There is a god, Clifford charged with sex offences

2456

Comments

  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    So blame, name and shame everyone ?

    Surely thats wrong ? I cant be the only one that thinks that ?

    How can anyone feel better at a blame game ?
    Surely the best solution is continue with british justice, innocent until proven guilty.
    Its a simple system.

    Allegation
    Arrest
    Questioning
    Charge (if enough evidence)
    Trial
    Guilty verdict (if case proven)
    Name and shame

    What is gained by naming anyone for any crime before being found guilty ?
    Living MY dream.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    RRSODL wrote:
    Cornerblock wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    No fan of Max Clifford but is it 27 years ago was the most recent of the allegations WHY has it taken so long for the victims to come forward. Bearing in mind there are several of them Clifford was not a man of the influence of Savile so I would have thought perhaps we wouldn't have had to wait so long.

    Maybe because he's been so successful at keeping nonentities on the front pages for so long he's cunningly managed to keep himself off them. Just a thought.

    Or the police not acting in the interest of the victims.

    I know a case where the daughter of somebody I know was molested when she was 7 by a close family friend. When she was 15 she wrote a letter to her parents to tell them what had happened. The police were informed, parents were interviewed and the man arrested. The common denominator was that too long had passed and they could not prove it. The guy said he was at work and the Police couldn't or didn't try hard enough to get the records that he was not. The Police were all excuses, that the bank didn't keep records that old, that Waitrose had destroyed the records, etc, etc. There were a few things that happened in that investigation that I cannot mention here but were absolutely shocking. I followed that case very closely at the time and since then my faith in the police is ZERO.

    So people shouldn't be so quick to judge victims that didn't come forward before.
    I'm not passing judgement on "victims" of the alleged abuse. If it took place then he should be brought to book for it regardless of how much time has passed by.
    I was just questioning WHY the big delay in making the allegation.
    This IS GOING TO SOUND BAD but in a way I hope the allegations are true rather than it be a case gold-digging opportunists on the make.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • ooermissus
    ooermissus Posts: 811
    VTech wrote:
    What is gained by naming anyone for any crime before being found guilty ?

    (i) People with information on the alleged crime (or related crimes) can come forward. (ii) Trials can be held in public and be reported on. (iii) We don't have to endlessly prosecute people for failing to keep thousands and thousands of names secret.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    You're right Frank. Sounds BAD. You bad, bad boy.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    Ballysmate wrote:
    You're right Frank. Sounds BAD. You bad, bad boy.
    Well, that's me burning in hell for all eternity then.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Frank the tank wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    You're right Frank. Sounds BAD. You bad, bad boy.
    Well, that's me burning in hell for all eternity then.

    Only if you believe in an imaginary friend.
  • Mr_Cellophane
    Mr_Cellophane Posts: 690
    I think Clifford rues the day he took on Nadine Milroy-Sloan as a client
    http://www.guardianlies.com/section%206/page51.html
  • simonhead
    simonhead Posts: 1,399
    I have to agree with VTech, the person accused should not be named until proven guilty. A teacher at my school was accused of inapropriate behaviour on a school ski trip, suspended immediately, in the local paper rumours and speculation everywhere. The whole incident was caught on security camera and charges were dropped when it was proven to be a lie. The girl got her wrists slapped as she was 15. Dont think he ever taught again after that, ruined his career and cost him his marriage.
    Life isnt like a box of chocolates, its like a bag of pic n mix.
  • adiggers
    adiggers Posts: 67
    VTech wrote:
    So blame, name and shame everyone ?

    Surely thats wrong ? I cant be the only one that thinks that ?

    How can anyone feel better at a blame game ?
    Surely the best solution is continue with british justice, innocent until proven guilty.
    Its a simple system.

    Allegation
    Arrest
    Questioning
    Charge (if enough evidence)
    Trial
    Guilty verdict (if case proven)
    Name and shame

    What is gained by naming anyone for any crime before being found guilty ?

    before i start my little rant,i aint the brightest of blokes so bear with me.
    i know it aint on the same league as child sex offences but what about ryan giggs(no am not saying he is),but that affair he had with imogen lass proved that anyone with enough money can cover stuff up if enough money is pumped into there defence,if he wasnt named via facebook/twiter etc it could all have never happened .
    now i aint saying max clifford is guity but he has made millions i guess, making out that all these stars are just misunderstood people,and never did out wrong.
    but its all down to who has the biggest checkbook aint it?
  • seanoconn
    seanoconn Posts: 11,671
    Would now be a good time to boast about being friends with Max Clifford's brother :mrgreen: Cliff Clifford, floor layer, lovely bloke.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    Money clears a lot of issues, there is no doubting that and nobody here condones that (unless guilty and use cash to evade)

    She was a money grabber and exactly the reason why true rapists get away with it, girls like here and Rebecca Lews (beckham) cause a stigma of sex for stories nature which in turns casts doubt on true victims.

