Max Clifford Sentenced – 8 years

Max Clifford Sentenced – 8 years

110
SHARE
Photo from the BBC
Photo from the BBC

Introduction 

Max Clifford was convicted on 28th April 2014 of eight counts of indecent assault against four different victims. Sentence was adjourned (with Mr Clifford on bail) until today, 2nd May.

We had predicted a sentence in the region of 3½ years. So, how did we do?

Sentence

Badly it seems. The total sentence was 8 years (plus costs of £55,000). This was over double the maximum we had suggested. The full remarks are here and bear reading. We will add to this post during the course of the afternoon.

Mr Clifford was sentenced as follows (date and age of victim in brackets) :

  •  Count 3 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 12 months
  • Count 4 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 18 months, consecutive
  • Count 5 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 24 months, consecutive
  • Count 6 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 24 months, concurrent
  •  Count 8 – (aged 19, in 1981/82) – 6 months, consecutive
  •  Count 9 – (aged 16 or 17, in 1980′s) – 6 months, concurrent
  • Count 10 – (aged 16 or 17, in 1980′s) – 21 months, consecutive
  •  Count 11 – (aged 18, in 1984/85) – 15 months, consecutive

The individual sentences are not far off what we had predicted,but the total is, as we said, double what we had predicted.

What did the Judge look at when considering the sentence?

The Judge will no doubt have re-read the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Stuart Hall Attorney General’s Reference case, where Hall’s sentence was doubled from 15 months to 30 months for a number of indecent assault offences. As we have previously commented, that judgment was largely devoid of any reasoning for the increase. See our posts here and the judgment here.

The Judge will also have considered the new sentencing guidelines for sentencing sexual offences which contains a section on historical sexual offences at Annex B. He may well have considered some case law on similar offending, however the starting point will have been the guidelines.

It was reported that the Prosecutor had suggested to the Court that the Clifford’s protestations of innocence shd be an aggravating feature as it caused distress to victims“. This is something that had first been featured in the Stuart Hall case. It is a slightly worrying trend – it has always been a principle of English law that to plead not guilty and have a trial is not an aggravating feature, and it is of concern that someone could be penalised for robustly stating their innocence.

The Judge did state this (paras 19-20) : “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. 

20. Whilst there is a difference in degree between your reaction to what then were allegations of indecent assault and those of a defendant who makes public denials and then pleads guilty, this additional element of trauma caused by your contemptuous attitude is something that I shall take into account in sentence

This is something that does still troubles me. Someone who pleads not guilty and has a trial (as it the right of all of us) won’t get credit for a plea of guilty, but should not be penalised for exercising a fundamental right. What happened outside the courtroom seems to bear little relevance to the issues, and a defendant shaking his head is to be expected. Laughing at the victim is obviously a different matter, but the details aren’t clear.

Another controversial aspect (that will feature in an appeal) is that the Judge (paras 21-22) took account of matters which were not charged. That does run contrary to the general rule that someone should only be sentenced for offending that they admit, or which is proved against them.

There was mitigation – charity work done by Mr Clifford and an underlying medical condition were the main points focussed on by the Judge, but he took the view that this was far outweighed by the aggravating features – multiple victims over a period of 7 years that was targeted against vulnerable women.

The Judge then stated that he would be passing consecutive sentences and have regard to totality, passing the sentences stated above. There is nothing wrong with that, but we would suggest that the overall sentence is simply far too long.

Whilst 8 years for this sort of offending nowadays would be low (and potentially could be appealed by the Prosecution), we have to repeat that the maximum sentence for each offence was 2 years. The problem was that Parliament did not take this sort of sexual offending anywhere near as seriously as it taken now. Judges have a difficult balancing exercise here, but it is wrong to try to  make up for the mistakes of the past by sentencing contrary to the proper principles.

Will Clifford appeal?

Yes. Almost certainly. He has nothing to lose (but a stack more cash). For my money, I would not expect a particularly sympathetic Court of Appeal, especially considering the result in the Stuart Hall case (see our post here for more details as to why), but I think that it will be difficult for the appeal to be dismissed.

The Judge here has put the Court of Appeal in a tricky position. The sentence is clearly manifestly excessive on the law as it was at the time (I don’t think that there’s much doubt about that) but politically it will be difficult for them to reduce the sentence, less still halve it, in such a high profile case.

He may well attempt to appeal against conviction, however we are unaware of any grounds on which to do so, based on media reports of the trial. It was reported by Danny Shaw of the BBC that his lawyers were contemplating an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

More information

We have a fact sheet as to how people are sentenced for historic sex cases.

There was one count on which the jury could not agree, and the CPS announced today (in a move that surprised nobody) that Mr Clifford would not face a re-trial on this. That is very sensible – it would be a waste of money and if convicted, then Mr Clifford would not get a higher sentence. In those circumstances, all it would cause is further grief and stress for the complainant with no benefit. In any event, it is unlikely that Mr Clifford would be able to receive a fair trial on that allegation given the recent publicity.

