Max Clifford arrested on suspicion of sexual offences
Discussion
In my opinion he has no info that could really damage any celebs, bearing in mind many are already known drug users, sexual predators and bankrupts yet their careers seem unaffected. Would it really matter what he revealed? Most would see it as the work of a bitter man with an axe to grind.
Thankyou4calling said:
In my opinion he has no info that could really damage any celebs, bearing in mind many are already known drug users, sexual predators and bankrupts yet their careers seem unaffected. Would it really matter what he revealed? Most would see it as the work of a bitter man with an axe to grind.
imo he has tons of damaging information but why on earth would he bother releasing it?WCZ said:
Thankyou4calling said:
In my opinion he has no info that could really damage any celebs, bearing in mind many are already known drug users, sexual predators and bankrupts yet their careers seem unaffected. Would it really matter what he revealed? Most would see it as the work of a bitter man with an axe to grind.
imo he has tons of damaging information but why on earth would he bother releasing it?
?Thankyou4calling said:
In my opinion he has no info that could really damage any celebs, bearing in mind many are already known drug users, sexual predators and bankrupts yet their careers seem unaffected. Would it really matter what he revealed? Most would see it as the work of a bitter man with an axe to grind.
I always thought (based on interviews with the slimeball himself) that his PR skills came in two parts- positive PR, same as any PR company, i.e. knowing who to talk to to get something out there that someone wants getting out to a wide audience
- burial PR, and this is where his years in the business and contacts made in those years really paid off, STOPPING something getting out - at least *** at the time *** that someone was worried about it getting out. He would mainly achieve this in two main ways. 1, throwing some OTHER story out there and basically distracting all the media from the story he was being paid to bury. 2, basic threats or gifts to particular reporters/papers, along the lines of "publish X and I'll not give you the scoop on Y next month, it'll go to your rival paper Z instead" and "here's a scoop on A in exchange for you not publishing this story on B".
A lot of the time whatever he was burying would come out eventually but by the time it did it didn't matter so much.
Hence I don't think he really has that many juicy secrets to reveal. A lot of them will have generally become "unsensational" just through the simple passage of time, the point is he managed the stories during the window when they were at their most damaging, or he just kept the lid on things long enough for the public to get outraged about something else unrelated instead and forget about the scandal of three months previous.
He has said himself that people didn't hire him for specific incidents, you had to hire him for six or 12 month periods. After that they would stop paying him, his work was done, he buried the story for a few months being the months that it mattered. Yes a few people had him on much much longer period retainers but they were the likes of Simon Cowell who had him doing the "positive PR", type 1 above, more about managing regular "good news" that someone wanted out there rather than burying specific "bad news".
Derek Smith said:
He took out a mortgage on one of his houses just before his trial. One wonders where that went.
I've been asking around and the answers are confusing. Is there anyone who could clarify the point?
Mrs C: what's her entitlement? Is her share calculated before or after the claimants for damages take their share? Would the case stop her from wandering away with her cut or would she have to wait for the outcome?
Or, to put it another way, if you were about to be sued, would it benefit your wife to divorce you even if, perhaps, you were still intending to be a couple after any prison sentence?
If you get my drift.
that approach seems to have worked well for bernie ecclestone.I've been asking around and the answers are confusing. Is there anyone who could clarify the point?
Mrs C: what's her entitlement? Is her share calculated before or after the claimants for damages take their share? Would the case stop her from wandering away with her cut or would she have to wait for the outcome?
Or, to put it another way, if you were about to be sued, would it benefit your wife to divorce you even if, perhaps, you were still intending to be a couple after any prison sentence?
If you get my drift.
kev1974 said:
I always thought (based on interviews with the slimeball himself) that his PR skills came in two parts
- positive PR, same as any PR company, i.e. knowing who to talk to to get something out there that someone wants getting out to a wide audience
- burial PR, and this is where his years in the business and contacts made in those years really paid off, STOPPING something getting out - at least *** at the time *** that someone was worried about it getting out. He would mainly achieve this in two main ways. 1, throwing some OTHER story out there and basically distracting all the media from the story he was being paid to bury. 2, basic threats or gifts to particular reporters/papers, along the lines of "publish X and I'll not give you the scoop on Y next month, it'll go to your rival paper Z instead" and "here's a scoop on A in exchange for you not publishing this story on B".
A lot of the time whatever he was burying would come out eventually but by the time it did it didn't matter so much.
Hence I don't think he really has that many juicy secrets to reveal. A lot of them will have generally become "unsensational" just through the simple passage of time, the point is he managed the stories during the window when they were at their most damaging, or he just kept the lid on things long enough for the public to get outraged about something else unrelated instead and forget about the scandal of three months previous.
