Max Clifford

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I don't think he got a fair trial - if it was me I'd appeal!

On what basis you think his trial was unfair, Otokonomidori? Just curious.

[snowy25]

Originally Posted by Meini Hirion

There is no such thing as a sex-offender prison.

That's not entirely true. There is HM Prison Whatton for example in Nottinghamshire, which is a Category C prison for adult male sex offenders who participate in the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme.

It is designed to house male sex offenders of all varieties. Those that go there are expected to commit to completing the courses they offer to cut their chance of reoffending. The prison is a lot more relaxed for staff and inmates because all inmates are sex offenders and so violence is at a lower level. People like Clifford are unlikely to be sent there though because if he believes he is innocent, then he will not participate in the courses. Being sent there is on the understanding they would try to change their behaviour. If he feels he has done nothing wrong then he cannot do that.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

On what basis you think his trial was unfair, Otokonomidori? Just curious.

I don't believe anyone should be convicted solely on the testimony of people regarding events that took place 30 or 40 years ago. Why did it take them so long? I reckon they're after money.

In my opinion, the police and the Prosecution Service, by their "bundling " of charges, also influenced the outcome of this trial.

I also think the enormous press coverage of the trial skewed the verdict.

If there was DNA or video evidence , fair enough, lock him up - but without it I would not be able, if I was a jury member, to find anyone guilty.

As for Max Clifford - I know nothing of him, I'd never heard of him until this business was in the news

[rotobott]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I don't believe anyone should be convicted solely on the testimony of people regarding events that took place 30 or 40 years ago. Why did it take them so long? I reckon they're after money.

In my opinion, the police and the Prosecution Service, by their "bundling " of charges, also influenced the outcome of this trial.

I also think the enormous press coverage of the trial skewed the verdict.

If there was DNA or video evidence , fair enough, lock him up - but without it I would not be able, if I was a jury member, to find anyone guilty.

As for Max Clifford - I know nothing of him, I'd never heard of him until this business was in the news

I thought that about William Roache and the other soap stars, but with Max you just want him to be found guilty, arrogant pompous twat, but he's old so he'll get out soon or die.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I don't believe anyone should be convicted solely on the testimony of people regarding events that took place 30 or 40 years ago. Why did it take them so long? I reckon they're after money.

In my opinion, the police and the Prosecution Service, by their "bundling " of charges, also influenced the outcome of this trial.

I also think the enormous press coverage of the trial skewed the verdict.

If there was DNA or video evidence , fair enough, lock him up - but without it I would not be able, if I was a jury member, to find anyone guilty.

As for Max Clifford - I know nothing of him, I'd never heard of him until this business was in the news

Well; you've answered my question. As for why it took so long, that's a frequently observed phenomenon. Many people suppress such horrible memories for years because its the only way they can survive what happened to them. It sometimes happens that people cannot cry when they lose someone dear to them; not won't, can't. I didn't cry when my father died, even though everyone else in my family wept, and I thought there was something broken inside me, something wrong. Then at his funeral my nephew played the guitar, the song was Bookends by Paul Simon, and when he played it I shook like a leaf and I cried. I didn't make a sound and it only lasted a few seconds because I simply had to hold myself together at my own father's funeral, sat next to my mother; I couldn't be so selfish as to break down when sat next to her, who had been his wife for over 50 years. But I had that five seconds to weep for my father and I will always be grateful to my nephew for granting me that.

You see, these things are repressed very deep inside and it is hard to say when or why they will break surface; but the trauma the victims suffered is never simply going to vanish. I place no significance in the mere lapse of time when it comes to whether they're telling the truth about the essence of what happened. But as time goes by the details become obscure and the facts harder to prove; yet the burden of proof cannot be relaxed if the trial is to be just and fair to the accused. So I agree that a conviction for a crime which happened in 1970 something is going to be much harder to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and the unchallengable fact that Max Clifford is not likeable is not grounds to convict him. But he was convicted. The jury were in the room and listened to all the witnesses; we have to trust the jury, or else no trial can ever be considered fair.

[daz]

Let's hope he spills the beans on that closet case Cowell

[CARLTON BROWN]

Although I think Clifford is undoubtedly a hard, manipulative, nasty piece of work who deserves what he got, I do rather side with Otokonomidori over the issue of trials based on claims that can date back decades.

I do wonder what would happen if I was sudden put in the position of being accused of a sex crime from the dim and distant past?

I certainly couldn't tell you (off the top of my head) precisely what I was doing at this time last year, let alone in 1974. Of course, if I was a serial sex offender that might be different, but assuming I am completely innocent, I would have a bugger of a job proving it, should plod take the allegations seriously and being put in this position has the potential to destroy my life.

Really, what's needed in my opinion is a statute of limitations and as far as the present series of cases are concerned, does anyone really think there isn't a strong political element to them?

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Well; you've answered my question. As for why it took so long, that's a frequently observed phenomenon. Many people suppress such horrible memories for years because its the only way they can survive what happened to them.

I simply don't believe these people who emerge with tales of drunkenness and debauched cruelty 40 odd years later - especially when the alleged perpetrator is rich and famous.

I reckon there should be a statute of limitations - come forward with your complaint within a reasonable time or get over it!

[NIN]

The witnesses from Maxs' trial came forward with their testimonies & evidence after the Jimmy Savile saga broke. Additionaly, now further victims have come forward since finding out they are not alone in being taken advantage of his casting couch/front seat of his car antics with further evidence against Mr Clifford.
I hope that they do what happened to Stuart Hall & make additional charges .

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by NIN

The witnesses from Maxs' trial came forward with their testimonies & evidence after the Jimmy Savile saga broke.

And they smelled money?!?