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.
And risked getting a tougher sentence if found guilty.
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..
Yes, awareness of dangers without the lynch mob mentality.
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.
But thats the thing he couldn't maintain the arrogant facade because at some point between the denial and the guilty plea he changed his mind and for the first time in a long time he did the right thing.
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.
I have to admit the guilty plea makes a mockery of the February statement, however he may have been advised to plea guilty by his lawyer on the hope of a lighter sentence if he shows remorse.
Some drugs lower inhibitions and heighten libido. And Hall was best known for an OTT presentational style. He may have sought some artificial stimulus.
But thats the thing he couldn't maintain the arrogant facade because at some point between the denial and the guilty plea he changed his mind and for the first time in a long time he did the right thing.
The CPS statement reads like he had no choice but to confess. It was the same with Chris Huhne who tried every trick to throw the case against him out of court but then pleaded guilty at the start of his trial.
Is he not likely to get that anyway - even with the plea he has to be looking at 5 years or more he will probably die in jail regardless.
Ok I think I'm confused now as to the point you're trying to make. My point is he may have pleaded guilty not because of a guilty conscience but because of the overwhelming evidence against him just like Chris Huhne did.
The CPS statement reads like he had no choice but to confess. It was the same with Chris Huhne who tried every trick to throw the case against him out of court but then pleaded guilty at the start of his trial.
Of course he had a choice - if he had contested the charges he had a chance of getting off even if the chance was slim. Due to his age and the nature of his crimes he is unlikely to benefit from the reduced sentence he might get with a plea.
Yes, awareness of dangers with no social responsibility. Let someone else's kids get abused, who cares as long as mine are okay.
It really was not like that at all! people delt with things in different ways and you cannot use todays standards and customs on they way people did things in the past
Ok I think I'm confused now as to the point you're trying to make. My point is he may have pleaded guilty not because of a guilty conscience but because of the overwhelming evidence against him just like Chris Huhne did.
Huhne will benefit from a reduced sentence by pleading but Hall is so old that even a reduced sentence will likely see him spend the rest of his days in jail so there is no real benefit to him in pleading (unless he gets an outrageously lenient sentence).
Huhne will benefit from a reduced sentence by pleading but Hall is so old that even a reduced sentence will likely see him spend the rest of his days in jail so there is no real benefit to him in pleading (unless he gets an outrageously lenient sentence).
He may have been advised by his lawyer(s) that that is a possibility.
Of course he had a choice - if he had contested the charges he had a chance of getting off even if the chance was slim. Due to his age and the nature of his crimes he is unlikely to benefit from the reduced sentence he might get with a plea.
I find it really strange how you keep trying to paint the image that a rapist and child molester who was very likely to be found guilty and who had numerous damning (and apparently corroborating) testimonies to come ahead of him had some sort of attack of conscience by changing his plea after months of lies.
I find it really strange how you keep trying to paint the image that a rapist and child molester who was very likely to be found guilty and who had numerous damning (and apparently corroborating) testimonies to come ahead of him had some sort of attack of conscience by changing his plea after months of lies.
But thats the thing he couldn't maintain the arrogant facade because at some point between the denial and the guilty plea he changed his mind and for the first time in a long time he did the right thing.
All I'm offering is my opinion on him based on what he himself did and said. I'm not claiming I'm correct, just that his own arrogant words say something so damning and telling about the man he is. I've provided concrete evidence of that arrogance, and it just doesn't sit easily with your suggestion that his conscience got the better of him.
I don't see conscience playing any part in his change of stance, more overwhelming and damning testimony which left him with no choice but to do, as FM Lover suggests below, in a last ditch bid to try and 'minimise' his disgrace.
I have to admit the guilty plea makes a mockery of the February statement, however he may have been advised to plea guilty by his lawyer on the hope of a lighter sentence if he shows remorse.
I don't see conscience playing any part in his change of stance, more overwhelming and damning testimony which left him with no choice but to do, as FM Lover suggests below, in a last ditch bid to try and 'minimise' his disgrace.
His lawyer would have known the extent of the evidence, it's a well known fact that if you put your hands up, show you are sorry (even if you aren't or have nothing to be sorry for) and hope the Courts are lenient. If the evidence is compelling and looking like a guilty verdict in front of a jury then it's better to plead guilty from the off, whether you are or not.
I find it really strange how you keep trying to paint the image that a rapist and child molester who was very likely to be found guilty and who had numerous damning (and apparently corroborating) testimonies to come ahead of him had some sort of attack of conscience by changing his plea after months of lies.
If he had been 40 I can understand him being playing the percentages and pleading for a reduced sentence but this is a 83 year old with a heart condition and I don't see him surviving even a reduced sentence. If he was truly devoid of conscience then he would have taken his chances at trial because even a 1% chance of success is better than nothing.
There is no evidence other than "she said" and a confession. It's not difficult to see why you would plead guilty if so accused.
If the thing went to trial there would be graphic details of the allegations spelled out, it doesn't improve the perception of others if they were then deemed to be insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The difference here is that the whole basis of reasonable doubt is that the victim makes testimony. In their right mind, who would make such an allegation?
So people have never made false allegations to do with sexual matters? Or in a broader church, never lied on oath or simply told an untruth? I think the whole thing needs a serious revisiting because I don't see what benefit any of this has after such a long time.
I'm not saying I condone any of the things that have been alleged, nor am I asking for any kind of forgiveness towards the perpetrators, but I just feel that this process fails to stand up as justice as we know it and I cannot see clearly how it is of benefit to the victims. In all facets of life, we are encouraged to move on, with or without 'closure' because that in the longer term is how to heal physical and emotional hurt, simply the effects of time. I wonder who these actions really serve - is it really about the victims or is just about a very bizarre curiosity and need of the public or driven by the media to see 'celebrities' punished for long past indiscretions?
Comments
And risked getting a tougher sentence if found guilty.
He is 83 how much worse could it get realistically?
Any evidence for that? Libel is still libel even against a sex offender.
Oh please....
Also, all of the testimony against him would have been devastating to his public image.....every word of it would have been published in the media.
Yes, awareness of dangers without the lynch mob mentality.
But thats the thing he couldn't maintain the arrogant facade because at some point between the denial and the guilty plea he changed his mind and for the first time in a long time he did the right thing.
I have to admit the guilty plea makes a mockery of the February statement, however he may have been advised to plea guilty by his lawyer on the hope of a lighter sentence if he shows remorse.
Yes, awareness of dangers with no social responsibility. Let someone else's kids get abused, who cares as long as mine are okay.
Spending the rest of his life in jail, perhaps?
I don't see how pleading guilty to 14 counts of sexual abuse of a child is any better for his image
Some drugs lower inhibitions and heighten libido. And Hall was best known for an OTT presentational style. He may have sought some artificial stimulus.
Is he not likely to get that anyway - even with the plea he has to be looking at 5 years or more he will probably die in jail regardless.
The CPS statement reads like he had no choice but to confess. It was the same with Chris Huhne who tried every trick to throw the case against him out of court but then pleaded guilty at the start of his trial.
Ok I think I'm confused now as to the point you're trying to make. My point is he may have pleaded guilty not because of a guilty conscience but because of the overwhelming evidence against him just like Chris Huhne did.
Of course he had a choice - if he had contested the charges he had a chance of getting off even if the chance was slim. Due to his age and the nature of his crimes he is unlikely to benefit from the reduced sentence he might get with a plea.
It really was not like that at all! people delt with things in different ways and you cannot use todays standards and customs on they way people did things in the past
Huhne will benefit from a reduced sentence by pleading but Hall is so old that even a reduced sentence will likely see him spend the rest of his days in jail so there is no real benefit to him in pleading (unless he gets an outrageously lenient sentence).
He may have been advised by his lawyer(s) that that is a possibility.
I find it really strange how you keep trying to paint the image that a rapist and child molester who was very likely to be found guilty and who had numerous damning (and apparently corroborating) testimonies to come ahead of him had some sort of attack of conscience by changing his plea after months of lies.
Same here.
This thread is interesting and not in a good way.
All I'm offering is my opinion on him based on what he himself did and said. I'm not claiming I'm correct, just that his own arrogant words say something so damning and telling about the man he is. I've provided concrete evidence of that arrogance, and it just doesn't sit easily with your suggestion that his conscience got the better of him.
I don't see conscience playing any part in his change of stance, more overwhelming and damning testimony which left him with no choice but to do, as FM Lover suggests below, in a last ditch bid to try and 'minimise' his disgrace.
His lawyer would have known the extent of the evidence, it's a well known fact that if you put your hands up, show you are sorry (even if you aren't or have nothing to be sorry for) and hope the Courts are lenient. If the evidence is compelling and looking like a guilty verdict in front of a jury then it's better to plead guilty from the off, whether you are or not.
If he had been 40 I can understand him being playing the percentages and pleading for a reduced sentence but this is a 83 year old with a heart condition and I don't see him surviving even a reduced sentence. If he was truly devoid of conscience then he would have taken his chances at trial because even a 1% chance of success is better than nothing.
If the thing went to trial there would be graphic details of the allegations spelled out, it doesn't improve the perception of others if they were then deemed to be insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The difference here is that the whole basis of reasonable doubt is that the victim makes testimony. In their right mind, who would make such an allegation?
So people have never made false allegations to do with sexual matters? Or in a broader church, never lied on oath or simply told an untruth? I think the whole thing needs a serious revisiting because I don't see what benefit any of this has after such a long time.
I'm not saying I condone any of the things that have been alleged, nor am I asking for any kind of forgiveness towards the perpetrators, but I just feel that this process fails to stand up as justice as we know it and I cannot see clearly how it is of benefit to the victims. In all facets of life, we are encouraged to move on, with or without 'closure' because that in the longer term is how to heal physical and emotional hurt, simply the effects of time. I wonder who these actions really serve - is it really about the victims or is just about a very bizarre curiosity and need of the public or driven by the media to see 'celebrities' punished for long past indiscretions?