Max Clifford to be charged.
Discussion
t hits the fanThe specific charges are:
One offence of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 14, in 1966
One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1974/75
Three offences of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1977/78
One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 19, in 1978
Two offences of indecent assault relating to a girl, aged 16 or 17, in 1981/82
One offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 19, in 1980/81
Two offences of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged 18, in 1984/85
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/26/max-cli...
petemurphy said:
as said in other threads how on earth do they prove it after so long - one word against another?
My concern with this is just exactly how is someone meant to remember what happened 40 years ago!?!? I mean, 20-30 years ago slapping/pinching a woman's bottom was fairly common wasn't it?
Jasandjules said:
My concern with this is just exactly how is someone meant to remember what happened 40 years ago!?!?
I mean, 20-30 years ago slapping/pinching a woman's bottom was fairly common wasn't it?
I believe that is a crucial element of such investigations. When the event is real the victim remembers every hideous detail as if it were yesterday. When it is a fabrication or a change of heart then the way the witness recounts is totally different. I mean, 20-30 years ago slapping/pinching a woman's bottom was fairly common wasn't it?
There are specialist interviewers who can determine quite quickly the level of credibility.
DonkeyApple said:
I believe that is a crucial element of such investigations. When the event is real the victim remembers every hideous detail as if it were yesterday. When it is a fabrication or a change of heart then the way the witness recounts is totally different.
There are specialist interviewers who can determine quite quickly the level of credibility.
Twould be nice to think that we are past that stage?There are specialist interviewers who can determine quite quickly the level of credibility.
Jasandjules said:
My concern with this is just exactly how is someone meant to remember what happened 40 years ago!?!?
I mean, 20-30 years ago slapping/pinching a woman's bottom was fairly common wasn't it?
I agree with what you say. However, there is a ray of light....I mean, 20-30 years ago slapping/pinching a woman's bottom was fairly common wasn't it?
.... plenty of time for Tony Blair to be brought to trial!
As much as I dislike Max Clifford, this is all bs of the highest order. If the women had an issue with it at the time, they should have made a complaint there and then. How is anyone going to mount a defense when the supposed offense nearly 50 odd years ago?
However, it is Max Clifford after all so I won't lose too much sleep over it.
However, it is Max Clifford after all so I won't lose too much sleep over it.
JDRoest said:
As much as I dislike Max Clifford, this is all bs of the highest order. If the women had an issue with it at the time, they should have made a complaint there and then. How is anyone going to mount a defense when the supposed offense nearly 50 odd years ago?
However, it is Max Clifford after all so I won't lose too much sleep over it.
Yeah but what if it was you? However, it is Max Clifford after all so I won't lose too much sleep over it.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Jasandjules said:
My concern with this is just exactly how is someone meant to remember what happened 40 years ago!?!?
I mean, 20-30 years ago slapping/pinching a woman's bottom was fairly common wasn't it?
I agree with what you say. However, there is a ray of light....I mean, 20-30 years ago slapping/pinching a woman's bottom was fairly common wasn't it?
.... plenty of time for Tony Blair to be brought to trial!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff