Cycling UK Forum

Psamathe wrote:(I have absolutely no idea of any detail of the Max Clifford case - not been "following it" in the news but ...)

After watching an old James Bond film recently (one of the Sean Connery ones), it struck me how "our hero" (Bond) will happily grab some beautiful woman and start to kiss her (against her will) and she struggles trying to push him off; but "our hero" continues to kiss her and before too long her struggles quickly change to hugs, etc. as 007's moves overwhelm her ...

And if such behaviour was normal in mainstream films around that era, and people like 007 were admired and looked-up too, what message does the send about what is "acceptable behaviour" (at that time). And whilst their behaviour would land them in court these days, back then such behaviour earnt them the admiration of the population.

(Not commenting on rights or wrongs here, just making an observation).

Ian

Yes the other one I squirm at is (in all sorts of films from thrillers to elaborate musicals) where a woman exhibits a certain amount of hysteria and has her face slapped by the man. The man who up to that point in the film is not her lover, partner or husband (in fact there has often been an amount of coolness or dislike between them) kisses her forcibly. And she of course reciprocates. The past is a different land and all that but was it that likely?

I think Max Clifford should have been locked up years ago, simply for being Max Clifford.

The biggest problem I feel with cases like this involving famous people was the Police as an organisation.
What chance did these people stand when individual police offices claim.

Victims must now be believed and this is politically motivated. When two or more independent people state the person used the safe method and can give intimate details. Not believed by some police.

The person does something stupid so they are at fault for the attack. Does the same apply to rape when a weapon is used by the attacker. Some victims have stated some police say they brought it on themselves.

The main motivation is money. Why do some want to not be identified at all if that was the case.


But why did so many of the hundreds who complained to police at the time only to get listened to now?

For me the answer is that the police officers who were to blame have now retired (TC does not fit into this category as I have the upmost respect for him).
They can finally get their voices heard.

These sorts of offences are more about power than anything- demonstrating your power over other people. And when state institutions turn a blind eye because the offender is seen as fireproof due to charity work, powerful friends, expensive lawyers, public popularity, or whatever, that just enhances what the offender gets out of it, as it further enables them to demonstrate their power over their victims; 'they'll never believe you', 'they'll never support you', 'you'll be the one attacked in court and I'll get off', all that.

For a lot of offenders this approach worked for decades, though a few of them have now been caught and punished when they probably thought they would get away with it for ever. However, for some of them the protection system is still working, more's the pity, to the disgrace of us all as a country.

Ben@Forest wrote:
Yes the other one I squirm at is (in all sorts of films from thrillers to elaborate musicals) where a woman exhibits a certain amount of hysteria and has her face slapped by the man. The man who up to that point in the film is not her lover, partner or husband (in fact there has often been an amount of coolness or dislike between them) kisses her forcibly. And she of course reciprocates. The past is a different land and all that but was it that likely?

I've never found it convincing, as a woman. I think it's more the pipe dream of a certain rather repulsive type of man (and not, thankfully, the majority). Firstly, women rarely become hysterical- not more than men, I gather, medically. And secondly, I'd have thought that that sort of slap would be far more likely to get repaid by repulsion or a harder one back, and almost certainly that man would have lost any chance of ever having a good relationship with the woman in question- he'd be more likely to get a summons for assault if I'd been involved.

One of the changes is that the requirement for corroboration has changed. (NB Scotland is different to England and Wales here.) It's quite a complicated subject and for some offences there's a statutory requirement for corroboration. There are also various non-statutory ie traditional requirements. Until recently, it was accepted that sexual offences required corroboration. The subject is further complicated by the practice of the CPS to require more corroboration in every type of case, taking the system in E&W nearer to Scotland. Non-statutory conditions and precedents are always open to revision by the decisions of the appeal courts and that's what happened with regard to corroboration in sexual offences. Once it's accepted that the evidence of the complainant alone is enough to take a case to court and it's then a matter of what the jury believes, then a lot of historic cases are going to become viable prosecutions. In short, the trend towards more corroboration across the board has been contradicted in sexual offences.

In addition to that, there have been changes in attitudes across society and those changes have led to pressure on the police and other prosecuting authorities to do more. Remember also that women - in spite of any glass ceilings - now hold posts at the highest levels in the police and other criminal justice organisations.

Jimmy Savile also looms large here. It can't be long before there are attempts to resurrect him so he can face justice. They do say that Oliver Cromwell's corpse was dug up and "executed."

(Flinders posted before I'd posted my response to Edwards.)

Flinders wrote:These sorts of offences are more about power than anything- demonstrating your power over other people. And when state institutions turn a blind eye because the offender is seen as fireproof due to charity work, powerful friends, expensive lawyers, public popularity, or whatever, that just enhances what the offender gets out of it, as it further enables them to demonstrate their power over their victims; 'they'll never believe you', 'they'll never support you', 'you'll be the one attacked in court and I'll get off', all that.

For a lot of offenders this approach worked for decades, though a few of them have now been caught and punished when they probably thought they would get away with it for ever. However, for some of them the protection system is still working, more's the pity, to the disgrace of us all as a country.

Absolutely spot on.
There's been a case this week in GM where that has happened to a woman who ended up taking her own life as a result of the police not only not believing her,but arresting her for wasting police time.
It is utterly disgraceful and just adds to the shame I feel being a UK citizen,when such cases and many other widespread issues come to light.

reohn2 wrote:Absolutely spot on.
There's been a case this week in GM where that has happened to a woman who ended up taking her own life as a result of the police not only not believing her,but arresting her for wasting police time.
It is utterly disgraceful and just adds to the shame I feel being a UK citizen,when such cases and many other widespread issues come to light.

I think it is wrong that the woman you refer to was prosecuted when she was clearly bipolar and at risk but also the fact that the CPS did take it on indicates there was substance to the false allegation charge - also possibly a consequence of her being bipolar - but the system shouldn't have ruined the life of the accused either.

Which raises the point that there are two sides to this. People do face false sexual assault allegations that ruin their lives, and often the lives of those close to them. They are linked for life to the allegations by Google destroying their lives in their communities, their job prospects, relationships...... to say nothing of the hell they go through between the allegations being made and acquittal. Both sides should have anonymity until either a judge agrees to its removal for the purposes of the investigation or the person is found guilty. Otherwise we are just creating another set of innocent victims of sexual assault whose lives are equally devastated.

Nigel Evans article in the Spectator is worth reading - the student he feels sympathy for was later not charged and email evidence later emerged that one of the accusers had consented but was cheating on her boyfriend. I've not seen anything since that she has been prosecuted for ruining his life with false allegations.

It seems from the Savile case, and others, that it isn't a police force problem across the board, in that the junior ranks did take notice and wanted to do something, but were warned off by their superiors. It also appears that the same happened in Social Services departments, even in hospitals when nurses raised concerns they were told to shut up about it, and that councillors who tried to do anything were warned off.

Until we root out exactly who was doing the protecting and why, and remove and punish those involved, we aren't going to be able to stop this sort of thing, and more vulnerable people will suffer. And feet are being dragged on this.

Another thing that makes me angry is that I'm pretty sure that if the children being hurt had been the children of more powerful and/or better 'connected' people, something would have been done at least to protect them from further harm, even if the culprit hadn't been prosecuted.

reohn2 wrote:...There's been a case this week in GM where that has happened to a woman who ended up taking her own life as a result of the police not only not believing her,but arresting her for wasting police time.
It is utterly disgraceful and just adds to the shame I feel being a UK citizen,when such cases and many other widespread issues come to light.

I think we have to be careful when forming opinions where the only source is through reporters. For example, in the case you mention, the report I read presented a somewhat different story.

I'm no legal person, but I suspect that the reported result of a trial may often depend on a lot of detailed evidence and argument. The vast bulk of this will never be reported ... so it is difficult to form a decent opinion as to the jury "getting it right" unless one is listening to the entire trial.

Ian

TonyR wrote:I think it is wrong that the woman you refer to was prosecuted when she was clearly bipolar and at risk but also the fact that the CPS did take it on indicates there was substance to the false allegation charge - also possibly a consequence of her being bipolar - but the system shouldn't have ruined the life of the accused either.

Bipolar is a mental illness and should be treated as such perhaps,instead of a criminal attachment.

Both sides should have anonymity until either a judge agrees to its removal for the purposes of the investigation or the person is found guilty.

Exactly,I've always maintained that.

Flinders wrote:It seems from the Savile case, and others, that it isn't a police force problem across the board, in that the junior ranks did take notice and wanted to do something, but were warned off by their superiors. It also appears that the same happened in Social Services departments, even in hospitals when nurses raised concerns they were told to shut up about it, and that councillors who tried to do anything were warned off.

Until we root out exactly who was doing the protecting and why, and remove and punish those involved, we aren't going to be able to stop this sort of thing, and more vulnerable people will suffer. And feet are being dragged on this.

Another thing that makes me angry is that I'm pretty sure that if the children being hurt had been the children of more powerful and/or better 'connected' people, something would have been done at least to protect them from further harm, even if the culprit hadn't been prosecuted.

The problem is as you posted earlier,sex crime is about power and power corrupts,absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The words rotten and core spring to mind where absolute power is concerned

reohn2 wrote:

Both sides should have anonymity until either a judge agrees to its removal for the purposes of the investigation or the person is found guilty.

Exactly,I've always maintained that.

I agree. Unfortunately there are occasions where false accusations are made and they ruin the lives of the innocent. Requiring a judge to agree the removal of anonymity still allows the Police to identify the accused where there is a realistic potential of identification to bring more victims or witnesses forward; providing a balance between the victim and accused. In practice it means the Police will have to carefully consider the prospect of further evidence against the damage to a possibly innocent accused. Having a judge "in the loop" provides an independent control over the benefits and risks of public release of the accused identity.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:I agree. Unfortunately there are occasions where false accusations are made and they ruin the lives of the innocent. Requiring a judge to agree the removal of anonymity still allows the Police to identify the accused where there is a realistic potential of identification to bring more victims or witnesses forward; providing a balance between the victim and accused. In practice it means the Police will have to carefully consider the prospect of further evidence against the damage to a possibly innocent accused. Having a judge "in the loop" provides an independent control over the benefits and risks of public release of the accused identity.

Ian

I don't doubt that for a moment.

I see Max Clifford has died.

Although the headline reports that he died in hospital, he was still in custody.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42300593