David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Today's News (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   'Max Clifford Denies Covering Up For Alan Clark.' (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=227293)

illuminumnuts 10-11-2012 03:52 PM

'Max Clifford Denies Covering Up For Alan Clark.'
 
Why did 'The Independent' (just lol at the name) post this article online and then remove it?

'Max Clifford denies covering up Alan Clark's underage sex scandal'

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...l-8298532.html

The former government minister Alan Clark had sex with children, according to the publicity agent Max Clifford. In a secretly filmed, three-minute interview posted on the internet last night, the publicist said that the Tory MP and diarist had "interfered" with two 14-year-old girls. But he added, during a discussion of his success in suppressing scandals, that the story had never come out.

Last night Mr Clifford, who was unaware his comments were being recorded, strenuously denied that he had told the girls' family to stay quiet about the allegations. At the time that he learnt of the allegations, in the 1990s, Mr Clifford did not represent Mr Clark – but he did act for the alleged victims' family, who made less serious, but more titillating, claims about the MP.

Mr Clark, a long-serving MP and minister in Margaret Thatcher's government who died in 1999, said of those claims at the time: "Of course I deny them. I have to deny them."

Mr Clark, a Tory grandee who lived at Saltwood Castle in Kent, was known to be a philanderer. In his diaries, he recalled encountering his wife-to-be Jane (they married when he was 30 and she 16) when she was aged 14: "This is very exciting. She is the perfect victim, but whether or not it will be possible to succeed I can't tell at present."

In the video, which appears to be at least 10 years old, Mr Clifford boasted about his ability to keep embarrassing material out of the media and said he created a "false image" for clients.

"No problems at all as long as they're not interfering with little kids. Absolutely no problems," he told the interviewer (who was out of shot).

"Because I know that the truth will destroy them, and they don't deserve that. So I create a false image. I'm deceiving people. I'm lying, for sure."

Mr Clifford added: "But for me, it's the same kind of lie when you go to a dinner party, and your host says: 'Did you enjoy the meal?', and you think: well it was awful. You say: 'It was lovely, thank you.' It's that kind of situation." Asked about his role in representing the women who accused Mr Clark of sexual misconduct, Mr Clifford said: "You couldn't have written the script, to make it even better and inflame it. And Alan Clark loved the whole thing… He'd used them so they wanted to make money out of it… He enjoyed it: he sold even more books... The only slightly serious side about it was he'd actually interfered with those girls from [the time they were] 14."

Last night Mr Clifford denied that he had suppressed the story about Mr Clark. He told The Independent: "Did I ever say to anybody: 'I do not want you to write about Alan Clark having underage sex with underage girls'? The answer is no. From a financial point of view, they would've got even more money for that. I would've got more money from it."

The publicist, whose work now includes being a PR ambassador for Children in Need, added: "It's a lot of rubbish. One of the girls did an interview [with a newspaper] but of course there was no proof he had done that. I wasn't particularly going to break a story on Alan Clark and then hide something. I didn't ever say to them don't talk to them about having underage sex with him. Was I in any way, shape or form responsible for it not coming out? No."

Mr Clark's widow, Jane, was unavailable for comment.
__________________________________________________ _______________


Clifford Under Pressure. :(

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/8320354.jpg

Have your say below. :)

letmeout 10-11-2012 04:10 PM

He was playing the Savile story down on this morning, the day after the Savile documentary, even though he knew how serious it was. Or was it only slightly serious like Clarke interfering with to fourteen year old girls, wanker!

illuminumnuts 10-11-2012 04:11 PM

Food For Thought.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by illuminumnuts (Post 1061130602)
Well, this is what I make of it at the moment. Clifford believed that Clark, who would have been 45 at the time, at the least flashed at a 13 year old girl who he went on to bed a few years later. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said what he did in the video footage. He actually said two 14 year olds in the video, this was well after the case was over, and must have been lax vocabulary on his part. He obviously knew their ages were 13 and 15 at the time, as this is something he surely would have checked up on before working for Clark. This either means that Clark admitted guilt to him or that Clifford didn't believe him and still worked for him anyway. This isn't good and, in any event, we also know that Clifford views the hypothetical scenario of 45 year old men 'interfering' with 13 year old girls as only 'slightly serious'.

