The Friday Night Song.
I don’t normally comment on cases during trials as it’s a legal minefield. Most MSM sources report everything that can be legally reported and there is normally very little I can add.
However, one thing that the prosecution often try to highlight in these kind of cases are similarities between independent witness testimony as this can demonstrate that the accused had a particular approach. This can often be seen to strengthen cases like this.
Below are three allegations set to be made under oath by three independent witnesses.
1) During an audition, Clifford exposed himself and said to the 19-year-old: ‘Look at my prick. Isn’t it tiny? What can I do with this?’ Afterwards, she received a call from a man with an Italian accent, who asked about Clifford’s penis. The prosecution says this was Clifford, who went on to expose himself again during a second meeting.
2) Clifford invited the 18-year-old to audition for a role in Labyrinth, starring David Bowie, but said she would have to sleep her way to success. He told her he had a small penis, took down his trousers and added: ‘If you touch it, it gets bigger.’ The girl left and never spoke to Clifford again.
3) Clifford and another man allegedly approached the 18-year-old in a cafe and hired her as a secretary. Miss Cottage told the jury that he eventually approached his new employee while stark naked, and said he wanted to teach her how to perform a sex act, adding that if she complied ‘she could meet David Bowie’. She refused.
A 38-year-old woman has been charged with offences relating to the possession and distribution of indecent images.
Suzanne Thomas, Senior Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service Wales, said:
“As part of a wider police investigation, the CPS was asked by South Wales Police to review evidence files relating to alleged offences committed by Joanne Mjadzelics.
“I have reviewed this evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Joanne Mjadzelics with four counts of possession of an indecent image, two counts of distributing an indecent image and one count of encouraging another to distribute an indecent image.
“Accordingly, I have authorised South Wales Police to charge Ms Mjadzelics with these offences and she has been bailed to appear before Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on 21 March.
“May I remind all concerned that Joanne Mjadzelics has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.”
Notes to Editors:
Joanne Mjadzelics has been charged with:
• Four counts of possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4), contrary to Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offences dated between 7 May 2011 and 16 May 2011)
• Two counts of distributing an indecent image of a child (level 1), contrary to Section 1 (1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (offences dated 30 September 2011)
• One count of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence of distributing and indecent image of a child, contrary to Section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (offence dated between 9 May 2011 and 17 May 2011)
The full charges are set out as follows:
1. On the 7th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
2. On the 8th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
3. On the 8th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
4. On the 16th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
5. Between the 9th May 2011 and the 17th May 2011 you did an act, namely asked Ian Watkins to send you an indecent image of a child, which was capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an either way offence, namely distributing an indecent image of a child, believing that the offence would be committed and that your act would encourage or assist in its commission. Contrary to S.45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007
6. On the 30th September 2011 you distributed an indecent image of a child (level 1) Contrary to S.1 (1)(b) Protection of Children Act 1978
7. On the 30th September 2011 you distributed an indecent image of a child (level 1) Contrary to S.1 (1)(b) Protection of Children Act 1978
A very good source contacted me earlier to let me know that he’d heard that the Daily Mail were aware of the arrest of Patrick Rock, the Downing Street aide, in mid-February. That is before The Mail embarked on its vitriolic two week campaign against Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey, and Patricia Hewitt over their link over 30 years ago, through the NCCL, to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). The political editor of the Daily Mail, James Chapman, denies this and insists they only found out yesterday.
The Mail coverage over the last few weeks has concerned me for a couple of reasons. The first is that it was, for the most part, very old rehashed news. Very little new information has been put in the public domain and, as a consequence, it was only right to ask questions about the timing of the campaign.
The second reason was that these were extremely personal attacks.
Highlighting any issue concerning historic paedophilia in the mainstream media which raises awareness must be welcome, as must the expressed ‘regrets’ of Harriet Harman and the apology of Patricia Hewitt, but this blanket coverage failed to address genuine concerns. Not once did I see any attempt to analyse the long term consequences of allowing a paedophile network to operate legally for 10 years in the UK. Where was the victims’ perspective and the effects on them ? Where was the very serious debate that still needs to be had about the responsibility the state has to the victims who continue to suffer as a consequence of government policy which not only allowed PIE to exist legally but even funded it ?
Instead, the coverage had all the hallmarks of a politically motivated attack and anyone who heard soon after this attack began that Downing Street had explicitly advised Tory MPs not to comment on The Daily Mail stories would have become even more suspicious.
Now we know that a few days before this attack began, Patrick Rock, a senior and close aide to the Prime Minister, had been arrested over a potential offence regarding child abuse imagery.
I doubt we’ll ever find out exactly when and how the Daily Mail were made aware of this arrest.
But let’s face it, it stinks.
Patrick Rock was arrested on February 13th. Downing Street computers were seized.
So there you go. That is why the Daily Mail have been hammering on about Labour politicians for the last two weeks.
Just a reminder of what I said when The Mail first started their campaign against Harman et al Daily Mail: Why Now?
One of David Cameron’s closest aides has resigned after being arrested on child pornography allegations.
Patrick Rock has been closely involved in drawing up Government policy on internet porn filters.
He quit after the Prime Minister learned he was at the centre of a police probe over images of child abuse.
Detectives from the National Crime Agency searched No 10 and examined IT systems and offices used by Mr Rock, deputy director of the Downing Street policy unit.
Mr Rock was a protege of Margaret Thatcher and has held a series of senior posts in the Conservative Party. He has been close to Mr Cameron for many years.