your too old mate
Jimmy Savile and Operation Yewtree
- Thread starter 17Larsson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Stewart Hall to be sentenced today, will he get jail time?
reading on Sky about Hall defence and they are saying
Hall has irregular heartbeat, sinusitis, enlarged prostate - and now because of this, depression and trouble sleeping.
Hall's barrister describes him as a linguistic craftsman par excellence. And says he invented phrase 'the beautiful game'
last offence was 27 yrs ago, statement submitted from Dave Whelan chairman of Wigan FC outlining #stuarthall 's charity work
This all may be true, I have doubts about the beautiful game bit, but he is a dirty old man who sexually attacked young girls, he should serve prison time.
Hall has irregular heartbeat, sinusitis, enlarged prostate - and now because of this, depression and trouble sleeping.
Hall's barrister describes him as a linguistic craftsman par excellence. And says he invented phrase 'the beautiful game'
last offence was 27 yrs ago, statement submitted from Dave Whelan chairman of Wigan FC outlining #stuarthall 's charity work
This all may be true, I have doubts about the beautiful game bit, but he is a dirty old man who sexually attacked young girls, he should serve prison time.
15 months inside, his age saved him from a much longer sentence.
15 months is a joke. The dirty old bastard should die in prison
when you read some of the stuff he did and the ages, I have to agree 15 months is way to short, his age and illnesses saved him from atlest 5 - 10 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a life sentence.
15 months for 14 offences? Is this judge for real? Hall's youngest victim was NINE YEARS OLD FFS!
His barrister Crispin Aylett had the nerve to say... the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.
I really don't see that as an excuse of reason he should not have been jailed for a lot longer than 15 months!
His barrister Crispin Aylett had the nerve to say... the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.
I really don't see that as an excuse of reason he should not have been jailed for a lot longer than 15 months!
Listening to 5Live down the years, I often sensed a distaste for Hall from his fellow broadcasters. At the time, I put this down to some people disliking his over-dramatic presenting style but now I wonder if many of Hall's BBC colleagues knew about his 'habits' for years.
I do agree with you very much , he should of got much longer.
I suspect the judge took into account his age and illnesses more than he should of done, he is only going to do half the 15 months, maybe not even that.
I suspect the judge took into account his age and illnesses more than he should of done, he is only going to do half the 15 months, maybe not even that.
It's a shame his victims were not saved because of their age.
I see no reason whatsoever that just because he got away with it until he'd reached a ripe old age it should mean him getting a shorter sentence. It also has to be remembered that he at first denied it all until the undeniable evidence was shown to him.
I tend to agree with Steve J...that BBC colleagues did not seem to like Stuart Hall. But I think it was more to do with him being over the top and far too full of himself.
He was an institution in BBC North and probably too important to be told that he belonged in a different era and did not suit the image that BBC Five Live was trying to project.
Of course Hall did project an arrogance...and that does seem to be a trait with abusers.
He was an institution in BBC North and probably too important to be told that he belonged in a different era and did not suit the image that BBC Five Live was trying to project.
Of course Hall did project an arrogance...and that does seem to be a trait with abusers.
He may get longer yet, Sky are reporting
The Attorney General is to examine whether the 15-month sentence handed to broadcaster Stuart Hall for sexually abusing young girls was "unduly lenient".
The Attorney General is to examine whether the 15-month sentence handed to broadcaster Stuart Hall for sexually abusing young girls was "unduly lenient".
Despite his age, he should serve at least 2/3 years. If the assaults were serious (don't know the details).
Apparently only one person needs to complain for the sentence to be reviewed these are usually Child Sex Abuse, Murder crimes and the Attorney General is reported to have had a good few complaints, at first I didn't take all this so seriously living abroad and only really remember Stuart Hall from Its A Knockout but looking at the ages of the girls involved especially when you think that some were aged 9 then the sentence is way to lenient, it shouldn't matter one way or the other if he is sick, aged or whatever he needs to be punished and hopefully the others from this age will also be called to order.
Can anyone shed some light on what range of sentences the judge had at his disposal?
Seems far too lenient. The judge said that at the time of the offences, the maximum sentence was 2 years, but that has now been increased upto 10. Seems like a bit of a cop-out.
Multiple offences, the fact he initially denied the allegations first and that they started as early as 45 years ago, makes 15 months seem shit.