Even if we concede that he thought they were both 14 (minor point anyway), which I am very dubious about; even if we concede 'interfering' to be flashing, which I am dubious about; and even if we concede that he only 'guessed' Clark was guilty of the 'slightly serious', Clark didn't confess to him and Clifford has no police case to answer, which I am dubious about, this is still all just terrible. Clifford might not be a total shithead, I don't know, but he has clearly lost the plot during all the years in his business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by illuminumnuts (Post 1061132297)
I think Clifford did do something illegal. It is obvious, in my opinion, Clark confessed to him and Clifford kept his filthy, little secret. If you have information that a 45 year old man, at the least, groomed (flashing at the minimum) and later bedded a 13 year old girl and her 15 year old sister, then you go to the police. It is simply beyond the pale and I doubt that there is anyone on this thread who wouldn't have reported it if they knew what had happened. The fact that it was 20 years earlier was no excuse. Clark, at the least, groomed young teens (flashing at the minimum), could have offended after the known incident and could have gone on to offend further after meeting Clifford. Clifford doesn't strike me as the sort of person to blab gossip, as he did on that recording, if he didn't know it was true. Moreover, his 'slightly serious' spiel shows that he didn't think he was keeping much of a secret. :rolleyes: I'm sure a layperson would have been charged with some sort of offense if it later transpired they knew and had kept quiet like Clifford, let alone represented the dirtbag. :rolleyes:

All analysis and criticism welcome. :)

If anyone knows who wrote the article, it wasn't in the screenshot, then please enlighten me. I have serious concerns about any journalist writing such an article. He/she didn't have the conscience to say that he/she found the 'interfering' of 13 year old girls, shagged a few years later too if not earlier, by 45 year old men as very serious; not 'slightly serious'. He/she didn't have the conscience to say that people who did only find it 'slightly serious', and were happy to represent those guilty of such acts, needed very serious scrutiny. He/she didn't question the role of such a man acting as a representative of Children In Need. Who is this journalist? This 'person' can't actually be a real journalist, but I want to know.

hokuspokus 10-11-2012 06:13 PM

FFS

How many times does it need to be said?


Max Clifford broke the farking story about the Harkess women in 1994


Next farking canut who brings this up and i will start accusing ppl of
shillory and trolling.

illuminumnuts 10-11-2012 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hokuspokus (Post 1061132465)
FFS. How many times does it need to be said?Max Clifford broke the farking story about the Harkess women in 1994. Next farking canut who brings this up and i will start accusing ppl of shillory and trolling.

Will you indeed? :rolleyes: Be my guest then... :) You seem to have a strong interest in this story if I may be so bold. Anyhow, you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, don't seem to have read anything on the thread and don't seem to understand the issues on the thread. We are talking about what Clifford himself 'knew' here, not what 'story' he did or didn't break. Furthermore, he didn't break the story, it was the Harkess women and the story would have been broken with or without him. What you mean to say is he tried to 'control' the story, like you are now attempting, very feebly, to 'control' this thread. Are you his publicist? :p

Now then, now then, strictly on topic, what do you think about people who term the grooming (flashing at the minimum) of 13 year old girls by 45 year old men as 'slightly serious'? A straight answer will do. What do you think about such people working for Chlrdren In Need? Thank you. :)

Max Clifford - "Was I in any way, shape or form responsible for it not coming out? No."

Try this one Max - "Was I in any way, shape or form responsible for not telling the police all I knew about a serial paedophile?"

Hmm... :(

hokuspokus 10-11-2012 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illuminumnuts (Post 1061132474)
Will you indeed? :rolleyes: Be my guest then... :) You seem to have a strong interest in this story if I may be so bold. Anyhow, you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, don't seem to have read anything on the thread and don't seem to understand the issues on the thread. We are talking about what Clifford himself 'knew' here, not what 'story' he did or didn't break. Furthermore, he didn't break the story, it was the Harkess women and the stroy would have been broken with or without him. What you mean to say is he tried to control the story.

Now then, strictly on topic, what do you think about people who term the grooming (flashing at the minimum) of 13 year old girls by 45 year old men as 'slightly serious'? A straight answer will do. Thank you. :)


Yes. I have a strong interest because if you bothered to do some research you will understand that Max Clifford, acting as the Harkess women publicist,
sold their story about Alan Clarks behaviour to the press in 1994.
There have been links repeatedly posted on this forum .
Now, either people cannot read, havent read or are shills.

For clarification please read/see post 13356 on the "Saville is a paedo" topic.

illuminumnuts 10-11-2012 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hokuspokus (Post 1061132483)
Yes. I have a strong interest because if you bothered to do some research you will understand that Max Clifford, acting as the Harkess women publicist, sold their story about Alan Clarks behaviour to the press in 1994.There have been links repeatedly posted on this forum. Now, either people cannot read, havent read or are shills.

As clearly stated, the story was going to come out with or without Clifford. This thread is addressing what Clifford knew about Clark, which I don't believe has been paid much attention before. I suggest you go on to these other threads you are familiar with if you want to discuss any other bits you are keen on. Anyhow, you haven't answered my question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by illuminumnuts (Post 1061132474)
What do you think about people who term the grooming (flashing at the minimum) of 13 year old girls by 45 year old men as 'slightly serious'? A straight answer will do. What do you think about such people working for Chlrdren In Need? Thank you. :)

Cat got your tongue has it? :confused:



Quote:

Originally Posted by letmeout (Post 1061132451)
He was playing the Savile story down on this morning, the day after the Savile documentary, even though he knew how serious it was. Or was it only slightly serious like Clarke interfering with to fourteen year old girls, wanker!

One was 13 years old and the other was 15 years old.

iluminawti 10-11-2012 06:48 PM

Yes this thread is about a CRIMINEL with holding information of a CRIME. Perverting the course of justice. If I know of a pervert tampering with young girls, flashing at them ect Then I would report it to the police. If I didnt do that I WOULD BE ARRESTED!!!!

hokuspokus 10-11-2012 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illuminumnuts (Post 1061132501)
As clearly stated, the story was going to come out with or without Clifford. This thread is addressing what Clifford knew about Clark, which I don't believe has been paid much attention before. I suggest you go on to these other threads you are familiar with if you want to discuss any other bits you are keen on. Anyhow, you haven't answered my question? Cat got your tongue has it? :confused:



Clearly you are too lazy to do any research so here is the headline to the link posted by mrunhappy regarding Clifford/Clark/Harkess women.

" Clark denies exposing himself to Harkess girls"

This story was sold by Clifford on behalf of the Harkess family
and first printed on 2/June/1994.

Which part dont you understand?

illuminumnuts 10-11-2012 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hokuspokus (Post 1061132529)
Clearly you are too lazy to do any research so here is the headline to the link posted by mrunhappy regarding Clifford/Clark/Harkess women. "Clark denies exposing himself to Harkess girls"
This story was sold by Clifford on behalf of the Harkess family and first printed on 2/June/1994. Which part dont you understand?

The first part I don't undertand is you not understanding the part about the fact that the story would have come out with or without Max Clifford, but I think I do actually understand why that might be the case. I also think that we both clearly understand that, just as everyone else reading this thread clearly understands that. :)

The second part I don't understand is you not understanding the part about this thread being created to address what Clifford knew about Clark, irrespective of whether he was involved in the story or not. A story is a story and nothing more. Clark evaded justice and it seems that Clifford knew what he'd done and didn't report it.

The third part I don't understand is why you are running scared and evading answering my question. Here it is for a third time:

Quote:

Originally Posted by illuminumnuts (Post 1061132529)
What do you think about people who term the grooming (flashing at the minimum) of 13 year old girls by 45 year old men as 'slightly serious'? A straight answer will do. What do you think about such people working for Chlrdren In Need? Thank you. :)

No research skills needed here chum, just morality. Well? :confused:

hokuspokus 10-11-2012 07:20 PM

Running scared!! hahaha !! i can see right through a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Nice try at shilling/trolling/gatekeeping. Good effort.

However i will not allow the serious campaign against
child abuse to be de-railed or led down distructive blind alleys
by the likes of you.

For the record, not that you or your masters care, i have nothing
but contempt for any individual who commits acts of abuse of
any kind against children. Or any human or animal for that matter.

Happy?

illuminumnuts 10-11-2012 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hokuspokus (Post 1061132575)
Happy?

'What do you think about people who term the grooming (flashing at the minimum) of 13 year old girls by 45 year old men as 'slightly serious'? A straight answer will do. What do you think about such people working for Chlrdren In Need? Thank you.' :)

You have now had one more chance than even Thomas had. I won't ask you again and will just let everyone judge for themselves whether you have answered the question or not. And now you know I am a gatekeeper you better run off before I have black choppers come for you. :p Cheers. :)

hokuspokus 10-11-2012 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illuminumnuts (Post 1061132586)
What do you think about people who term the grooming (flashing at the minimum) of 13 year old girls by 45 year old men as 'slightly serious'? A straight answer will do. What do you think about such people working for Chlrdren In Need? Thank you. :)

You have now had one more chance than even Thomas had. I won't ask you again and will just let everyone judge for themselves whether you have answered the question or not. And now you know I am a gatekeeper you better run off before I have black choppers come for you. :p Cheers. :)



"whether you have answered the question or not" hahahahaha shill boy

banged to rights by your own post

Let the record reflect huh?

