NSPCC: Max Clifford a "ruthless and manipulative" sex offender.

i4ui4u Posts: 54,911
Forum Member
From Digital Spy
"Max Clifford has rightly been unmasked as a ruthless and manipulative sex offender who preyed for decades on children and young women," said director of National Services at the NSPCC Peter Watt.

Comments

  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,911
    Forum Member
    Victim speaks out.
    Publicist Max Clifford has been found guilty of eight indecent assaults on women and girls as young as 15.

    The jury found Clifford guilty of indecently assaulting four victims, including one girl who was abused from the age of 15 after she met him while on holiday with her family in Spain.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    He does not appear to meet the criteria that the NSPCC have set.

    I suspect he will go to prison but not for very long.
  • Cyril_SneerCyril_Sneer Posts: 2,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the evidence isn't quite that strong, not to sympathise with him but he isn't quite on the level of Ian Huntley and all.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,263
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought it was just women that Clifford preyed on. It must have been at it with kids as well if that's true.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,263
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the evidence isn't quite that strong, not to sympathise with him but he isn't quite on the level of Ian Huntley and all.

    Probably because Huntley killed two very young lasses and Clifford hasn't.
  • Cyril_SneerCyril_Sneer Posts: 2,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    I thought it was just women that Clifford preyed on. It must have been at it with kids as well if that's true.

    4 charges were in connection with a 15 year old
  • Crawley CutieCrawley Cutie Posts: 10,943
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    4 charges were in connection with a 15 year old


    Who, apparently, was repeatedly abused.

    I do not understand why a young girl, who considered herself ' abused', the first time - would keep returning for more :confused:
  • AdelaideGirlAdelaideGirl Posts: 3,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Because a very powerful man told her she had to.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,263
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Who, apparently, was repeatedly abused.

    I do not understand why a young girl, who considered herself ' abused', the first time - would keep returning for more :confused:

    I can only imagine that Clifford must have threatened to let her parents know if she didn't see him again. It's the only thing I can think of.
  • milliejomilliejo Posts: 2,230
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the evidence isn't quite that strong, not to sympathise with him but he isn't quite on the level of Ian Huntley and all.

    Ian Huntley is a child killer....but molesting teenagers is very serious and should be treated that way. Why sympathise with him?
  • FingersAndToesFingersAndToes Posts: 9,956
    Forum Member
    Who, apparently, was repeatedly abused.

    I do not understand why a young girl, who considered herself ' abused', the first time - would keep returning for more :confused:

    Many times teenagers don't see clearly what is really happening, which is why there are laws protecting them. Whether they went to him again does not make his deeds any less illegal or any less awful.
  • milliejomilliejo Posts: 2,230
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Imagine what he would have done if someone sold a story like this about an MP or someone really famous....
  • wilehelmaswilehelmas Posts: 3,610
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    I can only imagine that Clifford must have threatened to let her parents know if she didn't see him again. It's the only thing I can think of.

    When these events were alleged to have happened, there was no internet or media-savvy as we know it now. I think a lot of kids genuinely were that naive. :(
  • twingletwingle Posts: 19,322
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Who, apparently, was repeatedly abused.

    I do not understand why a young girl, who considered herself ' abused', the first time - would keep returning for more :confused:

    Because by your very statement you have obviously never been abused. The very act makes you feel dirty and guilty because somehow it must be your fault and of course if you told anyone they would have no sympathy!
  • AOTBAOTB Posts: 9,708
    Forum Member
    I do not understand why a young girl, who considered herself ' abused', the first time - would keep returning for more :confused:

    There are multiple cases where this happens. Abuse is not always quite as black and white as some seem to think.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 842
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think the evidence isn't quite that strong, not to sympathise with him but he isn't quite on the level of Ian Huntley and all.

    Cyril abuse may it be sexual, physical or mental it's the fact these parasites ruin peoples life's for good.

    Do you honestly think that no matter what the scale of abuse it is that you should be held responsible and if caught and sent to court and found guilty you deserve what you get.

    Clifford is just as bad as Ian Huntley as they are both guilty of physical abuse!

    No sympathy here for Clifford, the victims my heart goes out to them, hope they can rebuild their life's again.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,911
    Forum Member
    Who, apparently, was repeatedly abused.

    I do not understand why a young girl, who considered herself ' abused', the first time - would keep returning for more :confused:

    My understanding is he in affect blackmailed her by convincing her he'd arranged for photographs to be taken of her giving Max a leg up.
  • Cyril_SneerCyril_Sneer Posts: 2,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cynet wrote: »
    Cyril abuse may it be sexual, physical or mental it's the fact these parasites ruin peoples life's for good.

    Do you honestly think that no matter what the scale of abuse it is that you should be held responsible and if caught and sent to court and found guilty you deserve what you get.

    Clifford is just as bad as Ian Huntley as they are both guilty of physical abuse!

    No sympathy here for Clifford, the victims my heart goes out to them, hope they can rebuild their life's again.

    I don't agree with it by any means.

    But this was the 70's - it was rife, and the girls used the men as much as the men used the girls. Yes, even the 15 year olds who probably said they were 16 or 18. It doesn't make it right but if you were to round up all the men who did this at the time there wouldn't be enough courts in london to hold them.

    IMO there is a carefully planned rounding up of a lot of famous people going on who the police will have been tipped off about probably going back years - its rubbish they have just suddenly heard all these types of allegations. What, so none of probably thousands of girls came forward before the Savile documentary? That's BS.

    So it doesn't make it right - i'm just interested how these people are suddenly being exposed. And why just famous people - what about all the producers, casting agents, directors? What about corrupt police who have used their powers to get favours? What about people around now - not the 70's and 80's?
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    I thought it was just women that Clifford preyed on. It must have been at it with kids as well if that's true.

    A 12 year old girl is mentioned in the link below.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10708333/Max-Clifford-used-daughter-to-lure-girl-of-12-court-hears.html
  • grauniadgrauniad Posts: 7,954
    Forum Member
    The judge has stated that 2yrs is the maximum for these historical offences. He will still be a millionaire living at home within a year.
  • twingletwingle Posts: 19,322
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't agree with it by any means.

    But this was the 70's - it was rife, and the girls used the men as much as the men used the girls. Yes, even the 15 year olds who probably said they were 16 or 18. It doesn't make it right but if you were to round up all the men who did this at the time there wouldn't be enough courts in london to hold them.

    IMO there is a carefully planned rounding up of a lot of famous people going on who the police will have been tipped off about probably going back years - its rubbish they have just suddenly heard all these types of allegations. What, so none of probably thousands of girls came forward before the Savile documentary? That's BS.

    So it doesn't make it right - i'm just interested how these people are suddenly being exposed. And why just famous people - what about all the producers, casting agents, directors? What about corrupt police who have used their powers to get favours? What about people around now - not the 70's and 80's?

    Oh but they did and no one believed them . I mean really saint jimmy? Stop telling lies look at all the good he does!!

    As for the casting couch. Apparently it's not as rife now as back then and I am not condoning it but I don't think the girls were underage just misguided into thinking fame was at the end of a bonk
  • wilehelmaswilehelmas Posts: 3,610
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grauniad wrote: »
    The judge has stated that 2yrs is the maximum for these historical offences. He will still be a millionaire living at home within a year.

    Bit longer than that by the looks of things.

    I didn't think his clients had much to sweat about until I just heard the length of the sentence. Now I'm not sure. That is a long stretch lf time. For a man his age, he could end his life in prison. He really has nothing to lose and given how ruthless and manipulative his associates and somewhat friends admit he is then....who knows. But maybe he'll take his secrets to the grave with him. Maybe he would have anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.