigns either'


----------



## yardbird (Jun 2, 2014)

Wilf said:


> 'Right Rolf, you're doing a TV prog, the coach will pick you up at 9.00.  It's in the city of...'
> 'No, no, don't tell me! I'm not interested which city it is and I won't be looking at the roadsigns either'


I'm wondering what the other people on the bus would say, Joe Brown etc?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2014)

Wilf said:


> 'Right Rolf, you're doing a TV prog, the coach will pick you up at 9.00.  It's in the city of...'
> 'No, no, don't tell me! I'm not interested which city it is and I won't be looking at the roadsigns either'



Well, it is plausible if you're just driven everywhere and you're in a different town every other day.  The problem is as stated above he used it as part of his defence, sometimes he's certain other times the memory fails him, all a bit sus.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 2, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Well, it is plausible if you're just driven everywhere and you're in a different town every other day.  The problem is as stated above he used it as part of his defence, sometimes he's certain other times the memory fails him, all a bit sus.


 I agree on all of that. However, you'd think that with an event like that there would be plenty of reference to Cambridge at the bash itself - opened by the mayor of... lets have a shout for... buses with CAMBRIDGE on the front type stuff.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 2, 2014)

The alleged victim claimed the offence took place in 1975 when she was about 14 on Parker's Piece not in 1978 when she would have been about 17 on Jesus Green. Seems memories on both sides are a bit vague.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 2, 2014)

RH trial updates from here have been solidly reliable

https://twitter.com/VixSmith_Mirror


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 2, 2014)

yardbird said:


> I'm wondering what the other people on the bus would say, Joe Brown etc?


Does your chewing gum lose its flavour on the bedpost overnight?


----------



## yardbird (Jun 2, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Does your chewing gum lose its flavour on the bedpost overnight?


.That was Lonnie Donegan and he's dead.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 2, 2014)

yardbird said:


> .That was Lonnie Donegan and he's dead.


The Bruvvers done it too


----------



## yardbird (Jun 5, 2014)

This isn't a surprise -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27720875


----------



## laptop (Jun 5, 2014)

yardbird said:


> This isn't a surprise -
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27720875



Mr Gadd is 70.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 5, 2014)

laptop said:


> Mr Gadd is 70.


There is/are more to follow.
The GG thing has been hanging around for some time.


----------



## laptop (Jun 5, 2014)

yardbird said:


> There is/are more to follow.



My point was precisely that he's not 73


----------



## Wilf (Jun 5, 2014)

laptop said:


> My point was precisely that he's not 73


 Hope the cunt doesn't make 73.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 5, 2014)

yardbird said:


> This isn't a surprise -
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27720875


 
 Did you ever met him, in your rock'n'roll years? OK, so he was in a boy band; hardly top-drawer music, so probably not.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 5, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> Did you ever met him, in your rock'n'roll years? OK, so he was in a boy band; hardly top-drawer music, so probably not.


he wasn't in a boy band. it was top drawer.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 5, 2014)

I o


UrbaneFox said:


> Did you ever met him, in your rock'n'roll years? OK, so he was in a boy band; hardly top-drawer music, so probably not.


I only ever did one sole promotion in my life, I hired Brighton Dome and was able to piggy back on a tour.
That is to say that I was able to get the artist to work on what would have been a rest day.
They were doing their annual tour with full national advertising, radio promos etc.
So I only had to do local advertising and I got a mate's band to play support.
Very very nerve racking, when if it didn't work out it would have made me bankrupt!
It was a sell out, but of course I can't really boast about it because it was the cunt that we're talking about.
Always got on with the Glitter Band who sometimes played for me at Dingwalls, but him?
He was a prick who insisted on his own dressing room and silly fucking riders.
He was also shovelling Columbia up his hooter.
Horrific person. That was before I knew what he wanted to do to little girls


----------



## Gingerman (Jun 6, 2014)

yardbird said:


> This isn't a surprise -
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27720875


Comeback tour put on hold again then.....


----------



## yardbird (Jun 6, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> Comeback tour put on hold again then.....


----------



## chandlerp (Jun 6, 2014)

He'll stomp into court singing, "Good to be back, it's good to be back"


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 6, 2014)

whoops, wrong thread.


----------



## Cid (Jun 6, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Pretty sure when you appeal sentence there is a risk of it going up. If not everyone would as a matter of course, like in the US.



