Translate

Tuesday, 6 May 2014

Claire Khaw on the Peter Levy Show

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01y3rpr

From the 24th minute talking about http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-grounds-on-which-max-clifford.html which Christine Hamilton had read before coming on air. She said said I was being rude about the intelligence and education of the average juror.  Fortunately, she had not read http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/is-average-juror-capable-of.html in which I was even ruder.

Peter Levy

Christine Hamilton

Max Clifford

PL:

Tabloid publicist Max Clifford was jailed on Friday for a total of 8 years for a string of indecent assaults against girls and young women and was found guilty of 8 counts of indecent assault, 4 of those counts were against one woman who was 15 when he first assaulted her.  The judge said that Clifford had groomed and degraded his victims and ruled he should his 8 sentences of between 6 and 24 months consecutively and not concurrently.  Joining me now is political commentator Claire Khaw who has written a blog in which she says that she doesn't believe any evidence so old can ever be reliable enough to satisfy a criminal standard of proof and that it doesn't call for an 8 year sentence for a 71 year old man. Claire's joining me now on the line, Claire good afternoon to you.

CK:
Good afternoon.

PL:
Do you have doubts about the evidence after such a long time?  Is that what worries you?

CK:

It went back 30 to 37 years, didn't they, all these charges and I wonder what kind of justice you can get if somebody can say that you assaulted them 30 to 37 years ago and they are not required to furnish any DNA evidence.  We may not like Max Clifford and he may have ruined lots of people's lives but what happens if other people are accused on the basis of this kind thing?

PL:

Well he has been found guilty by a jury.  Are you saying just because he is 71 one he doesn't deserve 8 years in prison?

CK:

I don't think I am the only one who considers this sort of thing excessive.

PL:

You are in the minority.

CK:

I am aware that I and a barrister called Barbara Hewson are in the minority here but certain legal principles do need to be defended.  Just because we hate Max Clifford doesn't mean that the rules which convicted him cannot be used to convict other people.

PL:

Barbara Hewson is a barrister and she has written that is loaded against defendants. Do you agree with that and why?

CK:

Just because of how it happened.  I know that Dave Lee Travis and the other nicer guys got off because they showed appropriate humility and refrained from showing the arrogance that Max Clifford did, and perhaps that was why he was convicted, because no one liked him and because he ruined many peoples' lives, but he was on trial for being accused of what he had done, not the fact that he ...

PL:

I don't think many would actually understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that because he is 71 he shouldn't have had such a long sentence and he didn't come across very well in the trial, rather than the crimes he committed and the awful things he has done to people?

CK:

It was indecent assault and it was a long time ago and there was this suggestion that these women were there hoping that something would come out of, well, putting up with these sexual assaults, I suppose.

PL:

Well, that's a terrible thing to say! I don't think many people will have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying.

CK:

I am quite aware of this.  There is this recent Mail story about ...

PL:

Be careful what you say.

CK:

I am, but it's in the Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620150/Max-Clifford-sex-daughters-disabled-toilet-Mayfair-office-unofficial-casting-couch.html and there was this woman who said she had sex with him in the toilet of his daughter at his offices.  She said she didn't like it, she didn't want it and nothing came of it, but there was no suggestion that he dragged her there and made her do all those terrible things she did.  There is that element to be considered, really.

PL:
So, if you could sum up what you were saying in a sentence, what would it be?

CK:

I would say that these accusations should be treated with a great deal of care because in my opinion they should have been tried separately.  All these accusations should have been tried separately rather than bundled together making the jury think that by the sheer number of accusations they were more likely to be true than not.




What should be the punishment for what happened in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620150/Max-Clifford-sex-daughters-disabled-toilet-Mayfair-office-unofficial-casting-couch.html?

100 lashes for Sarah Symonds and a 100 lashes for Max.

http://quran.com/24/2

The Koran really has all the answers! 

No comments: