Max Clifford

MattC59

Is anyone really surprised ?

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

ballysmate

A bit surprised, yes.
Not because I don't regard Clifford as a sleazeball, but because of the debacle of Yewtree and the 'batting average' of the CPS.

sloppyschleckonds

Absolutely love Clifford. I've met him a few times now and he's wonderful company...

Matthewfalle

I don't think its surprising that he did it, I think its surprising that they actually manage to obtain the convictions. After all, they seem to have massively failed with everyone else, and you would have thought that old Maxey bot would have enough dirt on everyone to have made sure that nothing ever got through the initial CPS reviews .....

I've actually worked on his car.

seanoconn

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Absolutely love Clifford. I've met him a few times now and he's wonderful company...

arran77

seanoconn wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Absolutely love Clifford. I've met him a few times now and he's wonderful company...

But how does he compare to Tyson, that's what I want to know, I heard he's a thoroughly nice chap.

nathancom

arran77 wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Absolutely love Clifford. I've met him a few times now and he's wonderful company...

But how does he compare to Tyson, that's what I want to know, I heard he's a thoroughly nice chap.

He's a good chap but not as great as Paul Walker RIP

cornerblock

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Absolutely love Clifford. I've met him a few times now and he's wonderful company...

slowmart

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Absolutely love Clifford. I've met him a few times now and he's wonderful company...

So I take it you yourself were groomed and exploited leading to your forum moniker?

Did Maxy put you on the road to stardom after

shockedsoshocked

simonhead

He wont be parked illegally in Weybridge anymore one assumes??

sloppyschleckonds

simonhead wrote:

He wont be parked illegally in Weybridge anymore one assumes??

Not for the next few years I would imagine….

natrix

The papers seem to think that he'll get up to two years, so he'll probably be out in a year.

tlw1

simonhead wrote:

He wont be parked illegally in Weybridge anymore one assumes??

no, but people will be illegally parked in him.............

anonymousblackfg

natrix wrote:

The papers seem to think that he'll get up to two years, so he'll probably be out in a year.

Yes, but probably with an arsehole the size of a Wizards sleave.

Pross

Can you actually have an arsehole in an arsehole?

Stevo_666

anonymousblackfg wrote:

natrix wrote:

The papers seem to think that he'll get up to two years, so he'll probably be out in a year.

Yes, but probably with an arsehole the size of a Wizards sleave.

At least he'll have a story to sell to the papers when he gets out.

diplodicus

Stevo 666 wrote:

anonymousblackfg wrote:

natrix wrote:

The papers seem to think that he'll get up to two years, so he'll probably be out in a year.

Yes, but probably with an arsehole the size of a Wizards sleave.

At least he'll have a story to sell to the papers when he gets out.

Kiss and tell?

Stevo_666

diplodicus wrote:

Kiss and tell?

More like bend and tell.

rolf_f

Just his bad luck that there isn't some sort of media guru type around who knows about getting celebs off this kind of rap.......

VTech

I love the fact that a few chose bad taste over decency, I guess thats why they don't turn left

Anyway, now that he has been found guilty I think it fair game to throw sticks at him, you see, I've never changed my stance on these situations, we have a law and should stick to it.
Innocent until proven guilty and now he has been proven guilty he deserves all that comes to him. We (the public) should not hear about claims until AFTER court as that is the DECENT thing to do, there have been plenty of innocent people wrongly accused and lets not forget that the last man hanged in England was in fact innocent !!

I am surprised he was found guilty, as mentioned above, operation yew tree has been a huge failure and will be the sole reason many offenders will never be bought to justice or even if they are, will never been found guilty.


Anyway, I've got to get packing, got a long journey ahead of me.

arran77

VTech wrote:

Anyway, I've got to get packing, got a long journey ahead of me.

Where you off to?

Anonymous

VTech wrote:

I love the fact that a few chose bad taste over decency

As opposed to the subject of the thread to chose to lie to and assault minors?

Garry H

Pross wrote:

Can you actually have an arsehole in an arsehole?

I think this is an arsehole in a c*nt...

veronese68

VTech wrote:

We (the public) should not hear about claims until AFTER court as that is the DECENT thing to do, there have been plenty of innocent people wrongly accused and lets not forget that the last man hanged in England was in fact innocent !!

There was a very interesting bit on the radio a while ago with the police chief for Bristol/Gloucester, can't quite remember where it was, and alandlord wrongly accused of murdering a girl. The guy had been torn apart by the press and his life had been made a misery, but he was innocent. The point the police chief was making was that in these types of cases there are often victims that have not come forward for a variety of reasons and once one accusation has become public others may find the courage to come forward. I guess due to the high profiles of the people involved and the time period it has been exceptionally difficult in the Yewtree cases. The man that had been falsely accused agreed with the police in principle, although he was obviously unhappy about the way he had been treated by the press.
It's an impossible situation where you can be damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make the decision as to wether or not to name and shame someone who may turn out to be innocent.

slowmart

Its too simplistic to level failings at the Police for Yewtree.

The police will investigate and then refer the matter to the CPS who then decide if the evidence warrants a prosecution. Damned if you prosecute and damned if you don't.


You then have a jury trial and defendants who have the means to buy the best legal defence team. It seems if you are in the public eye your trial will be elongated to the ends of time. Jury selection and quality are woeful with the threshold seemingly set just above "learning difficulties" for a person to qualify.

VTech

Veronese68 wrote:

VTech wrote:

We (the public) should not hear about claims until AFTER court as that is the DECENT thing to do, there have been plenty of innocent people wrongly accused and lets not forget that the last man hanged in England was in fact innocent !!

