That old Max Clifford model; get allegations made (be they true or false) and the resulting publicity will provoke many more allegations about a celebrity. If you believe that the media has power, it's inevitable, isn't it Max?

As I said in my Idiots Guide To Operation Yewtree, basically they might as well parade individuals through every twon in the cuntry with "make a complaint about me" painted on their clothes.

chrisbarratt.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/op...ree-an-idiots-guide/

Maxy is a strange one - I suspect they have something special lined up for him to show him 'who's boss'.

JK2006 wrote:
That old Max Clifford model; get allegations made (be they true or false) and the resulting publicity will provoke many more allegations about a celebrity. If you believe that the media has power, it's inevitable, isn't it Max?

It doesn't seem to have occurred to many people that the people who have built lucrative careers in the "child protection industry" can pay any old Tom Dick or Harry to make the "first" claim, and the publicity ensures a stream of hysterical copycats and compensation chasers.
David Icke and the like have been double bluffed!

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
That old Max Clifford model; get allegations made (be they true or false) and the resulting publicity will provoke many more allegations about a celebrity. If you believe that the media has power, it's inevitable, isn't it Max?

It doesn't seem to have occurred to many people that the people who have built lucrative careers in the "child protection industry" can pay any old Tom Dick or Harry to make the "first" claim, and the publicity ensures a stream of hysterical copycats and compensation chasers.
David Icke and the like have been double bluffed!

it's within the protection industry's interest to encourage claims.

It will all end in tears.

Waxie Maxie - Chris; as Mr Clifford has boasted many times over the years; it was his concept that got me wrongly prosecuted and convicted. I'm sure his motives were genuine and he believed it was a fair method to capture a pervert. He was wrong; I was not and am not a pervert - but his blueprint (followed, I believe, by the police - and ex police - at the time) has developed via the use of dead people to avoid libel laws, into the current situation.

It took 13 years but that's what it has become.

Now I have no idea as to the truth of the claims against him, but he is directly experiencing the results of his blueprint. I'm sure he would agree; if the claims are true, he deserves punishment (I would guess a seven year sentence). If false, I hope for his sake he manages to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

JK2006 wrote:
Waxie Maxie - Chris; as Mr Clifford has boasted many times over the years; it was his concept that got me wrongly prosecuted and convicted. I'm sure his motives were genuine and he believed it was a fair method to capture a pervert. He was wrong; I was not and am not a pervert - but his blueprint (followed, I believe, by the police - and ex police - at the time) has developed via the use of dead people to avoid libel laws, into the current situation.

It took 13 years but that's what it has become.

Now I have no idea as to the truth of the claims against him, but he is directly experiencing the results of his blueprint. I'm sure he would agree; if the claims are true, he deserves punishment (I would guess a seven year sentence). If false, I hope for his sake he manages to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

I am interested to see how many "first" claims are dismissed in court because there is no evidence.

It is odd how the arrests seem to be of those who are not popular, and the public think they are "the type" even though in my experience paedophiles and rapists tend to be pretty much the same as everyone else.

There 6 wrote:
Waxie Maxie - Chris; as Mr Clifford has boasted many times over the years; it was his concept that got me wrongly prosecuted and convicted. I'm sure his motives were genuine and he believed it was a fair method to capture a pervert. He was wrong; I was not and am not a pervert - but his blueprint (followed, I believe, by the police - and ex police - at the time) has developed via the use of dead people to avoid libel laws, into the current situation.

It took 13 years but that's what it has become.

Now I have no idea as to the truth of the claims against him, but he is directly experiencing the results of his blueprint. I'm sure he would agree; if the claims are true, he deserves punishment (I would guess a seven year sentence). If false, I hope for his sake he manages to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

I can't help but suspect there may be something more sinister going on.

If the polices intentions are so honorable, are they not far too naive to be in the jobs their in to think that all the publicity and hype doesn't or hasn't encouraged false accusations?

And how come everyone else was able to see how ridiculous the Yewtree report about Jimmy Savile was but the police, those on the tv, and the papers (their were a few articles that criticized it, but you could tell they were holding back a lot, frightened to say the obvious - how do they actually know any of these accusations are true?)

The police are better placed than anyone to find out whether these accusations are true, yet if they have found out that a huge bulk of them (in the Jimmy Savile case) were completely false, they've not been letting on, and them and the NSPCC are still harping on about accusers accusations needing to be "believed"? They must know that a lot were lying and it's just as likely many more that found it's way into that report were too (they just didn't bother to prove it), they can't be that useless and naive not to see that, when the man who writes the "jimcannotfixthis" blog has been able to find out so much, just from the internet. They must know more than than they claim to, so I'm not so sure their intentions are honorable.

You'd have thought in the case of the original complaint against Dave Lee Travis, given it was as so long ago, going round to his house and giving him a warning would have been enough, wouldn't you? Same with the Freddie Starr complaint from Karin Ward (which I'm sure didn't happen), but the resulting publicity could lead to some chancer going forward with another spurious claim about him, the police are better placed than any to know how some people's minds work. They must be able to see what other people can see, surely?

Which makes think there are other motives for this. None of these men appear to be the most dangerous examples of sex offenders and the accusations are historic (and in some cases trivial)...

It's a deeply sinister operation - for me though the targeting of both Clifford & Davidson who, for all their many faults, were indeed the two people who voiced objections to Yewtree 'as a witch hunt' early on is one of the most serious aspects of this. It's as if they really do have a 'zero tolerance' to any criticism, and really did target the individuals concerned to fulfil a criteria.
And yet, for all the elements of stupidity in both Yewtree and the demonisation of Savile even the normally satirical and trustworthy elements of the media like Private Eye seem to be reluctant to call a spade a spade. All these months later and no proof whatsoever - and yet the only real cognitive criticism seems to be coming from the Anna Raccoon camp, the excellent Moor Larkin, Steve Moxon, myself, a few choice forums such as this one and a handful of rebelious real journalists who aren't attached to any particular publication and can thus afford to be subjective.
All your presenter, dj's, musicians etc who privately think what the above are daring to say are simply keeping quiet so that they don't get dragged into the career-ending circus of death.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I am interested to see how many "first" claims are dismissed in court because there is no evidence.

... but the "evidence" will be the corroborating claims of OTHER complainants ?

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I am interested to see how many "first" claims are dismissed in court because there is no evidence.

... but the "evidence" will be the corroborating claims of OTHER complainants ?


No, it doesn't have to. You see, the first person need not even have met the accused, and there will be no evidence, but the accused will be questioned, and that is enough to get it reported in the media which is an open advert to anyone who HAS met them to roll up at the police station with their photographs and memorabilia, and along with some "creative" questioning you have all the evidence you need. Which isn't very much.

Chris Retro wrote:
It's a deeply sinister operation - for me though the targeting of both Clifford & Davidson who, for all their many faults, were indeed the two people who voiced objections to Yewtree 'as a witch hunt' early on is one of the most serious aspects of this. It's as if they really do have a 'zero tolerance' to any criticism, and really did target the individuals concerned to fulfil a criteria.
And yet, for all the elements of stupidity in both Yewtree and the demonisation of Savile even the normally satirical and trustworthy elements of the media like Private Eye seem to be reluctant to call a spade a spade. All these months later and no proof whatsoever - and yet the only real cognitive criticism seems to be coming from the Anna Raccoon camp, the excellent Moor Larkin, Steve Moxon, myself, a few choice forums such as this one and a handful of rebelious real journalists who aren't attached to any particular publication and can thus afford to be subjective.
All your presenter, dj's, musicians etc who privately think what the above are daring to say are simply keeping quiet so that they don't get dragged into the career-ending circus of death.

It's the height of stupidity. They need telling a few home truths.

Even if the accusation against Freddie Starr was true, it wouldn't make him a paedophile, and it does seem that people like Peter Rippon were able to recognise that during the discussions about the Newsnight thing, but he has been shouted down - suffered for his sanity, lol

Chris Retro wrote:
for me though the targeting of both Clifford & Davidson who, for all their many faults, were indeed the two people who voiced objections to Yewtree 'as a witch hunt' early on


..... good "cover" ?

In The Know wrote:
Chris Retro wrote:
for me though the targeting of both Clifford & Davidson who, for all their many faults, were indeed the two people who voiced objections to Yewtree 'as a witch hunt' early on


..... good "cover" ?

And perhaps a warning?

In The Know wrote:
Chris Retro wrote:
for me though the targeting of both Clifford & Davidson who, for all their many faults, were indeed the two people who voiced objections to Yewtree 'as a witch hunt' early on


..... good "cover" ?

Could be, maybe Max Clifford doth protest to much? Or maybe he should just have kept his mouth shut...

It is weird, if any of these guys had done anything serious, the accusers all wait till now. to all at once make their complaints. They could have reported these guys anytime if the allegations were true and they thought them serious enough to report...

Agreed