Well, I'd never have thought this ...

[as]

Fergie is next - that's why he retired in a hurry........allegedly

[CrazyHorse]

Stuart Hall sent down for 15 months. The dirty old twt.

[thebish]

Stuart Hall sent down for 15 months. The dirty old twt.

15months seems light for sexually assaultingt a 9yr old - presumably because the tariff back then was less??

anyway - I'm staggered at the barrister's attempt at mitigation..

Hall's barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.

it's not so bad cos there were only 13 and not 1300?????

[Harry Genshaw]

Hall's barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.

it's not so bad cos there were only 13 and not 1300?????

I imagine there are murderers about to go on trial, who are going to use Stalin in mitigation after hearing this.

Referred back to the DPP already so could be extended yet

[bobo the clown]

Stuart Hall sent down for 15 months. The dirty old twt.

15months seems light for sexually assaultingt a 9yr old - presumably because the tariff back then was less??

anyway - I'm staggered at the barrister's attempt at mitigation..

Hall's barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.

it's not so bad cos there were only 13 and not 1300?????

Well, I guess 100 times less bad !?

Firstly you have to suspect that the 13 were barely the tip of the iceberg.
Then taking into account that one was 9.
Then, that he pleaded not guilty and put them through the courts.

All in all 15 months should be more like 15 years.

I have to say when judges give such lenient sentences for certain crimes it does make you wonder about the Judge.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Stuart Hall sent down for 15 months. The dirty old twt.

15months seems light for sexually assaultingt a 9yr old - presumably because the tariff back then was less??

anyway - I'm staggered at the barrister's attempt at mitigation..

Hall's barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.

it's not so bad cos there were only 13 and not 1300?????

Well, I guess 100 times less bad !?

Firstly you have to suspect that the 13 were barely the tip of the iceberg.
Then taking into account that one was 9.
Then, that he pleaded not guilty and put them through the courts.

All in all 15 months should be more like 15 years.

I have to say when judges give such lenient sentences for certain crimes it does make you wonder about the Judge.

While he denied it when first accused, I thought he pleaded guilty in court.

[bobo the clown]

Stuart Hall sent down for 15 months. The dirty old twt.

15months seems light for sexually assaultingt a 9yr old - presumably because the tariff back then was less??

anyway - I'm staggered at the barrister's attempt at mitigation..

Hall's barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.

it's not so bad cos there were only 13 and not 1300?????

Well, I guess 100 times less bad !?

Firstly you have to suspect that the 13 were barely the tip of the iceberg.
Then taking into account that one was 9.
Then, that he pleaded not guilty and put them through the courts.

All in all 15 months should be more like 15 years.

I have to say when judges give such lenient sentences for certain crimes it does make you wonder about the Judge.

While he denied it when first accused, I thought he pleaded guilty in court.

You are correct .... he did what he could to filibuster the charges being brought, then denied it all so the kids had to prepare to give evidence, but then pleaded guilty when the day came.

Still should be closer to 15 years than 15 months.

The DPP is already planning to review the sentence I see.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Much puzzling sentencing here.

For instance, this is deemed serious

Where as negligence is less than a 100 quid fine. Almost killing a youngster with a jet ski gets you er a slightly bigger fine

On the roads whoever is at the back is almost always to blame for the lack of brain cells of the driver infront/to the side.

Sometimes it concerns me living here

[Lost Leopard Spot]

without, in anyway whatsoever, saying what he did does not deserve death and emasculation, I'd have to point out that what he's actually pleaded guilty to is touching, with his filthy grubby hands. Nothing more. Now, I'm not defending that - but after certain other exchanges recently on this website, I'm fairly amazed that nobody seems to be talking 'fair trial' in this case. Just saying.

[thebish]

without, in anyway whatsoever, saying what he did does not deserve death and emasculation, I'd have to point out that what he's actually pleaded guilty to is touching, with his filthy grubby hands. Nothing more. Now, I'm not defending that - but after certain other exchanges recently on this website, I'm fairly amazed that nobody seems to be talking 'fair trial' in this case. Just saying.

did he not have a fair trial??

[Montreal Wanderer]

without, in anyway whatsoever, saying what he did does not deserve death and emasculation, I'd have to point out that what he's actually pleaded guilty to is touching, with his filthy grubby hands. Nothing more. Now, I'm not defending that - but after certain other exchanges recently on this website, I'm fairly amazed that nobody seems to be talking 'fair trial' in this case. Just saying.

did he not have a fair trial??

Since he pleaded guilty when the trial began, why would we be talking trial at all, fair or otherwise?

[thebish]

without, in anyway whatsoever, saying what he did does not deserve death and emasculation, I'd have to point out that what he's actually pleaded guilty to is touching, with his filthy grubby hands. Nothing more. Now, I'm not defending that - but after certain other exchanges recently on this website, I'm fairly amazed that nobody seems to be talking 'fair trial' in this case. Just saying.

did he not have a fair trial??

Since he pleaded guilty when the trial began, why would we be talking trial at all, fair or otherwise?

I don't know - ask LLS - I think he's making some kind of veiled point about muslims again....

[William the White]

without, in anyway whatsoever, saying what he did does not deserve death and emasculation, I'd have to point out that what he's actually pleaded guilty to is touching, with his filthy grubby hands. Nothing more. Now, I'm not defending that - but after certain other exchanges recently on this website, I'm fairly amazed that nobody seems to be talking 'fair trial' in this case. Just saying.

did he not have a fair trial??

Since he pleaded guilty when the trial began, why would we be talking trial at all, fair or otherwise?

I don't know - ask LLS - I think he's making some kind of veiled point about muslims again....

I'm sure Spotto is in favour of fair trials for everyone, even those that plead guilty and therefore don't have a trial in any normal sense, cos they just say, yep, I dunnit... So, well... no, I've no idea what he means by this either...

Maybe the clue is he's 'just saying'... Like anything 'just random' is engaging and an interesting contribution to General Banter...

[Montreal Wanderer]

without, in anyway whatsoever, saying what he did does not deserve death and emasculation, I'd have to point out that what he's actually pleaded guilty to is touching, with his filthy grubby hands. Nothing more. Now, I'm not defending that - but after certain other exchanges recently on this website, I'm fairly amazed that nobody seems to be talking 'fair trial' in this case. Just saying.

did he not have a fair trial??

Since he pleaded guilty when the trial began, why would we be talking trial at all, fair or otherwise?

I don't know - ask LLS - I think he's making some kind of veiled point about muslims again....

I'm sure Spotto is in favour of fair trials for everyone, even those that plead guilty and therefore don't have a trial in any normal sense, cos they just say, yep, I dunnit... So, well... no, I've no idea what he means by this either...

Maybe the clue is he's 'just saying'... Like anything 'just random' is engaging and an interesting contribution to General Banter...

Well, I suppose I'm one who favours the rule of law and believes individual human rights need to be protected so perhaps Spotty aimed it this way. However, if the person says 'I dunnit' without coercion then the trial is not an issue and the sentence may even have been a matter of agreement a priori (hopefully not but....).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't aiming anything at anybody hence why I qualified it by saying 'Just saying' - which seems to have caused the confusion in the first place.
I mentioned fair trial because most people who have commented seem to think the sentencing in Hall's case is ridiculously lenient, whereas I think that because he wasn't prosecuted we will never know what he actually did, and therefore whether he should have been sentenced to longer, because he has been sentenced to 15 months for inappropriately touching 13 children (including a nine year old) after admitting 14 cases but one count of rape will lie on the court file!!! what the fxck is that about?

(Bish. In what way can anything I put in yesterday's post be construed as a veiled point about Muslims? )

[thebish]

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't aiming anything at anybody hence why I qualified it by saying 'Just saying' - which seems to have caused the confusion in the first place.
I mentioned fair trial because most people who have commented seem to think the sentencing in Hall's case is ridiculously lenient, whereas I think that because he wasn't prosecuted we will never know what he actually did, and therefore whether he should have been sentenced to longer, because he has been sentenced to 15 months for inappropriately touching 13 children (including a nine year old) after admitting 14 cases but one count of rape will lie on the court file!!! what the fxck is that about?

