As he's led into the entrance hall of jail, perhaps they could play a recording of him laughing in that raucous drawn-out way he used to on It's a Knockout.
I wonder if they'll remove the laughing clown in the glass box from Blackpool Pleasure Beach???
Only 15 months, what an effing joke, still, it is the UK were in, so its as expected i guess
I really thought justice might be done in this case. I suppose I really do need to accept what a cruel and nasty world we're in once and for all. :mad:
15months is no where near long enough for his crimes, he will be out in 5 probably!!!!
I am just not sure, whilst from a wanting people to pay view I would like to have seen longer (it would have been if he had conned the taxman or committed an insurance fraud ) , from a practical view this sentence will not be appealed a longer one probably would be
I think I am of the opinion that if any of the victims wants this appealed then it should be (it should be their call) , if not then we accept it
He only got 15 months as hes a famous Tv presenter, lets face it, any normal person off the streets, you can guarantee they would have got a lot longer than a paltry 15 months.
He probably won't even serve that, couple of months good behaviour or something, and he'll be straight back out.
Should have put the **** in till he popped his clogs tbh, but as i said above, this is the UK, we can't do anything, lock people up for a week, people moan, its not long enough, to lenient, its a joke etc..., shove em in for 200 years, its to long, human rights, can't do that etc.....
He only got 15 months as hes a famous Tv presenter, lets face it, any normal person off the streets, you can guarantee they would have got a lot longer than a paltry 15 months.
He probably won't even serve that, couple of months good behaviour or something, and he'll be straight back out.
Should have put the **** in till he popped his clogs tbh, but as i said above, this is the UK, we can't do anything, lock people up for a week, people moan, its not long enough, to lenient, its a joke etc..., shove em in for 200 years, its to long, human rights, can't do that etc.....
No wonder this countrys a pissing joke.
Whilst I am not saying I agree with the sentence I dont think it is because of who he is. It was a combination of when the offences took place, his age and his eventual guilty plea.
There have been many more lenient sentences in the past for crimes aginst children not saying thats right but just saying I dont think this sentence is because he was on TV.
I heard on the BBC news that someone (I think the judge?) commented on the sentence being as short as it is, is due to the fact their restricted to sentencing him to whatever the maximum was at the time the offences were committed, like others mentioned.
I was surprised it was only 15 months, seems very light. Considering there were multiple victims, and there could possibly be more who never spoke up, and the youngest was only 9 years old it is quite shocking.
I heard on the BBC news that someone (I think the judge?) commented on the sentence being as short as it is, is due to the fact their restricted to sentencing him to whatever the maximum was at the time the offences were committed, like others mentioned.
It was mentioned that the maximum sentence was 5 years.
I heard on the BBC news that someone (I think the judge?) commented on the sentence being as short as it is, is due to the fact their restricted to sentencing him to whatever the maximum was at the time the offences were committed, like others mentioned.----
Yes i don't think his fame is so much an issue as his age, pretty much unpresedented at 83 according to ITV news. saying the fact that the judge gave him so long at his age shows how seriously the judge took the case
Isn't this the the man who has disposed of his assets so his victims can't claim compensation? I don't get a feeling of great remorse here :mad: Maybe the other prisoners will get to him and issue their own justice
Yes i don't think his fame is so much an issue as his age, pretty much unpresedented at 83 according to ITV news. saying the fact that the judge gave him so long at his age shows how seriously the judge took the case
Isn't this the the man who has disposed of his assets so his victims can't claim compensation? I don't get a feeling of great remorse here :mad: Maybe the other prisoners will get to him and issue their own justice
What makes it worse is the fact that he wouldn't have had those assets if he had been caught at the time.
It was mentioned that the maximum sentence was 5 years.
Ok, I stand corrected then. That is surprising though - I presumed from the way the quote was worded that he'd given the maximum sentence. Perhaps thats a reflection of his age though, like my mum said it might end up being a life sentence.
They also mentioned on the news that there had already been a few calls requesting the sentence be reviewed over worries it was too leniant?.
This article covers it:-
The judge said for most of Hall's offences the maximum sentence at the time they were committed was two years, but the remainder carried a potential term of five years.
He added: "The maximum sentence for this type of offence has been significantly increased, since these offences were committed, to 10 years."
The attorney general's office said it had already had a "small number" of requests to review the sentence to determine if it was "unduly lenient".
Labour MP Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, said the sentence should be extended due to the seriousness of the offences, the age of victims and the fact that he "compounded the victims' distress" by publicly denying the allegations at first.
A decision on whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal on such grounds must be made within 28 days.
Heard on the news that one of his victims thinks there could be more victims that haven't come forward.
I remember Stuart Hall during the seventies and eighties he was never off the telly. I always thought he looked full of himself. Smug and smarmy and could have imagined him as a Casanova but I never had him down as someone that messed about with kids. That has really shocked me.
I was surprised it was only 15 months, seems very light. Considering there were multiple victims, and there could possibly be more who never spoke up, and the youngest was only 9 years old it is quite shocking.
very light? its nearly a year and a half.very harsh when you think about how much time that actually is.
Having considered mitigation such as age and no previous convictions the Judge's starting point was 20 months. The judge took into account Hall's late pleas of guilty.
I have, accordingly reduced each sentence by 25% to give that degree of credit for your pleas of guilty.
The Sentence
The sentence of the Court is as follows:
For Count 1 ‐ 6 months imprisonment
For Counts 2‐4 ‐ 3 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
For Count 6 ‐ 15 months imprisonment concurrent
For Counts 10 and 11 – 6 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
For Counts 12, 13 and 14 – 9 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
For Count 15 – 15 months imprisonment concurrent
For Count 16 – 15 months imprisonment concurrent
For Count 17 – 6 months imprisonment concurrent
For Count 18 – 9 months imprisonment concurrent
All sentences to be concurrent amounting to 15 months in all
1. Taken individually some of the offences do not cross the custody threshold
2. However several of the offences, in my judgement more than your counsel has submitted, do cross the custody threshold, and those in each of Counts 6, 15 and 16 do so significantly because of their facts and the ages of the children involved.
3. Taken together the cumulative result of your offending is such that a custodial sentence is appropriate as the starting point for all of the offences.
Having come to the conclusion that the offending taken as a whole crosses the custody threshold, as I have, I then have to determine whether the mitigation in your case is sufficient to justify retreating back over the custody threshold and to decide what the appropriate penalty should be.
Something I was curious about was why stop in 1986, was it the opportunities to offend no longer existed, his age, or something else. The Judge's report has the following...
To the Probation officer you indicated that in 1986 you took the decision to stop your criminal behaviour towards others and stopped drinking spirits and chose to be celibate.
If he stopped because he knew it was wrong, his outburst in February seems at odds with his decision in 1986.
Comments
I wonder if they'll remove the laughing clown in the glass box from Blackpool Pleasure Beach???
I really thought justice might be done in this case. I suppose I really do need to accept what a cruel and nasty world we're in once and for all. :mad:
I am just not sure, whilst from a wanting people to pay view I would like to have seen longer (it would have been if he had conned the taxman or committed an insurance fraud ) , from a practical view this sentence will not be appealed a longer one probably would be
I think I am of the opinion that if any of the victims wants this appealed then it should be (it should be their call) , if not then we accept it
Yep, excatly
I dunno what kind of defence that is
We should be grateful, he wasn't another Jimmy Saville?
One victim, is one victim too many
15 months? what a joke, this should be appealed
He'll be out again early next year
He only got 15 months as hes a famous Tv presenter, lets face it, any normal person off the streets, you can guarantee they would have got a lot longer than a paltry 15 months.
He probably won't even serve that, couple of months good behaviour or something, and he'll be straight back out.
Should have put the **** in till he popped his clogs tbh, but as i said above, this is the UK, we can't do anything, lock people up for a week, people moan, its not long enough, to lenient, its a joke etc..., shove em in for 200 years, its to long, human rights, can't do that etc.....
No wonder this countrys a pissing joke.
I thought the same tbh. If that's the best the defence can do they might as well not bother.
Whilst I am not saying I agree with the sentence I dont think it is because of who he is. It was a combination of when the offences took place, his age and his eventual guilty plea.
There have been many more lenient sentences in the past for crimes aginst children not saying thats right but just saying I dont think this sentence is because he was on TV.
----
I came here to post this link after spotting it within the GD forum, incase its of any interest:- http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1834892
Apologies if this has already been posted.
It was mentioned that the maximum sentence was 5 years.
Yes i don't think his fame is so much an issue as his age, pretty much unpresedented at 83 according to ITV news. saying the fact that the judge gave him so long at his age shows how seriously the judge took the case
Isn't this the the man who has disposed of his assets so his victims can't claim compensation? I don't get a feeling of great remorse here :mad: Maybe the other prisoners will get to him and issue their own justice
Given his age, profile and the nature of the offences he'll be on his own.
What makes it worse is the fact that he wouldn't have had those assets if he had been caught at the time.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/stuart-hall-sentencing-remarks-17062013.pdf
Ok, I stand corrected then. That is surprising though - I presumed from the way the quote was worded that he'd given the maximum sentence. Perhaps thats a reflection of his age though, like my mum said it might end up being a life sentence.
They also mentioned on the news that there had already been a few calls requesting the sentence be reviewed over worries it was too leniant?.
This article covers it:-
Source:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222
I remember Stuart Hall during the seventies and eighties he was never off the telly. I always thought he looked full of himself. Smug and smarmy and could have imagined him as a Casanova but I never had him down as someone that messed about with kids. That has really shocked me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22945384
very light? its nearly a year and a half.very harsh when you think about how much time that actually is.
If he stopped because he knew it was wrong, his outburst in February seems at odds with his decision in 1986.