..to think that Max Clifford is not a suitable person to head ......

[margerybruce]

....Children in Need - A man who knew an MP had had sex with two 14 year olds and did nothing about it.

[ethelb]

"I wish journalists would Tweet if they can't print in the papers and out people."

same laws apply

[Nancy66]

it is being tweeted

[margerybruce]

M Bruce ‏@MBruce9
.@bbcnewsnight must air #newsnight #paedoatnumber10 #truth
Collapse Reply Delete Favorite
10:08 AM - 2 Nov 12 · Details
Tweet textImage will appear as a link

[margerybruce]

Media Guido ‏@MediaGuido
Have #Newsnight bottled it again?
Retweeted by Guido Fawkes
Expand Reply Retweeted Favorite

[NigellasGuest]

Will Black ‏@WillBlackWriter
Film of Max Clifford discussing evidence of a top Tory abusing kids has been removed but transcript is here //therebel.org/opinion/europe/68674-max-clifford-on-creating-false-images ?

[Mrcrumpswife]

Channel 4 news...

[BrianAndHisBalls]

Just reading various links re L. AM and loads of mentions of child abuse scandal in Wales. How did I miss all that? I don't remember anything about it on the news at all.

[Tipsandshoots]

so are we all going to watch newsnight then

[Darkesteyes]

Yes. Im just watching the itv news first.

[MrsjREwing]

Come over to the newsnight thread.

[Tipsandshoots]

Right i give up where is it. Not chat or aibu nor news, I will have a look in tv and then Im lost

[MrsjREwing]

news

[mam29]

Im perpetually confused by whole js business.

1stly-max cliffords always been a bottom feeder and represents some questionable people its all about money, power and status for him, i hardly think charity work ofsets his morals.

I had no idea he was involved with cin.

Last week one of management within children in need said he had bad feeling about saville and kept him away from it-so hes culripble did js even involved with children in need? Think the news last week reported telathons but always thourght they were itv for some reason.

Last month when news 1st broke on question time janet street porter stated she knew. then esther rantzen.

Surly most of top stars within bbc are culprible if they knew?

bbc -is a mess and pulling the newsnight think makes look like cover up.

freddie star weird one-other week he came out saying i never done such a thing, i was abused myself, whilst stood next to wife half his age, but agreed to answer any questions I did think ohh maybe hes tarnished by association not guilty.

Then on c4 news last night they earthed footage of freddie with jimmy and young girl he claimed not to meet.This then made him look dodgy but was long time a go, maybe drugs and drink his memorys hazy does that make him guilty.

Im not defending freddie by way-hes innocent until proven guilty.

does eeem weird media go after people like joanna yates landlord then on celebrities go silent, money does indeed buy privacy and some protection.

But I do worry about teh danger of anyone guilty by assocation.
police have to been seen to be doing something but lets hope they dont ruin innocent peoples lives as they met him once ona tv show hardkly choice is it-its work not social.

Unsure how glitter flits into this hes already found guilty so any accusations against him i guess will be deemed as true.

Alan clarle-totally seperate issue.

michael crick said he cant name the politician but think that deflects the attention from celebs-maybe im cynical.

I do hope they investigate well,

[edam]

I think a lot of people heard rumours. But didn't have any facts that could justify a complaint. And there's always an element of groupthink - that if there was anything in a rumour, someone else would be doing something about it. It's akin to bystander apathy - the phenomenon where if someone needs help in a public place, most people walk past until one person stops. Then lots of people feel able to stop and help.

I don't think Esther or Paul G or Janet are as culpable as, say, people who actually knew for a fact, or had witnessed, or had turned away kids who complained. Or the police - I don't know whether each force that investigated was aware of the others but it does seem Surrey Police didn't bother to speak to the head of Duncroft. Surprisingly limited investigation. Or politicians who thought it was a bright idea to put Savile in charge of Broadmoor (wtf?) or hospital managers who gave Savile accommodation and ignored complaints from staff. And politicians again, esp. if this stuff about senior members of the Thatcher govt. is true (and Heath).