Not on appeal of sentence/conviction from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. The attorney-general can make a reference to the Court if the sentence seems unduly lenient (which is what happened to Stuart Hall iirc), but that's not relevant here. You do need leave to appeal, which I suspect in this case will be based on arguments relating to which sentences are served consecutively.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 6, 2014)

Poor old Glitter Band always having to live in the shadow of the most evil nonce who ever lived ....(COPYRIGHT all UK Tabloids).

http://www.theglitterband.co.uk/

There is even a legal statement making it clear they are nothing to do with GG.

THE GLITTER BAND AND GARY GLITTER – A Band Statement.
With regard to The Glitter Band and Gary Glitter, I can confirm that no current member of The Glitter Band has performed as part of any of Gary Glitter’s backing bands since he and The Glitter Band went their own ways in the 1970s – some 25 years ago.
The Glitter Band forged their own reputation entirely independently of Gary Glitter in the decades thereafter.
Since the split The Glitter Band have on occasions appeared on the same bill as Gary Glitter during the 70s and 80s and once in 1997 on the 25th Anniversary Tour. However, this was before Gary Glitter had been arrested and overnight became notorious for his child pornography activities in late 1997. Until this time, he had been a national pop icon whose unsavoury proclivities were quite unknown. The uncovering of his secret conduct then came as a huge shock to all the members of The Glitter Band at the time because of their former association with them, as indeed it must have done to the Spice Girls in whose movie of 1997 Gary Glitter played a cameo role, and The Prince’s Trust for whom he had appeared in 1996 – the same year as appearing as a guest on the Clive Anderson show and as a BBC Top of the Pops presenter. Ironically, he had appeared as a performer on the Children in Need Appeal in 1994; and this hidden aspect of his life had obviously not been known to Michael Aspel’s researchers when he appeared on This Is Your Life in 1992.
I can assure you that the two present members of the band who had known him before his exposure – one of whom is the parent of three young girls – like many other show biz personalities and parents who have rubbed shoulders with Gary Glitter in the past have had absolutely nothing to do with him since that time. All of their fan base is well aware of the long-standing separation and distinction.
I hope therefore that this information is of assistance to you and that all may proceed as normal to a very successful outcome.
If I can be of any further help, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Rory Khilkoff-Boulding MA (Oxon)
Consultant Solicitor


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 7, 2014)

Bit unfortunate that statement is undated...



> I can confirm that no current member of The Glitter Band has performed as part of any of Gary Glitter’s backing bands since he and The Glitter Band went their own ways in the 1970s – some 25 years ago


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 7, 2014)

> The Glitter Band forged their own reputation entirely independently of Gary Glitter



A name change might have been prudent in that case


----------



## yardbird (Jun 23, 2014)

And today's special guest is........................
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alleged-assaults-set-notorious-BBC-drama.html


----------



## existentialist (Jun 23, 2014)

yardbird said:


> And today's special guest is........................
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alleged-assaults-set-notorious-BBC-drama.html


No idea of the truth of this story, but Rossiter is another of those whom I thought must be an amazing actor because of the way he played sleazy people (or people being sleazy)...so perhaps he wasn't that good an actor after all?


----------



## MrSki (Jun 23, 2014)

Was going to post something about him being one of my favourite  actors but it seems they were all a bit dodgy.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 23, 2014)

Bloody hell.


----------



## elbows (Jun 23, 2014)

The Rossiter 'Year of the Sex Olympics' story was in the press in November 2012. 

eg: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/03/leonard-rossiter-sex-act-bbc-staff-rape-_n_2068824.html

The tracking down of a second alleged victim is what has lead to a follow-up article now.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 23, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> A name change might have been prudent in that case


 Innit.  I'd go as far as saying they were fucking stupid to keep any titular connection to him. Not only was it not in their own self interest, it's also offensive to victims.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 9, 2014)

Clifford's sentencing appeal in court today...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29550360


----------



## Greebo (Oct 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Clifford's sentencing appeal in court today... <snip>


The so-called man has no shame.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 9, 2014)

The hearing has so far gone roughly like this:

Richard Horwell, QC for Max Clifford: Argues trial judge's approach to sentencing "unfair" & "cannot be right". Says maximum sentence for indecent assault when offences committed was 2 yrs, but now life. Horwell says that sentencing must reflect "modern attitudes" but the process cannot "abandon common-sense and fairness". He adds that the sentence was "wholly out of proportion" given that the crimes took place when jail terms for indecent assault were considerably shorter. He also asserts that the trial judge was wrong to take Clifford's 'bad character' into account in sentencing, and that he wrongly used as a bad character reference the claim that Clifford assaulted twelve year old girl in Spain to increase the sentence. Horwell argues that the trial judge should not have increased the sentence because of Clifford's conduct in or outside court. QC Horwell concludes by saying that Clifford is not a danger to women, and that the sentence was too long.

Rosina Cottage, QC for Crown: Yes, but Max Clifford.


----------



## Sue (Oct 9, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> QC Horwell concludes by saying that Clifford is not a danger to women, and that the sentence was too long.



Hang on, he was found guilty of sexually assaulting a number of women/girls but he's not a danger to women?  Wtf.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 9, 2014)

Judges undecided....



> The appeal court has reserved judgment on an appeal by the publicist Max Clifford against the length of his eight-year jail sentence for sex offences.
> Three judges in London said they would give their decision in his case at a later date after they heard arguments against his “too long” prison term.


----------



## laptop (Oct 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Judges undecided....



Just as likely that they're decided, but have decided not to say what they've decided until they've finished the judgement setting out why they're decided.

Yer man's in jail anyway, innit.


----------



## Flanflinger (Oct 9, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> A name change might have been prudent in that case


 
Bunch of cunts with no talent, has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Ponyutd (Nov 7, 2014)

Clifford just lost his appeal against sentence.
The nasty cunt.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 7, 2014)

You mean he lost his appeal against his 8 year sentence.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 7, 2014)




----------



## yardbird (Nov 7, 2014)

There are still a few as yet unnamed others who still await the SKY chopper circling above......


----------



## MrSki (Nov 7, 2014)

Details here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Details here.


Short version: 

Yes, the judge made some mistakes and said stuff he should not have said. But tough shit. Case dismissed. 

I don't think there was ever a hope in hell of that appeal working.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 7, 2014)

No such thing as bad publicity Max


----------



## elbows (Mar 12, 2015)

Questioned by Yewtree detectives again according to a breaking news banner on the bbc news site.


----------



## elbows (Mar 12, 2015)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/operation-yewtree-arrest-max-clifford-5322277



> A Met police spokesman said: "[We] can confirm officers from Operation Yewtree have today, Thursday 12 March, arrested a 71-year-old man in connection with allegations of sexual offences, under the strand of the investigation we have termed 'Others'.
> 
> "He was interviewed at a police station in Peterborough. Enquiries continue."





> It was reported he was taken to Peterborough police station from his cell at Littlehey prison in Cambridgeshire today.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 13, 2015)

elbows said:


> Questioned by Yewtree detectives again according to a breaking news banner on the bbc news site.



More of this sort of thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2015)

elbows said:


> Questioned by Yewtree detectives again according to a breaking news banner on the bbc news site.


he's very questionable


----------



## yardbird (Mar 13, 2015)

This just came up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31878872


----------



## elbows (Mar 13, 2015)

A good excuse to post this again.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 13, 2015)

I thought this thread was current, thought to myself, not again!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2015)

8115 said:


> I thought this thread was current, thought to myself, not again!


It is.


----------



## Ponyutd (Mar 13, 2015)

Do your bird you grotesque slimy cunt.


----------



## yardbird (Mar 13, 2015)

Ponyutd said:


> Do your bird you grotesque slimy cunt.



He'll get more 'bird' if charged and found guilty of any further like crime.


----------



## Ponyutd (Mar 13, 2015)

Hopefully that will happen.


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2015)

Charged with an indecent assault from 1981:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33386914


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 4, 2015)

> He will appear at Westminster Magistrates Court in London on July 21.




On the plus side, it's a day out.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 4, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> On the plus side, it's a day out.


Unless it's a video link job.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

Trial next year...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...t-allegations-in-early-2016?CMP=twt_b-gdnnews


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 10, 2015)

Hard to know what way to feel with this stuff . Good thing he's been charged but every charge means another victim . Have to remind myself of that every time I feel like cheering .


----------



## yardbird (Aug 10, 2015)

Max in past court attire.
In  that shirt that screams hand made at you!
He's lost it now due to spiraling legal costs


----------



## existentialist (Aug 10, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Hard to know what way to feel with this stuff . Good thing he's been charged but every charge means another victim . Have to remind myself of that every time I feel like cheering .


If it's any kind of consolation, there will always be many more victims than there will ever be charges.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 10, 2015)

existentialist said:


> If it's any kind of consolation, there will always be many more victims than there will ever be charges.