I don't know if age comes into sentencing, but I really hope it doesn't. If anything it's even worse in my eyes considering he hasn't had to pay for his crimes in the years that probably mattered to him most.
Multiple offences, the fact he initially denied the allegations first and that they started as early as 45 years ago, makes 15 months seem shit.
I don't know if age comes into sentencing, but I really hope it doesn't. If anything it's even worse in my eyes considering he hasn't had to pay for his crimes in the years that probably mattered to him most.
I never understood the fascination the UK public had with the likes of Saville, Hall, Tarbuck, etc. The only person I'm surprised being charged is Ken Barlow. He seems a decent chap on surface.
I agree....surely age can't be a deciding factor in sentencing...is a 50 year old any less guilty than a 70 year old? 15 months for 14 offences against 13 different kids is nothing short of an insult. Hopefully it will be increased and Judge Dickhead is retired.
That's how they get away with it Sults.
Stuart Hall will be hosting It's a Cockout in a prison near you..ba bom tish
So that teacher that ran off with a 15 yr old gets 5 and a half years and Hall got 15 months.
Okaaay.
Okaaay.
Absurd, isn't it?
Just what I said to my wife, something is not right.
The teacher went with a girl that was willing, not saying it is right because its not, Hall abused defenceless young girls.
What's not right is the lack of a sensible, consistent and comprehensive approach by Western society to underage sexuality.
And so he should. A teacher using their position of power to shag their students should be very harshly dealt with. Hall may have been dealt with lightly but given that he is a nil risk of reoffending, old and ill it isn't quite as light a sentence as a direct comparison suggests.
Yeah, I could see that teacher doing it again.
I don't disagree with the first part at all.
Second part is a bit weird though. Hell, if we're quite sure that he'll never do it again then why jail him at all? Let's just put him in a giant rubber suit and let the victims shoot him with a big water cannon.
Would that be appropriate?
Works for me. 
Factors like age, illness and likelihood of reoffending are commonly taken into account when sentencing BTW.
Factors like age, illness and likelihood of reoffending are commonly taken into account when sentencing BTW.
Works for me.
Factors like age, illness and likelihood of reoffending are commonly taken into account when sentencing BTW.
I can't accept that, those factors are irrelevant. If it was your daughter, or maybe sister would be more appropriate here, would you be saying, 'oh well, it's a long time ago & he's an old man now, so what the heck'.
They still pursue Nazi war criminals & put them on trial, despite there being no chance of re-offending, & rightly so.
We have the rule of law so that we don't sentence based on emotion. In any case I'm not saying that I agree with Hall's sentence just that the factors that reduced it are commonly applied and shouldn't be ignored based our collective desire to inflict genital torture.
And the teacher also got off lightly IMO. The idea that it wasn't really an offence because she consented is ludicrous rubbish. A 15 year old can't possibly give informed consent with such a power and age inequality exists. The grooming twat deserves everything he gets.
I'm also unsure what you mean regarding hunting Nazi's as they have pursued and arrested and indeed convicted Hall despite the neglibable risk on reoffending.
The point I'm making is that it should not matter when the offence was committed & what the situation is now. The passage of time does not lessen the offence, not should it lessen the punishment.
I don't agree that Forrest's sentence was too harsh.
Parents should be able to send their 15 year old daughters to school without having to worry about teachers having sex with them.
Parents should be able to send their 15 year old daughters to school without having to worry about teachers having sex with them.
Mitigation of sentence shouldn't be allowed? Really?
So all murderers should get exactly the same sentence?
I'm not sure that is what I said though.
If Hall would have been sentenced to, say, 5 years if he had been caught 20 years ago, his sentence should still be 5 years today.
It is what you said. Sentences for murder are subject to mitigation based on many factors. A woman pushed to the point of murdering her husband should get a far shorter sentence that a serial killer. She is far less likely to re-offend and this would be taken in mitigation.
Hall, barring a change in sentencing guidelines, should get the same base sentence but 20 years ago the sentence would be far less mitigatable as Hall was younger and in far better health and also capable of re-offending.
Hall, barring a change in sentencing guidelines, should get the same base sentence but 20 years ago the sentence would be far less mitigatable as Hall was younger and in far better health and also capable of re-offending.
Not really, but if that's the way you read it.
It is the same no matter what. Mitigation factor apply to the person and the offence they committed at the time they are sentenced. Always have.