"You took an 18 year old on as your receptionist. You asked her to masturbate you on two or three occasions and SHE FELT THAT SHE HAD NO CHOICE TO COMPLY [emphasis is mine]. You ejaculated into her hand and tissues. You fondled her breasts. You asked her to give you oral sex in exchange for being taken to meet David Bowie.”
CHOOSING to comply, even if you find this unpleasant, is implicit consent. We can infer this from the woman's actions and failure to resist or communicate her lack of consent. The issue of consent is now dangerously reduced to a matter of internal emotion, regardless of expressing verbally and behaviourally this lack of consent.
What if Clifford actually thought she was accepting and wanted to do it purely because she did not resist?
Do you mean to tell me Leon that Clifford asked these women to do things and they did them?
They may have lost their job if they refused.
But in no way has it been proven that he threatened them with physical harm or put them in danger.
He didn't threaten their life or their families?
Is this true?
That is true. Additionally, I remain completely unconvinced that any force was involved. He was a bit lecherous and asked them to perform obscene acts on him, which they didn't really want to do, BUT DID ANYWAY. At no point did he pin them down to disable them and molest them. At no point did they fight him off, therefore resisting their consent.
It seems that ‘rape’ and ‘assault’ in this country can now mean “I did it, but I found it unpleasant and went along with it, saying nothing and choosing not to resist”.
No proof at all of him threatening them with weapons and violence?
No physical assault, in terms of holding them down or having others hold them down?
Nothing like that at all?
Nothing whatsoever. And none of the convictions involve vaginal penetration by his penis.
So Clifford asked his secretaries and assistants etc to toss him off and finger themselves.
They agreed to do this even though they might not have enjoyed it.
Decades later they run to the law accusing him of assault and rape?
Seriously, is this what has happened?
Yes, this is what has happened. We are going the way of ultra-feminist, dementia-ridden Sweden, where a woman can decide a man has raped her after RETROSPECTIVELY withdrawing her consent, i.e. she can decide she did not consent AFTER having sex.
I'm fucking stunned.
I honestly didn't realise that these were the events.
here was an accusation that he assaulted a 12-year-old in Spain, but this was thrown out because at the time it allegedly happened, British courts could not convict people for crimes committed abroad.
Nonetheless, this same alleged accuser was brought in as a witness to testify against Clifford's character, even though her supposed assault had nothing to do with the ones Clifford was standing trial for, and despite the fact Clifford has never faced trial or been convicted of assaulting her.
In other words, she testified against his character based on what she claims to have experienced in Spain aged 12, and this was treated by the prosecution as true despite there being no proof and no past conviction for this.
He was acquitted of some of the alleged incidents with minors (15 years of age), but the ones he was convicted of involved young women over the age of consent.
This is extremely dangerous.
His legal team have done an awful job.
He should sack his team and hire Barbara Hewson.
I believe he was convicted for several offenses involving minors
Were these other offenses proven in a court of law?
I could be mistaken, but I believe all his convictions involved girls over the age of consent at the time. Regardless, he has been convicted IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
One of the girls he was convicted of molesting was 15
Is that true? Was one of the girls 15?
He was convicted - he is guilty. It is perverse having a problem accepting this. Many people are rightly convicted without physical evidence.
Many people in.his position - who I presume to be innocent - are not found guilty in. Most have been in fact.
I rejoice in the vile Clifford's guilt.
Check the reports of his conviction - they are online
I have just checked. Yes, one of the convictions was against a girl who was 15 at the time. She allegedly sucked him off, tossed him off, and he fingered her. He was convicted, I repeat, IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. It was her word against his.
All the other convictions were for acts with girls over the age of consent. He was cleared of all the other convictions involving minors.
It's still a very shaky conviction.
Only reason it stuck is because he has pissed off the wrong people and because when a number of alleged victims make accusations at the same time, it looks bad whether true or false.
The whole thing stinks. I think it is because Operation Yewtree has been a complete failure. They didn't manage to secure a single conviction until Clifford (on very, very flimsy ‘evidence’ and in a sham trial that barrister Barbara Hewson explained in her Spiked article).
The powers that be had to make sure Yewtree secured convictions.
Are you suggesting the powers that be nobbled the jury or the judge to get poor innocent Max Clifford banged up to justify Operation Yewtree? What nonsense.
It has already been established by people who WERE in court that there was no physical evidence. If there is no evidence, it was his word against theirs.
Once upon a time, this shite would have been thrown out of court.
Are you willing to accept that Clifford-hater's points are valid and perhaps this conviction of Clifford is more solid than you originally thought?
No, I don't accept Clifford-hater's assertions at all. Plebs want to think Clifford is guilty regardless of procedural fairness. This is because they like to concentrate their anger on scapegoats. Clifford is a Yewtree scapegoat -- a scapegoat for Savile's crimes, even though he was never linked to Savile.