(Bish. In what way can anything I put in yesterday's post be construed as a veiled point about Muslims? )

simply because the last reference to fair trials was about abu qatada - that's all... sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion - it's just that I couldn't see what else it might be referring to when you talked about "other exchanges" regarding fair trials.. (still can't, truth be known!)

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't aiming anything at anybody hence why I qualified it by saying 'Just saying' - which seems to have caused the confusion in the first place.
I mentioned fair trial because most people who have commented seem to think the sentencing in Hall's case is ridiculously lenient, whereas I think that because he wasn't prosecuted we will never know what he actually did, and therefore whether he should have been sentenced to longer, because he has been sentenced to 15 months for inappropriately touching 13 children (including a nine year old) after admitting 14 cases but one count of rape will lie on the court file!!! what the fxck is that about?

(Bish. In what way can anything I put in yesterday's post be construed as a veiled point about Muslims? )

simply because the last reference to fair trials was about abu qatada - that's all... sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion - it's just that I couldn't see what else it might be referring to when you talked about "other exchanges" regarding fair trials.. (still can't, truth be known!)

It would appear from what I've read that he's been sentenced on the basis of admitting doing fourteen things wrong, for which thirteen of those things he's been sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. But, however, the one thing, which he seems to have admitted, which in my view is the worst of the things he seems to have done is now just "lying on a court file" - this seems to be saying to me that he was neither tried nor convicted of that offence. Which in my humble opinion makes a mockery of the entire trial. Hence why I am referring to fair trials. Trials need to be fair in all respects - to the victims as well as the defendants, surely?

[thebish]

It would appear from what I've read that he's been sentenced on the basis of admitting doing fourteen things wrong, for which thirteen of those things he's been sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. But, however, the one thing, which he seems to have admitted, which in my view is the worst of the things he seems to have done is now just "lying on a court file" - this seems to be saying to me that he was neither tried nor convicted of that offence. Which in my humble opinion makes a mockery of the entire trial. Hence why I am referring to fair trials. Trials need to be fair in all respects - to the victims as well as the defendants, surely?

yes - i was just a bit flumoxed by the relationship to this case to your unspecified "other exchanges" about fair trials on this forum - I now don't know what these other exchanges were for any comparison to this case to be made...

[Bijou Bob]

Cases are allowed to lie on file usually because dragging the case through court either wouldn't be in the public interest or would be too traumatic for the victim. In this case, I suspect the evidence was weak and largely circumstantial but backed up by allegations of a similar nature. The case could be brought before a court if he appealed sentence for example or if he commits a similar offence.

The Hall case has pointed out once again the ludicrous nature of sentencing and sentence reduction, where prisoners only serve half of the sentence passed up to a certain tarrif. It allows Government to retain the illusion they are taking a hard line on crime whilst reducing costs but it pishes all over the victims and their families.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Cases are allowed to lie on file usually because dragging the case through court either wouldn't be in the public interest or would be too traumatic for the victim. In this case, I suspect the evidence was weak and largely circumstantial but backed up by allegations of a similar nature. The case could be brought before a court if he appealed sentence for example or if he commits a similar offence.

The Hall case has pointed out once again the ludicrous nature of sentencing and sentence reduction, where prisoners only serve half of the sentence passed up to a certain tarrif. It allows Government to retain the illusion they are taking a hard line on crime whilst reducing costs but it pishes all over the victims and their families.

Cheers. I had never heard of a case being allowed to lie on file before and it was confusing the hell out of me as to what it was about.

And Bish, all I was doing was connecting three disparate things in my own head, I wouldn't worry about unravelling it, as I was completely confused myself as to what was going on. Bijou Bob has kind of cleared up some of my confusion for me. I had the wrong end of the stick - I thought the authorities were allowing some crimes to disappear into some kind of black hole: apparently not!