SHARE
Lyndon is the General Editor of Current Sentencing Practice and the Criminal Appeal Reports (Sentencing)

110 COMMENTS

  1. I am shocked at length of sentence despite Mr Clifford not helping himself with his posing outside Court. He is not a danger to society.

    • Max Clifford is not a danger to society, that’s right he’s only a danger to young girls and women who as we know are not a part of society.

    • He was a danger to society and got away with it at the time or so he thought, the sentence should have been longer!!!

      • Max Clifford is not and never has been “a danger to society”. On the very contrary, it is society which has proved to be a danger to Max Clifford as it is to anyone with normal male sexuality.
        This situation is so serious that it would justify violence against the state.

  2. I see this a series of injustices. I am not in favour of a statute of limitations but when a complainant has known the identify of the alleged offender for a very long time then it is an abuse of process for prosecutions to be made after such a long gap between the offence and the alleged crime. It gives the defendant very little chance to launch the sort of defence that would have been available if a timely complaint had been made. Apart from anything else victims of crime who know the identity of the perpetrator have a duty to society to make a complaint in a timely fashion. This is not only so that the offender can get a fair trial, but to protect future victims.

    I agree that defendants should not be punished for proclaiming their innocence. This is obviously true, and it was ridiculous for the trial judge to take into account Max Clifford making fun a Sky news journalist.

    I am not sure how anyone can say that it is just to sentence someone based on modern guidelines for a crime committed thirty years ago. Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights says: “1. … Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.”

    • The defendant should have kept his hands off of young girls and women then he’d be home tonight eating caviar and effing up someone else life rather than having effed up his own.

      • Contrary to femascist misandry, male sexuality is no less valid that female sexuality. The fantasy that sex is damaging is a particularly stupid notion. A ‘casting couch’ scenario is classic for producing later regret when at the time there was acquiescence in pursuit of an advantage. It might be arguable that the restricted possibility of achieving fame and fortune by entertaining Max Clifford’s tiny penis constitutes deception, but pretty much the whole of courtship can be construed as deception in various form, so a legal quagmire backfiring on women awaits travel down that avenue.

      • LES, why did you make your comment under my post when it does not deal with any of the points I made?

      • Here here, he is a parasite who lives off other peoples misfortune, he is a convicted sex offender and deserves to do his time.

    • Why did I make my comment under yours you asked. Because at the end of the day this is about what Max Clifford did and had he not done so he’d be a free man today. I hope that clarifies.

      • Patrick if men are allowed to not incriminate themselves then why do the perjury laws exist? Surely they suggest that lying under oath to save your own neck is not right. But to get back to my point which was where you said it’s not his fault he wasn’t caught or caught sooner and therefore this should be disregarded. I don’t know if fault is the right word however but for his behaviour the crimes would not exist at all so he is to blame and he could have saved the courts a lot of time and money by pleading guilty and his victims a of angst.

        • But the crimes indeed did not exist at all. They are in the minds of those who claim to be victims when the only victim here is Max Clifford. Misrepresenting giving in to ‘the casting couch’ as sexual assault was the offence here, and the only matter that should have been the subject of any trial. The technicality re age of consent would never have been considered more than minor misdemeanour at the time, which was before femascist sex-hatred came in as a new pervasive totalitarianism.

    • Re Art 7 : the case of Uttley in the House of Lords considered this point and held that it meant only what COULD have been imposed (I.e. Up to the statutory maximum sentence, not what WOULD have been imposed I.e on then current sentencing practice. So on that basis your point would be unsuccessful.

      • Thank you for your reply Lyndon, and for directing me to Uttley.

        Looking at Uttley it seems me that the HoL should have considered the difference between ” ‘A’ sentence that was applicable” and ” ‘THE’ sentence that was applicable”

        To my non-legal mind “A sentence that was applicable” means that any sentence that COULD have been applied when the offence was committed can be given. Whereas “THE ONE that was applicable” directs the judiciary to give the sentence that WOULD have been applied according to the sentencing guidelines at the time.

        Unfortunately their Lordships in their wisdom decided the case the other way, and in my humble opinion not only got the law wrong, but acted against natural justice when they did so.

        • I think one has to assume that the law now is an improvement on the law (otherwise, why change it?) and so it’s begs the question why should a defendant benefit from getting away with his or her crime for X number of years and receive what we now know is a sentence which does not reflect the true gravity of the crime? Therefore the balance between reflecting modern attitudes to crimes and avoiding the injustice of which you speak is to limit the sentence to what was permissible at the time (Uttley). For what it’s worth my view is that there is no injustice there.

      • Lyndon asks “why should a defendant benefit from getting away with his or her crime for X number of years and receive what we now know is a sentence which does not reflect the true gravity of the crime? ”

        By giving the defendant a sentence based on the guidelines that were in force when the crime was committed, he is not benefiting from the delay in bringing the prosecution, but getting the same sentence he would have received if the prosecution had been brought in a timely fashion.

        If the state did not know the true gravity of the crime when the offence was committed, then presumably the culprit did not know it either; on that basis giving him a punishment based on an understanding that he cannot have been expected to have had at the time is clearly unjust.

