Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Should victims of Max Clifford be compensated as if they were unpaid prostitutes?
Max Clifford ‘had sex with me in his daughter's disabled toilet at his Mayfair office - it was his unofficial casting couch’, claims columnist

Let us take it as a given that Max Clifford is guilty of all the charges of indecent assault etc. How should his victims be compensated?

As I was saying yesterday on the Peter Levy Show, there is just a hint that they were putting up with being indecently assaulted by him because they thought it would all lead somewhere eg meeting David Bowie, fame and fortune etc. Because they never got anything in return, they decided to make trouble for him by selling their stories themselves and yowling for compo 30-40 years later.  

Years ago I asked Max at the suggestion of a friend if he would act as my publicist and he declined. Perhaps I should be offended that he did not find me attractive enough without even meeting me to be considered worth his sexual attentions or having sex with in a disabled toilet at his offices?  I could be malicious and add my voice to the already shrill feminine voices yowling for his punishment, but I think I would come across better if I assumed a demeanour of judicial impartiality.

If all the claims by all these women Max may or may not have assaulted come out of the woodwork there would be nothing left for his disabled daughter, especially if his wife takes him for everything he has.  

I ask Louise and Max not to despair, for I have a cunning plan.  

I am proposing that these women who claim he indecently assaulted them be treated as unpaid prostitutes. His lawyers could compile a tariff of charges for the services he availed himself of and pay his victims off accordingly.  To be fair to the victims he could offer to index link the payments, and then send them on their way.  

He could also tell them that he is being generous to them, because strictly speaking it was past consideration, and anyone legally trained would know that past consideration is no consideration. If there was no consideration, then there was no contract.  If there was no contract then there is no legal obligation by the person who enjoyed these services to pay for these services.      

No comments: