If he really had stitched up the Hamiltons it wouldn't have been an insignificant amount. A woman came to him saying she had been raped, he told her to go to the police. What was he supposed to do?
I'm sure he used his power for his own ends. But don't forget there were plenty of idiots he exposed who bear a grudge. They should blame themselves not the messenger.
Check the female's history?
Not hawk the story around various TV studios, not say 'There's no smoke without fire?'
Take a look at Clifford's appearance in the Louis Theroux programme when he's in his car on the phone talking about Christine Hamilton making crude remarks to someone from the Royal Marsden Hospital, who probably laughs along because Clifford raises funds for the hospital.
In his book he says if Beckham had been with him a certain story would not appear, does that sound like blackmail? From his book I'd say he can be extremely vindictive, why would he boast about getting a man drunk and planting a young lad in the bed and take photos to use against the man?
He's was not just a messenger he was often the instigator and more fool TV producers who asked him on to tell the truth about anyone of his clients.
In his book he says if Beckham had been with him a certain story would not appear, does that sound like blackmail? From his book I'd say he can be extremely vindictive, why would he boast about getting a man drunk and planting a young lad in the bed and take photos to use against the man?
No, it could mean he would find ways, not that he made the story appear. The second part looks like an advertisement how ruthless and persuasive he could be. Cliff Maxford, and shit does not stick.
No, it could mean he would find ways, not that he made the story appear. The second part looks like an advertisement how ruthless and persuasive he could be. Cliff Maxford, and shit does not stick.
He used to say 90% of his work was 'protection' from whom?
There used to be people in Soho used to offer 'protection' for the right price.
He used to say 90% of his work was 'protection' from whom?
There used to be people in Soho used to offer 'protection' for the right price.
Could be that he was protecting his clients from himself, but I'd say there's enough people in trouble even without his 'help'. I think it makes customers more satisfied and his business more successful. He could have exaggerated the consequences when not using his services, though.
If he has any sense, he won't appeal. As it stands, he's looking at a short prison sentence, of which he'll probably serve less than half.
I'm cynical enough to think that he can probably carry on doing business. If he can provide both sides with a service that they need, then I can't see him losing more than a handful of clients. Possibly some big names who can't afford the bad PR of being officially linked to him now, but I expect he'll cut a deal with them if they want him to work for them behind the scenes.
If he appeals, then more women could come forward, encouraged by the success of the initial prosecution. If they thought they wouldn't be believed, then this might give them confidence to speak up. Plus, he'll be dragged through the bad publicity for even longer. I would imagine that he'd advise his clients to keep quiet and serve the time, hoping that most people forget it ever happened by the time they're out.
He's despicable, but I don't think he's stupid. I don't think he'll appeal unless the judge throws a surprisingly lengthy sentence at him. I also don't think he'll expose his former clients to try to reduce a short sentence to an even shorter one (because that would prevent him ever working at the same job again, not because he's loyal to them).
So yes, he ought to be disgraced and never work again. But realistically, that's not going to happen. I just hope those poor women at least feel a sense of closure at having it publicly acknowledged that he did do this to them.
[QUOTE=i4u;72426638]He used to say 90% of his work was 'protection' from whom?
There used to be people in Soho used to offer 'protection' for the right price.[/QUOTE]
So basically he was poacher turned game keeper.
Plus he might just become poacher again if he does a big reveal book .
Some people will be using immodium for the foreseeable I think .
Mandy Allwood on SKY news slating Max Clifford? Yet as recently as 2013 she has still sold stories about being pregnant with eight babies ..... trying to cash in ?
He just arrived in court, still posing for pictures, but not willing to say sorry, the man is evil. I hope the judge takes into account that he put his victims through a court case.
I am currently watching the sky news coverage, with reporters hanging around outside the court like vultures, waiting to hear his fate. I have always liked Max and had the utmost respect for him; consequently, the verdict came as a huge shock and disappointment to me. He really does look and sound like, to use a cliche, a broken man. PR is his business, though, so how much of that is genuine, I don't know.
