Max Clifford arrested on suspicion of sexual offences
Discussion
smegmore said:
On Sky news just now...
Reporter Martin Brunt said that 'The person arrested was not named by Scotland Yard but we know that it is Max Clifford'.
This is a f
king travesty, if the arrested person is named officially by the police then fair enough to report it IMO but otherwise the person should not be identified to the public by Sky or anyone else.
Trial by media.
Cancel your Sky and don't feel you have to fund this sReporter Martin Brunt said that 'The person arrested was not named by Scotland Yard but we know that it is Max Clifford'.
This is a f
king travesty, if the arrested person is named officially by the police then fair enough to report it IMO but otherwise the person should not be identified to the public by Sky or anyone else.Trial by media.
t because you must be able to watch football or F1. The faux outrage for most will only last until they want to see the next feetball game.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
smegmore said:
My personal view of Clifford is that he is a fking slug but he should be entitled to the protection of his privacy in law, the same as you or I. If he is found by due process to be guilty of any sexual offences against minors or anyone else for that matter then he deserves to have the book thrown at him, purely because he IS guilty and not because he is a celebity's mouthpiece.
All that will be said now by the media and general public is 'guilty by association, no smoke without fire' etc.
True.king slug but he should be entitled to the protection of his privacy in law, the same as you or I. If he is found by due process to be guilty of any sexual offences against minors or anyone else for that matter then he deserves to have the book thrown at him, purely because he IS guilty and not because he is a celebity's mouthpiece.All that will be said now by the media and general public is 'guilty by association, no smoke without fire' etc.
However, my take is the Police have not said it is MC. The Media KNOW it is MC.
Therefore it can be reported. I would assume that the Media - especially in light of their recent f
k ups - would not state these things without it being true. Especially where MC is concerned.How does it change it it is true versus the Police stating it publicly ?
My point was that until the name of the arrested person was released officially by Plod then the media should not publish. This should not happen, even to an a
hole like Clifford.As I said, trial by media will now commence.
B17NNS said:
Quite a nice hotel that, stayed a few times. smegmore said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
smegmore said:
Trial by media.
Live by the sword.....king slug but he should be entitled to the protection of his privacy in law, the same as you or I. If he is found by due process to be guilty of any sexual offences against minors or anyone else for that matter then he deserves to have the book thrown at him, purely because he IS guilty and not because he is a celebity's mouthpiece.All that will be said now by the media and general public is 'guilty by association, no smoke without fire' etc.
I can't somehow shake the idea, that the sudden collapse of the whole house of cards is connected to the breakdown in friendly relationship between the Press, the Government and the Police post Leverson.
JS managed to nonse about for decades with seemingly little care for who knew, the News was full for weeks with people, well-known and not, bleating on about it being well known what JS liked to do, but everyone was too scared to say anything, f
k me it was Jimmy Savile, not Tom Cruise, who's career was he going to crush? Perhaps Max provided the smokescreen, if anyone could stop a paper running a story about something he could.
Mr_B said:
Cancel your Sky and don't feel you have to fund this st because you must be able to watch football or F1. The faux outrage for most will only last until they want to see the next feetball game.
lol, I don't have Sky, only Freeview and as for that poncey 'game' you would have to pay me to waste my time watching it. t because you must be able to watch football or F1. The faux outrage for most will only last until they want to see the next feetball game.
http://justinmckeown.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/what...
I first encountered Max Clifford in the flesh during the first year of my public relations degree. He won’t remember but I do. Some fellow students with sufficient chutzpah invited Mr Clifford to face a lecture theatre of undergraduates at Leeds Metropolitan University.
A number of us were quite animated over the chance to put the sword to this man than skewed the reputation of the industry we were preparing to enter.
And then he spoke.
As an introduction, he explained that he didn’t describe himself as a PR expert. Rather he was a publicist. He blamed lazy, inaccurate media for giving him the title of public relations guru.
Then he stated, for the record that he tells lies for a living. “I lie on behalf of clients. Sometimes I lie to get them in the papers and sometimes I lie to keep them out of the media spotlight. That’s my job. Now we have got that out of the way, who has another subject they have a question about…”
It was masterful. Max Clifford was charming and disarming. He had drawn the sting out of the debate by admitting the greatest accusation. And most of the audience seemed satisfied to move on to other subjects.
But I was incensed… No! You can’t brush past this fundamental issue! What if someone was suspected of a heinous crime? What if they simply said: “Ok, let’s get this straight – I’m an axe murderer. I kill people from time to time. Now let’s move on to another question…” No, we wouldn’t just obediently introduce another subject. We would all insist that we deal with the worst accusation, which he had just admitted! But I was incensed in a very English, well-mannered sort of way. I wanted to shake my fist and say: “You might just get away with this you rotter… but I heard what you said and you still have big moral questions to address.”
I first encountered Max Clifford in the flesh during the first year of my public relations degree. He won’t remember but I do. Some fellow students with sufficient chutzpah invited Mr Clifford to face a lecture theatre of undergraduates at Leeds Metropolitan University.
A number of us were quite animated over the chance to put the sword to this man than skewed the reputation of the industry we were preparing to enter.
And then he spoke.
As an introduction, he explained that he didn’t describe himself as a PR expert. Rather he was a publicist. He blamed lazy, inaccurate media for giving him the title of public relations guru.
Then he stated, for the record that he tells lies for a living. “I lie on behalf of clients. Sometimes I lie to get them in the papers and sometimes I lie to keep them out of the media spotlight. That’s my job. Now we have got that out of the way, who has another subject they have a question about…”
It was masterful. Max Clifford was charming and disarming. He had drawn the sting out of the debate by admitting the greatest accusation. And most of the audience seemed satisfied to move on to other subjects.
But I was incensed… No! You can’t brush past this fundamental issue! What if someone was suspected of a heinous crime? What if they simply said: “Ok, let’s get this straight – I’m an axe murderer. I kill people from time to time. Now let’s move on to another question…” No, we wouldn’t just obediently introduce another subject. We would all insist that we deal with the worst accusation, which he had just admitted! But I was incensed in a very English, well-mannered sort of way. I wanted to shake my fist and say: “You might just get away with this you rotter… but I heard what you said and you still have big moral questions to address.”
rover 623gsi said:
http://justinmckeown.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/what...
I first encountered Max Clifford in the flesh during the first year of my public relations degree. He won’t remember but I do. Some fellow students with sufficient chutzpah invited Mr Clifford to face a lecture theatre of undergraduates at Leeds Metropolitan University.
A number of us were quite animated over the chance to put the sword to this man than skewed the reputation of the industry we were preparing to enter.
And then he spoke.
As an introduction, he explained that he didn’t describe himself as a PR expert. Rather he was a publicist. He blamed lazy, inaccurate media for giving him the title of public relations guru.
Then he stated, for the record that he tells lies for a living. “I lie on behalf of clients. Sometimes I lie to get them in the papers and sometimes I lie to keep them out of the media spotlight. That’s my job. Now we have got that out of the way, who has another subject they have a question about…”
It was masterful. Max Clifford was charming and disarming. He had drawn the sting out of the debate by admitting the greatest accusation. And most of the audience seemed satisfied to move on to other subjects.
But I was incensed… No! You can’t brush past this fundamental issue! What if someone was suspected of a heinous crime? What if they simply said: “Ok, let’s get this straight – I’m an axe murderer. I kill people from time to time. Now let’s move on to another question…” No, we wouldn’t just obediently introduce another subject. We would all insist that we deal with the worst accusation, which he had just admitted! But I was incensed in a very English, well-mannered sort of way. I wanted to shake my fist and say: “You might just get away with this you rotter… but I heard what you said and you still have big moral questions to address.”
Quite.I first encountered Max Clifford in the flesh during the first year of my public relations degree. He won’t remember but I do. Some fellow students with sufficient chutzpah invited Mr Clifford to face a lecture theatre of undergraduates at Leeds Metropolitan University.
A number of us were quite animated over the chance to put the sword to this man than skewed the reputation of the industry we were preparing to enter.
And then he spoke.
