Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile? (Part 7)


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-06-2013, 15:16
alaninmcr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,139
According to the BBC:

Hall's barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.
What kind of person thinks it could possibly be mitigation that he only assaulted 13 victims and not 100s?
alaninmcr is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-06-2013, 15:22
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 32,309
The BBC have apologised for the appalling acts as a fair number of them took place on BBC property . Does this mean that they are culpable in any way?
Not unless they knew of it and did nothing or facilitated his attacks. (that however is my opinion morally not legally ) If they had no idea then they would be no more to blame than if someone attacked someone in your house at a party you held the fact that is was your party does not mean you are automatically responsible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22435505

Manchester law firm Pannone said it was representing victims to pursue civil cases over injuries and harm suffered

Partner Alan Collins said the BBC may be included in the legal action.

I will be looking carefully at what Stuart Hall was supposed to be doing at the time the abuse took place”


"From the evidence so far, some of the abuse took place on BBC premises but that is not to say the BBC are liable," he said.

snip>>

He said he would be investigating the evidence to assess whether the BBC had "vicarious liability", which means responsibility for the "misdeeds of Mr Hall as a BBC employee
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 17-06-2013, 15:33
gamercraig
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,876
That sentence needs to be reviewed. What a pi** take
gamercraig is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 15:47
James1953
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: M25
Posts: 1,861
Thanks for the reply skp20040
James1953 is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 15:51
Davetherave70
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 543
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???
Davetherave70 is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 16:09
Cloudbusting
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kent, England
Posts: 617
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.
Cloudbusting is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 16:23
alcockell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 19,353
COnsider he's got to go on the VP wing...
alcockell is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 17-06-2013, 16:33
aussiewantsaps2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,069
15months is no where near long enough for his crimes, he will be out in 5 probably!!!!
aussiewantsaps2 is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 17:01
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 32,309
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
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 17-06-2013, 17:19
StrmChaserSteve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,924
According to the BBC:

What kind of person thinks it could possibly be mitigation that he only assaulted 13 victims and not 100s?
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
StrmChaserSteve is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 17-06-2013, 17:55
Grouty
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ma Hoose
Posts: 10,701
The Suns got it right, 15 months, is that Hall!

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.
Grouty is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 18:41
DavidT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North Devon
Posts: 10,722
According to the BBC:



What kind of person thinks it could possibly be mitigation that he only assaulted 13 victims and not 100s?
I thought the same tbh. If that's the best the defence can do they might as well not bother.
DavidT is online now  
Old 17-06-2013, 18:46
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 32,309
The Suns got it right, 15 months, is that Hall!

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.
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 17-06-2013, 19:23
IzzyS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ecosse
Posts: 7,365
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 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.
IzzyS is online now  
Old 17-06-2013, 20:24
Joannexx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 860
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.
Joannexx is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 20:36
Cryolemon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newark, Notts, UK
Posts: 5,443
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.
Cryolemon is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 17-06-2013, 20:40
DE53
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 2,457
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 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.
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 Maybe the other prisoners will get to him and issue their own justice
DE53 is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 20:54
Cryolemon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newark, Notts, UK
Posts: 5,443
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.
Cryolemon is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 17-06-2013, 21:15
fanstar77
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 249
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 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.
fanstar77 is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 21:28
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,771
Judge's sentencing remarks in full
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...s-17062013.pdf
Sad_BB_Addict is offline  
Old 17-06-2013, 21:57
IzzyS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ecosse
Posts: 7,365
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.
Source:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222
IzzyS is online now  
Old 17-06-2013, 22:24
Dream_catcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Scotland
Posts: 345
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.
Dream_catcher is offline  
Old 18-06-2013, 01:56
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,771
Newsnight report on No 10 summit to tackle web porn and images of child abuse
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22945384
Sad_BB_Addict is offline  
Old 18-06-2013, 06:42
loonattic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 479
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.
loonattic is offline  
Old 18-06-2013, 07:13
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21,152
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:
Code:
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
i4u is offline  
 
Closed Thread



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:58.