If he is guilty of the criimes which earned him the conviction, then the defence lawyer's avowal that, at 71 years of age, he is not a threat to the public is irrelevant. that should have no effect on the sentence imposed.
Mandy Alwood, the lady whose babies died, and was represented by Max Clifford, has also been giving us her opinion on him, as being a man who wanted to line his own pockets. 8 years in prison is the sentence.
Back to Alwood, that was his job, to make money.
Comments
Dunno if that has been posted.
I think...think...he might have lost it.
Check the female's history?
Not hawk the story around various TV studios, not say 'There's no smoke without fire?'
Take a look at Clifford's appearance in the Louis Theroux programme when he's in his car on the phone talking about Christine Hamilton making crude remarks to someone from the Royal Marsden Hospital, who probably laughs along because Clifford raises funds for the hospital.
In his book he says if Beckham had been with him a certain story would not appear, does that sound like blackmail? From his book I'd say he can be extremely vindictive, why would he boast about getting a man drunk and planting a young lad in the bed and take photos to use against the man?
He's was not just a messenger he was often the instigator and more fool TV producers who asked him on to tell the truth about anyone of his clients.
No, it could mean he would find ways, not that he made the story appear. The second part looks like an advertisement how ruthless and persuasive he could be. Cliff Maxford, and shit does not stick.
He used to say 90% of his work was 'protection' from whom?
There used to be people in Soho used to offer 'protection' for the right price.
Could be that he was protecting his clients from himself, but I'd say there's enough people in trouble even without his 'help'. I think it makes customers more satisfied and his business more successful. He could have exaggerated the consequences when not using his services, though.
The maximum sentence for indecent assault was two years at the time the offences were committed.
Right or wrong it will be no greater than two years
If statements aren't blown apart in the witeness box, this would show that the statements are most likely to be true.
I'm cynical enough to think that he can probably carry on doing business. If he can provide both sides with a service that they need, then I can't see him losing more than a handful of clients. Possibly some big names who can't afford the bad PR of being officially linked to him now, but I expect he'll cut a deal with them if they want him to work for them behind the scenes.
If he appeals, then more women could come forward, encouraged by the success of the initial prosecution. If they thought they wouldn't be believed, then this might give them confidence to speak up. Plus, he'll be dragged through the bad publicity for even longer. I would imagine that he'd advise his clients to keep quiet and serve the time, hoping that most people forget it ever happened by the time they're out.
He's despicable, but I don't think he's stupid. I don't think he'll appeal unless the judge throws a surprisingly lengthy sentence at him. I also don't think he'll expose his former clients to try to reduce a short sentence to an even shorter one (because that would prevent him ever working at the same job again, not because he's loyal to them).
So yes, he ought to be disgraced and never work again. But realistically, that's not going to happen. I just hope those poor women at least feel a sense of closure at having it publicly acknowledged that he did do this to them.
But one of the girl was 15 at the time, so this was underage, not just indecent assault.
No, because if he's been found guilty they don't need to put themselves through it.
Unless the judge finds a reason why one or more of the sentences should be imposed consecutively. We'll find out on Friday, I suppose.
What a weird thing to do. Did that go out live?
Freddie Starr ate it
He has not been found guilty of that - it is unproven
There used to be people in Soho used to offer 'protection' for the right price.[/QUOTE]
So basically he was poacher turned game keeper.
Plus he might just become poacher again if he does a big reveal book .
Some people will be using immodium for the foreseeable I think .
If he is guilty of the criimes which earned him the conviction, then the defence lawyer's avowal that, at 71 years of age, he is not a threat to the public is irrelevant. that should have no effect on the sentence imposed.
Mandy Alwood, the lady whose babies died, and was represented by Max Clifford, has also been giving us her opinion on him, as being a man who wanted to line his own pockets. 8 years in prison is the sentence.
Back to Alwood, that was his job, to make money.