Gross! What a henious post. How about you stop being so selfish? Who cares wherever he was someone's entertainment.
I really worry about some of these "special" types on DS who seem to value the golden era of entertainment and their childhood memories more than the safety of the public. Unwell is maybe the politest term I would use to describe people with such a warped sense of priorities, because no remotely well functioning person would ever think that way.
What I don't get with the law, he was allowed to sign over his house to his wife, to stop it being used as damages when he is sued by the victims, this loophole must be stopped.
Just because Mr Halls said he did these things he may have not. Terrible lynch mentality here,
Why would he admit to these crimes then? There must have been some things presented to him that made him realise that he wasn't actually going to get off. Decades and decades ago, perhaps, but I highly doubt the coppers threatened him with anything if he didn't admit to these crimes. Going by what you've said, just because ANY paedophile in the country admits to sexually abusing a youngster, this doesn't mean to say they have then? I can imagine the paedophiles loving this attitude within the law. I think your post might have been to get a reaction, but I thought I'd reply to it anyway.
What I don't get with the law, he was allowed to sign over his house to his wife, to stop it being used as damages when he is sued by the victims, this loophole must be stopped.
If its the family home, ie his wife's home as well, why the f*ck should he have to sell it. Afterall she hasn't been convicted of anything.
If they tried it she should be on to a lawyer as quick as possible.
If its the family home, ie his wife's home as well, why the f*ck should he have to sell it. Afterall she hasn't been convicted of anything.
If they tried it she should be on to a lawyer as quick as possible.
If he had been declared bankrupt, he would have forfeited half of the house's equity. He' not a bankrupt, he's something much much worse, a convicted pedophile who has badly affected lives for which a multi millionaire should really finacially recompense his victims and the house's equity remains intact. Is that justice?
If he had been declared bankrupt, he would have forfeited half of the house's equity. He' not a bankrupt, he's something much much worse, a convicted pedophile who has badly affected lives for which a multi millionaire should really finacially recompense his victims and the house's equity remains intact. Is that justice?
Well said, and why should he come back to his comfy home (bet she has him back) after to carry on his life as normal. It is a huge house, if she was any way a decent person, she sell to a smaller home, (now she on her own) and give some money for the victims...
[QUOTE=nanscombe;67396292]If its the family home, ie his wife's home as well, why the f*ck should he have to sell it. Afterall she hasn't been convicted of anything.
If they tried it she should be on to a lawyer as quick as possible.[/QUOTE]
Because he has done wrong and has to pay damages to his victims. But you know this really, dont you.
What I don't get with the law, he was allowed to sign over his house to his wife, to stop it being used as damages when he is sued by the victims, this loophole must be stopped.
It should be the case that the assets are identifed at the time the charges are brought, and the law should be changed so that those assets can not be signed over / sold on until a verdict is reached. Simple really.
It should be the case that the assets are identifed at the time the charges are brought, and the law should be changed so that those assets can not be signed over / sold on until a verdict is reached. Simple really.
What I don't get with the law, he was allowed to sign over his house to his wife, to stop it being used as damages when he is sued by the victims, this loophole must be stopped.
Why? His wife has been accused of no crime, has she? Why should she lose her home because of what her husband did more than a generation ago? As an earlier poster said, there really is a terrible lynch mob mentality on here that demands as many people as possible be punished. Guilt by association, eh?
It should be the case that the assets are identifed at the time the charges are brought, and the law should be changed so that those assets can not be signed over / sold on until a verdict is reached. Simple really.
Not really.
His wife and family bear no responsibility for his crimes and shouldn't be made to suffer beyond the public shame and devastation they'll have gone through anyway because of him.
Let's keep the blame where it belongs, with the criminal.
Let's keep the blame where it belongs, with the criminal.
Who, until two months before it was obvious he was going to get well and truly caught, had an estate of over £1 million , but once he realised he may have to pay compensation to the people who's childhoods he ruined, signed it all over to his wife.
If you can't see the wrong in that I dont know what to say.His wife is richer , he suffers nought in the way of financial compensation, the victims get nothing. Thats not a justice system to be proud of.He has avoided , quite literally, paying for his crimes.
And lets not forget, his net worth is built on an image that, had this come out earlier in his career, would mean he never would have accrued the employment and salary that paid for the house in the first place.
Comments
I really worry about some of these "special" types on DS who seem to value the golden era of entertainment and their childhood memories more than the safety of the public. Unwell is maybe the politest term I would use to describe people with such a warped sense of priorities, because no remotely well functioning person would ever think that way.
What a shock she must have got when every single crew member then left - except for Stuart Hall - after she had got comfy on her sunbed!
Shocking post.....imho.:eek:
Is this forum moderated?
Outcome of the hearing is expected in 20 minutes.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/hall-term-inadequate-for-offences-29450590.html
Why would he admit to these crimes then? There must have been some things presented to him that made him realise that he wasn't actually going to get off. Decades and decades ago, perhaps, but I highly doubt the coppers threatened him with anything if he didn't admit to these crimes. Going by what you've said, just because ANY paedophile in the country admits to sexually abusing a youngster, this doesn't mean to say they have then? I can imagine the paedophiles loving this attitude within the law. I think your post might have been to get a reaction, but I thought I'd reply to it anyway.
If its the family home, ie his wife's home as well, why the f*ck should he have to sell it. Afterall she hasn't been convicted of anything.
If they tried it she should be on to a lawyer as quick as possible.
If he had been declared bankrupt, he would have forfeited half of the house's equity. He' not a bankrupt, he's something much much worse, a convicted pedophile who has badly affected lives for which a multi millionaire should really finacially recompense his victims and the house's equity remains intact. Is that justice?
Well said, and why should he come back to his comfy home (bet she has him back) after to carry on his life as normal. It is a huge house, if she was any way a decent person, she sell to a smaller home, (now she on her own) and give some money for the victims...
If they tried it she should be on to a lawyer as quick as possible.[/QUOTE]
Because he has done wrong and has to pay damages to his victims. But you know this really, dont you.
My blood is boiling
Bloke is 83, he nearly did a 'Savile' - was probably hoping to never be caught, take it all the way to the grave
He was caught... and yet receives a lenient sentence !!
15 months, halved, only spend half in prison, so not much more than 6 months then
Too much sympathy for the criminal.. old man... frail, and so forth
Not enough thought for victims
No matter how many years ago, it took place... very serious crime
The punishment must always fit the crime
30 mths now
Still not long enough in my opinion
This...
Agree, but better than 6 months
It should be the case that the assets are identifed at the time the charges are brought, and the law should be changed so that those assets can not be signed over / sold on until a verdict is reached. Simple really.
Agreed
I agree. Why should she be punished for his crime. He's going to be in prison anyway so not having a house isn't even going to affect him.
Why? His wife has been accused of no crime, has she? Why should she lose her home because of what her husband did more than a generation ago? As an earlier poster said, there really is a terrible lynch mob mentality on here that demands as many people as possible be punished. Guilt by association, eh?
Not really.
His wife and family bear no responsibility for his crimes and shouldn't be made to suffer beyond the public shame and devastation they'll have gone through anyway because of him.
Let's keep the blame where it belongs, with the criminal.
I also agree with Lexi ... Hall committed the crime not his wife n family..why should they be punished
Who, until two months before it was obvious he was going to get well and truly caught, had an estate of over £1 million , but once he realised he may have to pay compensation to the people who's childhoods he ruined, signed it all over to his wife.
If you can't see the wrong in that I dont know what to say.His wife is richer , he suffers nought in the way of financial compensation, the victims get nothing. Thats not a justice system to be proud of.He has avoided , quite literally, paying for his crimes.
And lets not forget, his net worth is built on an image that, had this come out earlier in his career, would mean he never would have accrued the employment and salary that paid for the house in the first place.
Until he comes out back to his luxury home.