I must admit I wondered why the guns haven't come out for Granada/ITV as well. The Daily Mail has yet another BBC bashing article today, but then again they don't need an excuse to attack the Beeb.
Commercial organisations are primarily only responsible to their shareholders, so don't feel they have to answer questions...Phillip Schofield's discipline and his list is a good example.
Denise Welch admitted to taking Cocaine on the set of Coronation Street, possibly with young actors around...not a peep out of ITV or demands for an inquiry.
Totally agree, and I made the same points earlier in this thread. That statement was his biggest mistake as it showed him up for the arrogant, devious manipulator he is. It's that as much as anything else that warrants a jail sentence because it showed a disgusting and callous disregard for his victims.
I felt yesterday he was being pushed rather than guided to the court, there seemed something odd about it. He's smiling, say something about a cold and saying thank you to the media.
It seemed to be the lawyer's words rather Hall's, the faces Hall pulled and way he seemed to be manhandled by his advisers made be wonder if he was all there.
Jasmin Alibai-Brown (SP?) spent two hours at Ealing police station waiting to see a police officer. The way things are going with stations closing and the police making it increasingly difficult to get face to face contact - by switching to call centres and online reporting - you wonder if this kind of letter will be actioned in future.
Yes, no more 'up and under' for him. Oh no, wait a minute, that was Eddie Wearing.
But seriously, like the case of Jimmy Saville, it beggars belief that no one at the BBC knew anything about this perv's disgusting activities. Someone must've known something, and kept quiet.
Is that necessarily true, though?
Before he retired by dad was a plumber and worked on site with Fred West on many occasions. He knew him to talk to but they weren't "best mates", but when it came out what Fred and Rose got up to neither my dad nor anyone else within the building game in the area, that my dad knew, had any idea of what was going on.
How much does one really know about anyone they work with?
I've only had a chance to read bits of this thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned/discussed. It's been reported that his abuse took place over a period of about 20 years?
I just wondered what happened after that? Why did he stop? Did his urge to molest young girls suddenly disappear? It seems a bit odd.
Totally agree, and I made the same points earlier in this thread. That statement was his biggest mistake as it showed him up for the arrogant, devious manipulator he is. It's that as much as anything else that warrants a jail sentence because it showed a disgusting and callous disregard for his victims.
Well said lexi, I really hope 'others' who've committed these hideous crimes get the knock and what they deserve.
Before he retired by dad was a plumber and worked on site with Fred West on many occasions. He knew him to talk to but they weren't "best mates", but when it came out what Fred and Rose got up to neither my dad nor anyone else within the building game in the area, that my dad knew, had any idea of what was going on.
How much does one really know about anyone they work with?
I genuinely don't see why some people think an individual's age has any relevance to whether or not they have to pay for their crime.
Apologies to all for invoking Godwin's law but do the people who think Hall's fall from grace at the age of 83 is punishment enough, also think the Nazi Hunters who spent decades tracking down some rather elderly men were just wasting their time?
He should be treated as any other paedophile according to the letter of the law- age, health, perceived remorse etc is irrelevant.
Very true, but it doesn't automatically follow that someone must know what is going on in a building. I work in an office with @ 500 other people and there are probably plenty of "goings on" between colleagues, but if there are I don't know anything about them, not that I am interested but the point remains.
When Stuart Hall was committing these offences CCTV pretty much didn't exist. So unless he was caught in the act, or he and his victim were seen together before or after, it would be highly unlikely anyone would know what was going on, unlike today when they would almost certainly be picked up by a CCTV camera somewhere.
Very true, but it doesn't automatically follow that someone must know what is going on in a building. I work in an office with @ 500 other people and there are probably plenty of "goings on" between colleagues, but if there are I don't know anything about them, not that I am interested but the point remains.
When Stuart Hall was committing these offences CCTV pretty much didn't exist. So unless he was caught in the act, or he and his victim were seen together before or after, it would be highly unlikely anyone would know what was going on, unlike today when they would almost certainly be picked up by a CCTV camera somewhere.
Much has been made of this special room Hall had, and that apparently he had women in there, as if this points to collusion on the part of BBC colleagues.
But the producer interviewed was quite clear when she said these were adults who seemed quite happy to go in there.
That is quite different to Hall bundling nine-year-olds into some BBC lair.
Much has been made of this special room Hall had, and that apparently he had women in there, as if this points to collusion on the part of BBC colleagues.
But the producer interviewed was quite clear when she said these were adults who seemed quite happy to go in there.
Yes it is different - but it is still a strange (to put it mildly) situation. I can't imagine anyone where I work being given a special room so they could screw people they met :eek:
I think there has to be a custodial sentance here. Yes he is elderly but that also means he has benefitted from years of living the good life when he should have been banged up. The fact that he might not survive many years in prison is irrelevant imo. If he'd been caught 20 years ago he could have been properly punished and would have not have carried on earning good money with the BBC afterwards. It should never be too late for someone to pay for their crimes.
I agree with everything in your post, spot on.
I am stunned that he is not locked up waiting for his sentence, he can wait at home in comfort until the judge decides what to do....other prisoners get put away far quicker.
Yes it is different - but it is still a strange (to put it mildly) situation. I can't imagine anyone where I work being given a special room so they could screw people they met :eek:
I doubt the BBC is the only place it happened though.
I am stunned that he is not locked up waiting for his sentence, he can wait at home in comfort until the judge decides what to do....other prisoners get put away far quicker.
Quite, it really is disgusting.
Celebrities are still treated too differently from everyone else in terms of the law. Whoever you are, celeb, royal, politician, or pauper, the justice system needs to be the same or what's the point?
Or think saying that they've become religious will advantage them.
Oh yes...that's another one. 'I found Jesus':sleep:...which, in their view, makes it look like they are contrite enough (rather than just angry at being caught out).
Celebrities are still treated too differently from everyone else in terms of the law. Whoever you are, celeb, royal, politician, or pauper, the justice system needs to be the same or what's the point?
It's all about the money. The better a lawyer you can afford the more lenient the sentence. Always was and always will be.
That being said, I hope that in this case the judge will apply a harsh sentence. I very much doubt that he will do prison time, but many, many hours of very public community service will complete his humiliation, and quite rightly so.
It's all about the money. The better a lawyer you can afford the more lenient the sentence. Always was and always will be.
That being said, I hope that in this case the judge will apply a harsh sentence. I very much doubt that he will do prison time, but many, many hours of very public community service will complete his humiliation, and quite rightly so.
Would community service even be appropriate for sexual offences? I was under the impression that was more for things like dangerous driving, possession of drugs, petty theft etc.
Always a bit wary of people suing for things like this. I don't mean after being raped or the cases of very young victims, but I guess what is defined as being the minor end of sexual assault such as having your boobs groped.
I'm not being uncaring at all. I had a driving instructor when I was just 17 who was really creepy. At the reversing bays (quite secluded, no one around), he put his hand up my skirt, and put his arm round me and got far too close to my chest when attempting to explain something.
It was scary at the time, as I was stuck in a car with him on my own. As soon as I was dropped off home, I immediately reported him (nothing got done) and changed instructor. It freaked me out as I was quite shy at that time, and he was in his 40's. I took ages to learn to drive after that as I was always seeing him in his car and it used to put me off, as he'd deliberately stare at me.
But would I sue years later? Nah, he was a dirty old man and totally out of order, but money isn't going to change anything, especially as it happened 25 years ago.
Comments
Commercial organisations are primarily only responsible to their shareholders, so don't feel they have to answer questions...Phillip Schofield's discipline and his list is a good example.
Denise Welch admitted to taking Cocaine on the set of Coronation Street, possibly with young actors around...not a peep out of ITV or demands for an inquiry.
I felt yesterday he was being pushed rather than guided to the court, there seemed something odd about it. He's smiling, say something about a cold and saying thank you to the media.