Hardly a consolation


----------



## existentialist (Aug 10, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Hardly a consolation


Well, no, but my point is that every new charge isn't so much a new victim as another opportunity for him to be held to account for his past actions. 

He'll never ever pay a price that undoes the harm he has done, but each new conviction takes the price he's paying up another notch. Not ideal, but it'll do for me.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 10, 2015)

yardbird said:


> Max in past court attire.
> In that shirt that screams hand made at you!
> He's lost it now due to spiraling legal costs


 
These paedophiles have the money and brains to get themselves castrated and\or medicated and have the means to hide but choose to protect themselves before children.
There is no sympathy for rich or poor but at least the poor can say that society won't help and just condemn them to death and a life of victimisation for an illness they can't easily or safely control.
If it is as widespread as is reported surely this is a wordwide political priority and ours too.

There is just not enough action from the powers that be, most of the lazy idle political bastards don't care enough about our young only their own.
I don't know enough about paedophilia but maybe there is a clinical way to stop people being wrongly accused (brain scans and photo tests, questioning ect). Something more has got to be done in law and mental health (chemical or physical castration?).
Christ! it's worth being a priority is'nt it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 10, 2015)

I don't think they've invented the voight-kampffe test for noncery yet


----------



## existentialist (Aug 10, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> These paedophiles have the money and brains to get themselves castrated and\or medicated and have the means to hide but choose to protect themselves before children.
> There is no sympathy for rich or poor but at least the poor can say that society won't help and just condemn them to death and a life of victimisation for an illness they can't easily or safely control.
> If it is as widespread as is reported surely this is a wordwide political priority and ours too.
> 
> ...


Castration is irrelevant. This stuff is about power, not sex. And most of (all?) Clifford's victims weren't prepubescent, so he wasn't a paedophile. 

I think that, in our haste to label people as "paedos", we forget that a lot of the people bastards like Clifford prey on are adult, albeit often young, women , not kids. 

Let's not try and pretend that coercion into sex is only wrong when it happens to kids.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 10, 2015)

He's just a rapist.


----------



## gosub (Aug 10, 2015)

They made a point of mentioning, just before he started his custodial, possible charges related to a girl then aged 13,that Spanish authorities wanted to look at


----------



## yardbird (Feb 12, 2016)

Yewtree continues.
Rolf Harris faces seven indecent assault charges - BBC News


----------



## BigMoaner (Feb 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He's just a rapist.


spot on. exactly.


----------



## BigMoaner (Feb 12, 2016)

mental really when you think how famous, secure, privilaged someone like clifford was. moneyed, famous, smug, and now...

...prison cell. it's gotta be profound for him. terrifying. hero to zero. I just hope there's one moment amongst the boredom and prison living when he holds his head in his hands think "what a massive, massive cunt i've been."

doubt it though.


----------



## BigMoaner (Feb 13, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> This whole story is actually making me happier than I think it should, especially since I found out Jim Davidson is also being named and shamed. I'm worried I might be turning into a total cunt.


why? It's called not getting away with it. You should be happy that these rich slimeba





8115 said:


> Yes and no.  It's not the age bracket in most of Clifford's cases - most of the women were over the age of consent, it was the non consensual nature of it, the fact that it was an assault.  To say "bet loads of people were nervous" makes it seem normal, like all men assault women, well, they don't and only men like Max Clifford tell themselves that they do.


Well said. One of the best posts on here.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 13, 2016)

BigMoaner said:


> mental really when you think how famous, secure, privilaged someone like clifford was. moneyed, famous, smug, and now...
> 
> ...prison cell. it's gotta be profound for him. terrifying. hero to zero. I just hope there's one moment amongst the boredom and prison living when he holds his head in his hands think "what a massive, massive cunt i've been."
> 
> doubt it though.



He used to live near me and right up until the trial we'd see his hair driving around with him in his roller and dining in the restaurant next to our house without a care in the world. Part of his sentence was down to the total lack of remorse, so I doubt it too.


We've both moved on since then. I guess my move has been better than his.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 8, 2017)

A reminder from popbitch: 
Max Clifford has been in prison for 1,225 days. Not a particularly significant landmark. Just nice to think about from time to time.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 8, 2017)

5t3IIa said:


> A reminder from popbitch:
> Max Clifford has been in prison for 1,225 days. Not a particularly significant landmark. Just nice to think about from time to time.