        • The benefit Clifford has derived from not being prosecuted is being free of convictions since the 1979s, able to continue making his money, abusing young girls and women, and to escape punishment. Further, the gap in time has no doubt made the whole ordeal worse for the victims, having had to live for the past 30 years, believing that he would get away with it. I don’t see it as unfair, but I understand why you do.

      • Lyndon I might agree with you in the case of rapist who was identified thirty years after the crime as a result of a DNA match. In that case the guilty person had hidden his identity from the victim and there was no possibility of an earlier prosecution.

        In the case of Clifford it would have been possible to prosecute him at any time in the last thirty years, and there was no evidence given that he had ever done anything to delay prosecution.

        If the gap has made things worse for the victims then that is not Clifford’s fault, neither can he be blamed for the fact that he had no convictions and was able to earn money for the last thirty years. Would it have been mitigation if he had been convicted of other sex crimes thirty years ago? He is being punished much more severely for circumstances that were not of his making.

      • Patrick you said “In the case of Clifford it would have been possible to prosecute him at any time in the last thirty years, and there was no evidence given that he had ever done anything to delay prosecution.

        If the gap has made things worse for the victims then that is not Clifford’s fault, neither can he be blamed for the fact that he had no convictions and was able to earn money for the last thirty years”

        I disagree, although I take your point, Max Clifford could have owned up at any time in the past thirty years to what he’d done and chose not to. He knew he was doing wrong or he would not have done his deeds covertly using subterfuge and deception to achieve his aims surely? So to say it’s not his fault his crimes went undetected for 30 years is to leave it to incorrectly places the onus on traumatised victims to come forward.

      • Sisterhooduk do you want it established as a principle of English law that a man should receive extra punishment because he has not incriminated himself?

  3. When you look at totality and his age this is just too long. Five would do and I can only hope the Court of Appeal agrees.

  4. The whole trial was one long manifest injustice, let alone the absurd sentencing. It was a ‘show trial’ of an entirely political nature to enforce a totalitarian perspective according to ‘identity politics’ (the hatred for the mass or ordinary people, most specifically males, in the form of a major backlash by those with a political-Left ethos).
    A ‘casting couch’ scenario is in no way sexual assault. the responsibility for accepting sexual advances rests with the women – and all were women, not children, being all several years post-puberty, and therefore fully knowledgeable and capable re sexual matters.
    Max Clifford’s sole legal wrong-doing was the mere technicality of sexual intercourse with one girl who was at the time a few months short of the legal age of consent.

    • Isn’t there a difference between a casting couch scenario involving sexually and emotionally mature women using their charms to obtain some advantage in the world of show business and the conscious grooming of children, including the fabrication of a web of lies to their parents, in order to manipulate and sexually abuse them? Clifford has been rightly convicted of the latter. If you think that this consttitutes “normal male sexuality” you should perhaps seek help yourself.

      • Tom Denning should “seek help” to rid himself of the extreme gullibility and wilful stupidity that allows him to make such a total prat of himself as to claim that normal men do not find females several years post-puberty attractive!
        The youngest adult female in the MC case was aged 15, which is about five years post-puberty. Given that pubertal changes are first to the brain even before psychological changes, then there is no sense in which a contemporary human female is not prepared for sexual activity by age 15.
        The ‘vulnerability’ bullshit is ideological, with no basis in reality.

  5. Oh dear, Steve.

    The girl in Counts 3-6 was 15; yes, she may have been past puberty but she was still under age. That in an age of better nutrition girls are maturing physically earlier than they used to is not a reason for relaxing the rule that before a given (and necessarily arbitrary) age they can NOT consent.

    He committed an offence against a 12-year-old in foreign parts; more of that anon.

    The other women were just “legal”. Consensual activity would have been grossly exploitative but not criminal, but this was not consensual.

    My beef is that the judge appears to have been influenced by what happened abroad and was not and could not be the subject of a charge, and possibly by the evidence given on those charges on which the jury acquitted Mr Clifford or could not agree.

    Justice would be done if the Court of Appeal left the sentences in respect of Ms Fifteen standing, consecutively, but made all the others concurrent to it; four and half years in all.

    • Oh dear, Andrew: false in very respect.
      1. There is no evidence — mere assertion — that any of the sex with any of the girls was non-consensual, and therefore it should have been taken to be consensual but possibly later regretted, as is usual following sexual encounters and especially to be expected in a ‘casting couch’; scenario.
      2 The alleged sex with a 12-yaer-old is just that: an allegation.
      3. The age of consent law is ludicrous. The age 16 was set when the average age of female puberty was 17, whereas now it is about 10.

      • The jury heard the evidence and reached their verdict, Steve. All oral evidence is assertion .

        As for the age of consent: sure, it’s fifteen I’m France and seventeen in Ireland; but sixteen here and until Parliament says otherwise that’s where it will stay. What do you think it should be?