It seemed to be the lawyer's words rather Hall's, the faces Hall pulled and way he seemed to be manhandled by his advisers made be wonder if he was all there.
Is that necessarily true, though?
Before he retired by dad was a plumber and worked on site with Fred West on many occasions. He knew him to talk to but they weren't "best mates", but when it came out what Fred and Rose got up to neither my dad nor anyone else within the building game in the area, that my dad knew, had any idea of what was going on.
How much does one really know about anyone they work with?
I just wondered what happened after that? Why did he stop? Did his urge to molest young girls suddenly disappear? It seems a bit odd.
Well said lexi, I really hope 'others' who've committed these hideous crimes get the knock and what they deserve.
But Fred West wasn't murdering people on site.
"Stuart Hall, U Legend".
Apologies to all for invoking Godwin's law but do the people who think Hall's fall from grace at the age of 83 is punishment enough, also think the Nazi Hunters who spent decades tracking down some rather elderly men were just wasting their time?
He should be treated as any other paedophile according to the letter of the law- age, health, perceived remorse etc is irrelevant.
Very true, but it doesn't automatically follow that someone must know what is going on in a building. I work in an office with @ 500 other people and there are probably plenty of "goings on" between colleagues, but if there are I don't know anything about them, not that I am interested but the point remains.
When Stuart Hall was committing these offences CCTV pretty much didn't exist. So unless he was caught in the act, or he and his victim were seen together before or after, it would be highly unlikely anyone would know what was going on, unlike today when they would almost certainly be picked up by a CCTV camera somewhere.
Much has been made of this special room Hall had, and that apparently he had women in there, as if this points to collusion on the part of BBC colleagues.
But the producer interviewed was quite clear when she said these were adults who seemed quite happy to go in there.
That is quite different to Hall bundling nine-year-olds into some BBC lair.
Or he took lots of holidays to certain countries.
Yes it is different - but it is still a strange (to put it mildly) situation. I can't imagine anyone where I work being given a special room so they could screw people they met :eek:
I agree with everything in your post, spot on.
I am stunned that he is not locked up waiting for his sentence, he can wait at home in comfort until the judge decides what to do....other prisoners get put away far quicker.
I doubt the BBC is the only place it happened though.
Quite, it really is disgusting.
Celebrities are still treated too differently from everyone else in terms of the law. Whoever you are, celeb, royal, politician, or pauper, the justice system needs to be the same or what's the point?
Oh yes...that's another one. 'I found Jesus':sleep:...which, in their view, makes it look like they are contrite enough (rather than just angry at being caught out).
It's all about the money. The better a lawyer you can afford the more lenient the sentence. Always was and always will be.
That being said, I hope that in this case the judge will apply a harsh sentence. I very much doubt that he will do prison time, but many, many hours of very public community service will complete his humiliation, and quite rightly so.
http://news.sky.com/story/1086647/stuart-hall-abuse-victims-plan-to-sue
Standard practice. Same with Saville victims.
Would community service even be appropriate for sexual offences? I was under the impression that was more for things like dangerous driving, possession of drugs, petty theft etc.
That'll be him getting knocked out by some convict.
Not sure how money will make things better?
Always a bit wary of people suing for things like this. I don't mean after being raped or the cases of very young victims, but I guess what is defined as being the minor end of sexual assault such as having your boobs groped.
I'm not being uncaring at all. I had a driving instructor when I was just 17 who was really creepy. At the reversing bays (quite secluded, no one around), he put his hand up my skirt, and put his arm round me and got far too close to my chest when attempting to explain something.
It was scary at the time, as I was stuck in a car with him on my own. As soon as I was dropped off home, I immediately reported him (nothing got done) and changed instructor. It freaked me out as I was quite shy at that time, and he was in his 40's. I took ages to learn to drive after that as I was always seeing him in his car and it used to put me off, as he'd deliberately stare at me.
But would I sue years later? Nah, he was a dirty old man and totally out of order, but money isn't going to change anything, especially as it happened 25 years ago.