Thank you for that reminder. It reminds me that, so long (or so it seems to me) after his conviction, my abuser is still looking at nearly 2 years before his earliest possible release date. Though the Probation Service haven't kept their promise to keep me updated, so for all I know he's already left prison in a horizontal position.


----------



## tim (Sep 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He used to live near me and right up until the trial we'd see his hair driving around with him in his roller and dining in the restaurant next to our house without a care in the world. Part of his sentence was down to the total lack of remorse, so I doubt it too.
> 
> 
> We've both moved on since then. I guess my move has been better than his.



My sister lives in that area of Surrey (assuming you're not my sister) and said the same thing about him always being on display in local cafes and restaurants. He was a member of the same gym, not a posh one Clifford was very much playing the celebrity with a common touch role,  and he would boast to all and sundry about how there was nothing to the allegations and how he was going to get off.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 8, 2017)

5t3IIa said:


> A reminder from popbitch:
> Max Clifford has been in prison for 1,225 days. Not a particularly significant landmark. Just nice to think about from time to time.



How long did they give him? Can't be arsed to google it.

e2a: Eight years, so he might be out next year. But still time for him to drop dead before then.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 8, 2017)

8 years.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 8, 2017)

Is his wife, family sticking by him? I can't imagine he's got much of a career left.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 8, 2017)

skyscraper101 said:


> Is his wife, family sticking by him? I can't imagine he's got much of a career left.



Divorced in 2014, coincidentally also the year he was convicted of noncery.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 8, 2017)

Presumably he's not got much to look forward to on the outside then. I'm guessing she got the house and a lot of his money.


----------



## not a trot (Sep 8, 2017)

skyscraper101 said:


> Presumably he's not got much to look forward to on the outside then. I'm guessing she got the house and a lot of his money.



Slimey cunt will probably have money stashed in some secret offshore account.


----------



## elbows (Sep 8, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Divorced in 2014, coincidentally also the year he was convicted of noncery.



If memory serves me correctly, not only did she not play the supportive wife role when he was on trial, but she also took a copy of a letter that one of his victims wrote to him, in case the original was destroyed.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 8, 2017)

tim said:


> My sister lives in that area of Surrey (assuming you're not my sister)




Could be 

Does you sister have a fat gut and a small willy?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 8, 2017)

not a trot said:


> Slimey cunt will probably have money stashed in some secret offshore account.



Probably. But he'd probably give it all away to not have been so completely exposed and disgraced. Sadly that's something he'll never be able to buy. Rich or poor, he will die as the paedophile scumbag he is.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Does you sister have a fat gut and a small willy?



and proud of it!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 8, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> and proud of it!



It's taken years of dedication to build my gut.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 8, 2017)

I hate to say this, but sometimes a convenient and timely divorce and asset transfer as part of the settlement is part of the plan.Then again, his wife has every right to unceremoniously dump this fucker, clean him out  and get on with her life . I think they have a severely disabled daughter IIRC


----------



## tim (Sep 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Could be
> 
> Does you sister have a fat gut and a small willy?



Possibly not then, I'm sure I'd have noticed the apendage, however small when we were kids. There are probably many Clifford-spotting travel industry professionals with strong feelings about the Seven Hills Road.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's taken years of dedication to build my gut.


----------



## tim (Sep 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


>




"Sir Edmund Hillary blah, blah, blah there's only one first on the top of Everest."  What about Tenzing Norgay? Roy clearly speent too much time in the company  of those batshit racist twins.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 10, 2017)

Some warm news on a cold day


----------



## Raheem (Dec 10, 2017)

Badgers said:


> Some warm news on a cold day




Like the use of scare quotes, like there wasn't enough room to add "but don't trust the fucker until he turns blue".


----------



## Badgers (Dec 10, 2017)

Dead


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 10, 2017)

Badgers said:


> Dead
> 
> View attachment 122612


----------



## 1927 (Dec 10, 2017)

I wonder if he left a manuscript for a book to be published when he had gone!!!!

Might be a few celebs shitting themselves.


----------



## chandlerp (Dec 10, 2017)

Declared dead, his condition is described as satisfactory


----------



## Badgers (Dec 10, 2017)




----------



## Casual Observer (Dec 10, 2017)




----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 10, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> How long did they give him? Can't be arsed to google it.
> 
> e2a: Eight years, so he might be out next year. But still time for him to drop dead before then.



Prophetic.