[Tipsandshoots]

To me it's all a circular mess. With everyone feeding off each other. If you look at some if the rap lyrics where women are classed as chattels as dumb bitches and ho's. Is it any wonder that there is an increase if disrespect to women and rape. I do hope that there is a renaissance in women's power soon. to get away from the pencil thin, huge heeled, skimpy clothed, pitiful look and back into the power look. I am sure there arre men out there starting their defense with it was like that in 2010. When we look back in 30 years we will express horror at bras for 8 year olds, play boy bunny logos in kids clothes and the sexualisation of young children in horror.
Hopefully the fuss and horror of the majority of what went with saville and is going on now will be out in the open and stopped

[Besidethecoast]

EDAM you said "...........I think a lot of people heard rumours.....I don't think Esther or Paul G or Janet are as culpable as, say, people who actually knew for a fact, or had witnessed, or had turned away kids who complained............"
BUT Max Clifford admitted to knowing about Savile because he said the women who came to him about G Glittter also mentioned JS. he takes enormous credit for "turning in" G Glitter (says he even got a letter of thanks from the police) so why didn't he "turn in" JS? Or at the v. least inform police ....; which he admits he didn't do.

[Besidethecoast]

prandtheweb.com/2012/11/01/pr-must-stop-backing-max-clifford/

"PR Must Stop Backing Max Clifford
1112012 Yesterday the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) announced that it was going to make its membership list public ? with no opt out. At a stroke the importance of membership and the code of conduct that goes with it was elevated. On the same day publicist Max Clifford took the lectern as keynote speaker at The CIPR?s Northern Conference in Leeds. In building the reputation of the PR industry we scored an amazing goal then almost instantly put one into our own net.
My argument is simple. The reputation of PR as a profession is at best average. No individual has done more to shape the public?s impression of PR than Max Clifford, though Joanna Lumley and Jenifer Saunders have come close. Clifford trades in deceit, he says so himself. He also says that he spends most of his time keeping people out of the press. We?ve seen with Jimmy Savile how dangerous it can be when the media is deflected from scrutinising the abusive behaviour of powerful people. The media constantly calls on Max Clifford to speak on behalf of the PR industry. The chartered body tasked with promoting the PR profession needs to be challenging the idea that Max represents the industry ? not promoting him as a keynote speaker at an annual conference.
Max is persuasive and charismatic, his media klout is phenomenal but he laughs at the idea that PR people should have ethics. It?s a very dangerous combination. Let?s find new voices to represent PR. The PR guru was among the first to take on News Corporation over phone hacking at the News of the World and accepted a payout reported to be worth as much as £1m.This year Clifford launched a TV production company called Exclusive, with former Daybreak editor Ian Rumsey. He presumably has no shortage of clients keen to appear on the small screen"

[Viviennemary]

I've never much liked the charity Children in Need but have always given something if I've been approached. This year I don't think I will.

[edam]

PR isn't a profession. I do wish people would stop elevating trades into 'professions'. A profession is a career where you need certain qualifications and that is self-regulating such as the law or medicine. Having to be part of a membership/regulatory body that has the power to strike you off and stop you practising is also important. Being a hack or being in PR does not make you a professional. (Am a hack myself - it is a trade not a profession.)

Anyway, off the soapbox, very fair point re. Clifford reporting Glitter and not Savile, I didn't know about that although am interested in why - it may have been for arguably good reasons e.g. the victim didn't want to pursue Savile (I have no idea what they might be, but can imagine there may have been valid reasons.)

[Mumfun]

But we know if MC knew one client was abusing children, there are more of his clients doing that or other dodgy stuff for sure. He isnt telling the police -he could be done for perverting the course of justice! He isnt squeaky clean and the Beeb has to do a squeaky clean CIN this year.

I think CIN should be cancelled. Will every celeb taking part be CRB checked? I doubt it. Also they tried to pull a fast one and gave out all this publicity that Savile had been kept away from CIN. Then the Icke forum unearths photos of Savile taking part in CIN so they were being totally economilcal with the truth!

[margerybruce]

Greeting Cards for Justice

Please join in with this ........

co-ordinated campaign to send a card to highlight abuse of children and demand action

[Besidethecoast]

I just thought it was interesting that his fellow PR's are trying to distance themselves from him and obviously feel that he has no morals and no sense of responsibility. Odd that CIN didn't feel the same way! Or did they give the hiring job to some numpty who didn't have a clue. I find it baffling that someone like MC who defends people accused of serious crimes such as murder, sexual crimes etc. is then deemed to be a good choice to represent a charity of such standing which obviously involved with children who have also been victims of crime, abuse etc.

[twoteenagers2]

This makes interesting reading and is even more fascinating because it is SIX YEARS OLD!

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/23/pressandpublishing.observermagazine