Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Max Clifford Wants A Lighter Sentence
http://
What do we all think about this ? He did have quite a heavy sentence but was it too heavy ?
What do we all think about this ? He did have quite a heavy sentence but was it too heavy ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It is obvious that Mr Clifford wants a lighter sentence, no doubt in his mind, he should not be in prison at all.
But the law disagrees with him.
According to the report, under existing legislation, and for the offences for which he was convicted and imprioned, Mr Clifford has already received a lesser sentence than was available under the rules.
Mr Clifford should be careful that appeal judges do not judge his setence to be too lenient, and it is in fact increased.
But the law disagrees with him.
According to the report, under existing legislation, and for the offences for which he was convicted and imprioned, Mr Clifford has already received a lesser sentence than was available under the rules.
Mr Clifford should be careful that appeal judges do not judge his setence to be too lenient, and it is in fact increased.
Zeuhl - "MC is despicable and he deserves to be in jail; but perhaps there is a degree of difference between using a 'casting couch' on ambitious young women compared with paedophilia and molesting random children."
In its broadest sense - both offences are about abuse of power and position over vulnerable victims.
It's rather like trying to judge whether gasing adult Jews is a more abhoorant crime than gassing Jewish children - sometimes the lines are too fine - and too repugnant, to debate easily.
In its broadest sense - both offences are about abuse of power and position over vulnerable victims.
It's rather like trying to judge whether gasing adult Jews is a more abhoorant crime than gassing Jewish children - sometimes the lines are too fine - and too repugnant, to debate easily.
/In its broadest sense - both offences are about abuse of power and position over vulnerable victims. /
agreed andy and i appreciate it's a difficult area to define but it seems to me that some cultural attitudes change or others don't.
Not that I think it makes any of these offences 'OK' but there was a time when (for example) DLT's groping was considered by many to be 'just how it is' and it was not uncommon in my experience for people in the film business to exploit their positions of power to gain sexual favours.
Young people (predominantly female) made judgements on how much they were prepared to give in return for career opportunities and the men in question were just considered 'dirty s0ds' and par for the course.
However, even then I don't think many would have accepted paedophilia or the worst excesses/extent of Saville.
agreed andy and i appreciate it's a difficult area to define but it seems to me that some cultural attitudes change or others don't.
Not that I think it makes any of these offences 'OK' but there was a time when (for example) DLT's groping was considered by many to be 'just how it is' and it was not uncommon in my experience for people in the film business to exploit their positions of power to gain sexual favours.
Young people (predominantly female) made judgements on how much they were prepared to give in return for career opportunities and the men in question were just considered 'dirty s0ds' and par for the course.
However, even then I don't think many would have accepted paedophilia or the worst excesses/extent of Saville.
-- answer removed --
Zeuhl - "agreed andy and i appreciate it's a difficult area to define but it seems to me that some cultural attitudes change or others don't.
Not that I think it makes any of these offences 'OK' but there was a time when (for example) DLT's groping was considered by many to be 'just how it is' and it was not uncommon in my experience for people in the film business to exploit their positions of power to gain sexual favours.
Young people (predominantly female) made judgements on how much they were prepared to give in return for career opportunities and the men in question were just considered 'dirty s0ds' and par for the course."
As you and I know, this disparity in cultural attitudes - quite outside the legal implications of such actions - have caused widespread debate inclduing some spirited exchanges on this site.
It is difficult reconciling the attitudes of previous times with the modern (and very welcome) approach towards the protection of vulnerable people, and the punishment of those who expolit them.
Broadly speaking - it seems to me that those individuals who did suffer sexual assaults in the past (albeit in the guise of being 'tactile' and 'cuddly' as Mr Travis attempted to do in his defence) and - this is crucially important - felt it serious enough to report it, and having been ignored - should be entitled to legal redress in the present day.
I believe this to have been the case in the convictions of Mr Travis, Mr Harris, and Mr Clifford, and it remains to be seen if this circumtance will be repeated in the ongoing case of Mr Teret.
Not that I think it makes any of these offences 'OK' but there was a time when (for example) DLT's groping was considered by many to be 'just how it is' and it was not uncommon in my experience for people in the film business to exploit their positions of power to gain sexual favours.
Young people (predominantly female) made judgements on how much they were prepared to give in return for career opportunities and the men in question were just considered 'dirty s0ds' and par for the course."
As you and I know, this disparity in cultural attitudes - quite outside the legal implications of such actions - have caused widespread debate inclduing some spirited exchanges on this site.
It is difficult reconciling the attitudes of previous times with the modern (and very welcome) approach towards the protection of vulnerable people, and the punishment of those who expolit them.
Broadly speaking - it seems to me that those individuals who did suffer sexual assaults in the past (albeit in the guise of being 'tactile' and 'cuddly' as Mr Travis attempted to do in his defence) and - this is crucially important - felt it serious enough to report it, and having been ignored - should be entitled to legal redress in the present day.
I believe this to have been the case in the convictions of Mr Travis, Mr Harris, and Mr Clifford, and it remains to be seen if this circumtance will be repeated in the ongoing case of Mr Teret.
BTW
I'm not losing any sleep over Mr Clifford's incarceration
but whilst he has been pilloried and we can pat ourselves on the back for this triumph of justice over a 'monster'; it masks the reality that there was a time when that behaviour was considered 'normal' and those involved (perps and victims) are conveniently forgotten about.
I'm not losing any sleep over Mr Clifford's incarceration
but whilst he has been pilloried and we can pat ourselves on the back for this triumph of justice over a 'monster'; it masks the reality that there was a time when that behaviour was considered 'normal' and those involved (perps and victims) are conveniently forgotten about.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Travel19 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.