I guess it says a lot about how people come across but of the people who have been to court for these kind of offenses, he's not one that I thought might be guilty............
I guess it says a lot about how people come across but of the people who have been to court for these kind of offenses, he's not one that I thought might be guilty............
The witnesses seemed much more credible than the ones in the other Yewtree cases. His reputation as a lying manipulator as well as being an organiser of those "good honest filth" sex parties probably damned him with the jury too.
After the not guilty verdicts of other high profile people, ones have been questioning the validity of bringing these historical cases to court; well there is validity.
One interesting side issue here is that Clifford must know more secrets about celebrities, politicians etc than anyone else in the country.........I wonder if he'll be inclined to start spilling the beans now out of pique.......
I guess it says a lot about how people come across but of the people who have been to court for these kind of offenses, he's not one that I thought might be guilty............
Really? Just as Bill Roache's evidence came across to me as very credible, even on the news snippets we had, Clifford's seemed highly un-credible (not to mention incredible on occassions).
Really? Just as Bill Roache's evidence came across to me as very credible, even on the news snippets we had, Clifford's seemed highly un-credible (not to mention incredible on occassions).
I wasn't talking about the evidence. I was talking about my impressions of people before they were accused. I tend not to keep track of every new revelation of news and to be honest lately I've been more interested the Oscar Pistorious trial and Malaysian disappearing plane incident. I'd pretty much written off the Max Clifford case before it started as just the latest of that generation of famous people to be accused.
One interesting side issue here is that Clifford must know more secrets about celebrities, politicians etc than anyone else in the country.........I wonder if he'll be inclined to start spilling the beans now out of pique.......
Well maybe; as some have said his career is possibly over now so he needs money.
The way things're going. We won't need crown appointed judges, jries and other court officials, it'll all come down to trial by media and in the newspapers' eyes, it's guilty until proven innocent and god help us all if it comes down to that, especially if you criticise them or don't agree with them.
The Spanish Inquisition did it when they put innocent people on trial, just for saying that they didn't agree with something said in the bible. The inquisitors didn't provide any witnesses so if they couldn't make any up, they used torture.
The way things're going. We won't need crown appointed judges, jries and other court officials, it'll all come down to trial by media and in the newspapers' eyes, it's guilty until proven innocent and god help us all if it comes down to that, especially if you criticise them or don't agree with them.
The Spanish Inquisition did it when they put innocent people on trial, just for saying that they didn't agree with something said in the bible. The inquisitors didn't provide any witnesses so if they couldn't make any up, they used torture.
What are you talking about? Max Clifford was tried in a court with a judge, jury and other court officials and we are now discussing the verdict.
I wasn't talking about the evidence. I was talking about my impressions of people before they were accused. I tend not to keep track of every new revelation of news and to be honest lately I've been more interested the Oscar Pistorious trial and Malaysian disappearing plane incident. I'd pretty much written off the Max Clifford case before it started as just the latest of that generation of famous people to be accused.
No 1960s/70s/80s British television personality or celebrity're safe, even if they're totally innocent, from the newspapers' self appointed positions as paedo-hunters.
If anybody should be exposed to public scrutiny, investigated and brought to trial, it should be the editors of the newspapers.
The News of The World phone tapping scandal's proof enough.
The way things're going. We won't need crown appointed judges, jries and other court officials, it'll all come down to trial by media and in the newspapers' eyes, it's guilty until proven innocent and god help us all if it comes down to that, especially if you criticise them or don't agree with them.
The way things're going. We won't need crown appointed judges, jries and other court officials, it'll all come down to trial by media and in the newspapers' eyes, it's guilty until proven innocent and god help us all if it comes down to that, especially if you criticise them or don't agree with them.
The Spanish Inquisition did it when they put innocent people on trial, just for saying that they didn't agree with something said in the bible. The inquisitors didn't provide any witnesses so if they couldn't make any up, they used torture.
I don't think anyone expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Oh dear ' it's not looking good for him, is it ? I must admit, when he was first arrested , and he announced his unreserved innocence , I actually believed him .
I'm not saying that I believed him but when all those famous and in some cases attractive character witnesses (female) spoke on his behalf, I thought he would get off.
The thing is is he will be sentenced according to the time the crimes were committed, which means he won't get as long a sentence as he would had he committed those crimes today.
imrightok
Posts: 8,492
Comments
The witnesses seemed much more credible than the ones in the other Yewtree cases. His reputation as a lying manipulator as well as being an organiser of those "good honest filth" sex parties probably damned him with the jury too.
One interesting side issue here is that Clifford must know more secrets about celebrities, politicians etc than anyone else in the country.........I wonder if he'll be inclined to start spilling the beans now out of pique.......
I wasn't talking about the evidence. I was talking about my impressions of people before they were accused. I tend not to keep track of every new revelation of news and to be honest lately I've been more interested the Oscar Pistorious trial and Malaysian disappearing plane incident. I'd pretty much written off the Max Clifford case before it started as just the latest of that generation of famous people to be accused.
Well maybe; as some have said his career is possibly over now so he needs money.
The Spanish Inquisition did it when they put innocent people on trial, just for saying that they didn't agree with something said in the bible. The inquisitors didn't provide any witnesses so if they couldn't make any up, they used torture.
What are you talking about? Max Clifford was tried in a court with a judge, jury and other court officials and we are now discussing the verdict.
No 1960s/70s/80s British television personality or celebrity're safe, even if they're totally innocent, from the newspapers' self appointed positions as paedo-hunters.
If anybody should be exposed to public scrutiny, investigated and brought to trial, it should be the editors of the newspapers.
The News of The World phone tapping scandal's proof enough.
What has that got to do with this case?
Good contribution.
To be fair, you did post first.
Anyway my thoughts on the outcome are that I think Clifford is a disgusting individual.
His reputation is in tatters.
I don't think anyone expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
The thing is is he will be sentenced according to the time the crimes were committed, which means he won't get as long a sentence as he would had he committed those crimes today.
You sound as if you wanted him to be found guilty.
So where do you stand on the matter then?