  6. Assertion most certainly is not evidence.
    Parallel assertion is not mutual corroboration.
    The CPS simply relies on anti-male, pro-female extreme prejudice to ignore the need for even civil let alone criminal standard of proof in a criminal trial to secure conviction.
    Police/media trawling for any disgruntled fantasist to produce outright false or false-by-exaggeration or false-by-changed-mind assertions, and juries are liable to take these collectively as believable assertion despite the complete absence of evidence; not least because they are unaware of the research into bogus accusation by females of sexual assault.

    • Steve, this would have been easily solved had Max Clifford kept his flies zipped (and his marriage vows observed) he didn’t. He also did not have consent and therefore he is not serving a sentence, which could have been a hell of a lot longer so he’s lucky, for sexual assault. For once the sentence are running consecutively rather than concurrently. And it serves him right. It will serves as a warning to the other predators who think girls/and women are their rape things.

      And playing to the camera in the middle of a serious criminal trial is a sure sign of any absence of remorse and if he’s not guilty, as all rapists and sex offenders always are – because (wait for it) they say so, then why not conduct himself appropriately given the seriousness of the charges.

      I have no cares about his age he committed his crimes in the full arrogant flush of youth, well be sure your sins will find you out and they did.

      He’ll be out in four years, write another autobiography and climb right back in the saddle having garnered plenty of stories from ‘celebrity/notorious’ clients inside.

      One other thing I realise that behind all of this the feminists are the ones to blame for rape, we always are in cases like this, so I put my hand up as a feminist and am fully prepared to take the blame and brunt of the misogynistic backlash against women for daring to be the victims of rapists and sexual offenders who are finally dealt with by the legal system. Goodness knows a man could not be to blame for what he did.

      • Nonsense in the extreme.
        In these scenarios there is no evidence of non-consent.
        It is in no sense a crime to have sex. The crime here is not by Max Clifford but by the UK judicial system in effect misapplying law on the basis that re males all sex is by default illegal unless proven otherwise.

        You reveal yourself to be quite an idiot in your comments about feminism.

    • Why do you assume these were bogus accusations of sexual assault?
      Also, as I understand it the 15 year old was not a .
      ” casting couch scenario” ? I believe it was stated that Mr Clifford had made friends with the girls parents in order to have contact with the victim. He must have known in these circumstances that she was only 15 and went ahead in grooming her for his perverted sexual satisfaction.
      Despite this I do think the sentence is disproportionate and he stands a good chance of it being grounds for appeal

      • I don’t assume anything: the jury did that. The accusations by their nature are without evidence and police/media trawling is bound to produce multiple false accusation. The possibilities as to what actually occurred range from all of the accusations being true to all of them being bogus. The point is that the jury was in no position to decide anything even on a civil. let alone a criminal standard of proof.

  7. You reveal yourself to be a rape apologist and rape supporter in the extreme. I am proud to be a feminist taking the hits for women everywhere against the misogynistic patriarchy. Happy to help. Sleep well Steve and you too Max Clifford who will now know, for tonight at least, what most women feel like day in day out in this world. Vulnerable.

    • And you Steve are psychotic, rape apologist, and a typical example of the ferality found exclusively in the male gender with regards to its attitude to women.

    • Steve Moxon “No matter how dull and ignorant a man is, he’d like to think he is superior to all women”

  8. I find all the comments about the girls and women in the judge’s summary very strange. He does not seems to think of them as of equal human beings. Everybody needs to take responsibility for their own actions, even girls letting themselves to be persuaded to perform sexual acts because they hope to land a role in a film… They cannot later claim it was an assault, especially if they let it continue! They may have later regretted it, but such is life, we all done things we wish we didn’t. Such patronizing attitude towards women through all those comments and judgments; very strange nobody comments on that.

    • Indeed.
      Then there is the issue of none of them complaining at the time, and then far later complaining when there was zero possibility of there being any evidence, leading to self-evidently unsafe, in fact wrongful conviction.
      The data re rape allegation is revealing: conservatively 35% of all formal rape allegations made to police are bogus: the actual figure, according to police specialist rape investigators is between 50% and 70% — this from a study by Sir Ian Blair, no less. Around the world the figure is between 50% and 90%.

      • You are a rape apologist and you sound like you have something to hide. No means no. Absence of the it is not by default consent, unless you are a rapist or a rape apologist it’s quite simple so get behind the idea. Max Clifford brought this on himself by what he did to his victims and there is no-one to blame for this but Max.

    • The victims can claim what they wish who knows how one reacts when one is young and or frightened or intimidated or feeling threatened or any number of scenarios. When something traumatic happens to any individual some people confront it head on others bury it and try to forget it happened there is no rule book or legislation about this.

      The law is there is protect young and vulnerable people in particular from sexual predators who once they have done their crime stand up as pillars of society and seek to denigrate their victims. Perhaps the judge recognised that.

    • You hit the nail on the head, as did one other post which stated: “Victims of crime who know the identity of the perpetrator have a duty to society to make a complaint in a timely fashion. This is not only so that the offender can get a fair trial, but to protect future victims.” If somebody really was a “victim” their failure to report the alleged crime is to blame for the alleged perpetrator to never be perfectly aware that what he’s doing was a actually a sexual offence.. Hence future victims are let down.