Can I give you a list of other people to wish death on please? Sorry if it's quite a long list...


----------



## phillm (Dec 10, 2017)

One less card in the Nonce Trump Card set..


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 10, 2017)

TTFN, cunt.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Dec 10, 2017)

Good riddance, rapey cunt.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 10, 2017)

So, the race to find his private notes and papers begins...


----------



## Humirax (Dec 10, 2017)

A shame he didn't spend more time wallowing in prison


----------



## Badgers (Dec 10, 2017)




----------



## existentialist (Dec 10, 2017)

Badgers said:


>



Personally, I think "sex abuser" is more specific.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2017)

no one had him for the celebrity deadpool then


----------



## 1927 (Dec 10, 2017)

existentialist said:


> Personally, I think "sex abuser" is more specific.


Paedophile is more accurate.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 10, 2017)

1927 said:


> Paedophile is more accurate.


Not really. His youngest victim was 15.

I reserve as much disdain for those who exploit younger adults for sex as I do for those who abuse pre-pubescent children, but I believe it's important to maintain the distinction. The harms done are still significant, and there is no question in my mind that sexual abuse, whatever the age of the victim, is a grotesquely serious offence that deserves to be taken, and punished, seriously. But we risk, in lumping together all sexual abuse as "paedophilia", diminishing the severity of both offences.

He was a child sex abuser. I'm inclined to save the terms of art for those whose unenviable job is that of determining their motivation and - ideally - trying to do something about it.


----------



## extra dry (Dec 10, 2017)

I suppect a suicide, however a good one for a last story.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 10, 2017)

Rapist covers the cunt.

Hope the heart attack hurt as well.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 10, 2017)

extra dry said:


> I suppect a suicide, however a good one for a last story.


I'm not so sure. I think he was probably looking forward to leaving prison and carrying on with his "nudge, wink, all a big fuss about nothing" line. I just read the report of his trial again, and his refusal to make any kind of apology, even after conviction - and then of course there's also his appeal at the length of his sentence. This wasn't someone who was in any way accepting of what happened.

It's possibly more likely that he was furious at those responsible for how far he has fallen, and maybe it would be poetic justice for that fury to have contributed to his death. That said, prison life for a nonce isn't likely to have been stress-free, either.



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Rapist covers the cunt.
> 
> Hope the heart attack hurt as well.


Yeah, the judge did say that if those offences had been committed post-2003, they'd have been tried as rape or assault by penetration, both of which carry the potential for a life sentence. Which, in a very real way, is exactly what he got, in the end.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 10, 2017)

Yeah and good on the judge for the consecutive sentences to make it similar to an actual rape conviction, exceedingly rare in the UK to get consecutives.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2017)

*Title edited. No 'RIP' for this cunt.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 10, 2017)

editor said:


> *Title edited. No 'RIP' for this cunt.


Well, per my earlier post, I'd have preferred to see "sex abuser" there, but it's a semantic distinction as far as thread titles go...

But yeah, he can rest in peace when all of the people he abused have found their own peace. Until then, bring on the pitchforks and demons.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 10, 2017)

well that escalated quickly..


good


----------



## Riklet (Dec 10, 2017)

Too bad what a shame oh well give a fuck!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 10, 2017)

Something very wrong here.

Cunt is dead. Good. Doubt any tears of sorrow will be spilled, but...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 10, 2017)

He was an incredibly nasty piece of work. In the later years of his 'career', he publicly stated "people have to pay me to keep news out of the papers". Shot himself in the foot there - too big for his own boots. Death is too easy in some cases, but...

Are we all really that shallow?


----------



## Mumbles274 (Dec 10, 2017)

He can 'spin' in his grave now


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 10, 2017)

I am going to turn my sadly regularish rum drinking into a perty on hearing this news. Sadly mein fuhrer beat cancer.




Should I say that?



Fuck it!


*perty- Orcadian Scots for PARTY


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 10, 2017)

Mumbles274 said:


> He can 'spin' in his grave now


I always prefer the visual element TURNING in a grave provides, the confinement of the box, muscle wastage, sores, ouch so hard to turn!


----------



## bemused (Dec 10, 2017)

Why does he get an obituary?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 10, 2017)

I hate this for many reasons. Remembering when Jimmy Saville dies, and all the highly respected, honourable BBC news readers and the like suddenly expressed their disgust with seemingly no fucking sympathy for the victims. It is going to happen again. Why weren't any of the cunts bold enough to stand up and speak out when he was alive? Fear of death, or fear of a spoiled career/income?

