Max Clifford Arrested

Indeed, Sabot, we live in interesting times.

The man who did that Advert once stayed in my house next door, with his two children.
He was nice, and the kids were lovely. We all went out hunting Glow Worms. Irrelevant.

Sun Tzu. And The Art of War. And this is a War. And I know who I am putting my money on.

Must check what Machiavelli had to say about matters like this.

It's a bit Chinese, Bonny. But fascinating stuff. You should read some of Sun Tzu's quotes. They do apply to life in general. And life in general is a bit of a War.

Indeed. And technology may have changed, but human nature hasn't improved one bit since a Borgia was Pope.

Well, he certainly isn't hiding....

http://news.sky.com/story/1021888/max-clifford-to-make-arrest-statement

Max Clifford To Make Arrest Statement

Publicist Max Clifford is expected to make a statement at a Belgravia police station following his arrest earlier this morning.

More follows...

He's appeared, said the allegations are totally untrue, and very distressing to his family. And they date from...

1977.

Aren't there any crimes being committed in 2012, or something?

Oh, and he doesn't look guilty, he looks upset and angry.

From:

http://news.sky.com/story/1021888/max-clifford-allegations-totally-untrue

Max Clifford says allegations against him are "damaging and totally untrue" during a statement outside a London police station.

The 69-year-old publicist was arrested earlier on suspicion of sex offences and questioned at the police station in Belgravia.

Speaking outside the station, he said the allegations date back to 1977.

He said: "These allegations are damaging, and totally untrue.

"On a personal level they are very distressing for myself, my wife, my family and loved ones.

"Anyone who really knew me all those years ago and those who have known me since would have no doubt that I would never act in the way I have today been accused."

From:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20635754

PR expert Max Clifford has denied "damaging and totally untrue allegations" of historical sexual abuse allegations him after he was released on bail by the Met Police.

I thought that it was a step too far six weeks ago. And now it has gone way over the top.
The powers that be have gone raving mad. And no one is going to get done for anything. Because they can't prove anything. This is The Law.
I have had my doubts about The Police for a very long time. Mainly bloody Graduates in Man Management who know absolutely nothing about people. But still rely on Gut Instincts.
Probably an unfair analysis because not all of them are absolute, self serving barstards. But believe me, most of them are.
I could tell you all a thing or two about The Police in the town where I spent a large part of my life. But it would serve no purpose to tell you in which Town. And the Towns are all the same in the end anyway. Give them all a Degree and they lose their effectability.

bb1 wrote:From:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20635754

PR expert Max Clifford has denied "damaging and totally untrue allegations" of historical sexual abuse allegations him after he was released on bail by the Met Police.

I think I am going to have one of my famous nervous breakdowns. Wake me up when it is all over.

I have no idea at all what he's supposed to have done, Sabot, but I suspect he is going to be on the warpath once he's time to catch his breath.

Now, I know what he does for a living, but he's either Britain's best actor, or he is innocent and angry. If someone has been put up to making allegations, then I would not like to be in the culprits' shoes when Clifford catches up with them.

We can't actually say, can we, Bonny. Not if we believe in Innocent until proven Guilty. Or even if we believe in the possibility of a Case to Answer. But should we know that he has even been questioned? Or by whom?
But for certain sure, if we are to know that he has been accused then we have a right to know who has accused him.
Personally, I don't want to know of either, and nor do I think I have a right to know. But they can't have it both ways to witchdom. Who has accused him? Who has accused any of them?

The accusers haven't been named publically, Sabot - apart from MWT's lot, of course. They couldn't wait to get their names in the paper.

Lord Sugar ‏@Lord_Sugar
Max Clifford denies allegations as damaging,a stress on his family.I have a feeling he is right and someone maybe trying to stitch him up

That's interesting.

bb1 wrote:The accusers haven't been named publically, Sabot - apart from MWT's lot, of course. They couldn't wait to get their names in the paper.

In an historical situation with a bunch of middle aged women, when a man has been accused publicly, then we have a right to know who has accused him.
No, I don't believe that. But then I do not think that the man should have been exposed either.

This is making me feel sick. A bunch of histerical women can say what ever they like without fear, while a man cannot defend himself.

I posted this on another thread, copying it over as it seems to be relevant to Clifford's anger and also other comments made here. LL

Not sure if this has any connection with the current state of Max Clifford, but in 'Flat Earth News' Nick Davies says (page 285) that on 2006 two members of NOTW were arrested, charged and jailed over phone hacking; besides Prince William and MP Simon Hughes, Clifford's phone was also hacked. Because of ths Andy Coulson, NOTW editor, resigned. Now I would say that payback time could be a reason .... IMHO, of course. LL

Something really is going to have to be done about this. As the accusers are grown adults now, either they should be named along with the accused, or no-one should be named.

The brain-dead Hounders and their ilk think that accusation = guilt, which is leading to remarks like:

Why should ANY filthy perv hide behind a veil of anonymity???

Oh, let's not bother with any of that boring evidence, proof, trial and jury stuff, not when we can whip up an internet lynch mob.

Let's not stop to consider the possibility that a certain press baron may be out for payback, not when we can point and shriek, Max Clifford turned me into a mouse!

These people shouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone sit on juries. No wonder the country is in such a mess.

Bennett assumes that anyone accused is guilty:

I wonder if he'll offer to snitch on all his wealthy and powerful clients as part of a plea bargain?

Why on earth would he do that, over accusations of....something or other dating from the 1970's.

Bennett has been accused of historic pervy-ness in Leverton toilets. By the reasoning of him and his hounders, he must therefore be guilty. Or is that different?

I don't think Bennett does Logic. And his rules don't apply to him. He is probably thinking of what a success he could have made of Max Clifford's job. He does rush in to make money out of those he sees as Victims. But he never quite made The Big Time.
Sad, really. He might have done quite well at defending The McCanns, even if they didn't want him to. And he would have had lots more supporters than he's got now.

He might have done quite well at defending The McCanns, even if they didn't want him to

I'm not so sure, Sabot. We've seen time and again how sloppy and careless he is. Also, he is an attention-seeker, IMO, and would never, ever grasp that his job is to assist his client, not go glory-hunting for himself.

Look at what he did to that elderly woman in his less-than-stellar legal career. He was supposed to be representing HER, not benefiting himself. It really takes some doing to be struck off the solicitors' rolls.

bb1 wrote:He might have done quite well at defending The McCanns, even if they didn't want him to

I'm not so sure, Sabot. We've seen time and again how sloppy and careless he is. Also, he is an attention-seeker, IMO, and would never, ever grasp that his job is to assist his client, not go glory-hunting for himself.

Look at what he did to that elderly woman in his less-than-stellar legal career. He was supposed to be representing HER, not benefiting himself. It really takes some doing to be struck off the solicitors' rolls.

We would off helped him, Bonny. I would off. But he would off needed a Character Transplant first.
And yes, you certainly off to go some to get struck off off The Solicitor's Rolls.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/why-do-i-get-distinct-impression-there.html

Tony isn't the only one who finds all this very suspicious....

They've all gone barmy. Fiddling while Rome burns. And any sane person wonders what on earth is going on. But who is Caesar? I don't think it is Rupert Murdoch somehow. But it could be Bennett. He's got the look of a Caligula about him. Or is it Caligula's horse?