Max Clifford ,

[spider]

"One female colleague is convinced an Irish DJ legend is up next."

Would this be the same legend who got an invite to the Thatcher State funeral the other week?

Now that would be a laugh.

[max_tranmere]

We've heard a lot about people who allegedly committed terrible acts many years earlier being arrested during recent times. Don't get me wrong, they all deserve it if they are guilty of it - child abuse is an evil thing and you deserve to be nicked and punished no matter how many years later. What interests me is this: does it mean anything that someone did years go, that was illegal, they could be nicked for years later? If someone punched me in the face 20 years ago could I have them done for assault today? If someone spread rumours about me in a place I worked many moons ago to try and ruin my promotion prospects, could I have them done for defermation of character TODAY? What do people think? I won't though, I've let these things go, but I'm curious about the law on such things.

[william]

As the Law stands there is a cravat known as time barred.

You need to consult with law about how this affects you and what benefit can be obtained by taking proceedings.

[David Johnson]

"If someone punched me in the face 20 years ago could I have them done for assault today? If someone spread rumours about me in a place I worked many moons ago to try and ruin my promotion prospects, could I have them done for defermation of character TODAY? What do people think?"

This is a really difficult one. Clearly there are some crimes such as sexual crimes and murder where there doesn't seem to be a time limit. Quite a few people have been charged with murder decades later simply because dna profiling and forensic evidence in general has improved so much.

In the case of common assault, I think this is regarded as a "summary" offence, typically dealt with in a magistrates course. In that example I think there is a six month time limit between the assault and a case being brought. Even if it was a serious assault which is not a "summary" offence then you would probably struggle to get the police to prosecute years and years after because people's memories of the event would inevitably be very, very hazy and unreliable.

The time limit for defamation cases is a year, I think.

Like I said, nowt straightforward about this which is probably yet another reason why legal people coin it.

[JamesW]

David Johnson wrote:

> The time limit for defamation cases is a year, I think.


Yes it's a year, that's correct, but max would have to show that damage was caused to him, not merely that someone tried to cause him damage.

[lloyd42]

If he does go down I can't see him going down quietly. Think of all that dirt on so many people he's managed to hush up over the years.

[max_tranmere]

Thanks for the information, that is interesting. I think it's a good thing that there's no time limit regarding having people punished no matter how many years later for really heinous acts - whereas punching someone once upon a time isn't regarded by law as being such a big deal. It isn't really, here we tend to let things like that go, whereas in the USA for example everyone just sues everyone for anything. We have a more "turn the other cheek" attitude in the UK for such things.

[one eyed jack]

Its the new McCarthy witch hunts is what it is

As for all this Max bashing. I'll say this...That man can make money out of dirt proving there is no such thing as bad news. You can have a good career out of being the bad guy with max at your side and he has made plenty money over the years doing so.

The fact his critics dont see it is why theyre broke and Max is driving his fancy shmancy car laughing like Daddy Morebucks all the way to the bank

[Essex Lad]

one eyed jack wrote:


> The fact his critics dont see it is why theyre broke and Max is
> driving his fancy shmancy car laughing like Daddy Morebucks all
> the way to the bank
>
Or possibly the big house...