Max Clifford charged with 11 indecent assaults

[Guy_Montag]

I think that is too Machiavellian even for him!

Allegedly it was the entirely innocent Lord McAlpine who came up with that one in his book The New Machiavelli

[JimC]

Isn't it funny, that these people are coming out with allegations against RICH people.
Nothing to do with the size of the payouts that might result.

Nothing at all.

The rich people were generally those who had the power to abuse, especially in a serial manner.

Which is not to say there are no instances of mistermack's implied rorting...

[En_Route]

Re The New Machiavelli

That rather turgid tome emanated from Jonathon Powell. If Clifford had set this up( a proposition which seems to me patently absurd) , he certainly went to some pains to conjure up eleven bogus allegations.

[Jason]

I think that is too Machiavellian even for him!

True. And that sort of mud would stick, something which Clifford knows better than most.

He's also a well-known proponent of the "no such thing as bad publicity" meme. Wonder if he's begun to revise that onion yet?

He is acquitted: Writes a book or two, makes millions, makes mucho deniro on paid interviews for the major news networks, makes yet more on interviews on B-list shows..

He is convicted: Writes a book or two, makes millions, makes mucho deniro on paid interviews for the major news networks, makes yet more on interviews on B-list shows..

[cronus]

I think that is too Machiavellian even for him!

True. And that sort of mud would stick, something which Clifford knows better than most.

He's also a well-known proponent of the "no such thing as bad publicity" meme. Wonder if he's begun to revise that onion yet?

He is acquitted: Writes a book or two, makes millions, makes mucho deniro on paid interviews for the major news networks, makes yet more on interviews on B-list shows..

He is convicted: Writes a book or two, makes millions, makes mucho deniro on paid interviews for the major news networks, makes yet more on interviews on B-list shows..

One instance he sits in a small room writing his book over a few years, whilst in the other instance he sits in a small room writing his book over a few years....big difference.

[John_fi_Skye]

The oldest of the women who have made allegations was 19 at the time, and the allegations date back to when Clifford was 23. If any rape was committed, then there's no argument; but if a woman in her late teens was simply swept away by a charmer a few years older with his money and his fancy car and his playboy lifestyle, then that's another matter entirely. And hands up anybody who hasn't seen a 14-year-old girl who looked 18. I think we need to reserve judgement.

But in my cynicism I certainly worry that our society now has far too many people who're smelling lots of money at the ends of lawsuits.

And btw I posted on here some time ago that I'd always disliked Savile; well, I always absolutely hated Clifford.

[Svartalf]

I think that is too Machiavellian even for him!

True. And that sort of mud would stick, something which Clifford knows better than most.

You calling him a stick in the mud?

[John_fi_Skye]

I think that is too Machiavellian even for him!

True. And that sort of mud would stick, something which Clifford knows better than most.

You calling him a stick in the mud?

Looks like he's got some mud sticking to his prick, anyway.

[mistermack]

It sounds to me like the police are trying to justify their salaries. Going fishing for a likely scalp.
For forty years, there is no reason to charge him. Then Jimmy Savile "assaults" a few hundred women, and there's no reason to charge him.
Then they start talking money and payouts. And all of a sudden, a quick grope forty years ago starts looking like a new car.

It looks like I missed out. If Jimmy Saville got away with hundreds, I could have got away with a few myself.

What's the betting that at least fifty more will be accusing Max Clifford, now he's been charged?
I think the police are trying to use the numbers of allegations to swing a jury. I can't see how they can have evidence any stronger than someone accusing him, and him denying it.

Wish I was on that jury. Might make some money meself.

[Audley Strange]

Well I'm glad you all think he's not cynical enough, but let me point out some of the following. He and his client actions predominantly made up the majority of the news in the red tops. A few different scandals over the last few years have left his position as Gossipmonger General rather tenuous, especially a small corruption and sexual favours brouhaha that everyone seems to have forgotten due to the entirely coincidental press scandal which allowed Clifford to luckily play the victim and vicarious nobleman while the public ignore accusations being levelled against him.

The Spectacle delights in building people up to tear them down to witness their public contrition to forgive them for the sins we ignored to make them famous. If Clifford is not putting that into play at all I would be very surprised.

[En_Route]

I think that is too Machiavellian even for him!

True. And that sort of mud would stick, something which Clifford knows better than most.

He's also a well-known proponent of the "no such thing as bad publicity" meme. Wonder if he's begun to revise that onion yet?

He is acquitted: Writes a book or two, makes millions, makes mucho deniro on paid interviews for the major news networks, makes yet more on interviews on B-list shows..

He is convicted: Writes a book or two, makes millions, makes mucho deniro on paid interviews for the major news networks, makes yet more on interviews on B-list shows..

In the same way as Gary Glitter' s career reignited after his convictions?

[mistermack]

Cooking up false accusations against himself would be an almighty gamble for Max Clifford. I doubt that he is that stupid.
In McAlpine's case, it actually sounds more credible, as he apparently wrote those words, and the original way that his name was mentioned was ludicrous in the extreme. I thought that it was highly suspect, right from the start.

But even in his case, it's a ridiculous idea.

Clifford doesn't need the money, why would he risk a charge of perverting the course of justice, if it WAS a scam?
He couldn't assume he would get away with it, in fact, you'd have to assume that you WOULD get found out, in a silly plan like that. People will virtually always spill the beans.

[En_Route]

Well I'm glad you all think he's not cynical enough, but let me point out some of the following. He and his client actions predominantly made up the majority of the news in the red tops. A few different scandals over the last few years have left his position as Gossipmonger General rather tenuous, especially a small corruption and sexual favours brouhaha that everyone seems to have forgotten due to the entirely coincidental press scandal which allowed Clifford to luckily play the victim and vicarious nobleman while the public ignore accusations being levelled against him.

The Spectacle delights in building people up to tear them down to witness their public contrition to forgive them for the sins we ignored to make them famous. If Clifford is not putting that into play at all I would be very surprised.

I don't think the public would. ever take a convicted paedophile back into its warm embrace, however copious the crocodile tears being shed. Seems to me all the not- so- fancy footwork here is being executed by HM constabulary , who may have more than one agenda underlying their newfound zeal for prosecuting antique sexual miscreancies.

[Tyrannical]

PR guru Max Clifford has been charged with 11 indecent assaults allegedly committed between 1966 and 1985

I wonder, is it fair to blame the victims at least some? It was through their silence that allowed him to continually re-offend.

[surreptitious57]

He is convicted : writes a book or two makes millions makes mucho denario on paid

interviews for the major news networks makes yet more on interviews on B list shows

There is an unwritten rule over here that we do not pay convicted criminals for any stories

When The Observer interviewd Christopher after his conviction it was asked if he was paid

Books of course are an entirely different matter because they take up more time and energy

Womens magazines carry stories of abuse but it is the victim telling them not the perpetrator