Fuck Clifford, but also fuck the cowardly puppets who knew exactly what was happening.

When Bob Monkhouse died he asked for ITV news at 10 to broadcast a posthumous video recording. He pretty much stated what was happening in the BBC/UK media. Yet, he never found the bollocks to say it whilst he was alive and had a voice. It is still happening, and the respectable twats who present the truth to us are still remaining silent.

Fuck Clifford. Fuck the lot of them until someone is brave enough to speak out.

Cunts.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 10, 2017)

bemused said:


> Why does he get an obituary?


Because western civilisation is shit bruh.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 10, 2017)

bemused said:


> Why does he get an obituary?



I'll be using it to wipe my arse tomorrow morning.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 10, 2017)

!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 10, 2017)

Humirax said:


> A shame he didn't spend more time wallowing in prison



He could've been up for parole in six months or so. The important thing is that unlike so many of his kind he didn't make it to the grave without being exposed and without his victims (hopefully) being granted some degree of closure.

A few more Cliffords dying in prison and maybe wealthy, powerful, sick bastards will start to think twice about just how much impunity they have to exploit and abuse.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 10, 2017)

Fuck it.

Hey *Michael Burke*, you have told us you wish you had 'pushed Saville from the ship' when you had the chance. Your biggest regret in life apparently. So, why the fuck didn't you - you selfish, cowardly little shit. You knew what was happening all the time. You could have saved lives, suffering. You chose not to. Cunt.


----------



## bemused (Dec 10, 2017)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I'll be using it to wipe my arse tomorrow morning.


I wouldn't, arse cancer isn't fun.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 10, 2017)

bemused said:


> I wouldn't, arse cancer isn't fun.


Comment of the day


----------



## Raheem (Dec 10, 2017)

bemused said:


> Why does he get an obituary?



Cos 24 hours ago, what's the thing about Clifford you would have said you most wanted to read?


----------



## keybored (Dec 11, 2017)

I really can't think of a better place to leave this.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> arse cancer isn't fun.



I'm hearing that in Liam Neeson's voice, while Snow Patrol plays in the background and the logos of popular over-the-phone payment methods appear at the bottom of the screen.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2017)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Fuck it.
> 
> Hey *Michael Burke*, you have told us you wish you had 'pushed Saville from the ship' when you had the chance. Your biggest regret in life apparently. So, why the fuck didn't you - you selfish, cowardly little shit. You knew what was happening all the time. You could have saved lives, suffering. You chose not to. Cunt.



He didn't because whatever else you think of Burke, he's not a murderer. All this biblical vengeance shite, wtf.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, the race to find his private notes and papers begins...



At almost every stage of his prosecution people were going on about this sort of angle. Nothing came of it then and I don't expect anything now either. I can totally appreciate why peoples thoughts went in this direction but I think such expectations really stem from the self-created myth of the man and his 'business'. Also even if such material existed, which I mostly doubt, Clifford death does nothing to remove the libel risk from publishing any of it.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2017)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I hate this for many reasons. Remembering when Jimmy Saville dies, and all the highly respected, honourable BBC news readers and the like suddenly expressed their disgust with seemingly no fucking sympathy for the victims. It is going to happen again. Why weren't any of the cunts bold enough to stand up and speak out when he was alive? Fear of death, or fear of a spoiled career/income?
> 
> Fuck Clifford, but also fuck the cowardly puppets who knew exactly what was happening.
> 
> ...



There were plenty of reasons to have these feelings towards the BBC etc post-Savile. Especially as even when the realities of Savile emerged and the BBC were taking flak, there was still a degree of 'ooh a story about ourselves, yay' emanating from the BBC.

I don't understand how that applies to Clifford though. Many victims were brave enough to come forwards when he was alive and got him sent down. And he wasn't exactly a BBC figure, in this case it was the tabloids that covered themselves in hypocrisy.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2017)

Quite a strange and shit piece in the guardian by someone who knew him. It openly calls him a liar but says little about his abuse and has something of a 'what a cheeky scamp' tone to it. I'm more than willing to help the guardian write obits of people like this if they can't find anyone to be blunt enough. It would be more along the lines of "This serial rapist and polluter of the press is dead and we are all the better for it, but let's not celebrate too much because everyone who enabled him is still working. We need to get them next."


