Deserves its own thread. There's an poetic irony in the fact that many celebs charged with horrendous offences, despite considerable evidence against them, get off due to expensive lawyers and the PR work of the likes of Clifford. Neither could save him however!
I'd say he'll lift the lid on a few "celebrities" now. He has nothing to lose.
Quote from: 5 Sams on May 03, 2014, 10:09:19 PM
I'd say he'll lift the lid on a few "celebrities" now. He has nothing to lose.
You would think so but I would imagine there would be tight confidentiality agreements in many of his contracts so it might not be easy. Let the dirty **** rot in jail as a big boys bitch, he will die there.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 03, 2014, 10:16:47 PM
Quote from: 5 Sams on May 03, 2014, 10:09:19 PM
I'd say he'll lift the lid on a few "celebrities" now. He has nothing to lose.
You would think so but I would imagine there would be tight confidentiality agreements in many of his contracts so it might not be easy. Let the dirty **** rot in jail as a big boys bitch, he will die there.
Sure won't be be out in 4-5?
Quote from: Syferus on May 03, 2014, 10:38:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 03, 2014, 10:16:47 PM
Quote from: 5 Sams on May 03, 2014, 10:09:19 PM
I'd say he'll lift the lid on a few "celebrities" now. He has nothing to lose.
You would think so but I would imagine there would be tight confidentiality agreements in many of his contracts so it might not be easy. Let the dirty **** rot in jail as a big boys bitch, he will die there.
Sure won't be be out in 4-5?
If he lasts that long!!!
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 03, 2014, 10:40:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 03, 2014, 10:38:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 03, 2014, 10:16:47 PM
Quote from: 5 Sams on May 03, 2014, 10:09:19 PM
I'd say he'll lift the lid on a few "celebrities" now. He has nothing to lose.
You would think so but I would imagine there would be tight confidentiality agreements in many of his contracts so it might not be easy. Let the dirty **** rot in jail as a big boys bitch, he will die there.
Sure won't be be out in 4-5?
If he lasts that long!!!
I doubt we'd be so lucky. He clearly felt he was going to get off, he was openly mocking the case in front of the reporters last month.
Quote from: Syferus on May 03, 2014, 10:42:57 PM
He clearly felt he was going to get off, he was openly mocking the case in front of the reporters last month.
http://youtu.be/uMB_e0PH3Hg (http://youtu.be/uMB_e0PH3Hg)
Exposure is enough for his ilk but unfortunately too many get off. Time for a rethink around the judicial system in the USA and UK where money buys legal teams that can confuse jurors enough to make the liklihood of getting away with it seem inevitable.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 03, 2014, 10:58:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 03, 2014, 10:42:57 PM
He clearly felt he was going to get off, he was openly mocking the case in front of the reporters last month.
http://youtu.be/uMB_e0PH3Hg (http://youtu.be/uMB_e0PH3Hg)
Didn't the judge refer to this when passing sentence ?.
He's f**king cracked in that video. f**king hell that **** couldn't get long enough.
Quote from: orangeman on May 03, 2014, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 03, 2014, 10:58:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 03, 2014, 10:42:57 PM
He clearly felt he was going to get off, he was openly mocking the case in front of the reporters last month.
http://youtu.be/uMB_e0PH3Hg (http://youtu.be/uMB_e0PH3Hg)
Didn't the judge refer to this when passing sentence ?.
Don't recall, but wouldn't be surprised. Awful behaviour.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 04, 2014, 10:10:16 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 03, 2014, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 03, 2014, 10:58:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 03, 2014, 10:42:57 PM
He clearly felt he was going to get off, he was openly mocking the case in front of the reporters last month.
http://youtu.be/uMB_e0PH3Hg (http://youtu.be/uMB_e0PH3Hg)
Didn't the judge refer to this when passing sentence ?.
Don't recall, but wouldn't be surprised. Awful behaviour.
From the judgement:
"Not unnaturally, what she looks for is some sort of apology from you or an acknowledgment as to what you have been responsible for. She has been extremely upset by your public denials before trial, the reports of your attitude during trial – laughing and shaking your head in the dock at the accusations made against you. For my part I would add something that since the jury have returned verdicts I have discovered that you appeared behind a reporter outside this court whilst he was making his report of your evidence and during which you mimicked his actions in a way that was designed to trivialise these events. I find your behaviour to be quite extraordinary and a further indication that you show no remorse."
What evidence was there against him? Seemed to be a flimsy enough case. A couple of dolls say he did such and such forty years ago and he says he didn't. Surely there has to be more evidence required than this?
Quote from: nrico2006 on May 05, 2014, 08:35:22 AM
What evidence was there against him? Seemed to be a flimsy enough case. A couple of dolls say he did such and such forty years ago and he says he didn't. Surely there has to be more evidence required than this?
I agree. One of the woman making the allegations is Gordon Ramsey's ex 'mistress'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2284861/Gordon-Ramsays-ex-mistress-Sarah-Symonds-opens-Wife-School-teaches-women-act-like-mistress-make-husband-happy.html
Other allegations are that he tried to a persuade 19 girl to have it off with him, implying that it would be good for her career. While that makes him extremely sleazy, I don't think it is a criminal offence.
The evidence against him seems very circumstantial.
Quote from: nrico2006 on May 05, 2014, 08:35:22 AM
What evidence was there against him? Seemed to be a flimsy enough case. A couple of dolls say he did such and such forty years ago and he says he didn't. Surely there has to be more evidence required than this?
A bit like the recent discussion about Gerry Adams, it is difficult to investigate events 40 years ago. There is no doubt Clifford was taking advantage of groupies, and offering to "advance their career" and generally chancing his arm. However I imagine most of the events took place in private and it seems to me very difficult to prove something beyond reasonable doubt when the person did not report it for 30 years. But I haven't read accounts of trail in detail.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2014, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on May 05, 2014, 08:35:22 AM
What evidence was there against him? Seemed to be a flimsy enough case. A couple of dolls say he did such and such forty years ago and he says he didn't. Surely there has to be more evidence required than this?
A bit like the recent discussion about Gerry Adams, it is difficult to investigate events 40 years ago. There is no doubt Clifford was taking advantage of groupies, and offering to "advance their career" and generally chancing his arm. However I imagine most of the events took place in private and it seems to me very difficult to prove something beyond reasonable doubt when the person did not report it for 30 years. But I haven't read accounts of trail in detail.
I've thought the same myself about Adams, in that it was a waste of time and they would have no real evidence to charge him with. Seem to be a whole lot of inconsistencies with the law, even with the way Robert Black got convicted for the Jennifer Cardy murder yet Robert Howard got off with the Arlene Arkinson murder. There was probably more evidence to convict Howard than there was Black.
If it is as simple as that then I'm sure he will appeal.