      • Come off it, rol, perps like Clifford are well aware that what they are doing is wrong, they just don’t expect to be called to account for it.

      • For clarification’s sake, i replied to a post by Alena Phillips, expecting my reply to appear directly below. Since it didn’t, whoever replied to me had no idea with whom I’m in agreement.

  9. Steve Moxton you are an utter moron. I agree with Liberte Egalite Sororite that you certainly come across as a someone who has something to hide to be defending sexual abuse so forcefully. I wonder if you would share the same views if it were male rape or sexual abuse being discussed?

  10. the CPS is a joke operation Yewtree is an excuse for their failings in not bringing Savile to court.

    The cancerous feminists like the pseudo intellectual moron Liberte , Egalite,Sororite will probably be making another false ‘rape’ claim as we speak.

    Steve Moxon is correct in what he says

    • Steve Moxon is calling for “violence against the state” as a result of this verdict see his comment made at (08:16 am this morning if you doubt this.) really! Violence, because a sex abuser finally gets dealt with by the justice system Do some homework before you get behind this rape apologist it’s only one click away he is someone who has serious problems.

      • Still more daft misrepresentation. Stating that the situation is so serious that violence against the state would be justified is certainly not my calling for violence against the state.
        I note previously you actually put some nonsense in quotes against my name to pass it off supposedly as something I stated.
        You’re quite the fucking cunt, aren’t you.

  11. violence against the state is the only way when the law is an ass.

    Look at the poll tax riots they worked

  12. In case any of you were living under a rock Steve Moxon is a man to be respected he blew the whistle on the Home Office over immigration and its good to see this Clifford debacle exposed for what it is.

    Read his blog you feminists bigots will learn something http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

    • Well because you said so and men must be obeyed or so they think. I shall do just the opposite and ignore you. That’s a NO. I knew it wouldn’t take long for feral, psychotic, rape apologist, misogynistic rape supporters to rear their ugly heads. I’m proud to be a feminist and I’m happy to take the hits from the real bigots like yourself and the other idiot. “no matter how ignorant and dull a man is he’d like to think he is superior to all women”

      Max Clifford is a sex offender who s now rightfully where he belongs, behind bars. The only person to blame for this is Max Clifford.

  13. Moxon may have been right on another and unrelated issue but he is talking out of his backside on this one. Clifford is an arrogant self-worshipping s.o.b. (L-E-S sorry if that sounds like blaming another woman!) who deserves to be where he is: although for reason stated uptnread I think he got too long.

    • One thing that puzzles…

      An allegation of rape is made against a man of some fame and or notoriety, he calls his accusers liars, fantasists, and proclaims his innocence. His supporters and rape apologists jump on the band wagon. If he’s found not guilty/acquitted he stands there, in his mind vindicated, to call his accuser(s) a liar. If he’s found guilty same thing he and the rape apologists proclaim it a wrongful conviction and all lies. Therefore if it’s lies with a not guilty verdict and lies with a guilty verdict, in the world of rape apology, there is never a case when it can ever be said to be true. Surely this means that the complaint is never believed no matter what.

      • L-E-S Not just in rape cases. Some people will never believe that X could have done Y. Look at the all male and female celebs who spoke out in Clifford’s favour.

      • Not sure what point you’re making. Even one of the law lords, or lord justices of appeal, said it: in any sexual assault case where the allegation concerns activity done in private (which it almost always will), the difference between a question of credibility and a question of the underlying allegation disappears to a vanishing point. So, if you like the guy you’re more likely to believe he’s innocent if he says he is, makes perfect sense. None of us, as far as I am aware, watched the trial live and saw these women give their evidence. So, no, we can’t say, “She was more believable than him”, clearly the jury thought so, but we can say, “It’s still hard to believe, without knowing everything, that a guy like Max Clifford would do this”. Is that “rape apology”???

    • Max Clifford being a total sleazebag tosser is not the point: what he did was not against the law, other than the mere technicality re age of consent.

  14. One slight legal issue with Steve Moxon’s overly keen defence of all sex abusers and particularly Clifford, is that “casting couch regret” isn’t actually the defence that was run. (Yes, not only is a woman’s word believed nowadays, we are also allowed to practise law).

    Clifford denied any sex, consensual or not. So either Moxon believes the women who gave what he calls assertion and the rest of us call oral evidence about the sex and thinks Clifford is lying about that, or -more likely – he has taken a scenario and overlaid it with his own belief that sex can never be non-consensual. In doing so, disregarding what everyone involved in the trial said happened.

    £20 says “litigant in person” and “Steve moxon” come from the same IP address incidentally.