As an introduction, he explained that he didn’t describe himself as a PR expert. Rather he was a publicist. He blamed lazy, inaccurate media for giving him the title of public relations guru.
Then he stated, for the record that he tells lies for a living. “I lie on behalf of clients. Sometimes I lie to get them in the papers and sometimes I lie to keep them out of the media spotlight. That’s my job. Now we have got that out of the way, who has another subject they have a question about…”
It was masterful. Max Clifford was charming and disarming. He had drawn the sting out of the debate by admitting the greatest accusation. And most of the audience seemed satisfied to move on to other subjects.
But I was incensed… No! You can’t brush past this fundamental issue! What if someone was suspected of a heinous crime? What if they simply said: “Ok, let’s get this straight – I’m an axe murderer. I kill people from time to time. Now let’s move on to another question…” No, we wouldn’t just obediently introduce another subject. We would all insist that we deal with the worst accusation, which he had just admitted! But I was incensed in a very English, well-mannered sort of way. I wanted to shake my fist and say: “You might just get away with this you rotter… but I heard what you said and you still have big moral questions to address.”
Nevertheless, Clifford, for all his faults (and he has many) should, like anyone else, be entitled to anonimity if arrested and/or questioned until such time as he is charged with an offence, after which, of course, it is open season.
P-Jay said:
I can't somehow shake the idea, that the sudden collapse of the whole house of cards is connected to the breakdown in friendly relationship between the Press, the Government and the Police post Leverson.
Mentioned it elsewhere, but it certainly has that feel to it. Increasingly looks like a 30 year "you say that about me and I'll say this about you" Mexican stand-off has come to an abrupt end, with Leveson being the catalyst. Someone has blinked and now all bets are off. Can't help thinking we're only at the beginning. Clifford will know an awful lot about a lot of people. Makes you wonder if this arrest is an attempt to tap in to that knowledge?smegmore said:
Quite.
Nevertheless, Clifford, for all his faults (and he has many) should, like anyone else, be entitled to anonimity if arrested and/or questioned until such time as he is charged with an offence, after which, of course, it is open season.
I thought it was the other way around - the media can report almost what they like about anybody (subject to libel etc.) until they are charged, at which point reporting ceases to avoid prejudicing the trial.Nevertheless, Clifford, for all his faults (and he has many) should, like anyone else, be entitled to anonimity if arrested and/or questioned until such time as he is charged with an offence, after which, of course, it is open season.
In this case they are reporting what they believe to be a fact, I can't see a problem in law, although morally it would seem nice that such things aren't reported.
rover 623gsi said:
http://justinmckeown.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/what...
I first encountered Max Clifford in the flesh during the first year of my public relations degree. He won’t remember but I do. Some fellow students with sufficient chutzpah invited Mr Clifford to face a lecture theatre of undergraduates at Leeds Metropolitan University.
A number of us were quite animated over the chance to put the sword to this man than skewed the reputation of the industry we were preparing to enter.
And then he spoke.
As an introduction, he explained that he didn’t describe himself as a PR expert. Rather he was a publicist. He blamed lazy, inaccurate media for giving him the title of public relations guru.
Then he stated, for the record that he tells lies for a living. “I lie on behalf of clients. Sometimes I lie to get them in the papers and sometimes I lie to keep them out of the media spotlight. That’s my job. Now we have got that out of the way, who has another subject they have a question about…”
It was masterful. Max Clifford was charming and disarming. He had drawn the sting out of the debate by admitting the greatest accusation. And most of the audience seemed satisfied to move on to other subjects.
But I was incensed… No! You can’t brush past this fundamental issue! What if someone was suspected of a heinous crime? What if they simply said: “Ok, let’s get this straight – I’m an axe murderer. I kill people from time to time. Now let’s move on to another question…” No, we wouldn’t just obediently introduce another subject. We would all insist that we deal with the worst accusation, which he had just admitted! But I was incensed in a very English, well-mannered sort of way. I wanted to shake my fist and say: “You might just get away with this you rotter… but I heard what you said and you still have big moral questions to address.”
