THE NEWSDESK: Max Clifford thought he was above the law

South Wales Argus: (5920275) (5920275)

THE conviction of Max Clifford for sex offences is a vindication for the victims who thought they would never be believed.

The case also lifted the rock on the nasty side of our celebrity-obsessed culture.

All too often, the British public has been guilty of buying magazines and newspapers with kiss-and-tell exclusives without giving a second thought to the processes which have been gone through to get them.

And "PR gurus" who are like Clifford like us to think of them as loveable duckers and divers, a modern-day Flash Harry from the St Trinian's films. Got need of a footballer sex scandal, guv? I've got one on me handcart...

But while Clifford, now 71 and at the start of an eight year sentence, was peddling those scandalous stories, he was a predator who used his celebrity connections to lure young women into his trap.

During his trial, prosecutors portrayed Clifford as a well-practised manipulator, who promised to boost his victims' careers and get them to meet celebrities in exchange for sexual favours.

He offered to get them casting appointments, pretending to be Hollywood bigwigs including Steven Spielberg, James Bond film producer Albert "Cubby" Broccoli and Michael Winner on the phone.

He sexually assaulted young women. And then went about the place offering up his clients' stories of sleeping with the rich and famous to the highest bidder.

Detectives are now looking into fresh allegations against Clifford, Scotland Yard has said. Clifford was convicted of eight counts of historic abuse, carried out between 1977 and 1984.

Following sentencing a spokesman for Scotland Yard confirmed that other people had since come forward with allegations.

Passing sentence at Southwark Crown Court, Judge Anthony Leonard told Clifford: "The reason why they were not brought to light sooner was because of your own dominant character and your position in the world of entertainment which meant that your victims thought that you were untouchable, something that I think you too believed."

He told the veteran media expert: "These offences may have taken place a long time ago, when inappropriate and trivial sexual behaviour was more likely to be tolerated, but your offending was not trivial, but of a very serious nature."

Clifford behaved all along like he was above the law - including during the trial.

Judge Leonard condemned Clifford's "contemptuous" behaviour during the trial, referring to a strange encounter when he was filmed mimicking Sky News reporter Tom Parmenter as he recorded a piece to camera.

Describing the ordeal of the victim who was abused from the age of 15, the judge said: "Not unnaturally, what she looks for is some sort of apology from you or an acknowledgement as to what you have been responsible for.

"She has been extremely upset by your public denials before trial, the reports of your attitude during trial - laughing and shaking your head in the dock at the accusations made against you.

"For my part, I would add something that since the jury have returned verdicts I have discovered, that you appeared behind a reporter outside this court whilst he was making his report of your evidence and during which you mimicked his actions in a way that was designed to trivialise these events.

"I find your behaviour to be quite extraordinary and a further indication that you show no remorse."

Thankfully, Clifford has now learned that no one is above the law. And it is high time that we, as a society, turned our collective back on the red-top culture which peddles exploitative sex stories.

IN DAYS when it is very hard to find a truly altruistic act, there is a little ray of hope in Newport - thanks to the city's floral society.

"Lonely bouquets" were placed around the city on Friday with a note asking the finder to take them home, with the sole aim of cheering those who discovered them.

"In today's economic and social climate it is unusual to find anyone doing anything without expecting a reward," the society said.

The 80 bouquets were placed with "no ulterior motive than to brighten somebody's day".

What a fantastic idea. There were 80 people with smiles on their faces after that.

I read with interest yesterday that a new book by psychotherapist Graham Music, The Good LIfe: Wellbeing and the New Science of Altruism, Selfishness and Immorality, says that our societal changes - and the shift to a more unequal society - are making us less altruistic, less kind. We are, he says, losing empathy for those around us.

How depressing. But the good part of his book is that Music believes people are not born selfish - that we are much more likely to be born big-hearted and have that taken away from us by society. There is, at least hope we can change.

