hung drawn & quartered, I guess would be his answer:D
But this is a pathetically small sentence - I note the usual DS BBC defenders so far have made no comment at all on this thread. I would be very interested to hear YOUR views on this one boys.
And have the BBC or Granada TV been found guilty of a crime today? I didn't recall that they had. The BBC acknowledged that Hall abused his position within the BBC and carried out acts of indecency while undertaking BBC tasks. They subsequently offered an unreserved apology. Granada TV are I believe, investigating to see whether he committed acts of indecency whilst he was working for them. If he did they will likely issue a similar statement. What else are they meant to do? A girl I know was raped by her boss On work premises. He was prosecuted. The company apologised that such a misuse of priviledge by her boss was carried out and offered the girl counselling and compensation. It wasn't the company's fault. No more than it was the BBC's fault.
No. But you would be kept in prison for ever without parole because that is the closest thing we have to the death penalty. Or alternatively you could be sent to live with Jedward. Whichever is worst.
I think anything has to be better than living with Jedward :eek::eek::eek:
No not in the current case, but the victims are planning to claim damages from the BBC I understand, for the damage Hall did to their lives whilst he was in the BBC's employment - does this not make the BBC culpable if their damage claims are successful?
I'm tired of these non-entities getting a lenient stretch, it's one thing to allow them to hand themselves into a local nick at their own pace but to give them freeway where sentencing is concerned baffles me.
It's time to build a massive cage in the middle of the sea and lock up all the peadophiles & murderers in one place then let them fend for themselves. After all it's a dog eat dog world. Plus resources can be better used on the NHS.
No not in the current case, but the victims are planning to claim damages from the BBC I understand, for the damage Hall did to their lives whilst he was in the BBC's employment - does this not make the BBC culpable if their damage claims are successful?
It depends. If the BBC knew what Hall was up to (and it's unlikely they did), and they encouraged/allowed it to happen (again very unlikely), then yes they are culpable. But if Hall just used his position as a BBC employee to carry out these crimes,then how could that make the BBC culpable in the same way as Tesco's isn't culpable if similar incidents happened between employees there? (I use Tesco's hyperthetically as it seems that so many people think just because someone works at the BBC then the BBC are at fault while totally dismissing the fact that these events are likely occurring throughout every major organisation but that these other organisations are never culpable).
So here's a question. And it's a genuine one, I'm not stirring.
What evidence has convicted Stuart Hall? Clearly there is going to be no psychical evidence, so is it simply based on what has been said?
If he had denied it, would it simply have been his word against theirs?
I'm not defending this kind of carry-on at all, but I am very curious as to how all these historic cases of abuse are being proved. Surely it cannot be based purely on the accounts of alleged victims.
I'm tired of these non-entities getting a lenient stretch, it's one thing to allow them to hand themselves into a local nick at their own pace but to give them freeway where sentencing is concerned baffles me.
It's time to build a massive cage in the middle of the sea and lock up all the peadophiles & murderers in one place then let them fend for themselves. After all it's a dog eat dog world. Plus resources can be better used on the NHS.
So here's a question. And it's a genuine one, I'm not stirring.
What evidence has convicted Stuart Hall? Clearly there is going to be no psychical evidence, so is it simply based on what has been said?
If he had denied it, would it simply have been his word against theirs?
I'm not defending this kind of carry-on at all, but I am very curious as to how all these historic cases of abuse are being proved. Surely it cannot be based purely on the accounts of alleged victims.
Hall admitted the charges so there was no need for detailed evidence, his defence team would have been given details of the allegations.Admission spared the victims the need to give evidence which the judge would have taken into account.Only when someone denies the charges will we be able to see the strength of evidence on something that allegedly happened nearly 50 years ago.
It depends. If the BBC knew what Hall was up to (and it's unlikely they did), and they encouraged/allowed it to happen (again very unlikely), then yes they are culpable.
Plenty of anecdotal testimony from ex-BBC staffers (not ones with axes to grind either) that say it was an open secret at the time and frankly if you are the sort of person that buys the Mark Thompson-style defence ("saw nothing, knew nothing so I did nothing") then I have some lovely time-share opportunities I would like to sell you.
AFAIK anecdotal evidence has pretty much no standing in the court as it's not even eyewitness evidence, rather "I heard" or "Julie in reception told me..."
Plenty of anecdotal testimony from ex-BBC staffers (not ones with axes to grind either) that say it was an open secret at the time and frankly if you are the sort of person that buys the Mark Thompson-style defence ("saw nothing, knew nothing so I did nothing") then I have some lovely time-share opportunities I would like to sell you.
I've got some flying pigs for sale too:) very cheap.
Plenty of anecdotal testimony from ex-BBC staffers (not ones with axes to grind either) that say it was an open secret at the time and frankly if you are the sort of person that buys the Mark Thompson-style defence ("saw nothing, knew nothing so I did nothing") then I have some lovely time-share opportunities I would like to sell you.
But that's the crux of the problem. Anecdotal testimony is just hear say. I could say "Oh yeah, I knew Hall was up to something because a friends friend of mine told me that they had heard a rumour and that Halls boss knew everything and held the whip!"
But does that make it factual? I dare say that there is most definetely someone who knew what he was up to. There is likely to be someone at the BBC at the time who turned a blind eye. Eventually the truth will out. But, that doesn't mean it is right to blame the BBC in its entirety. That is what I have a problem with.
But that's the crux of the problem. Anecdotal testimony is just hear say. I could say "Oh yeah, I knew Hall was up to something because a friends friend of mine told me that they had heard a rumour and that Halls boss knew everything and held the whip!"
But does that make it factual? I dare say that there is most definetely someone who knew what he was up to. There is likely to be someone at the BBC at the time who turned a blind eye. Eventually the truth will out. But, that doesn't mean it is right to blame the BBC in its entirety. That is what I have a problem with.
To do that would be to absolve Hall of all responsibility and nobody is doing that. Even ignoring everything else there are now two reports into the culture and practices of the BBC at that time which, regardless of what they find, is an indictment of sorts all by itself.
In addition, this far on from the crimes, testimony from BBC staffers and the like is all we are likely to get to back up victim statements. Those people calling for "smoking guns" before Hall, Savile and other loathsome creatures like them are held to account are just perpetuating a strawman argument, knowing that physical proof from 40-50 years ago will not be where the crux of these cases are decided. Like with collective victim statements it will be the cumulative effect of several corroborating independent statements from colleagues, employees etc that will add further weight, perhaps condemning weight, to form a case that the CPS will rubber-stamp to be taken further.
Yes,the partnership with Bob Greaves,was rather bizarre,as they occupied the end part of Granada Tonight/Reports,talking together about frivilous items. I can't remember the name of the quiz programme he presented.
Sadly,a brilliant talent will now probably just be remembered,for his darker side.
Straker, no one is asking for solid physical evidence after this long.
What people tend to prefer (and the courts want), are first hand accounts from people..
Things like "I saw" and "I heard the girl" not workplace rumours and stories that the person has heard of, but not witnessed themselves (I believe such evidence is classed as hearsay, and very rarely allowed because it's usually worthless)..
Corroborating evidence such as proof that the two people where in the same area at the same time is also pretty good and can still be available many years later..
No not in the current case, but the victims are planning to claim damages from the BBC I understand, for the damage Hall did to their lives whilst he was in the BBC's employment - does this not make the BBC culpable if their damage claims are successful?
Interesting to see what happens but again the BBC can't be sued meaning taken to court & IMHO he would have done what he did if he worked for someone else, So I don't think the BBC is to blame I maybe wrong? we shall see.
To do that would be to absolve Hall of all responsibility and nobody is doing that. Even ignoring everything else there are now two reports into the culture and practices of the BBC at that time which, regardless of what they find, is an indictment of sorts all by itself.
In addition, this far on from the crimes, testimony from BBC staffers and the like is all we are likely to get to back up victim statements. Those people calling for "smoking guns" before Hall, Savile and other loathsome creatures like them are held to account are just perpetuating a strawman argument, knowing that physical proof from 40-50 years ago will not be where the crux of these cases are decided. Like with collective victim statements it will be the cumulative effect of several corroborating independent statements from colleagues, employees etc that will add further weight, perhaps condemning weight, to form a case that the CPS will rubber-stamp to be taken further.
I think, that over the last few months, I am of mind that the culture within the media world in general is still and most definetely was corrupt. I realise the focus is aimed at the BBC due to the fact that Savile and Hall worked there. It is right that questions are asked and situations addressed. Whether the way they are addressed are satisfactory is for another debate and will be a topic probably never totally agreed upon. But what is clear, is that this perverse behaviour is more widespread than just within the walls of BBC TV Centre and Broadcasting House. Even with the allegations that Bill Roach and Michael Le Vell from Corrie are faced with, it makes me wonder if this problem is more commonplace throughout the entire industry. To start with deep cleansing of the BBC and for the BBC to be honest and look at what went on in the past and learn from it is a positive step and I'm sure, despite inevitable further bad press for the Corporation, that's what will happen.
It really is an unusual era. To think that a handful of those stars we grew up with and enjoyed watching, would ultimately be declared as disgusting parasites is sort of upsetting.
Straker, no one is asking for solid physical evidence after this long.
If you check back over the life of the Savile story you will see that is EXACTLY what some people were after before they would give credence to victim statements and furthermore there is a section of people who could care less about the individuals involved and their guilt or innocence but see every "name in the frame" as a reason to circle the wagons and defend the Beeb (they are less vociferous, silent even, in the defence of other culpable organisations) regardless. This refusal to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence was demonstrated again with Hall where his version of events was sided with by a significant percentage in order to mitigate his longest employers from some responsibility. In effect they did as Hall did and disparaged the victims, cast doubt over why they had remained silent for so long and in many cases accused them of simply being after a civil settlement ie lying in order to get a pay-out.
The thing that worries me is that without physical evidence, it becomes a battle of words, and of course, these can be faked. Which means there are bound to be people out there who see pound signs and give it a go.
Once mud has been thrown, you are far more likely to be believed. People should, of course, pay the price for crimes they have committed, but no matter how bad you think someone is, they shouldn't pay the price for crimes they haven't committed.
I'm not saying this has happened with Hall - I have no idea. Though I'd be astonished if some of Saville's alleged victims aren't making it up for a slice of the estate. Which is totally unfair really - his beneficiaries haven't done anything wrong.
Hall transferred all his assets into his wife's name shortly before the trial. Presumably she cannot be sued as there is no suggestion she was involved. Then when he comes out of prison he can confess he is penniless.
Comments
And have the BBC or Granada TV been found guilty of a crime today? I didn't recall that they had. The BBC acknowledged that Hall abused his position within the BBC and carried out acts of indecency while undertaking BBC tasks. They subsequently offered an unreserved apology. Granada TV are I believe, investigating to see whether he committed acts of indecency whilst he was working for them. If he did they will likely issue a similar statement. What else are they meant to do? A girl I know was raped by her boss On work premises. He was prosecuted. The company apologised that such a misuse of priviledge by her boss was carried out and offered the girl counselling and compensation. It wasn't the company's fault. No more than it was the BBC's fault.
Ten years. And to hell with the do-gooders.
I think anything has to be better than living with Jedward :eek::eek::eek:
Has he been found guilty yet then ?
Would be a dream come true.
No not in the current case, but the victims are planning to claim damages from the BBC I understand, for the damage Hall did to their lives whilst he was in the BBC's employment - does this not make the BBC culpable if their damage claims are successful?
www.bbc.co.uk/news
It's time to build a massive cage in the middle of the sea and lock up all the peadophiles & murderers in one place then let them fend for themselves. After all it's a dog eat dog world. Plus resources can be better used on the NHS.
It depends. If the BBC knew what Hall was up to (and it's unlikely they did), and they encouraged/allowed it to happen (again very unlikely), then yes they are culpable. But if Hall just used his position as a BBC employee to carry out these crimes,then how could that make the BBC culpable in the same way as Tesco's isn't culpable if similar incidents happened between employees there? (I use Tesco's hyperthetically as it seems that so many people think just because someone works at the BBC then the BBC are at fault while totally dismissing the fact that these events are likely occurring throughout every major organisation but that these other organisations are never culpable).
What evidence has convicted Stuart Hall? Clearly there is going to be no psychical evidence, so is it simply based on what has been said?
If he had denied it, would it simply have been his word against theirs?
I'm not defending this kind of carry-on at all, but I am very curious as to how all these historic cases of abuse are being proved. Surely it cannot be based purely on the accounts of alleged victims.
If only .
Hall admitted the charges so there was no need for detailed evidence, his defence team would have been given details of the allegations.Admission spared the victims the need to give evidence which the judge would have taken into account.Only when someone denies the charges will we be able to see the strength of evidence on something that allegedly happened nearly 50 years ago.
Plenty of anecdotal testimony from ex-BBC staffers (not ones with axes to grind either) that say it was an open secret at the time and frankly if you are the sort of person that buys the Mark Thompson-style defence ("saw nothing, knew nothing so I did nothing") then I have some lovely time-share opportunities I would like to sell you.
I've got some flying pigs for sale too:) very cheap.
But that's the crux of the problem. Anecdotal testimony is just hear say. I could say "Oh yeah, I knew Hall was up to something because a friends friend of mine told me that they had heard a rumour and that Halls boss knew everything and held the whip!"
But does that make it factual? I dare say that there is most definetely someone who knew what he was up to. There is likely to be someone at the BBC at the time who turned a blind eye. Eventually the truth will out. But, that doesn't mean it is right to blame the BBC in its entirety. That is what I have a problem with.
To do that would be to absolve Hall of all responsibility and nobody is doing that. Even ignoring everything else there are now two reports into the culture and practices of the BBC at that time which, regardless of what they find, is an indictment of sorts all by itself.
In addition, this far on from the crimes, testimony from BBC staffers and the like is all we are likely to get to back up victim statements. Those people calling for "smoking guns" before Hall, Savile and other loathsome creatures like them are held to account are just perpetuating a strawman argument, knowing that physical proof from 40-50 years ago will not be where the crux of these cases are decided. Like with collective victim statements it will be the cumulative effect of several corroborating independent statements from colleagues, employees etc that will add further weight, perhaps condemning weight, to form a case that the CPS will rubber-stamp to be taken further.
Yes,the partnership with Bob Greaves,was rather bizarre,as they occupied the end part of Granada Tonight/Reports,talking together about frivilous items. I can't remember the name of the quiz programme he presented.
Sadly,a brilliant talent will now probably just be remembered,for his darker side.
What people tend to prefer (and the courts want), are first hand accounts from people..
Things like "I saw" and "I heard the girl" not workplace rumours and stories that the person has heard of, but not witnessed themselves (I believe such evidence is classed as hearsay, and very rarely allowed because it's usually worthless)..
Corroborating evidence such as proof that the two people where in the same area at the same time is also pretty good and can still be available many years later..
Interesting to see what happens but again the BBC can't be sued meaning taken to court & IMHO he would have done what he did if he worked for someone else, So I don't think the BBC is to blame I maybe wrong? we shall see.
I think, that over the last few months, I am of mind that the culture within the media world in general is still and most definetely was corrupt. I realise the focus is aimed at the BBC due to the fact that Savile and Hall worked there. It is right that questions are asked and situations addressed. Whether the way they are addressed are satisfactory is for another debate and will be a topic probably never totally agreed upon. But what is clear, is that this perverse behaviour is more widespread than just within the walls of BBC TV Centre and Broadcasting House. Even with the allegations that Bill Roach and Michael Le Vell from Corrie are faced with, it makes me wonder if this problem is more commonplace throughout the entire industry. To start with deep cleansing of the BBC and for the BBC to be honest and look at what went on in the past and learn from it is a positive step and I'm sure, despite inevitable further bad press for the Corporation, that's what will happen.
It really is an unusual era. To think that a handful of those stars we grew up with and enjoyed watching, would ultimately be declared as disgusting parasites is sort of upsetting.
If you check back over the life of the Savile story you will see that is EXACTLY what some people were after before they would give credence to victim statements and furthermore there is a section of people who could care less about the individuals involved and their guilt or innocence but see every "name in the frame" as a reason to circle the wagons and defend the Beeb (they are less vociferous, silent even, in the defence of other culpable organisations) regardless. This refusal to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence was demonstrated again with Hall where his version of events was sided with by a significant percentage in order to mitigate his longest employers from some responsibility. In effect they did as Hall did and disparaged the victims, cast doubt over why they had remained silent for so long and in many cases accused them of simply being after a civil settlement ie lying in order to get a pay-out.
The thing that worries me is that without physical evidence, it becomes a battle of words, and of course, these can be faked. Which means there are bound to be people out there who see pound signs and give it a go.
Once mud has been thrown, you are far more likely to be believed. People should, of course, pay the price for crimes they have committed, but no matter how bad you think someone is, they shouldn't pay the price for crimes they haven't committed.
I'm not saying this has happened with Hall - I have no idea. Though I'd be astonished if some of Saville's alleged victims aren't making it up for a slice of the estate. Which is totally unfair really - his beneficiaries haven't done anything wrong.