    Glorified hookers want press, that's how they reap rewards.

    My point is about defendants having rights, just like accusers.
    So far in project yewtree we know of several people arrested, how many details of accusers have we heard ???
    Living MY dream.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    adiggers wrote:
    VTech wrote:
    So blame, name and shame everyone ?

    Surely thats wrong ? I cant be the only one that thinks that ?

    How can anyone feel better at a blame game ?
    Surely the best solution is continue with british justice, innocent until proven guilty.
    Its a simple system.

    Allegation
    Arrest
    Questioning
    Charge (if enough evidence)
    Trial
    Guilty verdict (if case proven)
    Name and shame

    What is gained by naming anyone for any crime before being found guilty ?

    before i start my little rant,i aint the brightest of blokes so bear with me.
    i know it aint on the same league as child sex offences but what about ryan giggs(no am not saying he is),but that affair he had with imogen lass proved that anyone with enough money can cover stuff up if enough money is pumped into there defence,if he wasnt named via facebook/twiter etc it could all have never happened .
    now i aint saying max clifford is guity but he has made millions i guess, making out that all these stars are just misunderstood people,and never did out wrong.
    but its all down to who has the biggest checkbook aint it?

    Ryan Giggs wasn't accused of a criminal offence. He had a bit on the side, which is not illegal (I hope not :oops: ). He got an injunction to stop the press printing what amounted to gossip or tittle tattle.
    You are right about the size of your cheque book counting when it comes to engaging lawyers though, and we are into the debate of the freedom of the press.
    I for one am not interested in how many in-laws Giggs shagged, but if the story is true, the press should be able to publish what they want.
    The details for the Giggs story came from an individual, and it is their responsibility if the story is false. The details of a suspect, in this case Clifford, should not be furnished by the State, until they are proved guilty.
    I know people will say, 'What if....?, but I think this should be the basis in which criminal cases are reported. I know this is simplistic and there are other factors, but better minds than mine can sort out the detail.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Not Ken Barlow!
    What will Dierdre say? :shock: :shock: :shock:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -1967.html
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Bloody hell! I'd forgotten about Kevin from the garage.
    It's all too much, God knows what secrets Hayley is hiding from her pre (ch)op days. :shock: :shock:
  • ooermissus
    ooermissus Posts: 811
    Eddy Shah's trial for allegedly raping an under-16 year old is just selecting jurors. Sometime newspaper magnate for those who don't remember him.
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    ooermissus wrote:
    Eddy Shah's trial for allegedly raping an under-16 year old is just selecting jurors. Sometime newspaper magnate for those who don't remember him.

    What I cant understand is that when you are selected as a Juror you have to swear that you have not been influenced from outside sources about the case.

    Who can stand in a court against Max Clifford and honestly say they have not heard or discussed the case with anyone ?
    If the letter of the law was followed he would have to walk free of charge regardless of innocence or guilt as who could be a juror ?
    Living MY dream.
  • cornerblock
    cornerblock Posts: 3,228
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Not Ken Barlow!
    What will Dierdre say? :shock: :shock: :shock:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -1967.html

    We don't know if Mr. Roache is guilty of anything at this time, although his arrest and the subsequent publicity will be extremely embarrassing for him. Some might say it's just him having to pay for his sins in a past life.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Cornerblock wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Not Ken Barlow!
    What will Dierdre say? :shock: :shock: :shock:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -1967.html

    We don't know if Mr. Roache is guilty of anything at this time, although his arrest and the subsequent publicity will be extremely embarrassing for him. Some might say it's just him having to pay for his sins in a past life.