He has said himself that people didn't hire him for specific incidents, you had to hire him for six or 12 month periods. After that they would stop paying him, his work was done, he buried the story for a few months being the months that it mattered. Yes a few people had him on much much longer period retainers but they were the likes of Simon Cowell who had him doing the "positive PR", type 1 above, more about managing regular "good news" that someone wanted out there rather than burying specific "bad news".
I think you are generally right. - positive PR, same as any PR company, i.e. knowing who to talk to to get something out there that someone wants getting out to a wide audience
- burial PR, and this is where his years in the business and contacts made in those years really paid off, STOPPING something getting out - at least *** at the time *** that someone was worried about it getting out. He would mainly achieve this in two main ways. 1, throwing some OTHER story out there and basically distracting all the media from the story he was being paid to bury. 2, basic threats or gifts to particular reporters/papers, along the lines of "publish X and I'll not give you the scoop on Y next month, it'll go to your rival paper Z instead" and "here's a scoop on A in exchange for you not publishing this story on B".
A lot of the time whatever he was burying would come out eventually but by the time it did it didn't matter so much.
Hence I don't think he really has that many juicy secrets to reveal. A lot of them will have generally become "unsensational" just through the simple passage of time, the point is he managed the stories during the window when they were at their most damaging, or he just kept the lid on things long enough for the public to get outraged about something else unrelated instead and forget about the scandal of three months previous.
He has said himself that people didn't hire him for specific incidents, you had to hire him for six or 12 month periods. After that they would stop paying him, his work was done, he buried the story for a few months being the months that it mattered. Yes a few people had him on much much longer period retainers but they were the likes of Simon Cowell who had him doing the "positive PR", type 1 above, more about managing regular "good news" that someone wanted out there rather than burying specific "bad news".
However low and worthless tabloid scrawlers are they would only be taking girls, cash, threats, other stories, whatever for your generic 'cheating' tales etc. Anything genuinely shocking would be out as the coup would outweigh anything MC could offer. We are generally talking low end tittle tattle such as sending girls out to find footballers etc.
The only area that is actually damaging are the male clients who are paying to prevent the media from revealing that they spend more time with boys than women. There are several of these.
I suspect the
Thankyou4calling said:
WCZ said:
imo he has tons of damaging information but why on earth would he bother releasing it?
Only time will tell but I don't think there will be anything.haha it's official his wife has filed for divorce....She's done alright I suppose - only had to put up with 4 yrs of marriage, I wonder how much she'll get.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625358/Th...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625358/Th...
CoolHands said:
haha it's official his wife has filed for divorce....She's done alright I suppose - only had to put up with 4 yrs of marriage, I wonder how much she'll get.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625358/Th...
I was wondering:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625358/Th...
If she files for divorce then would the claims against his estate be limited to that not settled on her after the divorce?
Now there are rumours that he's realised assets. Has this been done without her consent? Without her full cooperation?
wc98 said:
Derek Smith said:
He took out a mortgage on one of his houses just before his trial. One wonders where that went.
I've been asking around and the answers are confusing. Is there anyone who could clarify the point?
Mrs C: what's her entitlement? Is her share calculated before or after the claimants for damages take their share? Would the case stop her from wandering away with her cut or would she have to wait for the outcome?
Or, to put it another way, if you were about to be sued, would it benefit your wife to divorce you even if, perhaps, you were still intending to be a couple after any prison sentence?
If you get my drift.
that approach seems to have worked well for bernie ecclestone.I've been asking around and the answers are confusing. Is there anyone who could clarify the point?
Mrs C: what's her entitlement? Is her share calculated before or after the claimants for damages take their share? Would the case stop her from wandering away with her cut or would she have to wait for the outcome?
Or, to put it another way, if you were about to be sued, would it benefit your wife to divorce you even if, perhaps, you were still intending to be a couple after any prison sentence?
If you get my drift.
And if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck.....???
Slaav said:
And if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck.....???
It probably quacks as well?http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Turing_Duck_Tes...
Ozzie Osmond said:
Very funny article, that made me giggle 
Cheers"Former celebrity publicist Max Clifford has been arrested by Operation Yewtree officers, the BBC understands.
Clifford, who is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence for indecent assault, is thought to have been interviewed by officers in connection with sexual offence allegations."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31861567
Clifford, who is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence for indecent assault, is thought to have been interviewed by officers in connection with sexual offence allegations."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31861567
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff