Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Stuart Hall admits 14 sexual assaults...


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-05-2013, 12:42
andyrich666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 63
Bye Stuart

Enjoy the rest of your life in prison.
if the offences were treated as single offences there would be no prison, I am still not convinced he will get custody, otherwise I would have expected that today
andyrich666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-05-2013, 12:43
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 40,250
and that is the salient point 'it was unthinkable'.

and, and before I get accused of making excuses again, children do lie...they always have done, and they always will do...it is part of growing up. I am not suggesting that any of these children did lie, but, coupled with other factors, many were not believed.
Though in fairness, the whole concept of child abuse wasn't discussed at all back then, so children wouldn't have even had the vocabulary to invent incidents of sexual abuse.

Interestingly too, in quite a few of the Irish Catholic abuse cases, the parents did believe their children, even as far back as the 60s and 70s, so we're probably just talking about extreme ignorance or naiveity in the parents who chose not to believe them.
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:46
incy wincy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 540
The problem with your argument is that the SAME thing happens to this very day.
You keep saying that but do you mean abuse still happens or that people still cover it up? And either way, how does that invalidate Stargazer's argument?

Stargazer makes some very good points. How people handled it might not have been right but it might have been within the cultural view of the day.
incy wincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:54
lotty27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NE England
Posts: 15,750
You also have to remember the way these things would be investigated back then were vastly different.

Parents were perhaps reluctant to put young children through the intense grilling and questioning that was the polices modus operandi at the time, and such is the cult of celebrity, we are talking of people who were household names at the time, the worry of being made out to be liars.
Exactly. No rape suites then with perhaps females only sympathetically interviewing you. No giving evidence by satellite or from behind a screen. It would be brutal for an adult never mind a child/adolescent/teenager.

Parents can't be blamed for not wanting their child to go through that in the same way as adult rape victims can't face a trial.

It was definitely different then - when I was about 8 or 9 an old man started talking to me when I was watching the animals at a local cattle market (somehow we had become separated from the others). I was too young to understand what he was talking about and wasn't sure what to do - respect your elders etc. Fortunately one of the farmers saw him and warned him off. I told no one as I felt stupid but when my dad got home it was obvious the farmer had spoken to him and he was furious. He quizzed me to find out who it was and what he'd said then 'took off' with my mother shouting after him to be careful. I doubt that old man would risk anything like that again!!
This is exactly the way that many, many people would have dealt with it (I bet my dad would have been exactly the same). Go and punch the old pervs lights out! Not ideal by any means, especially viewed with 'modern' eyes. In fact nowadays they'd probably be done for assault themselves on the abuser!

It was more likely to be a guilty conscience that made Hall confess rather than any testimony.
That's what I thought.
OR he doesn't want this dragged out for his own family's sake. Trying to save THEM perhaps rather than the victims.


I am NOT making excuses in any way and quite resent that allegation. I grew up in the sixties and the cultural outlook was very, very different then. There are many reasons why people did not report and still do not report what is considered to be a reportable crime nowadays. There is a huge difference between making excuses and offering a range of valid reasons. It is simply impossible to transpose the way people thought in the past and the way things are viewed today...as others have also pointed out.
Spot on. Don't forget there was quite a bit of 'stigma' attached to this kind of thing back in those days too as awful as it sounds. Awful embarrassment. No one wanted to be the one getting pointed at, looked at etc as not everyone was sympathetic! There'd have been the old 'she led him on', 'she's lying' condemners out in force - especially when the accused was that 'nice' man off the telly! I know the rights of anonymity were still in place but these things could get out so people in the area knew who was being talked about.






But back to Stuart Hall. I loved It's A Knockout as a kid, I even had the game, and he's tarnished my memory. Ugh. Dirty b@stard!
lotty27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:54
stargazer61
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dirty thirty and proud!
Posts: 44,114
Though in fairness, the whole concept of child abuse wasn't discussed at all back then, so children wouldn't have even had the vocabulary to invent incidents of sexual abuse.

Interestingly too, in quite a few of the Irish Catholic abuse cases, the parents did believe their children, even as far back as the 60s and 70s, so we're probably just talking about extreme ignorance or naiveity in the parents who chose not to believe them.
I agree.

Also, there was a sense of shame (rightly or wrongly) for many things. For example , unmarried teenage pregnancies were regarded as bringing shame on the whole family. Sex and sexual behaviour was simply not discussed openly in the early sixties.,...and certainly not shown in TV programmes. Many of the magazines now openly on newsagents shelves would have been regarded as highly pornographic then. There was little or no sex education in schools and no discussion of birth control. Homosexuality was regarded as being somehow filthy and perverted. I do not recall any reports of child abuse in the media....which does not mean that people were not prosecuted, just that it was not reported, and anyway, there was little in the way of media as there is today.
stargazer61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:57
stargazer61
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dirty thirty and proud!
Posts: 44,114
It was definitely different then - when I was about 8 or 9 an old man started talking to me when I was watching the animals at a local cattle market (somehow we had become separated from the others). I was too young to understand what he was talking about and wasn't sure what to do - respect your elders etc. Fortunately one of the farmers saw him and warned him off. I told no one as I felt stupid but when my dad got home it was obvious the farmer had spoken to him and he was furious. He quizzed me to find out who it was and what he'd said then 'took off' with my mother shouting after him to be careful. I doubt that old man would risk anything like that again!!
Sorry...but that image did make me laugh!

And yes, the 'respect your elders' comment is very pertinent
stargazer61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:09
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,455
It was more likely to be a guilty conscience that made Hall confess rather than any testimony.
I listened to that statement he made back in Feb(?) when he huffed and puffed about his innocence, and referred to himself as 'an 83yr old man who now had a heart condition as a result of these 'terrible unfounded accusations' made against him. Didn't sound like a man with much of a conscience to me.

The only reason he changed his plea to guilty is because imo the victims' testimony left him with no choice. Had he not made that earlier statement, then I'd agree that maybe his conscience got the better of him, but he did, so no, it's clear the only person he's sorry for is himself.
lexi22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:13
soapfan_1973
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,173
Glad it has all come out finally. Just goes to show no matter who you are and how hard you try to hide things it will all come out in the end. Hopefully he will get a decent custodial sentence like 10 years but considering he is 81 what's the betting his legal team try to get a special dispensation deal done due to age and celebrity status
soapfan_1973 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:14
jiroos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,073
I listened to that statement he made back in Feb(?) when he huffed and puffed about his innocence, and referred to himself as 'an 83yr old man who now had a heart condition as a result of these 'terrible unfounded accusations' made against him. Didn't sound like a man with much of a conscience to me.

The only reason he changed his plea to guilty is because imo the victims' testimony left him with no choice. Had he not made that earlier statement, then I'd agree that maybe his conscience got the better of him, but he did, so no, it's clear the only person he's sorry for is himself.
Very well said lexi!
jiroos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:21
Fergie86
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,662
Glad it has all come out finally. Just goes to show no matter who you are and how hard you try to hide things it will all come out in the end. Hopefully he will get a decent custodial sentence like 10 years but considering he is 81 what's the betting his legal team try to get a special dispensation deal done due to age and celebrity status
He really should go to Prison but like you said his lawyers will try to get special dispensation due to his age, for me though that shouldn't even come into it, he committed the crime and he should therefore be punished. No special dispensation was given by Hall to his Victims, Hall was happy enough to abuse women and Children to satisfy his sick needs. If and hopefully when Hall goes to prison i don't expect him to last long in there as his life will be made a living hell by the fellow prisoners, wouldn't be surprised if we hear about his death before the year is out.
Fergie86 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:23
elnombre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,853
Glad it has all come out finally. Just goes to show no matter who you are and how hard you try to hide things it will all come out in the end.
Except for the innumerable instances in which victims are silenced and it doesn't.
elnombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:26
smc81
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 785
I listened to that statement he made back in Feb(?) when he huffed and puffed about his innocence, and referred to himself as 'an 83yr old man who now had a heart condition as a result of these 'terrible unfounded accusations' made against him. Didn't sound like a man with much of a conscience to me.

The only reason he changed his plea to guilty is because imo the victims' testimony left him with no choice. Had he not made that earlier statement, then I'd agree that maybe his conscience got the better of him, but he did, so no, it's clear the only person he's sorry for is himself.
Or you could argue that he tried to keep up the lie initially but his conscience got the better of him. If he didn't have a conscience he would have maintained his innocence, made each victim testify and had his barrister cross examine and try to create doubt. The burden of proof is high and there is no guarantee the prosecution could have met it so a man who is truly without conscience or remorse would have taken his chances with a jury.
smc81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:31
earthling13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 9,170
Though in fairness, the whole concept of child abuse wasn't discussed at all back then, so children wouldn't have even had the vocabulary to invent incidents of sexual abuse.

Interestingly too, in quite a few of the Irish Catholic abuse cases, the parents did believe their children, even as far back as the 60s and 70s, so we're probably just talking about extreme ignorance or naiveity in the parents who chose not to believe them.

It wasn't discussed in any graphic detail but, in a way, kids were more aware of 'unpleasant' characters back then. We were allowed the freedom to play outside and had it drilled into us from a very early age that we shouldn't talk to strangers, accept sweets from strangers, stay away from Mr x etc. Obviously this was no protection from friends or family but I think our instincts developed naturally and were stronger than todays overprotected kids..


On the other hand the News of The World was widely known as the News of The Screws and dirty vicar stories were very nudge, nudge, wink wink.

Confusing times.
earthling13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:31
John Dough
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 77,209
He's too old for prison surely?
Tagging and long term 7pm curfews perhaps?
John Dough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:32
AnthonymcQ
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 207
He should have played his joker...

(Sorry )
AnthonymcQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:38
elnombre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,853
Or you could argue that he tried to keep up the lie initially but his conscience got the better of him. If he didn't have a conscience he would have maintained his innocence, made each victim testify and had his barrister cross examine and try to create doubt. The burden of proof is high and there is no guarantee the prosecution could have met it so a man who is truly without conscience or remorse would have taken his chances with a jury.
Yes, okay. The 14 times sexual offender who pre-planned his attacks then called all of his victims liars and opportunists multiple times has a very fine conscience.
elnombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:40
DavidT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North Devon
Posts: 10,729
On the point of people coming forward. A couple of comments from the Daily Mail piece on it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aged-9-17.html

Waiting all this time to charge him is crazy, all respect to Stuart Hall for admitting it, but I can't help thinking that if he had kept quiet, there is was no way anything could have been proved. It's unfortunate for him that we don't have a Statute Of Limitation in the UK, as these crimes would have been too historic to be prosecuted for

Detective chief inspector Neil Esseen, of the force's major investigation team, said after today's hearing: 'The admissions of Mr Hall will at least spare his victims the ordeal of having to recount their abuse at a trial." ====== This says more about Stuart Hall than all the allegations and press/media maelstrom. His career is over. There is nothing to save - the media saw to that. ==== "He was surrounded by a media scrum as he was led into a waiting taxi." ==== He could have fought these cases in the courts which would have been devastating to any witnesses, for or against. It could have lasted months. He took the easy way out for the victims, not himself. He is now tarred and feathered. They feel vindicated. Let's see if there s any further civil action.......

If people really think like this its no wonder some don't want to come forward.
DavidT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:42
John Dough
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 77,209
He should have played his joker...

(Sorry )
Less of the 'up and under' would have helped too......(sorry!)
John Dough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:42
WhiteShade
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 381
I have no confidence in the justice system to punish him beyond accordance. In fact the court of law is full of jobsworths who always drag out cases and sentencing to fill out what should be an easy decision for everybody. Send the dirty buggers down.

Also what gets my back up even more is the freedom for people to appeal anything. When a case is overturned why aren't the original people involved in sentencing punished or dismissed?
WhiteShade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:42
smc81
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 785
Yes, okay. The 14 times sexual offender who pre-planned his attacks then called all of his victims liars and opportunists multiple times has a very fine conscience.
It is certainly not fine but more a case of better late than never - he could easily have made his victims go through the trauma of a court case where he may possibly have got of so at least he spared them that.
smc81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:44
elnombre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,853
It is certainly not fine but more a case of better late than never - he could easily have made his victims go through the trauma of a court case where he may possibly have got of so at least he spared them that.
Yes, shame he couldn't have spared them the 14 sexual assaults, but hey ho.
elnombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:46
Cryolemon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newark, Notts, UK
Posts: 5,454
He's too old for prison surely?
Tagging and long term 7pm curfews perhaps?
My guess is a suspended sentence.

Actually, that's an interesting question, can you be given a suspended sentence for life?
Cryolemon is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:47
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,455
Or you could argue that he tried to keep up the lie initially but his conscience got the better of him. If he didn't have a conscience he would have maintained his innocence, made each victim testify and had his barrister cross examine and try to create doubt. The burden of proof is high and there is no guarantee the prosecution could have met it so a man who is truly without conscience or remorse would have taken his chances with a jury.
Sorry, disagree. That Feb statement is a real shocker listening to it now in the light of his current guilty pleas.

Stuart Hall denies accusations Feb 2013

He talks about himself in a very overblown and self-serving way - "the accusations are pernicious and callous... the last two months of my life have been a living nightmare... but for my family's support, I might have taken my own life... regain my reputation, my good name... horrific ordeal, now incubating a heart complaint which will likely see me off in a couple of years... regain my honour..."

Remember when watching it that he knows he lying. Had he just said something neutral along the lines of 'this is all very upsetting, thanks to those who've supported me, I'll fight to prove my innocence etc', then fair enough, but this, the language used, the arrogance, the 'remember who I am and what I mean to you' insertion - not imo a man with a conscience.

He deserves a lengthy prison sentence for this utterly devious statement alone.
lexi22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:48
NickLangley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 389
I wonder if Hall's behaviour was influenced by drugs.
NickLangley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:49
gilliedew
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,449
Another BBC employee from the same era as Savile, absolutely disgraceful and I regret ever finding him entertaining.
gilliedew is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:57.