Max Clifford and 8 years ...... your thoughts?

A

Alec Swan

...
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
An odious man running a business without any semblance of morality or decency, but considering the offences, was such a prison term justified?

Alec.
 
It sounds a bit top heavy Alec, there was no rape, was there? I'd be surprised if that wasn't appealed.
 
My thoughts are that the the news is about to get much more sensible for the next 8 (4) years.

The next time an aspiring 'model' shags someone's husband and feels its her duty to tell the world - he won't be there to facilitate it.
 
Someone else will.

His profession doesn't make a harsh sentence justified. I believe it will be appealed, as it was eight sentences many applied consecutively, .
 
Last edited:
I was surprised as previous media reports were expecting 2 years. I don't know all the ins and outs of the case but thought it's sounded a lot. I just wondered if it was little to do with the fact that our judicial system wanted someone to go to prison as all these celebrity trials have gone nowhere except to ruin the lives of those concerned. Please don't misunderstand, I am not advocating protecting rapists or abusers, just genuinely wonder at the facts behind these prosecutions.
 
The sentencing remarks are online somewhere. Unpleasant reading but explains why the sentence is as it is. Had some of the offences occurred today, they would have been rape and he could have been looking at life.
 
MotherOfChickens said:
Have just googled them, wish I hadn't tbh but he deserves his :.
Click to expand...

The problem is that he deserves that sentence as the law stands today, but not as the law stood thirty years ago, and the judge's summing up makes it clear he has sentenced him for today's guidelines. He has also taken into account an 'offence' for which he had never been charged, and two of which he was acquitted. I think it will be drastically reduced on appeal.

An analysis and the full judgement are available here.

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/05/02/max-clifford-sentenced/
 
Patterdale said:
Well, having seen the sentencing comments, I'd say that the sentence is entirely justified, and I hope karma gets him in the showers.
Click to expand...

I quite agree. His attitude in court did little to help his case and I think the judge took that into consideration when handing out his sentence. Disgusting man.
 
cptrayes said:
The problem is that he deserves that sentence as the law stands today, but not as the law stood thirty years ago, and the judge's summing up makes it clear he has sentenced him for today's guidelines. He has also taken into account an 'offence' for which he had never been charged, and two of which he was acquitted. I think it will be drastically reduced on appeal.

An analysis and the full judgement are available here.

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/05/02/max-clifford-sentenced/
Click to expand...

No, he sentenced him under the law as it was then. Had it been under the law as it is now, he would have been looking at ten years to life.
 
Read the judgement
He states in writing that he made the totality of the sentence for today's sentencing guidelines.

The rape was penetration by two fingers, not forced. And forced partially penetrating oral sex. I think the sentence fits that.
 
I have followed this case with interest. Having met him, had dinner with him, I have no doubt these charges are true and he deserves his sentence.
 
Odious man. His prison sentence is well deserved. I hope it helps his victims to come to terms with what happened and that they are able to move on. I have nothing but admiration for their courage in going through the whole process and giving evidence in court.
 
It has left me feeling slightly uncomfortable - not because I think the verdict or sentence is wrong, I don't. Knowing how unfathomable some juries can be, I wonder if he has been found guilty because, ultimately, he is thought of as a conniving, wankey shyster, and 'others' were found NG because they (or their on-screen characters) were inherently likeable. I once tried to explain the vagaries of having to prove individual offences, and the strange interpretations juries can make. I said that not every person who is found guilty is necessarily guilty (although I tend to think they are, knowing how long/many offences/much it takes to actually get someone to court), but conversely not every NG verdict means the complainant was lying. :( I don't really like or trust the jury system, but not sure what the alternative would be?
 
I suspect that the only person saying "Poor old Max", is the convicted man himself. Anyone else shedding tears, will be crocodilian!

There's unquestionably a delight in his sentence, and a general sense of applause, but setting aside the revolting parasite of a man (sic), I'm very surprised at the severity. No one can fail to be angered by his arrogance and his reported in-court demeanour, but should such displays form or influence his culpability or his sentence?

I'm a little concerned when justice is influenced by our reaction to the criminal, and we lose focus upon the crime. I'm also a little concerned when justice is influenced by public outrage, in that we can't allow justice to consider, or be influenced by mob rule.

Before I'm leapt on, I'm not defending Clifford, far from it, but I am defending our judicial system, and I worry that corrections will be made, and that this truly revolting creature will have a lessening of his sentence, and for that he will be able to claim a degree of credit.

I also know (as in a spurious family connection) another who runs a similar business, though she seems rather reticent when questioned. Clifford may well have been the King, but for now, 'The King is dead, long live the King'. Another will take his place, and those who contribute to the culture of society gossip will have another who will give them what they crave. Sad, isn't it?

Alec.
 
I read the blog and replies (thank you) and saw some very interesting points in there. The most concerning would be that the judge took into account, external allegations and actions outside the court. I thought they could only judge what is in front of them? I am struggling with this judgement as it "seems" what he is really guilty of, is abusing his position and taking advantage, to actual rape. This does not diminish what an unpleasant man he is to behave like this but I, having read the commentary, would have liked to have seen more focus on the fact that as a mature adult, he should have shown responsibility and respect for the girls who crossed his path. It's actually his wife and daughter I feel truly sorry for.
 
For me, it isn't his vile personality that makes me feel the sentence was appropriate. If it was, there is a list of politicians and bankers I'd be happy to see locked up with the key thrown away before him. At least he never pretended to have any integrity.
The sentence was appropriate because he shows no remorse or nor acknowledges the gravity of his offences. He has been arrogant and mocking of the court, shown by mimicking the journalist reporting outside the court.
He used his power and influence to deter his victims from complaining to the police. And he did not save his victims from the trauma of giving evidence in court.
I think the sentence was fair.
 
Alec Swan said:
An odious man running a business without any semblance of morality or decency, but considering the offences, was such a prison term justified?

Alec.
Click to expand...
Yes, and 8 years is only four years, he will be kept in with the rest of the paedos, so this will let him see what happens to scum like him and the type he is.
 
cptrayes said:
.......

An analysis and the full judgement are available here.

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/05/02/max-clifford-sentenced/
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, and I have to say that I'm more than surprised at the Judge's summing up, in fact, I'm surprised at the entire case. However he behaved with those girls who were of the age of being able to give their consent, were not from what I read, forced in to anything. The judge's summing up involved events which were outside of the Court, and whilst Judge's will have a degree of freedom within their summing up, I suspect that any appeal counsel will make the most of what ever is available to them, and it wouldn't surprise me to find that Clifford walks free, and very soon.

Those victims with whom he had inappropriate dealings, who were under the age of 16, provide greater support to a custodial sentence. The case, from my very limited experience, seems to have been a shambles, and I would be most surprised if he serves the recommended 4 years.

What a revolting man he is. Sadly, justice will be prove to have not been served, you mark my words.

Alec.
 
I think the judge was entirely fair. He took Clifford's disrespectful behaviour into account but also took his charity work into consideration.
 
Patterdale said:
The next time an aspiring 'model' shags someone's husband and feels its her duty to tell the world - he won't be there to facilitate it.
Click to expand...

*Smirks*

I think his sentence is more than justified. Even if it is so high just to make an example out of him.
 
Max Clifford and Constance Briscoe both sentenced to prison on the same day. It took a good 10 minutes for me to stop laughing after watching the news!
 
Not my normal stamping ground in this Forum, however I happened to come across a report as to Mr Clifford's likely prison conditions, once he has spend the mandatory one month in Wandsworth.

Perhaps when he is at Leyhill he will get day release to follow the Beaufort. LOL

On the other hand he could find himself at Ford Open Prison in Sussex doing the pigs.

"Sex offender Max Clifford will serve most of his sentence at one of our softest jails with a cushy OAP unit.

Minimum-security Leyhill prison has no fences, lags are never locked in their rooms and it has a special daycare centre for older cons like 71-year-old PR guru Clifford.

A third of Leyhill inmates are 50-plus, compared to 12% nationally, and they have their own Lobster Pot daycare centre.

Opened in 2010, it offers guided walks, stress-busting workshops, poetry and puzzle-solving classes as well as courses in subjects from creative writing to gardening.

The disgraced media giant, now starting an eight-year term for sex attacks on four girls aged 14-19, is expected to move to the Category-D jail in Gloucestershire after four weeks at tough Wandsworth, South London

One group of prisoners at the centre won a Chelsea Flower Show gong and inspired the film Greenfingers starring Helen Mirren.

Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan gave Leyhill’s provision for older people a glowing reference in a speech.

He said: “The inspector of prisons has held up examples of good practice... like the Daycare Centre run for the over 50s in Leyhill Prison.”

The centre was set up in 2010 by charity RECOOP (REsettlement and Care for Older ex-Offenders and Prisoners) to give “purposeful activity” to mature inmates.

Leyhill itself is known as the “Savoy of Slammers”. Set in 135-acre ornamental grounds, it has a botanical garden, aviary, three tennis courts, football and hockey pitches and a library open seven days a week.

Inmates can freely move around designated areas from 8.30am to 11pm and are fed organic food farmed in the grounds.

They can play a range of genteel sports including soft tennis, indoor bowls, badminton and volleyball.

Ex-Cabinet minister Chris Huhne, 59, served his time at Leyhill after getting his wife to take the rap for a speeding ticket.

EastEnders actor Leslie Grantham served part of a murder term there.

Report from the Mirror"
 
Last edited:
J_M, **ck, that sounds better than the average care home. I wonder....... :rolleyes3:

Good to see you back J_M, out of theme, or not!!
___________________

On another note, and not wishing to prolong the poor man's discomforts, I do wonder, considering the good Judge's considerations as to his charitable works, just how much apparent 'goodness' we need to store up to have any misdemeanour declared null and void. I wonder if there's a storage system, for 'credits'.

Let us just picture a nasty little toe-rag from a Council Estate, who's been caught committing the most callous of crimes (in series), and his 'brief' approaches the bench, points out that underneath it all he's a good lad, and that he loves his Grandma and takes her shopping weekly, and so I wonder if the same good Judge would take our hero's charitable works in to consideration. Quite probably not, is the answer.

Alec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top