Max Clifford foud guilty

[tigertiger]

So the CPS has secured their first Media driven conviction against Publicist Max Clifford.

As the CPS breath their first sigh of relief in bringing a historical case with no evidence against an individual what are you thoughts?

I have to say personal opinions on him as a person and his much loathed career really shouldn’t be clouding peoples judgement in terms of him being accused of a crime and wishing him guilty.


Personally I wondered why the trial hadn’t been stopped and a fresh jury brought in. Its not been mentioned via the media today that there was actually 10 jurors not 12. 1 juror was discharged due to actually knowing one of the alleged victims.
With a UK population of 63 million just how does the CPS manage to have a juror who knows the alleged victim? This juror went through the first half of the trial and it really makes you think just what influence her presence has had on the remaining jurors. To me this just stinks of corruption.
Surely this cannot have been a fair trial and an appeal will be forthcoming?

While yes I may be biased due to being falsely accused I cant help but think 30-50 year old allegations against an individual with a 50-50 chance of conviction due to who’s story gets believed with no evidence is far from justice. I am in no way a Clifford fan and prefer to view things on its merits. I just see the CPS no evidence numbers game; accuse enough innocents and surely one will get caught in the net at some point.

I don’t think this story is quite finished yet...

[RFLH]

keep your eye on this thread for the rest of the night - some of your questions will be answered.


http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/20...d-found-Guilty

[is there justice?]

I have no particular liking for Max Clifford either. I've never been a fan of gutter press stories but I do agree with you TT. There are some questions to be asked here. I believe one of his accusers sent him a letter but was that after the JS story broke?

I have, in hindsight, made one or two mistakes along the way with a couple of men but it doesn't make them guilty of any sexual offence just because I realised retrospectively that it wasn't a wise thing to do. Do I report one because he said he was single but turned out to be married all those years ago? Where will it end?

If MC is truly guilty, I don't condone it for a nano second but I really do not think he has had a fair trial with the jury problems. His public persona has certainly hindered him.

Mums net, don't start me .... Until FAs happen to your loved ones you cannot imagine someone would make it up but SO judgemental. I think one of the comments was that it was about time one of them was convicted! No belief in the NG verdicts there then.

It's a good job we can produce test tube babies cos that is where we are heading.

[lawlessone2009]

keep your eye on this thread for the rest of the night - some of your questions will be answered.


http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/20...d-found-Guilty

HOLY JESUS! I really thought women were the more intelligent species as well...... Clearly not the ones that go on there.

I'm sitting on the fence with this one. I believed him innocent and am shocked at the guilty verdicts. I'm also quite questioning of the jury setup.

This:

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/04...ric-sex-cases/

Gives a run down of the convictions. The majority of people on 'mumsnet' probably reflect the majority of people in so far as they have no idea of what he has been convicted off! Indecent assault probably equates to rape in their minds.

It actually took a lot of searching (ok, a BIT of searching for me but probably days for others!) to find what the actual convictions were. The media has been quite cagey about actually publishing the details and I had the opportunity to read 3 mainstream newspaper articles about him today!

No doubt when the frenzy has died down a little they will inform the public of what was actually alleged. By 'inform' I mean MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR as there isn't really any other way to inform the public as they are quite ignorant. I know I am at times.

From reading the convictions it appears he is looking at about 2 1/2 years. His website has vanished over night. He's hunkered down and awaiting his fate.

Is he guilty?

Well, legally yes. Morally, most likely. Actually, I just don't quite know.

It's not that I am questioning whether he got up to questionable things. It's more that the actual details could be quite skewed. The whole thing is most likely being made into far more than it actually was. The details have probably been over inflated by the complainers and milked for every penny by the prosecution.



My opinion is that the number of complainers should never have been made known until the end of the case. It seemed almost as if that the sheer number of complainers would mean that each individual complainer would be driven to ensuring that 'her' complaint was the most compelling, the most seedy, the sickest and most depraved. The prosecution ramped it all up and delivered blow upon blow. The jury had to accept it all and even then there was clearly doubt.

If an individual stood in court and had no ideas about others being involved then they would simply give their evidence. It wouldn't seem like a big competition.


I have no idea what I am attempting to say or the point I am attempting to get at. I just find something questionable about it all. I am not sure of the degree of guilt but sure that there is guilt but not sure even where it lies or of its relevance.

[Dave]

NEVER go on mumsnet for any subject, it will just wind you up!

[RFLH]

not all threads are like that! They do an awful lot of good works behind the scenes - I know, because I do!

[lawlessone2009]

not all threads are like that! They do an awful lot of good works behind the scenes - I know, because I do!

Mums DO do a lot of good work behind the scenes... It's when they are in front of their 'screens' that the issues start...


I've kind of figured out some of what I missed... It's the good old 'age' thing!