But again FOR THE RECORD AS I HAVE ALREADY POSTED

I HAVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT FOR ANY CHILD ABUSERS,HUMAN ABUSERS
OR ANIMAL ABUSERS.

illuminumnuts 10-11-2012 09:44 PM

If anyone has any information at all about when this video was recorded, where it first surfaced and why it only got leaked now, then please do share. It was definitely an undercover job and I am very curious. Thank you.

Analysing what Clifford said more I think it's obvious he knew he was doing wrong and tried to self-justify it to himself. I think he subconsciously made the 13 year old and 15 year old into 'two 14 year olds' because he knew deep down that 13 was just beyond the pale. You can just about get away with not calling it paedophilia where 14 year olds are involved, more a case of underage sex, but if the offender is more than 10 years older - i'm being generous here - it's getting pretty gross. Clark was 45 and 32 years older. On that basis alone I would have considered anything under 16 to be serious poncing, let alone 13. Clifford needs to take stock, admit he did wrong, apologise and resign from Children In Need. Maybe he isn't a bad bloke at heart, I don't know. Anyhow, like the gypsy in 'Thinner' said, 'die clean'. I will be contacting Children In Need myself this week and giving them my opinion on the matter. It's just a joke, like everything else seems to be when you dig around a little bit. :(

twelve 10-11-2012 09:50 PM

I see arguments happening, to shift the balance of this thread.

lets blow 10-11-2012 10:05 PM

Let the thread run. Illuminumnuts has created it. Just makes people wonder what the motives behind some of the posting is.

On the face of it Clifford MAY have committed the offence of being an accessory to the fact. Clifford's words indicate a crime has been committed by Clarke having sex with underage girls then he helped Clarke to bury the crime.

Quote:

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.
HideElements

In some jurisdictions, an accessory is distinguished from an accomplice, who normally is present at the crime and participates in some way. An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.

Relative severity of penalties

The punishment tariff for accessories varies in different jurisdictions, and has varied at different periods of history. In some times and places accessories have been subject to lesser penalties than principals (the persons who actually commit the crime). In others accessories are considered the same as principals in theory, although in a particular case an accessory may be treated less severely than a principal. In some times and places accessories before the fact have been treated differently from accessories after the fact. Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties. Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acces...erm)#section_1

illuminumnuts 11-11-2012 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets blow (Post 1061132839)
On the face of it Clifford MAY have committed the offence of being an accessory to the fact. Clifford's words indicate a crime has been committed by Clarke having sex with underage girls then he helped Clarke to bury the crime.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acces...erm)#section_1

It looks like he has committed an offence to me as well. If anyone has any other potential legal angles, then please air them.

allseeingipod 11-11-2012 07:30 AM

Leaving aside whether or not Clifford committed an actual crime, is a man who finds it laudable to have covered up the 'slightly serious' sex crimes of Alan Clark against two early teen girls really someone Children in Need consider it a good idea to be associated with? WTF message is that sending out?

bendelapidate 11-11-2012 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allseeingipod (Post 1061133249)
Leaving aside whether or not Clifford committed an actual crime, is a man who finds it laudable to have covered up the 'slightly serious' sex crimes of Alan Clark against two early teen girls really someone Children in Need consider it a good idea to be associated with? WTF message is that sending out?

It's sending out the message that the elite can act with impunity against anybody whomsoever they please. It's fostering a sense of helplessness in the victims and ensuring that anybody who even hints they know something is quickly intimidated/silenced/gagged in order to prevent the deeply unpalatable truth about the ruling establishment being leaked. The rot extends to the very core of the British establishment and further.

The technique of getting senior power brokers and politicians involved - unsuspectingly or willfully - in underage sex, pedophilia etc. is a tried and trusted means of inducing loyalty among the ranks of the power pyramid. You do the dirt or we show the world the photos.

The difference here is that it's not somebody else in the control network who's threatening to spill the beans for nefarious reasons of duress, it's the victims, years later, coming forward to tell (or try to) tell their stories in the hope that they may be taken seriously.

That monster Saville preyed on those whom he knew, at the time, would never be believed. Young adults in "correctional" facilities, prisoners, vulnerable children etc. The same continues to this day.

They tend to prey on mentally disabled children now, since they don't even have the intellectual capacity to reason or even communicate verbally and so they make ideal victims for these depraved creatures.

illuminumnuts 11-11-2012 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allseeingipod (Post 1061133249)
Leaving aside whether or not Clifford committed an actual crime, is a man who finds it laudable to have covered up the 'slightly serious' sex crimes of Alan Clark against two early teen girls really someone Children in Need consider it a good idea to be associated with? WTF message is that sending out?

I think that the greeting cards sent to Children In Need should also mention Clifford and demand answers.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:25 AM.