Actually disgraceful - yet again, as the CPS says "celebrities are treated exactly like everyone else". An ordinary person would have been given 18 months concurrent.

Oh well; as a friend just called and noticed - he's had a year more than me (I got 7 years).

So many calls saying "you must be delighted". Am I odd not to take any pleasure from another human being suffering? Am I a freak not to feel pity for him as well as for his victims? Doesn't anyone else feel disgust that the law gets bent because he's a celebrity and it's a better story? Would a plumber have got consecutive sentences and 8 years?

I'm just sending most commentators to my movie -

JK are you saying Waxie has been treated unfairly?

The judge noted his mimicking behind the Sky news reporter. The judge in the Ian Watkins trial also brought up his disregard for his crimes.

Clearly judges dont like piss takers. And that can only be a good thing.

Really to hell with Dirty Max. He reveled in ruining peoples lives, yours included.

I am suprised at the length of his sentence though. Stuart Hall for instance admitted molesting children and got just 18 months...and they were very young children .

Wonder how Rolfaroo will do?...his trial is the next one due.

Judges are quite entitled not to like piss takers but they should not allow such feelings to influence justice. Piss taking is not against the law.

And would a non celebrity piss taker be seen to take the piss? Nobody notices or cares.

Max was totally responsible for what happened to me. But I take no joy from him being destroyed - even though I contributed.

JK2006 wrote:
Actually disgraceful - yet again, as the CPS says "celebrities are treated exactly like everyone else". An ordinary person would have been given 18 months concurrent.

Oh well; as a friend just called and noticed - he's had a year more than me (I got 7 years).

You know I'd thought the same thing and thought that was Karma at work.

I think a lot of people, particularly the media, are absolutely gobsmacked at this. 2 years, maybe 3 was on the cards, but 8?

Someone wants to keep him quiet, don't you think?

By the time he leaves prison (if he does, he's not a necessarily young man) he'd be 75 and I presume TPTB would put it out there that he has gone gaga.

Outrageous!
The judge said...." 'These offences may have taken place a long time ago, when inappropriate and trivial sexual behaviour was more likely to be tolerated, but your offending was not trivial, but of a very serious nature"

But they are as trivial as can be, if they ever happened at all.


From the mail..
Quote
THE POTENTIAL MODEL: It was claimed that Clifford met the girl, then aged 15, while in Spain in the summer of 1977, and offered to find her modelling work. She was later called by a 'Terry Miller', who told her she was ‘really lucky’ as Clifford was ‘so influential’. The prosecution says ‘Miller’ was either Clifford himself, or someone he had asked to ‘reel her in’. She claimed that, when she was alone with Clifford, he told her to take her top and bra off because he needed to see her breasts. He later forced her to perform sex acts while he assaulted her.
UNQUOTE

So she willingly took her top off?


QUOTE
THE 'BOND GIRL': The prosecution said Clifford told a 19-year-old actress, who had been cast in the Bond film Octopussy, that she was perfect for a role in a production starring Charles Bronson, but said he had to take pictures of her in her underwear and send them to the actor. She agreed, and posed for the photos, but when Clifford asked her to open her legs, she refused. He then tried to grab and kiss her and pushed her down on a sofa, but she fought him off, kicking him in the groin, it was claimed.
END QUOTE

So she agreed to saucy pics and he only "tried" to grab and kiss her? What did she think she was there for?

QUOTE
THE WOULD-BE ACTRESS: The court heard that, in the early 1980s, Clifford told a girl that he could ‘get her on TV tomorrow’, but needed to see her figure. She took her dress off, at which point Clifford is said to have groped her. Then his wife rang; Clifford answered, and began to masturbate. He then tried to force the girl to perform a sex act on him.
END QUOTE

Took her dress off? So she agreed to the casting couch?


QUOTE
THE DANCER: Clifford allegedly approached an 18-year-old in a nightclub, after asking if she wanted a film role. It was claimed he made a call and handed the phone to the dancer; the man on the other end said she could have a screen test if she confirmed whether Clifford was circumcised. Clifford then went to a toilet cubicle with her and forced her to masturbate him, prosecutors claim.
END QUOTE

So she willingly engaged. At eighteen. Gee whiz!



If trollops do the casting couch thing and the promised roles never appear it is possibly a matter for the small claims court as breach of contract, but not a sexual crime. (in my opinion)

Rigsby wrote:
JK are you saying Waxie has been treated unfairly?

The judge noted his mimicking behind the Sky news reporter. The judge in the Ian Watkins trial also brought up his disregard for his crimes.

Clearly judges dont like piss takers. And that can only be a good thing.

Really to hell with Dirty Max. He reveled in ruining peoples lives, yours included.

I am suprised at the length of his sentence though. Stuart Hall for instance admitted molesting children and got just 18 months...and they were very young children .

Wonder how Rolfaroo will do?...his trial is the next one due.

I think Judges see it as a form of contempt when it's not contempt, it really shouldn't influence anything the judges or the jury's react to. What is presented in the court should be what the court acts on. How can they say he attacked someone in Spain, when they can't act on that information? It's almost like finding excuses to 'do him'.

Personally, I don't care about Clifford, I've seen what he's done, but eight years is ridiculous.

totally agree with you JK and I thought the judge's comments absolutely outrageous..

but for someone who dealt with the media for the last 30 years I am amazed that Max was bizarrely ignorant that his behaviour arriving at court would raise hackles. Posing for photos ?..very weird. Even commenting to them on the way to court today ???

As for reveling in other's misfortune- never have and never would even those who have wronged me badly.

Which makes me think- for some victims a'moaning and a'groaning some 30 years later.. did nothing happen in all that time to brighten their life ?..you know put a bit of happiness there and put terrible episodes aside ?..are not these so-called victim charities there to help repair life?

I mean I'm seriously worried there are thousands out there ( and that's just Savile !) seething away with dark minds bent on revenge against someone, anyone ?

Or are they given the Victim's Script because every single one of them says the same damned thing.

and if this is The Worst Thing That Happened in Britain today...can you imagine what Iraqis or Afghanis must think of us having butchered thousands of them?

Over a hundred calls and messages this afternoon, including the Hamiltons and Popbitch (amongst the very few who knew what was going on over the past ten years). But I reiterate; I think the Judge's sentence and remarks were disgusting. Time for a shake up of the judiciary unless we are happy for them (like our politicians) to be ruled by tabloids.

The judges comments suggested to me he is very much "on the payroll", part of the team. They were not the words of an impartial voice passing a sentence on a jury verdict, they were the weasel words of someone with a clear agenda.

As for the "piss taking" - are two-bit Murdoch reporters now some kind of Judicial Royalty and not, as I believe, two-bit hacks that work for a mogul up to his neck in another current criminal trial ?

The whole business stinks - even Clifford had it coming due to inventing the bloody nightmare in the first place.

steveimp wrote:
I think a lot of people, particularly the media, are absolutely gobsmacked at this. 2 years, maybe 3 was on the cards, but 8?

Yes, I am quite surprised.

I have very mixed feelings - on the one hand I feel he has been treated rather harshly (apparently the Jury couldn't stop laughing at some of the evidence) - and the "extras" are now crawling out of the woodwork (sensing COMPO !)

Normally we would condemn this kind of behaviour - but I can't also help sensing a bit of Karma here ... he has (undoubtedly) done alot of damage during his career and some of it will have been against totally innocent people. Is it so strange, then, that he should be treated in the same way?

THE BAD NEWS - Yewtree will see this as a major victory and start trawling all over again !

Are the judge's comments fuel/help for the inevitable appeal?

Karma.

Wonder what Louis Theroux is thinking ?

Indeed I think an appeal is certain and could well succeed. Even the summing up ("ignore other events and verdicts in this area" when his defence was based on everything being provoked by "other events" - may well be wrong but not the judge's fair summing up to destroy the defence argument) could be seen as unfair.

I wonder if the judge increased his sentence by making the court laugh, due to mentioning the size of his cock ?

I really don't like Max Clifford but I feel he has been used as a scapegoat and didn't do himself any favours during the trial by his antics but taking that aside, it amazes me than Stuart Hall got a light sentence and it was little kids he abused.

These women wouldn't have been in court had Max been able to find them celebrity status as he did for others. They are bitter at having succumbed to the casting couch and then their careers going nowhere.

When you think of all the men Marylin Monroe slept with to achieve stardom, she would have got nowhere had she not complied.

It is terrible what young females did and I would say still doing to get noticed. In the sixties and seventies women used their sexuality to get noticed and it's still going on today.

Max Clifford is not a paedophile, just another guy using young silly women who were willing partners then when things went wrong took him to court after they got the chance because of Operation Yewtree.

I am sure this will drop upon appeal. 30 months was a sure bet for this.

Guest wrote:
I really don't like Max Clifford but I feel he has been used as a scapegoat and didn't do himself any favours during the trial by his antics but taking that aside, it amazes me than Stuart Hall got a light sentence and it was little kids he abused.

These women wouldn't have been in court had Max been able to find them celebrity status as he did for others. They are bitter at having succumbed to the casting couch and then their careers going nowhere.

When you think of all the men Marylin Monroe slept with to achieve stardom, she would have got nowhere had she not complied.

It is terrible what young females did and I would say still doing to get noticed. In the sixties and seventies women used their sexuality to get noticed and it's still going on today.

Max Clifford is not a paedophile, just another guy using young silly women who were willing partners then when things went wrong took him to court after they got the chance because of Operation Yewtree.

The general opinion of myself and my friends in the seventies/eighties was that if you were dumb enough to be taken in by casting couch promises it was your own stupid fault.
How come nobody is responsible for their own actions any more?