Max Clifford

Jimmy Savile was also a great charity fund raiser.

I can't believe that some posters can't remember what it was like to be young and impressionable.

These offences happened in different times when people were much more impressed by people like MC and things such as these were not talked about so openly.

The girl who wrote about her experiences in the paper was probably hugely relieved to be believed and to be able to talk about it without thinking it was her fault - although some members of GN seem to think it was.

The only thing that really matters is that the girls/women were young and he was an adult and took advantage.

Well said, kitty.

I would agree with that if he was their teacher or something else in authority over them. But he wasn't. They new what they were doing.

I'm not making any excuses for his behaviour. He was vile morally. But was his behaviour actually criminal? Apart from the underage girl I'm not sure it was. I believe in fair justice and the courts don't always get it right.The more I think about this, the more I feel something is wrong.

But they were still young and wouldn't know how to handle something like that when the person involved was MC or anyone else with' influence' and arrogance!!

Posted too soon

Being 'grown up' doesn't happen as one changes from 15 to 16.

No, but the law does.

Jingle you are wrong in your view! That's what's wrong.

Yes his behaviour was criminal because the judge gave him the sentence appropriate to what would have been correct at that time.

I don't think the judge was unprofessional either for taking into account Clifford's swagger behaviour in making fun of the journalists outside court, that in my view is tantamount to contempt of court.

This is a good article about it:

www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/02/max-clifford-sex-politics-tabloids-simon-hattenstone

I mean the law changes. I don't think they should dish out punishment for bad morals. It's what laws are about.

I could be overthrowing this.

Overthinking!

I read the Judge's detailed summary of the case against Clifford and was sickened at the abuse heaped upon those young girls, sometimes with the unknowing assistance of their parents, by this depraved monster. May he rot inside.

jingl Max Clifford was convicted of indecent assault.
The age of the victim is irrelevant.
Indecent assault is indecent assault, whether the victim is 9, 19, or 99.

Some posts on this thread have made me and . There has been an unpleasant undercurrent of misogyny which has baffled me and which I have found quite upsetting. As jane said, he was convicted of indecent assault. His behaviour during the trial was, quite rightly, taken into account by the judge. If he had carried out the same assaults today, the sentence would have been much longer. At least one of the victims gave all the money she was paid to a charity that supports victims if sexual abuse - not that I expect jingle to believe that. Before the trial he toured TV studios calling his victims liars and fantasists - and look how Stuart Hall was talking of his victims hours before he changed his plea. Being young ( or older) and being easily impressed and having dreams of stardom doesn't mean it's ok for a much older, powerful man to sexually abuse you. The law should be there for the vulnerable- no matter how daft we think they might have behaved.

Well said Granny Twice

I can understand that this is a very emotive topic but there is still room for someone to express their views without people getting angry and upset by them, and thus implying that they should never have been expressed in the first place.

I agree Aka. It's the type of subjective response, which you describe, that inhibits some posters.

That is my point. He was convicted of indecent assault. I would have thought, for it to have been that, the girls (talking only about the older ones of course) would have had to say "no", or at least put up some physical fight. But they allowed it to happen perhaps because they had their own agendas.

Please do not accuse me of mysogony. Misandry perhaps, but never mysogony. There have been some marvellous women in my life. A mysogonist is the very last thing I am.

sorry for mixing the tenses up there

I take it then, Jingle, that you have read the transcript of the trial, are familiar with judicial procedure, are an experienced psychotherapist and have extensive knowledge of the ways of abusers and their victims?

If not, how can you possibly say 'they had their own agendas (sic)?

Oh, so you think they met up with him just because they liked him? Bit naive perhaps?

Fascinating article, this one:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/03/max-clifford-meeting-him-morality-media-sexism

Can we be sure universal hatred of him did n't colour the court proceedings? That article makes me wonder.

Yes, they were naive, but young girls are naive. If they are not naive, then they are "streetwise" and they only get streetwise by living through the experiences that Max Clifford (and others) are kind enough to submit them to. Some young girls get that experience behind the bike sheds with boys their own age, who are finding out what is what at the same time. Some do not.

Older men tricking young starry-eyed girls with promises of show business and fame into massaging (literally and metaphorically) their egos and their willies are taking advantage of that naivety. even if the girls had done some experimentation with young men already, that does not excuse men in powerful positions from exploiting them.

Justice should be meted out to everyone. Including the obnoxious, sleasy, lowlifes. I would have thought.

I need to knock this on the head now. Sun's shining.