It's easy to miss. It's easy to assume.

Mr Clifford is 71 just now.

The first complainant was 14 in 1966.

Some simple maths:


2014 - 1977 = 48 years ago.

71 - 48 = 23


Max Clifford was 23 years old when he was involved with the 14 year old girl. I am not saying that it puts any justification on anything but it does slightly alter the 'dirty old man' image that is created when a 71 year old is convicted of indecent assault against a 15 year old.



There of course seems little let up in his pursuit of young girls over what appears to be a 20 year period. The lack of change in the age of his complainants does not do him any favours at all. I do get the impression that there will be many more willing to step up to the table now and put their story before a court.

The reason I believe there will be more?

The prosecution service have been absolutely fantastic with ensuring the anonymity of those giving evidence. Any further possible complainers will have been paying super close attention to what has been happening and especially with regards to the people involved. The last thing anyone wants is to be pictured as 'one' of the celebrities targets and then have the media camped outside their doors wanting the inside line...

The actual overall professionalism of the prosecution in this case could very well send out the right signals to all potential complainers against various 'celebrities'. This is definitely not finished yet, it's only beginning.

[RFLH]

I fear you're right Lawless - especially when they put up a claims for compensation table in newspapers. What a stupid thing to do.

You could always try the Pistonheads forum ............

[Dave]

not all threads are like that! They do an awful lot of good works behind the scenes - I know, because I do!

I am sure they cant be, it's just the times I have found myself on there via a Google of some subject or other I have been unfortunate enough to have come across the ignorant/crazy/stupid/weird/keyboard-warrior types.

Nothing against mums in general, I have one myself.

[lawlessone2009]

I fear you're right Lawless - especially when they put up a claims for compensation table in newspapers. What a stupid thing to do.

You could always try the Pistonheads forum ............

Pistonheads? From one extreme to the other...


There is nothing wrong with pursuing wrong doers and bringing them to justice. I just don't think they're doing it correctly.

I read a massive ebook on litigation not so long ago. It had a lot of principles in it and one of the core principles were that if someone was subjected to criminal proceedings then they could not also be subjected to civil proceedings (criminal taking precedent). This was due to the held belief that someone should not be punished twice for the same course of action.

Clearly if someone was to undertake a criminal course of conduct and benefit financially from it then there was to be the opportunity for both criminal and civil proceedings so as to dissuade the 'criminal' from such behaviour to begin with.

I'm not so sure that Max Clifford made any money from what he has been convicted off and in fact quite the opposite seems to be becoming apparent (company closed down etc).

I have little doubt that the complainers should be entitled to compensation. The compensation should be at the set levels (circa £11000 tops) that everyone else receives with a successful claim. I don't see the relevance of the wealth of the perpetrator having anything to do with the amount of compensation that should be awarded.

Equally. I see no reason why the tax payer should be landed with the bill. There is nothing stopping the state taking the money from Mr Clifford and awarding it to the complainers.

I feel that a sensible head needs to be screwed on before things get out of control. The Police/prosecution have the conviction that they have so desperately being seeking through numerous trials. I wouldn't rate the conviction very highly as the man was quite unfavourable with the majority of British people and had far too much arrogance about him but a conviction is a conviction especially after the numerous failures that went before him. The danger now is that the Police and prosecutors repeatedly go after him and begin to loose their credibility or indeed begin to loose their case! What has happened should not be cheapened or seen simply as a 'start'.

If future actions are not controlled and managed correctly then the public will loose faith and interest. The prosecution of sexual offenders will become just like Max Clifford himself, boring and out dated. Care has to be taken not to simply go on a frenzy.

Compensation - YES

Massive payouts - NO

[tigertiger]

Some fantastic points raised lawlessone couldn’t have said better my self.

Also out of interest here is the list of what he was found guilty of. It seems to kept quite quiet from the public with nobody really sure exactly what he was found guilty of.
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/04...ric-sex-cases/

I'd also like to highlight: Any current readers awaiting trial of a FA try not to be disheartened by the outcome of this case. Whether he is actually guilty or innocent aside remember as pointed out he was already at an extreme disadvantage by being hated by just about everyone in the UK. Add in a biased jury member, fortunately those Joe blogs amongst us wont already face such an up hill battle.

[Izzy]

An interesting read here re the compensation - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...m-mansion.html

If his victims, proven and alleged, now decide to take such action he could be facing many more years or revelations, court proceedings and the payment of much of his fortune in legal costs and compensation to his victims.”

[is there justice?]

8 years .... only he knows if that is fair.

[slave1fett]

8 years .... only he knows if that is fair.

what would he have got if the offences were committed after 2003?

[is there justice?]

It was said in the media that he could have received a life sentence for the offences against one of the women who was only 15 at the time. I don't know if that is accurate though.