Why does he have moral questions to answer? He deals with the Press, they have no morals or scruples, so neither does he.I first encountered Max Clifford in the flesh during the first year of my public relations degree. He won’t remember but I do. Some fellow students with sufficient chutzpah invited Mr Clifford to face a lecture theatre of undergraduates at Leeds Metropolitan University.
A number of us were quite animated over the chance to put the sword to this man than skewed the reputation of the industry we were preparing to enter.
And then he spoke.
As an introduction, he explained that he didn’t describe himself as a PR expert. Rather he was a publicist. He blamed lazy, inaccurate media for giving him the title of public relations guru.
Then he stated, for the record that he tells lies for a living. “I lie on behalf of clients. Sometimes I lie to get them in the papers and sometimes I lie to keep them out of the media spotlight. That’s my job. Now we have got that out of the way, who has another subject they have a question about…”
It was masterful. Max Clifford was charming and disarming. He had drawn the sting out of the debate by admitting the greatest accusation. And most of the audience seemed satisfied to move on to other subjects.
But I was incensed… No! You can’t brush past this fundamental issue! What if someone was suspected of a heinous crime? What if they simply said: “Ok, let’s get this straight – I’m an axe murderer. I kill people from time to time. Now let’s move on to another question…” No, we wouldn’t just obediently introduce another subject. We would all insist that we deal with the worst accusation, which he had just admitted! But I was incensed in a very English, well-mannered sort of way. I wanted to shake my fist and say: “You might just get away with this you rotter… but I heard what you said and you still have big moral questions to address.”
Declaring yourself an Axe Murdered is a matter of the law, not of the press.
smegmore said:
My personal view of Clifford is that he is a fking slug but he should be entitled to the protection of his privacy in law, the same as you or I. If he is found by due process to be guilty of any sexual offences against minors or anyone else for that matter then he deserves to have the book thrown at him, purely because he IS guilty and not because he is a celebity's mouthpiece.
All that will be said now by the media and general public is 'guilty by association, no smoke without fire' etc.
Haven't you already added to this by what you've said? I haven't seen any reports about him and 'minors' for instance. And yet now its 'out there on the internet' due to what you've said.king slug but he should be entitled to the protection of his privacy in law, the same as you or I. If he is found by due process to be guilty of any sexual offences against minors or anyone else for that matter then he deserves to have the book thrown at him, purely because he IS guilty and not because he is a celebity's mouthpiece.All that will be said now by the media and general public is 'guilty by association, no smoke without fire' etc.
i think people need to be very careful about what they say about this man in relation to any offences. However they say it and whatever they meant.
So Max Clifford, a man who was the subject of a Louis Theroux programe, is arrested on suspicion of committing sexual offences. Recently Jimmy Saville, another subject of a Louis Theroux programme, is outed as a sexual predator. Neil and Christine Hamilton were arrested on suspicion of rape during the filming of a Louis Theroux programme.
Am I the only one spotting a pattern? Who else has he made a show about?
Am I the only one spotting a pattern? Who else has he made a show about?
TTmonkey said:
smegmore said:
My personal view of Clifford is that he is a fking slug but he should be entitled to the protection of his privacy in law, the same as you or I. If he is found by due process to be guilty of any sexual offences against minors or anyone else for that matter then he deserves to have the book thrown at him, purely because he IS guilty and not because he is a celebity's mouthpiece.
All that will be said now by the media and general public is 'guilty by association, no smoke without fire' etc.
Haven't you already added to this by what you've said? I haven't seen any reports about him and 'minors' for instance. And yet now its 'out there on the internet' due to what you've said.king slug but he should be entitled to the protection of his privacy in law, the same as you or I. If he is found by due process to be guilty of any sexual offences against minors or anyone else for that matter then he deserves to have the book thrown at him, purely because he IS guilty and not because he is a celebity's mouthpiece.All that will be said now by the media and general public is 'guilty by association, no smoke without fire' etc.
i think people need to be very careful about what they say about this man in relation to any offences. However they say it and whatever they meant.
The operative word in my previous post (in bold) is 'If'
What I have written is no more controversial than other stuff on this subject.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff