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.
Agreed with Saturn, his family should not suffer for it...however they should not profit either and the wife has, what was her share of half the home, 50% is now doubled to 100%.
If they had gotten divorced because she decided not to "stick by him" then that is all she would have been left with.
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.
It's not as if he profited from his crimes though is it?
Agreed, his family should not suffer for it...however they should not profit either and the wife has, what was her share of half the home, 50% is now doubled to 100%.
If they had gotten divorced because she decided not to "stick by him" then that is all she would have been left with.
But he used his position as a presenter to do these crimes, and that is the same well paid position that paid for the house, which he go back to.
You don't have to profit from a crime to "do the time" as they say. Although he did profit albeit not monetarily...in his own perverse way. If you cause manslaughter through negligence you have not profited monetarily but you can be sued monetarily.
Agreed with Saturn, his family should not suffer for it...however they should not profit either and the wife has, what was her share of half the home, 50% is now doubled to 100%.
If they had gotten divorced because she decided not to "stick by him" then that is all she would have been left with.
Who is to say she won't divorce him whilst he is in prison then he would come out to nothing
Doubled, what a joke, knew they wouldn't increase it much, pathetic country, really hate it, what an absolute joke this shit hole of a country is, thats still less than a bloke got for spray painting a wall, its effing rediculous!
Doubled, what a joke, knew they wouldn't increase it much, pathetic country, really hate it, what an absolute joke this shit hole of a country is, thats still less than a bloke got for spray painting a wall, its effing rediculous!
Go Grouty and I've already started the protest banners...do you want me to make one for you, it would be a pleasure? As they say Grouty "the law is an ass" and as I would say "the law is also an a*se" and a big J Lo one at that. :eek:
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?
There really is. I can't even begin to understand the mentality that sees her owning her home as her benefiting financially from his crimes? Benefiting?? All she's 'achieved' for want of a better term is the knowledge that the home she and her family have lived in for however many years will stay as that.
There really is. I can't even begin to understand the mentality that sees her owning her home as her benefiting financially from his crimes? Benefiting?? All she's 'achieved' for want of a better term is the knowledge that the home she and her family have lived in for however many years will stay as that.
So do you understand the mentality that the house was signed over after it was obvious he was going to be convicted, as he knew he was guilty, even though he had the arrogance to suggest at the start of the proceedings that he was innocent? Buying more time maybe?
In my opinion, the "family home", (yes, a family home built with the help of a peadophile), should be sold off. She should get half, and the rest should go to helping the true victims in this case. You know, the people he actually abused. Yet again, the victims are punished, not the criminals.
Go Grouty and I've already started the protest banners...do you want me to make one for you, it would be a pleasure? As they say Grouty "the law is an ass" and as I would say "the law is also an a*se" and a big J Lo one at that. :eek:
Id love one , its beyond a joke, i don't care how old he is, the **** should be in there till he croaks!
Doubled, what a joke, knew they wouldn't increase it much, pathetic country, really hate it, what an absolute joke this shit hole of a country is, thats still less than a bloke got for spray painting a wall, its effing rediculous!
what a joke? its far too much.its not as if he killed anyone.its so long ago since it happened it should have just been forgotten about.theres murderers that get less than that.
It's obvious that someone doesn't want him in prison. I'd bet a big wad of £50 notes that had this have been a non celebrity, they'd have got significantly longer. They might as well not have bloody bothered increasing his sentence. Whoever decided how much longer he got, they're a bloody disgrace! Surely they could have increased it longer than this? I'm telling you, if this had been a non celebrity they'd have received an increase that we'd have been satisfied with. The double standards between the celebrity and non celebrity world is unbelievable! This is just a joke!
what a joke? its far too much.its not as if he killed anyone.its so long ago since it happened it should have just been forgotten about.theres murderers that get less than that.
I don't suppose you're going to name even one murderer in the UK who has received such a short sentence, are you? Finding non-existent examples is always hard.
Exactly BB so either way she would have profited from his haste at signing the home over to her and no one should profit from crime should they :mad:
She hasn't committed any crime. It was him that committed the crime. She might have knew nothing about him doing this. I don't begrudge her getting the home, as long as she divorces him or splits up with him while he's in prison and continues this after he leaves prison.
I don't suppose you're going to name even one murderer in the UK who has received such a short sentence, are you? Finding non-existent examples is always hard.
I'm sure it's a wind up post. This is why I just ignored it.
what a joke? its far too much.its not as if he killed anyone.its so long ago since it happened it should have just been forgotten about.theres murderers that get less than that.
Yes, that a good idea, and shame all the nazi hunters, catching the poor Nazi's we should have let them off as well,they killed and gassed thousands, but oh so long ago, and why we are at it we should let out Brady, I mean when was the Moors Murders... Ages ago....
She hasn't committed any crime. It was him that committed the crime. She might have knew nothing about him doing this. I don't begrudge her getting the home, as long as she divorces him or splits up with him while he's in prison and continues this after he leaves prison.
And what's the chance, he be back in the family home in no-time.
If I'd been married to someone for 55 years (since 1958) I'd be doing my best to make sure that someone didn't get their hands on my families money or assets. Especially if it was jointly in my name.
Land Registry records revealed that on 22 February 2013, Hall transferred his home, which he and his wife Hazel had owned jointly since 1981, into his wife's sole name.
There are certainly some unpleasant, vicious comments here, from vengefull people who no doubt in the past would liked to have seen Stuart Hall in the stocks so that they could throw all they have at him.
Fortunately we live in a civilised age and it is quite possible to condemn Hall for what he did whilst at the same time feel compassion for someone who is obviously close to the end of his life. Punishment does not help victims and it is possible for offenders to be contrite and to seek redemption.
If I'd been married to someone for 55 years (since 1958) I'd be doing my best to make sure that someone didn't get their hands on my families money or assets. Especially if it was jointly in my name.
But thats entirely the point. She would not lose the value of her half whatever happened, only his was at risk, you knwo, the man who abused young girls..
Now, she used to own half a house, now, because he abused young women and girls and doesnt wish to compensate them, she owns all of a house.
Shes better off now.
And the actual victims, who you seem to be forgetting, get sod all.
Comments
Agreed with Saturn, his family should not suffer for it...however they should not profit either and the wife has, what was her share of half the home, 50% is now doubled to 100%.
If they had gotten divorced because she decided not to "stick by him" then that is all she would have been left with.
It's not as if he profited from his crimes though is it?
If he had died she'd have got the lot.
Not if there were claims against his estate she wouldn't.
But he used his position as a presenter to do these crimes, and that is the same well paid position that paid for the house, which he go back to.
You don't have to profit from a crime to "do the time" as they say. Although he did profit albeit not monetarily...in his own perverse way. If you cause manslaughter through negligence you have not profited monetarily but you can be sued monetarily.
Who is to say she won't divorce him whilst he is in prison then he would come out to nothing
Exactly BB so either way she would have profited from his haste at signing the home over to her and no one should profit from crime should they :mad:
Go Grouty and I've already started the protest banners...do you want me to make one for you, it would be a pleasure? As they say Grouty "the law is an ass" and as I would say "the law is also an a*se" and a big J Lo one at that. :eek:
There really is. I can't even begin to understand the mentality that sees her owning her home as her benefiting financially from his crimes? Benefiting?? All she's 'achieved' for want of a better term is the knowledge that the home she and her family have lived in for however many years will stay as that.
So do you understand the mentality that the house was signed over after it was obvious he was going to be convicted, as he knew he was guilty, even though he had the arrogance to suggest at the start of the proceedings that he was innocent? Buying more time maybe?
In my opinion, the "family home", (yes, a family home built with the help of a peadophile), should be sold off. She should get half, and the rest should go to helping the true victims in this case. You know, the people he actually abused. Yet again, the victims are punished, not the criminals.
Id love one
what a joke? its far too much.its not as if he killed anyone.its so long ago since it happened it should have just been forgotten about.theres murderers that get less than that.
She hasn't committed any crime. It was him that committed the crime. She might have knew nothing about him doing this. I don't begrudge her getting the home, as long as she divorces him or splits up with him while he's in prison and continues this after he leaves prison.
I'm sure it's a wind up post. This is why I just ignored it.
Once they have successfully managed to sue him. They can then try and get some money.
That'll be a few more years.
What's the court going to do? Put a charge against the house and wait until he dies or his missus is ready to sell.
Yes, that a good idea, and shame all the nazi hunters, catching the poor Nazi's we should have let them off as well,they killed and gassed thousands, but oh so long ago, and why we are at it we should let out Brady, I mean when was the Moors Murders... Ages ago....
And what's the chance, he be back in the family home in no-time.
I don't know how she can take him back after what he's done.
Stuart Hall
So it wasn't purely his property to begin with.
Fortunately we live in a civilised age and it is quite possible to condemn Hall for what he did whilst at the same time feel compassion for someone who is obviously close to the end of his life. Punishment does not help victims and it is possible for offenders to be contrite and to seek redemption.
But thats entirely the point. She would not lose the value of her half whatever happened, only his was at risk, you knwo, the man who abused young girls..
Now, she used to own half a house, now, because he abused young women and girls and doesnt wish to compensate them, she owns all of a house.
Shes better off now.
And the actual victims, who you seem to be forgetting, get sod all.