  15. Steve Moxon the only one being abusive here is you, you’re the only one throwing insults. Who are you to say how long it should take someone to report a crime that happened to them?! Some people take years to come to terms with it & still don’t have the confidence to speak out. I’m sure if he had been found not guilty you would have total faith in the legal system, just because it didn’t go the way you wanted it to (probably because, as others have said, you’ve got something to hide) doesn’t mean it must be wrong! It’s scary to think what you get up to if you don’t care about the legal age of consent, or any type of consent for that matter.

  16. not a very good gambler Frankie you’d lose your £20.
    Is it so inconceivable to muppets like you that people might agree with Steve Moxon?

    The sentence for Clifford is way to harsh and will get reduced on appeal.
    The youngest girl was 15 going on 21 smelling compensation to make up for her own guilt in dropping her drawers to further her non existent career.

    Cretins like you, Andrew and LES (an apt name for a man hater) are part of the pro feminist industry and I bet there are skeletons in your closet.

    • My word, L-E-S, someone thinks I am part of the pro feminist industry and that you and I have a closet with skeletons in it.

      If ever we do I will insist that we share the duty of dusting them equally!

      • Andrew – I’m just thinking how many skeletons to release and when.

  17. i was in max clifford company myself at 19 and again in my early 20’s and never found any of what he has been charged with true, i was in a back of a car with him late at night leaving a tv studio and he was concerned that i was dropped home ok by his drivers, nothing seedy at all. I found him nothing but helpful and most all boundaried, we discussed his daughter as this was a concern of his at this time and her special needs and there definatly was no lurch towards my direction, all talk of presenting jobs where directed via his office in a normal business manner. Myself now 41 can tell you at this period of time in my life, modelling and directors all over the globe made comments on your appearance, after all how many ugly actresses are there, or presenters, we as consumers only want attractive ones, in fact only last year different stuff was in the press about presenters being sacked for being too old and un attractive, so why would max clifford if helping or talking to women/ young adults not mention their beauty as an asset. 8 years is way over and what about if max clifford was a poor man? would some many people have come forward then , i think not…. this is way over the top, and why did the girls come forward some 20 years later …. why not at the time and how did the police find these girls…. i repeat this was never my experience with max clifford ever and i can tell you i was a very attractive teenager, he was bounderied and helpful and actually kind… then again for my part in it i never sent out any mixed messages i was with him to truly explore a career in the entretainment industry and he was very polite and helpful to me.

      • if all you say is true then there is lot more guys going to prison in next few years ….. for their conduct in 80’s and 90’s

    • Many people do get less than 8 years for killing somebody. Idiots who try to discredit your sensible instincts as an attractive young woman, suggest you were saved from the chance of assault by sheer luck. If 10 or 20 random females in situations similar to yours had made such statements to the jury they could have come to a different conclusion.

  18. Ah all this backwards and forwards having a go at each other and getting personal! I would rather discuss the case itself and the imolications.

    I was shocked by the lengthy sentence as I imagine Clifford was. My feeling was 24-30 months in my laymans view going by previous cases such as Stuart Hall. And although Cliffords crimes justified prison time I cant help thinking that they were any more heinous than Halls. This leads me to believe that an example has been made of Clifford because of the previous failings of Yewtree prosecutions. Remember Hall was pre Yewtree and thus not part of the wider investigation.

    This is worrying because it puts the sentencing on dangerous ground and makes a mockery of sentencing guidelines. Basically it means the judge has abandoned the principals and made a square peg fit in a round hole to give a lengthy sentence. I am not saying 8 years is too long in itself but taken alongside the Hall sentence then it is – or the Hall sentence is too short.

    Either way I dont see either of them seeing release. Hall has already been back in court and in all likelihood will face further convictions and at his age die in prison. And Clifford is likely to face charges post 2003 if reports coming from the police and CPS are read correctly. That would mean life I believe

    • I was shocked at the sentence too I had begun to think a slap on the wrist was all these sex offenders ever got. I also didn’t realise they ever let sentences run consecutively rather than concurrently something I lobby for. And despite myself and no amount of stern talking to deep in some dark recess of my soul I felt a second of pity of a 70+ year old man who may well die in jail but then I remembered his victims, their stolen youth, innocence and trust, and stamped down on that emotion quite hard.

      I hope it sends a message out to those who believe they can manipulate the media to their own ends even while going through the legal process that they do so at their own peril.

  19. Wow, so much animosity and denial of the validity of due legal process! The conviction of Max Clifford gave me an insight for the first time since enduring five years of daily sexual abuse by a relative before I hit puberty that maybe I should have the courage to come forward now and speak out. But if the comments on this site are anything to go by I’d be subjected to a torrent of verbal abuse (and threats of violence in the name of action against the state) just for seeking some justice. It’s hard to know sometimes what a person hopes to find in seeking justice. Do we want retribution, compensation, help and recognition of what we went through, to safeguard society against the miscreant, to give a warning to others thinking of doing the same? There are hundreds of thousands of men and women in the UK who endured abuse before they were of an age to give consent.
    I appreciate there are nuances in the Clifford case. But the judge and the jury interpreted them.

    • Unless your relative is a person of prominence it will not happen. What happens on sites such as this is a manifestation of free speech. Do what you think right.

