Max Clifford

There may well be lots of 'important people' quaking in their shoes right now, and rightly so.Things are coming out now and there could be all sorts of revelations about previously 'respected' individuals. This shedding light on dark practices will give any young victims of sexual abuse some hope that the police will have to take their complaints seriously.

Deterring other predatory creeps is one of the reasons that it was right to pursue this case. If those in the public eye get away with it if they can cover it up long enough, then others will be tempted to chance it. If it is clear that there is no hiding place, then they may think again.

Just read this thread (reluctantly) and Googled to find out who MC is. Like Thatbags I didn't know - ignorance is bliss!
What a disgusting creep, as well as the indecent assaults his whole life seemed to be involved in digging out the sleaziest stories around.
I hope the publicity deters other wouldbe predators (I think I've said that before .)

As I see it the common strand to these sex offences whether Stuart Hall, Jimmy Savill, Max Clifford, Cyril Smith or a teacher or a priest is that the perpetrators took advantage of their position either of authority or trust or "celebrity status" and abused not only the boys or girls/women in question but that position itself. That they escaped criminal proceedings on account of their position was appalling and something that is only now being rectified. We have for too long not listened to the victims of abuse, trusting (however wrongly) the word of the people whom they also trusted. Contrition (genuine - not pretend) on the part of the offenders might have been the least one could have expected - not arrogant self-aggrandisement. I have no reason to doubt that the judge in each case will have applied the sentencing guidelines in the proper way and the jury having listened to both prosecution and defence will have arrived at their verdict equally in the proper way. What on earth is the point of saying "Oh they did not hear the truth" or "Oh the judge was biased"? We have a judicial system which (to my way of thinking) perhaps too often errs on the side of leniency, but this week has at last brought verdicts against people who were in a position to know better and act ethically, including MC and Constance Briscoe. (If anybody is unaware of who she is, I am talking about the barrister and judge who lied to the police in the Vicky Pryce/Chris Huhne speeding points business.)

At the time of these offences young girls were much more naive. Girls as young as 11 are much more aware these days than they were when MC was carrying out his attacks. To judge those girls by today's standards is unfair. He was an adult, in a position of authority and they had no idea of how to stop what was happening.

Wish the sun was shining here. It is dull and cool. Never mind, I now have a new front porch, new gutters, and the chimney has been reharled, so I feel the house has a new hat. Must start soon on the garden, the weeds are taking over.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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)?

sorry for mixing the tenses up there

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.

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

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.

Well said Granny Twice

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.

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.

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.

Overthinking!

I could be overthrowing this.

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

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

No, but the law does.