    Bloody hell! I knew Yewtree was going back a long way, but I didn't realise it was looking into people's previous existences. I'm fu*ked then. I was Hitler in my previous life. But have mercy, because as VTech will tell you, I wasn't all bad. :lol:
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    Time will tell.
    Wait until the bill rolls in from yewtree and those people who protested about thatchers funeral which in the end cost us 6p each realise that this joke is going to cost us millions, tens and tens of millions.

    It's a joke, I really feel for all concerned.
    Living MY dream.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    VTech makes a valid point :shock: :wink: about jury selection. I've said for years (usually in relation to high profile cases, I.E. Huntley or celeb job in these cases) Unless you've been living under a rock in some godforsaken hell hole how is an ordinary member of the public not going to be influenced one way or another.

    In my case no way could I sit in judgement on that sh1thouse Eddy Shah.

    I must add, no wonder Tracey Barlow turned out bad. :lol:
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    VTech wrote:
    Time will tell.
    Wait until the bill rolls in from yewtree and those people who protested about thatchers funeral which in the end cost us 6p each realise that this joke is going to cost us millions, tens and tens of millions.

    It's a joke, I really feel for all concerned.
    In all fairness, if I'd realised Maggies funeral would have been so cheap I'd have paid a quid as long as it took place forty years sooner.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Frank the tank wrote:
    VTech makes a valid point :shock: :wink: about jury selection. I've said for years (usually in relation to high profile cases, I.E. Huntley or celeb job in these cases) Unless you've been living under a rock in some godforsaken hell hole how is an ordinary member of the public not going to be influenced one way or another.

    In my case no way could I sit in judgement on that sh1thouse Eddy Shah.

    I must add, no wonder Tracey Barlow turned out bad. :lol:

    You don't think, no, surely not, Ken and Tracey :?: :shock: :shock:
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Frank the tank wrote:
    VTech wrote:
    Time will tell.
    Wait until the bill rolls in from yewtree and those people who protested about thatchers funeral which in the end cost us 6p each realise that this joke is going to cost us millions, tens and tens of millions.

    It's a joke, I really feel for all concerned.
    In all fairness, if I'd realised Maggies funeral would have been so cheap I'd have paid a quid as long as it took place forty years sooner.

    And they say the left has the party of compassion!
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    I just read that whilst he is being questioned and until he is free with no charges, ITV will not feature him in coronation street and are also editing him out of scenes being shown this week.

    What a fecking joke !
    An alleged single offence from 45 years ago in an 81 year life span and they are treating him like a convicted peodophile. It's aweful.
    If he worked for me is be backing him until prove otherwise.
    What has this world (actually, the UK) come too ?
    Living MY dream.
  • seanoconn
    seanoconn Posts: 11,671
    Does anyone know what evidence is needed to arrest someone for a sexual offence and to charge someone for a sexual offence? Apologies if this has already been covered.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    seanoconn wrote:
    Does anyone know what evidence is needed to arrest someone for a sexual offence and to charge someone for a sexual offence? Apologies if this has already been covered.

    Yes.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • seanoconn
    seanoconn Posts: 11,671
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    seanoconn wrote:
    Does anyone know what evidence is needed to arrest someone for a sexual offence and to charge someone for a sexual offence? Apologies if this has already been covered.

    Yes.
    I'm guessing "No" if I ask for elaboration? And possibly a "Yes" to this question.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,312
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    seanoconn wrote:
    Does anyone know what evidence is needed to arrest someone for a sexual offence and to charge someone for a sexual offence? Apologies if this has already been covered.

    Yes.

    You wait till page 3 to post 3 letters Cleaty. You are a dodgy trawling, rule 7 breaking, post count inflating scoundrel. I'm on to you.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    You only have to make a claim. If that claim is possible they will proceed.
    The problem is that almost all of these claims would never have been processed several years ago but now are Ecause of the media hype so in reality the media are the driving force which is wrong.
    Living MY dream.
  • dynamicbrick
    dynamicbrick Posts: 460
    Something which bothers me about the whole Yewtree thing is the sheer timescales involved. 1967 - that's 46 years ago. The human memory is very bad at remembering specific events with clarity, especially when that event takes place under stress.

    I remember my Grandfather having quite heated debates with his surviving tank crew mates about their various escapades. One event in particular they never agreed on; a glancing deflected hit by an 88 in France. 40 years after the event the four of them couldn't even agree where it happened, who was driving, whether it set fire to the tarp sheet stowed on the turret roof, and countless other details.

Categories