    • Partial – There will be some people who would be abusive to you/about you for coming forward, without a doubt and you can see they will be really vicious. However there are some of us who will cheer you on, defending you and in your corner every single step of the way. It takes courage and no-one but you can make the decision about whether to or not. Good luck.

    • Report it asap. People here are expressing views on what they consider historic casting couch sex, the actual performance could well have been consensual, and if it was criminal it could have been investigated more reliably when the evidence was fresh. The longer victims delay reporting a crime the bigger the chance that somebody will repeat offending because they think they are getting away.

      • No, rol. It’s really not that simple a choice for a victim to make. I understand the point you’re making about the contribution that not reporting makes to chances of further offences occurring, but look at Frances Andrade, so traumatised by the cross-questioning at her abusers’ trial that she committed suicide. She’s not the only one. Suicide amongst sexual abuse victims is way higher than proportional to the general population, and that’s the extreme. What about the effect on my mental health, the drain and strain on my family relationships, even just the prospect of a lengthy trial annoying my employer. And how do I and society benefit? I lock up a man who’s admitted privately what he did, expressed remorse and (as far as I know and I accept that I could be wrong) hasn’t reoffended in 30 years. It’s bad enough that it ruined my life. How would my children cope? Why ruin other people’s lives too? I can accept that there may be people out there who think claiming sexual abuse is a meal ticket. But the vast majority of victims who come forward are genuine, traumatised and reluctant and go through reporting bravely in order to get any sort of healing possible. Victim support is deficient. Put simply, I’d rather run the risk that the man who abused me will abuse others than put myself in a courtroom with the likes of Steve Moxom. The effects on me would be devastating. The effects of Yewtree on many sexual abuse victims have been devastating. Things we would prefer to put behind us are raked up every day in the press, and victims’ psychologically analysed and re-abused. I can’t run the risk of what it would do to my mental health to pursue criminal justice.

  20. it’s good to get a different impression of Max Clifford from somone who actually came into contact with him, as Kate said she didn’t give off any mixed messages, and I suspect the girls that did have only come out now for money and you will no doubt be reading all about them when they sell their stories to the tabloids.

    Operation Yewtree like the CPS is a joke it’s a cheap prosecution instead of going after real sex offenders like they failed to do with Savile, they are going after any high profile celeb who may have touched a girls bum in the 1970s thinking she was of the age of consent without seeing her birth certificate.
    These girls prostituted themselves for fame and when it didn’t work they came after Clifford just like the others did with Tarbuck, Dave Lee Travis, William Roache and Michael le Vell all found not guilty. The CPS is the biggest cash cow for lawyers who rape the legal system with pathetic prosecutions.
    The CPS is not fit for purpose.

    • One of Max Clifford’s victims has told her story to The Daily Mail (I won’t hold her choice of newspaper against her) and beneath the article it says: “The fee for this article is being donated to a charity for victims of sexual abuse.”

      • Was that the one who waived her anonymity and called upon the celebs who supported Mr C to apologise?

        Difficult, that. Were they gullible or just looking for publicity for themselves or were they supporting a friend in need? If the last I cannot think too badly of them. That is what friends should do.

      • In response to Andrew, the problem is that whilst we are able to accept others may be duped, it’s human nature for us each to think we wouldn’t be duped ourselves. Our truth is not the truth. The woman who had a pleasant chat with Clifford can’t say that that proves he never did anything bad to anyone else. Interesting article by Richard of Richard and Judy fame. They were friends with Clifford but have the maturity and grace to accept they didn’t see every side of him. Nice people do bad things. Indefensible things sometimes. Remember when the Savile stories first came out plenty of people defended him and abused the first women to make claims.

  21. Yes it’s in today’s DM. (I also bought The Guardian *sounds defensive.) Because someone is nice to us, we know them well, have been vulnerable around them, or perhaps they are always doing good work for charity, does that render them incapable of also doing wrong?

  22. Of course not. But it’s the better side of our nature showing through when we stand by friends when they are down.

    As for buying the Grauniad too, well, I suppose there is some minimal mitigation there!

  23. Watch out everyone Moxon’s meds have worn off watch his toxic spillage get to work.

  24. I half suspect LES and Steve of being a couple. They so love bickering with each other with no regard for the debate others would prefer to conduct on this site. Suggest if you have nothing better to do than trade infantile insults that you find a bar in which to do it.

    • I suggest you get your facts straight. I won’t tolerate abuse from anyone and especially not from men.

  25. you’re utterly insane “Liberte, Egalite, Sororite”. You call someone a “rape apologist” simply because he said there should be no convictions without solid evidence, which is the “proven beyond reasonable doubt” principle. You appear to have a loathing for the concept of justice and, based on your comments, you want everyone who is accused of an offence (presumably sexual one) to be convicted, regardless whether or not there is any evidence.

    Following your “logic”, how about someone accuses you of eg assault by penetration and you get sent on a holiday to jail for some 15-20 years based on nothing more than the accuser’s word? How would you like that?