There was a very interesting bit on the radio a while ago with the police chief for Bristol/Gloucester, can't quite remember where it was, and alandlord wrongly accused of murdering a girl. The guy had been torn apart by the press and his life had been made a misery, but he was innocent. The point the police chief was making was that in these types of cases there are often victims that have not come forward for a variety of reasons and once one accusation has become public others may find the courage to come forward. I guess due to the high profiles of the people involved and the time period it has been exceptionally difficult in the Yewtree cases. The man that had been falsely accused agreed with the police in principle, although he was obviously unhappy about the way he had been treated by the press.
It's an impossible situation where you can be damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make the decision as to wether or not to name and shame someone who may turn out to be innocent.

Im not sure that this would deter people, I would say that once a conviction is placed, it would give people more of a willing to come forward knowing they stand more chance of being believed. I am not saying my way is the only way and it should be so. I just worry about those wrongly accused and we must do everything possible to at least try and get the right result every time.

coriordan wrote:

VTech wrote:

I love the fact that a few chose bad taste over decency

As opposed to the subject of the thread to chose to lie to and assault minors?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I wouldn't burgle the guy who burgled my house a few years ago simply to "get him back"
His punishment came from the courts with my assistance and justice was done.

bianchimoon

Garry H wrote:

Pross wrote:

Can you actually have an arsehole in an arsehole?

I think this is an arsehole in a c*nt...

he was in hospital today for an @rshole transplant....

but the @rsehole rejected him

veronese68

VTech wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

VTech wrote:

We (the public) should not hear about claims until AFTER court as that is the DECENT thing to do, there have been plenty of innocent people wrongly accused and lets not forget that the last man hanged in England was in fact innocent !!

There was a very interesting bit on the radio a while ago with the police chief for Bristol/Gloucester, can't quite remember where it was, and alandlord wrongly accused of murdering a girl. The guy had been torn apart by the press and his life had been made a misery, but he was innocent. The point the police chief was making was that in these types of cases there are often victims that have not come forward for a variety of reasons and once one accusation has become public others may find the courage to come forward. I guess due to the high profiles of the people involved and the time period it has been exceptionally difficult in the Yewtree cases. The man that had been falsely accused agreed with the police in principle, although he was obviously unhappy about the way he had been treated by the press.
It's an impossible situation where you can be damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make the decision as to wether or not to name and shame someone who may turn out to be innocent.

Im not sure that this would deter people, I would say that once a conviction is placed, it would give people more of a willing to come forward knowing they stand more chance of being believed. I am not saying my way is the only way and it should be so. I just worry about those wrongly accused and we must do everything possible to at least try and get the right result every time.

I do have some sympathy with your point of view, unfortunately there is no easy answer. If you wait until after a conviction to publicise, a guilty person may get through the net that could have been proven beyond doubt if other victims had come forward. If you announce it before the trial you may accuse an innocent person in public causing them to be vilified. Whichever way we go there will be some wrongs, as I said I'm glad it's a decision I don't have to make.

VTech

Veronese68 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

VTech wrote:

We (the public) should not hear about claims until AFTER court as that is the DECENT thing to do, there have been plenty of innocent people wrongly accused and lets not forget that the last man hanged in England was in fact innocent !!

There was a very interesting bit on the radio a while ago with the police chief for Bristol/Gloucester, can't quite remember where it was, and alandlord wrongly accused of murdering a girl. The guy had been torn apart by the press and his life had been made a misery, but he was innocent. The point the police chief was making was that in these types of cases there are often victims that have not come forward for a variety of reasons and once one accusation has become public others may find the courage to come forward. I guess due to the high profiles of the people involved and the time period it has been exceptionally difficult in the Yewtree cases. The man that had been falsely accused agreed with the police in principle, although he was obviously unhappy about the way he had been treated by the press.
It's an impossible situation where you can be damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make the decision as to wether or not to name and shame someone who may turn out to be innocent.

Im not sure that this would deter people, I would say that once a conviction is placed, it would give people more of a willing to come forward knowing they stand more chance of being believed. I am not saying my way is the only way and it should be so. I just worry about those wrongly accused and we must do everything possible to at least try and get the right result every time.

I do have some sympathy with your point of view, unfortunately there is no easy answer. If you wait until after a conviction to publicise, a guilty person may get through the net that could have been proven beyond doubt if other victims had come forward. If you announce it before the trial you may accuse an innocent person in public causing them to be vilified. Whichever way we go there will be some wrongs, as I said I'm glad it's a decision I don't have to make.

I agree, the problem is that there is no perfect answer I guess.

I think it time I explained why I feel the way I do in order to allow people to understand my point of view.
I had a house in Frankley, Just by Longbridge, Birmingham and a guy who I didn't know was wrongly accused of being a Pedo. He suffered attacks for 2 years until he was killed and his son beat to a pulp.

He had never done anything wrong other than give the local kids sweats.
As I said, I didn't know him but a family destroyed because of Chinese whispers.

veronese68

VTech wrote:

[I agree, the problem is that there is no perfect answer I guess.

I think it time I explained why I feel the way I do in order to allow people to understand my point of view.
I had a house in Frankley, Just by Longbridge, Birmingham and a guy who I didn't know was wrongly accused of being a Pedo. He suffered attacks for 2 years until he was killed and his son beat to a pulp.

He had never done anything wrong other than give the local kids sweats.
As I said, I didn't know him but a family destroyed because of Chinese whispers.

As you say, unfortunately there is no perfect answer and that is appalling.
That's the worst case scenario at one extreme, the worst case at the other extreme unfortunately could have a similar outcome. Although for very different reasons.
Is the story true about a paediatrician being hounded out of his house due to the ignorant not knowing the difference between a doctor and a sex offender. Unfortunately people that get the lynch mob mentality are often not the sharpest tools in the box.