- Jul 28, 2016
One less parasite in the world.
funny thing is those serial offenders grow ugly, don't they. Their power, greed and contempt for those in their lee shows on their faces eventually.They didn't pick up on Saville until after he was dead and he'd win the ugly contest by a 100 kilometres. Max was definitely smug and smarmy though (and a few other things)
Saville started a trickle which has turned into a (welcome) flood post Weinstein
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
...The allegations in respect of which I have been charged are completely false - very upsetting, very distressing, but completely false," he told reporters outside his home at the time. "I have never indecently assaulted anyone in my life, and this will become clear during the course of the proceedings."
Clifford was arrested as part of an investigation called Operation Yewtree, a wide-ranging inquiry into allegations of past offences spurred by the horrific abuse by Jimmy Savile.
Before he was arrested, Clifford said he had received calls from many celebrities worried they would be caught up in the widening Savile investigation. "They're phoning me and saying, 'Max, I'm worried that I'm going to be implicated,'" Clifford said at the time. "A lot of them can't remember what they did last week, never mind 30 or 40 years ago."...
I recall a comment during an online discussion about a guy who was a bit like Max Clifford. (He was a VERY 'liberal' Catholic priest who was a hero to secular anti-clerics and got a terrible shock when they turned on him!)
The opinion on the Catholic blogosphere seems to be that Shanley is a scumbag who was convicted on the only occasion on which he was innocent.
Much the same applies to Max Clifford.
In a criminal case the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" and a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.You are aware the 99% of inmates in prison profess their innocence
Substantial amounts circumstantial evidence, especially when corroborated by multiple independent victims has to eventually amount to compelling evidence. Throw in the wealth of detail which could be verified from the records and the case builds.In a criminal case the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" and a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
How on earth can a jury convict "beyond reasonable doubt" when it's only one person's word against another's and there is no other evidence at all? There is hysteria about child abuse that applies to no other crime. For example suppose someone says I was beaten up by the leader of a drugs gang 40 years ago; I was too terrified to report it at the time but - out of love for justice - I am doing so now. (And co-incidentally the retired criminal he is accusing is rich, and the accuser follows up with a demand for 'compensation'!)
[Incidentally his claim that he was too scared at the time is plausible but the authorities are likely to respond - too late buster. And if you HAD reported it at the time, maybe we could have stopped this guy from committing lots of other crimes!]