And in this city, we're saying it with flowers.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:17pm Sun 4 May 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

"...he was a predator who used his celebrity connections to lure young women into his trap."

Apparently, the extent of Clifford's abuse didn't stop at adults but also extended to 15-year-old children as your report recounts - legally a 15-year-old is a child, a girl as opposed to a woman. Therefore, this would make Max Clifford a paedophile.
"...he was a predator who used his celebrity connections to lure young women into his trap." Apparently, the extent of Clifford's abuse didn't stop at adults but also extended to 15-year-old children as your report recounts - legally a 15-year-old is a child, a girl as opposed to a woman. Therefore, this would make Max Clifford a paedophile. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 11

8:59pm Sun 4 May 14

Sally121 says...

How is this a local story relevant to a local (South Wales) paper?.
How is this a local story relevant to a local (South Wales) paper?. Sally121
  • Score: -15

10:29pm Sun 4 May 14

Bertie_Bassett says...

That is as fine a piece of writing as I have ever seen in The South Wales Argus. Very well done.
That is as fine a piece of writing as I have ever seen in The South Wales Argus. Very well done. Bertie_Bassett
  • Score: 4

9:31am Mon 5 May 14

Dai Rear says...

If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason. Dai Rear
  • Score: -4

10:40am Mon 5 May 14

Mike Roland says...

Dai Rear wrote:
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.[/p][/quote]"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here. Mike Roland
  • Score: 2

12:47pm Mon 5 May 14

snappersearch says...

Sally121 wrote:
How is this a local story relevant to a local (South Wales) paper?.
So you don't think that here in South Wales victims of scum like Max Clifford might be encouraged to come forward now and file a complaint after seeing him being put away?
[quote][p][bold]Sally121[/bold] wrote: How is this a local story relevant to a local (South Wales) paper?.[/p][/quote]So you don't think that here in South Wales victims of scum like Max Clifford might be encouraged to come forward now and file a complaint after seeing him being put away? snappersearch
  • Score: 6

3:17pm Mon 5 May 14

Dai Rear says...

Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.
What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.[/p][/quote]"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.[/p][/quote]What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia. Dai Rear
  • Score: -7

6:12pm Mon 5 May 14

Mike Roland says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.
What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.
Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it.
So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that!
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.[/p][/quote]"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.[/p][/quote]What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.[/p][/quote]Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it. So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that! Mike Roland
  • Score: 5

6:53pm Mon 5 May 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.
What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.
Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it.
So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that!
It is interesting, is it not, that in all these historic cases, there is no independent corroboration, forensic evidence, contemporaneous complaint or account, and huge evidence of 'bandwagon jumpers' who couldn't even invent a possible date for an allegation to within five years, as in the case of Roache. Any jury that convicts as 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is the requirement in English criminal law is brave indeed. Try reporting in twenty years time that your house was burgled last night and demanding justice and see what the police response is. It matters because it is entirely possible that Clifford was convicted for being a creep and not because his guilt for the offences was proven beyond doubt.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.[/p][/quote]"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.[/p][/quote]What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.[/p][/quote]Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it. So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that![/p][/quote]It is interesting, is it not, that in all these historic cases, there is no independent corroboration, forensic evidence, contemporaneous complaint or account, and huge evidence of 'bandwagon jumpers' who couldn't even invent a possible date for an allegation to within five years, as in the case of Roache. Any jury that convicts as 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is the requirement in English criminal law is brave indeed. Try reporting in twenty years time that your house was burgled last night and demanding justice and see what the police response is. It matters because it is entirely possible that Clifford was convicted for being a creep and not because his guilt for the offences was proven beyond doubt. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -4

7:08pm Mon 5 May 14

Dai Rear says...

Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.
What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.
Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it.
So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that!
I am indifferent to Clifford but sad that our criminal legal system, which was pretty good, is degenerating under political pressure. You may have a unique memory for things that may or may not have happened 30 or 40 years ago but if you have I'm afraid you'll just have to accept the fact that most of us do not share your gift, As Lanmartinangel says, much has been done by the State to ensure that there is no even contest in historic cases. Thank goodness that so far , mostly, sensible juries have proved themselves superior to our schoolkid legislators.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.[/p][/quote]"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.[/p][/quote]What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.[/p][/quote]Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it. So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that![/p][/quote]I am indifferent to Clifford but sad that our criminal legal system, which was pretty good, is degenerating under political pressure. You may have a unique memory for things that may or may not have happened 30 or 40 years ago but if you have I'm afraid you'll just have to accept the fact that most of us do not share your gift, As Lanmartinangel says, much has been done by the State to ensure that there is no even contest in historic cases. Thank goodness that so far , mostly, sensible juries have proved themselves superior to our schoolkid legislators. Dai Rear
  • Score: -7

7:33pm Mon 5 May 14

Dai Rear says...

In passing, whilst your memory may be razor sharp, your ability to understand my mention of McGuiness is not. My point was that, as you will recall, the criminal law of Ulster has been completely perverted by politics. Blair's capitulation to terrorism may well have been pragmatic but nonetheless he ordered that criminal justice be subservient to politics (the "peace process"). McGuiness has said that were Adams to be prosecuted the Sinn Fein IRA dogs would be unleashed. He's a Dublin gutty. He means it. Adams won't be prosecuted; believe me. Single issue fanatics of the "wimmins' movement" have been agitating for years for historic prosecutions. The State has yielded to them. Who gives a darn about the rule of law? Politics rools-geddit?
In passing, whilst your memory may be razor sharp, your ability to understand my mention of McGuiness is not. My point was that, as you will recall, the criminal law of Ulster has been completely perverted by politics. Blair's capitulation to terrorism may well have been pragmatic but nonetheless he ordered that criminal justice be subservient to politics (the "peace process"). McGuiness has said that were Adams to be prosecuted the Sinn Fein IRA dogs would be unleashed. He's a Dublin gutty. He means it. Adams won't be prosecuted; believe me. Single issue fanatics of the "wimmins' movement" have been agitating for years for historic prosecutions. The State has yielded to them. Who gives a darn about the rule of law? Politics rools-geddit? Dai Rear
  • Score: -3

10:46am Tue 6 May 14

Mike Roland says...

It really is a pity that you allow your leaning towards irrational anti-feminism cloud the main issue here.
Thank goodness that changing trends and attitudes in society and the legal system provide accessible avenues for victims of sexual predators to gain justice.
It really is a pity that you allow your leaning towards irrational anti-feminism cloud the main issue here. Thank goodness that changing trends and attitudes in society and the legal system provide accessible avenues for victims of sexual predators to gain justice. Mike Roland
  • Score: 11

1:46pm Tue 6 May 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.
What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.
I'm not saying that by definition all women are victims and all men are perpetrators, Dai - although I do agree with the general gist of the above article that no-one should be above the law.

Btw...as far as I know Max Clifford isn't Jewish. I'm sure if he had been though, the various neo-Nazi groups that pollute the Internet pretending to be 'anti-paedophile activists' - no doubt in some vain hope of covering their odious tracks with a veneer of respectibility - would have picked up on it before now.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.[/p][/quote]"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.[/p][/quote]What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying that by definition all women are victims and all men are perpetrators, Dai - although I do agree with the general gist of the above article that no-one should be above the law. Btw...as far as I know Max Clifford isn't Jewish. I'm sure if he had been though, the various neo-Nazi groups that pollute the Internet pretending to be 'anti-paedophile activists' - no doubt in some vain hope of covering their odious tracks with a veneer of respectibility - would have picked up on it before now. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: -2

12:10pm Wed 7 May 14

Dai Rear says...

Mike Roland wrote:
It really is a pity that you allow your leaning towards irrational anti-feminism cloud the main issue here.
Thank goodness that changing trends and attitudes in society and the legal system provide accessible avenues for victims of sexual predators to gain justice.
No. My "leaning" is towards a the removal from authority of weak people who believe that the criminal justice system, a blunt instrument at the best of times, should be wielded in pursuit of a political agenda.
As you say in your second paragraph, but more succinctly Mike, someone said 2000 years ago "O tempora o mores". Beware that the "mores" do not turn on you. Who knows what imagined childhood slight by you will provide ammunition for a "criminal" prosecution when you are in your dotage and all memory passed.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: It really is a pity that you allow your leaning towards irrational anti-feminism cloud the main issue here. Thank goodness that changing trends and attitudes in society and the legal system provide accessible avenues for victims of sexual predators to gain justice.[/p][/quote]No. My "leaning" is towards a the removal from authority of weak people who believe that the criminal justice system, a blunt instrument at the best of times, should be wielded in pursuit of a political agenda. As you say in your second paragraph, but more succinctly Mike, someone said 2000 years ago "O tempora o mores". Beware that the "mores" do not turn on you. Who knows what imagined childhood slight by you will provide ammunition for a "criminal" prosecution when you are in your dotage and all memory passed. Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

1:41pm Wed 7 May 14

Mike Roland says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
It really is a pity that you allow your leaning towards irrational anti-feminism cloud the main issue here.
Thank goodness that changing trends and attitudes in society and the legal system provide accessible avenues for victims of sexual predators to gain justice.
No. My "leaning" is towards a the removal from authority of weak people who believe that the criminal justice system, a blunt instrument at the best of times, should be wielded in pursuit of a political agenda.
As you say in your second paragraph, but more succinctly Mike, someone said 2000 years ago "O tempora o mores". Beware that the "mores" do not turn on you. Who knows what imagined childhood slight by you will provide ammunition for a "criminal" prosecution when you are in your dotage and all memory passed.
Don't worry yourself about me Dai - the law is on my side, isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: It really is a pity that you allow your leaning towards irrational anti-feminism cloud the main issue here. Thank goodness that changing trends and attitudes in society and the legal system provide accessible avenues for victims of sexual predators to gain justice.[/p][/quote]No. My "leaning" is towards a the removal from authority of weak people who believe that the criminal justice system, a blunt instrument at the best of times, should be wielded in pursuit of a political agenda. As you say in your second paragraph, but more succinctly Mike, someone said 2000 years ago "O tempora o mores". Beware that the "mores" do not turn on you. Who knows what imagined childhood slight by you will provide ammunition for a "criminal" prosecution when you are in your dotage and all memory passed.[/p][/quote]Don't worry yourself about me Dai - the law is on my side, isn't it? Mike Roland
  • Score: 3

2:12pm Wed 7 May 14

Dai Rear says...

It may well be, if you approve of the historical sleights trials. But of course you hit the very point. The criminal law is not supposed to be on anyone's "side"; It's supposed to be impartial. Impartiality was a little absent from most of the decrees emanating from Berlin after 1933, but, of course you may feel this was a good thing.I don't. I think our country has become more intolerant and unpleasant in the decades 've lived here. This kind of stuff is, sadly , another example of that trend.
It may well be, if you approve of the historical sleights trials. But of course you hit the very point. The criminal law is not supposed to be on anyone's "side"; It's supposed to be impartial. Impartiality was a little absent from most of the decrees emanating from Berlin after 1933, but, of course you may feel this was a good thing.I don't. I think our country has become more intolerant and unpleasant in the decades 've lived here. This kind of stuff is, sadly , another example of that trend. Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

11:42am Sat 10 May 14

endthelies says...

The thing is that men who used to take advantage of young girls were regarded as 'dirty old men' and it was not talked about. However, these men were in fact paedophiles and deserve to be punished, no matter how old their crimes. A victim of assault or rape will never forget the crime and therefore, why should a man, or woman, who committed the crime be allowed to get away with it. The child that they assaulted at the time did not have a voice, but as an adult they can now speak up.
The thing is that men who used to take advantage of young girls were regarded as 'dirty old men' and it was not talked about. However, these men were in fact paedophiles and deserve to be punished, no matter how old their crimes. A victim of assault or rape will never forget the crime and therefore, why should a man, or woman, who committed the crime be allowed to get away with it. The child that they assaulted at the time did not have a voice, but as an adult they can now speak up. endthelies
  • Score: 3

12:00pm Sat 10 May 14

Dai Rear says...

endthelies wrote:
The thing is that men who used to take advantage of young girls were regarded as 'dirty old men' and it was not talked about. However, these men were in fact paedophiles and deserve to be punished, no matter how old their crimes. A victim of assault or rape will never forget the crime and therefore, why should a man, or woman, who committed the crime be allowed to get away with it. The child that they assaulted at the time did not have a voice, but as an adult they can now speak up.
Well sadly, the old saying "your memory plays tricks on you" is true. The criminal law is about the liberty of the subject. It is not elastic and playing games about what one thinks one might have remembered from decades ago is beyond its capacity. You will no doubt have heard of "show trials" Well that's what this historical stuff is about-asserting the authority of those who increasingly few of us elect.It is painful to see qualified lawyers participating in such a mockery. But 'twas ever thus. Mengele was indeed a qualified medical doctor.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: The thing is that men who used to take advantage of young girls were regarded as 'dirty old men' and it was not talked about. However, these men were in fact paedophiles and deserve to be punished, no matter how old their crimes. A victim of assault or rape will never forget the crime and therefore, why should a man, or woman, who committed the crime be allowed to get away with it. The child that they assaulted at the time did not have a voice, but as an adult they can now speak up.[/p][/quote]Well sadly, the old saying "your memory plays tricks on you" is true. The criminal law is about the liberty of the subject. It is not elastic and playing games about what one thinks one might have remembered from decades ago is beyond its capacity. You will no doubt have heard of "show trials" Well that's what this historical stuff is about-asserting the authority of those who increasingly few of us elect.It is painful to see qualified lawyers participating in such a mockery. But 'twas ever thus. Mengele was indeed a qualified medical doctor. Dai Rear
  • Score: -3

1:19pm Sat 10 May 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

Katie Re-Registered wrote:
"...he was a predator who used his celebrity connections to lure young women into his trap."

Apparently, the extent of Clifford's abuse didn't stop at adults but also extended to 15-year-old children as your report recounts - legally a 15-year-old is a child, a girl as opposed to a woman. Therefore, this would make Max Clifford a paedophile.
Absolutely, a despicable character who thought that he was above the law.
At least one of these so-called celebrities has not got away with it.
[quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote: "...he was a predator who used his celebrity connections to lure young women into his trap." Apparently, the extent of Clifford's abuse didn't stop at adults but also extended to 15-year-old children as your report recounts - legally a 15-year-old is a child, a girl as opposed to a woman. Therefore, this would make Max Clifford a paedophile.[/p][/quote]Absolutely, a despicable character who thought that he was above the law. At least one of these so-called celebrities has not got away with it. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 2

1:32pm Sat 10 May 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.
What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.
Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it.
So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that!
It is interesting, is it not, that in all these historic cases, there is no independent corroboration, forensic evidence, contemporaneous complaint or account, and huge evidence of 'bandwagon jumpers' who couldn't even invent a possible date for an allegation to within five years, as in the case of Roache. Any jury that convicts as 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is the requirement in English criminal law is brave indeed. Try reporting in twenty years time that your house was burgled last night and demanding justice and see what the police response is. It matters because it is entirely possible that Clifford was convicted for being a creep and not because his guilt for the offences was proven beyond doubt.
Also, there is 'no smoke without fire'.
Don't you think that all the allegations made against these people must indicate some form of wrongdoing?
Or do you think that they ALL must have made the stories up?
The evidence may not be as strong as it should be, being a long time ago.
However, do you think that these people should not be prosecuted because of the passage of time?
They have evaded the law and should be brought before the courts.
It is then up to the jury whether they wish to believe that the allegations were true or made up.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.[/p][/quote]"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.[/p][/quote]What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.[/p][/quote]Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it. So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that![/p][/quote]It is interesting, is it not, that in all these historic cases, there is no independent corroboration, forensic evidence, contemporaneous complaint or account, and huge evidence of 'bandwagon jumpers' who couldn't even invent a possible date for an allegation to within five years, as in the case of Roache. Any jury that convicts as 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is the requirement in English criminal law is brave indeed. Try reporting in twenty years time that your house was burgled last night and demanding justice and see what the police response is. It matters because it is entirely possible that Clifford was convicted for being a creep and not because his guilt for the offences was proven beyond doubt.[/p][/quote]Also, there is 'no smoke without fire'. Don't you think that all the allegations made against these people must indicate some form of wrongdoing? Or do you think that they ALL must have made the stories up? The evidence may not be as strong as it should be, being a long time ago. However, do you think that these people should not be prosecuted because of the passage of time? They have evaded the law and should be brought before the courts. It is then up to the jury whether they wish to believe that the allegations were true or made up. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Sat 10 May 14

Dai Rear says...

In the great scheme of things it is rather more important that those citizens of Germany who attempted to kill, or succeeded in killing, their fellow countrymen attempting to escape from the concentration camp which was the Soviet area of Germany should be brought to justice. These crimes happened up to 1989. Their defence, "I vass only obeying orders" would fail, we know, and their misdeeds are , unlike the alleged misdeeds of Cocoa the Clown and other celebrities decades ago, well documented. But they are of no interest to a feminized society so there is no call from us to the German government for this to take place.
In the great scheme of things it is rather more important that those citizens of Germany who attempted to kill, or succeeded in killing, their fellow countrymen attempting to escape from the concentration camp which was the Soviet area of Germany should be brought to justice. These crimes happened up to 1989. Their defence, "I vass only obeying orders" would fail, we know, and their misdeeds are , unlike the alleged misdeeds of Cocoa the Clown and other celebrities decades ago, well documented. But they are of no interest to a feminized society so there is no call from us to the German government for this to take place. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

4:31pm Sat 10 May 14

displayed says...

"Max Clifford thought he was above the law"

Well for a while, he was!
"Max Clifford thought he was above the law" Well for a while, he was! displayed
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Sat 10 May 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Cymru Am Beth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.
What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.
Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it.
So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that!
It is interesting, is it not, that in all these historic cases, there is no independent corroboration, forensic evidence, contemporaneous complaint or account, and huge evidence of 'bandwagon jumpers' who couldn't even invent a possible date for an allegation to within five years, as in the case of Roache. Any jury that convicts as 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is the requirement in English criminal law is brave indeed. Try reporting in twenty years time that your house was burgled last night and demanding justice and see what the police response is. It matters because it is entirely possible that Clifford was convicted for being a creep and not because his guilt for the offences was proven beyond doubt.
Also, there is 'no smoke without fire'.
Don't you think that all the allegations made against these people must indicate some form of wrongdoing?
Or do you think that they ALL must have made the stories up?
The evidence may not be as strong as it should be, being a long time ago.
However, do you think that these people should not be prosecuted because of the passage of time?
They have evaded the law and should be brought before the courts.
It is then up to the jury whether they wish to believe that the allegations were true or made up.
I entirely agree that it may be indicative of wrongdoing but 'indicative' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' are not the same thing. As I said, in the Roache case for example, there was very clear evidence that some accusers had made the whole thing up. The problem with finding for or against a case solely on 'who the jurors believe' is that it's very much a subjective view, which again is not proof. If you come across as 'a nice guy', then juries may decide one way. If, like Clifford, you have the kind of personality that blocks toilets then you aren't going to get many friends in the jury room. If you were accused of a burglary last week, you could organise your defence, get an alibi, remember the events with some degree of clarity. In the Roache case, one accuser claimed to have been assaulted in his Rolls which he didn't own until several years later. Odd then that neither the police nor the CPS figured that it might be an issue.
[quote][p][bold]Cymru Am Beth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.[/p][/quote]"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.[/p][/quote]What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.[/p][/quote]Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it. So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that![/p][/quote]It is interesting, is it not, that in all these historic cases, there is no independent corroboration, forensic evidence, contemporaneous complaint or account, and huge evidence of 'bandwagon jumpers' who couldn't even invent a possible date for an allegation to within five years, as in the case of Roache. Any jury that convicts as 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is the requirement in English criminal law is brave indeed. Try reporting in twenty years time that your house was burgled last night and demanding justice and see what the police response is. It matters because it is entirely possible that Clifford was convicted for being a creep and not because his guilt for the offences was proven beyond doubt.[/p][/quote]Also, there is 'no smoke without fire'. Don't you think that all the allegations made against these people must indicate some form of wrongdoing? Or do you think that they ALL must have made the stories up? The evidence may not be as strong as it should be, being a long time ago. However, do you think that these people should not be prosecuted because of the passage of time? They have evaded the law and should be brought before the courts. It is then up to the jury whether they wish to believe that the allegations were true or made up.[/p][/quote]I entirely agree that it may be indicative of wrongdoing but 'indicative' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' are not the same thing. As I said, in the Roache case for example, there was very clear evidence that some accusers had made the whole thing up. The problem with finding for or against a case solely on 'who the jurors believe' is that it's very much a subjective view, which again is not proof. If you come across as 'a nice guy', then juries may decide one way. If, like Clifford, you have the kind of personality that blocks toilets then you aren't going to get many friends in the jury room. If you were accused of a burglary last week, you could organise your defence, get an alibi, remember the events with some degree of clarity. In the Roache case, one accuser claimed to have been assaulted in his Rolls which he didn't own until several years later. Odd then that neither the police nor the CPS figured that it might be an issue. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 3