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 11, 2017)

I was happy to read that the unrepentant rapist was still appealing against his conviction when he died and that the appeal was funded by legal aid as he'd gone bankrupt and lost his house in Burwood Park.

I know it doesn't reflect well on me, but I'm glad he died penniless and in prison. Nice and neat.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 11, 2017)

Why are none of the resident CT bellends frothing about this? “He knew too much, they had to silence him”.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 11, 2017)

elbows said:


> There were plenty of reasons to have these feelings towards the BBC etc post-Savile...



Fully admit I was posting a little irrationally last night. It is a highly emotive subject. I saw Clifford as a media player as much as Savile was. The channels are largely irrelevant. It seems many who were implicit kept their mouths shut at the very best.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 11, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Why are none of the resident CT bellends frothing about this? “He knew too much, they had to silence him”.




Reply give it time their waiting for RT to tell them the "truth"

Its not that loons are paid for by russia or anything its just Russia Today appeals to loons.
  New one Russia Today fan was convinced imperial Japan had saved us from russian communism that was funded by roosevalt


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 11, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Quite a strange and shit piece in the guardian by someone who knew him. It openly calls him a liar but says little about his abuse and has something of a 'what a cheeky scamp' tone to it. I'm more than willing to help the guardian write obits of people like this if they can't find anyone to be blunt enough. It would be more along the lines of "This serial rapist and polluter of the press is dead and we are all the better for it, but let's not celebrate too much because everyone who enabled him is still working. We need to get them next."



I think?? you mean this piece by Simon Hattenstone no? He's normally pretty good as an interviewer (IMO), but yes, I agree that was pretty fucking dubious to say the least 

It's not the Guardian obituary though -- that's here and not so bad I don't think ....


----------



## cyril_smear (Dec 25, 2017)

What else have I missed while I've been ''away''? Any other celebrity deaths?


----------



## andysays (Apr 2, 2019)

Latest Max Clifford news: still dead, still a sex offender

Max Clifford: Convictions upheld against late publicist


> A conviction for sex offences against celebrity publicist Max Clifford has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. Clifford died in 2017 while serving an eight-year jail term for indecent assaults on four young women and girls.
> 
> He had always maintained his innocence - and his daughter had continued to try to clear his name after his death. But, ruling on Tuesday, Lady Justice Rafferty said nothing the judges heard "came anywhere near imperilling the safety of this conviction".


No such thing as bad publicity...


----------



## weltweit (Apr 2, 2019)

I heard on the news that he had died, had no idea, I thought he was still in prison. 

Did anyone say what he died of?


----------



## cyril_smear (Apr 2, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Did anyone say what he died of?



his heart stopped beating; hang the bastard


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2019)

Saw this thread, had forgotten about the auld pervert


----------



## existentialist (Apr 2, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I heard on the news that he had died, had no idea, I thought he was still in prison.
> 
> Did anyone say what he died of?


Cuntitude.

Or, if you believe Google, heart failure.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 2, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I heard on the news that he had died, had no idea, I thought he was still in prison.
> 
> Did anyone say what he died of?


Yes, it was a pleasant surprise to me too.


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Apr 2, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, it was a pleasant surprise to me too.



And me too. Must have been busy when he popped his cloggs.


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 3, 2019)

Still guilty, still dead.


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 3, 2019)

heh, should have known i wasn't the only one one that thought "oh good he's still dead" when his name came up on the news


----------



## clicker (Apr 3, 2019)

I'd forgotten he'd died, thought that was quick to get to 30 pages, must have been a hell of a death.


----------



## elbows (Apr 3, 2019)

clicker said:


> I'd forgotten he'd died, thought that was quick to get to 30 pages, must have been a hell of a death.



The thread got renamed later I think, he isnt dead for most of it.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 3, 2019)

Is it a normal thing for appeals (or other legal processes) to continue once someone is dead? It's not something you hear about is it?


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 4, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Is it a normal thing for appeals (or other legal processes) to continue once someone is dead? It's not something you hear about is it?


 No it's not common , but, is allowed.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Apr 4, 2019)

Humirax said:


> A shame he didn't spend more time wallowing in prison



How do you log on to Urban as a "guest" account in this day and age?!?


----------



## maomao (Apr 4, 2019)

Jon-of-arc said:


> How do you log on to Urban as a "guest" account in this day and age?!?


Account deleted with posts left in place I think.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 4, 2019)

elbows said:


> The thread got renamed later I think, he isnt dead for most of it.


I prefer the later work, where he is.


----------