    Moreover, you “won’t tolerate abuse from anyone and especially not from men” – this implies you are more unwilling to tolerate abuse from men than from women. In other words you discriminate based on gender ie you’re sexist (based not just on your last post but also on your overall attitude). You proclaim to be a feminist, and feminist proclaims to seek gender equality, yet you’re openly sexist, hence you’re a hypocrite and a liar.

    How many innocent people are in prison because of false accusations perpetrated by scum like you? You’re a filthy, vile, dangerous, vicious, spiteful, deceitful, and obnoxious piece of shit.

    • Witness men in the face of an articulate and insubordinate woman. I suggest you go back to doing what men do best sexual assault of women, children, babies, rape of the same, verbal and physical abuse , murder and making the world a thoroughly unpleasant place to live in for anyone of either gender. Yours in sisterhood..

      • Articulate?!
        The LES is a brain-dead abusive fascist, who is completely ignorant of anything and everything that makes people and society tick.

  26. Now tell everyone Steve how your comment to me was removed by the moderators go on. Let’s remind everyone it began with a C. Very eloquent bully boy.

      • That’s it ignore the fact that your comment was so rude it had to be removed.

        Keep it up I’ve watched how you bully and abuse anyone doesn’t agree with you but abusive men, are manipulative as we know, don’t like to be called out do they. Bully boy.

  27. What’s the point of idiotic exchanges of insults ? There must always be reasonable doubt whether witnesses are telling the truth and nothing but the truth, or not, especially when they recall intricate details of sexual encounters from decades ago. Unless they wrote down the details soon after the event any accuracy would gradually have faded away. What’s left is the product of a (disturbed?) mind over a very long duration of time. It should be expected that in anybody’s memory fiction and reality become intertwined, enough for there to be reasonable doubt whether or not the accused is guilty of the alleged crime.

    • Tell that to Steve Moxon who abuses anyone (scroll up and read them yourself) who disagrees with him Tom, Pete, Andrew, myself plus more. I don’t have to tolerate it and bullies should always be stood up to even just because it drives them nuts.

      • Guffaw! It’s only the LES troll who initiates and indulges in abuse towards others on this board, and it does so routinely and persistently.
        It’s a very different matter to simply respond to abuse, whether or not in kind, which is all I do.

  28. I’ve made my point, the evidence is there read it yourself and watch this abuser bully anyone who disagrees with him. And if what we say is a projection of what we are, according to the abusive Steve Moxon, then his use of the C word (now removed by the moderators) was particularly apt. Yours in Sisterhood

  29. I’ve been following this case, as it progressed, and was somewhat surprised, as many were, at the guilty verdicts; given the general trend in Operation Yewtree trials (Bill Roache, DLT etc). That said, the sentence seems to be quite moderate by modern standards of sentencing for sexual offences (albeit Clifford was convicted under the SOA 1956, when maximum sentences were much lower).

    Clifford’s only real mitigation was personal mitigation: that he is 71 years of age, has had some health problems (prostate cancer iirc), that he had not, provably, offended in the past 30 years, was of hitherto good character and had done some charity work. As for the offences themselves there was no real mitigation available, furthermore even if there was then it would have been disingenuous for his counsel to have pleaded it, as to do so would have been to accept Clifford’s substantive guilt, probably not a good idea when a) You are considering an appeal against conviction, b) The trial and sentencing were very closely watched and any admission by Clifford, through his barrister, of his guilt would have been dragged up again and again in the press, ruining his chances of restoring his public reputation should he be freed on appeal.

    As for the judge treating Clifford’s denials as an aggravating factor, I can sort of see his logic. True, everyone has the right to plead ‘not guilty’, even if they are guilty, and to put the prosecution to proof. Clifford went beyond that, for a start he elected to give evidence in his own defence and in his oral testimony vehemently denied his guilt, that could have been trauamatic on one view.

    Either way, 8 years is a lot, but I would be interested to see if the CoA regard is as manifestly excessive.

  30. May I request that the moderator deletes all the posts from this thread that contain any personal remarks and insults?

  31. I find it amazing how “Liberte, Egalite, Sororite” is shown specific inconsistencies/lies/hypocrisies/irrationality in her comments and replies with:

    “I suggest you go back to doing what men do best sexual assault of women, children, babies, rape of the same, verbal and physical abuse , murder and making the world a thoroughly unpleasant place to live in for anyone of either gender.”

    After that she has the nerve (or, rather, insanity) to call others “bullies”.

    Rarely have I seen such clear manifestations of utter madness and an amalgamation of multiple mental illnesses manifested in a single person. Your mental sickness combined with irrational hatred for half of mankind shows you would be extremely willing to falsely accuse (innocent) guys of rape/sexual assault/etc, which is what may well have happened in Clifford’s case too. You’re highly representative of the vile scum which contemporary feminism is. You my dear “Liberte, Egalite, Sororite” should be locked in some mental asylum, for both your sake and society’s sake.

    • Maybe I’ll be locked up in the same one that you’re in. See you soon.

Comments are closed.