8:34am Sun 11 May 14

Dai Rear says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Cymru Am Beth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister.
I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.
"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.
What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.
Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it.
So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that!
It is interesting, is it not, that in all these historic cases, there is no independent corroboration, forensic evidence, contemporaneous complaint or account, and huge evidence of 'bandwagon jumpers' who couldn't even invent a possible date for an allegation to within five years, as in the case of Roache. Any jury that convicts as 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is the requirement in English criminal law is brave indeed. Try reporting in twenty years time that your house was burgled last night and demanding justice and see what the police response is. It matters because it is entirely possible that Clifford was convicted for being a creep and not because his guilt for the offences was proven beyond doubt.
Also, there is 'no smoke without fire'.
Don't you think that all the allegations made against these people must indicate some form of wrongdoing?
Or do you think that they ALL must have made the stories up?
The evidence may not be as strong as it should be, being a long time ago.
However, do you think that these people should not be prosecuted because of the passage of time?
They have evaded the law and should be brought before the courts.
It is then up to the jury whether they wish to believe that the allegations were true or made up.
I entirely agree that it may be indicative of wrongdoing but 'indicative' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' are not the same thing. As I said, in the Roache case for example, there was very clear evidence that some accusers had made the whole thing up. The problem with finding for or against a case solely on 'who the jurors believe' is that it's very much a subjective view, which again is not proof. If you come across as 'a nice guy', then juries may decide one way. If, like Clifford, you have the kind of personality that blocks toilets then you aren't going to get many friends in the jury room. If you were accused of a burglary last week, you could organise your defence, get an alibi, remember the events with some degree of clarity. In the Roache case, one accuser claimed to have been assaulted in his Rolls which he didn't own until several years later. Odd then that neither the police nor the CPS figured that it might be an issue.
They knew it was an issue. They were just terrified that if they binned it they'd have the League of Strident Wimmin on their case. The police and CPS are driven by considerations such as this, for example look at the case reported yesterday of Michael Cope where officers' "pressing child care ishoos" were of more importance than the pursuit of a very serious criminal
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cymru Am Beth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: If Mr Clifford, by his negligent driving or failure to observe his employer's duties, rendered any of those who testified quadriplegic, they would have had 3 years from the date of the incident or from their attaining majority to claim against him. And, inevitably, the evidence in their cases would be well documented. Here we have nebulous evidence , decades old. A jury convicted. I would have not. I have no axe to grind here, because I know nothing of this man, or "celebs" and frankly care even less. But what we are seeing here is creeping feminisation, rather than a disinterested criminal justice system. It is ugly. It is occurring in many other cases. It may simply be post-Saville allegations hysteria, but I fear something more sinister. I think libertarians should be urging a statute of limitations in criminal cases barring murder and treason.[/p][/quote]"Creeping feminisation"? What on earth do you mean by that? Having read your post, it appears that Mr Clifford isn't the only creep at work here.[/p][/quote]What a reasoned response. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is rarely if ever effective in going back into history in cases where , like this, there is NO evidence, e.g. DNA. If you adhere to the view held no doubt by Katie Re-R that women are by definition victims and men perpetrators then you'll be happy with the result. If you believe in justice then you'll know that this , and DLT and Roache, all stink of politics. Pity that this Jewish gentleman hadn't Martin McGuiness to threaten everyone. He'd no more be banged up now than Adams will ever be. Politics and law don't mix, unless you believe the Soviet Union was a utopia.[/p][/quote]Well, having read your second post, I feel that my response to your first one was even more reasoned than I did at the time wrote it. So, it would now appear that you not only regret that the law allows sexual predators to be prosecuted long after the offences in question took place, but also that you actually sympathise with Clifford and find it a pity that he wasn't in a position to threaten his accusers. Not nice that![/p][/quote]It is interesting, is it not, that in all these historic cases, there is no independent corroboration, forensic evidence, contemporaneous complaint or account, and huge evidence of 'bandwagon jumpers' who couldn't even invent a possible date for an allegation to within five years, as in the case of Roache. Any jury that convicts as 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is the requirement in English criminal law is brave indeed. Try reporting in twenty years time that your house was burgled last night and demanding justice and see what the police response is. It matters because it is entirely possible that Clifford was convicted for being a creep and not because his guilt for the offences was proven beyond doubt.[/p][/quote]Also, there is 'no smoke without fire'. Don't you think that all the allegations made against these people must indicate some form of wrongdoing? Or do you think that they ALL must have made the stories up? The evidence may not be as strong as it should be, being a long time ago. However, do you think that these people should not be prosecuted because of the passage of time? They have evaded the law and should be brought before the courts. It is then up to the jury whether they wish to believe that the allegations were true or made up.[/p][/quote]I entirely agree that it may be indicative of wrongdoing but 'indicative' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' are not the same thing. As I said, in the Roache case for example, there was very clear evidence that some accusers had made the whole thing up. The problem with finding for or against a case solely on 'who the jurors believe' is that it's very much a subjective view, which again is not proof. If you come across as 'a nice guy', then juries may decide one way. If, like Clifford, you have the kind of personality that blocks toilets then you aren't going to get many friends in the jury room. If you were accused of a burglary last week, you could organise your defence, get an alibi, remember the events with some degree of clarity. In the Roache case, one accuser claimed to have been assaulted in his Rolls which he didn't own until several years later. Odd then that neither the police nor the CPS figured that it might be an issue.[/p][/quote]They knew it was an issue. They were just terrified that if they binned it they'd have the League of Strident Wimmin on their case. The police and CPS are driven by considerations such as this, for example look at the case reported yesterday of Michael Cope where officers' "pressing child care ishoos" were of more importance than the pursuit of a very serious criminal Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree