Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Stuart Hall admits 14 sexual assaults...


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26-07-2013, 21:29
Charlottesweb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 17,283
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.

Stuart Hall



So it wasn't purely his property to begin with.
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.
Charlottesweb is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 26-07-2013, 21:36
TrishaS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,156
I haven't read all the replys but if his wife is standing by him in my eyes she is just as bad. How can she??? makes me sick, these people should be put in a room with the parents and leave them to it
TrishaS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2013, 21:55
laurielou
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 472
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.
I don't feel a great deal of of compassion for him, actually, and I'm a pretty civilised person. He got away with it and had a very nice life for many years without having to take any responsibility whatsoever for his actions. Now he has to take responsibility and the legal punishment for the crime - I think that's fair enough.

My thoughts are with his victims, who were teenage girls or younger at the time - the ones you may remember he publicly accused of making up pernicious lies because he was so arrogant, he thought he'd get away with it, and they were just some unimportant people who didn't matter. That's not ok. Because they were telling the truth, weren't they? Did he have any thought to how his actions had affected those girls at the time? I very much doubt it.
laurielou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2013, 22:02
Maxatoria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,698
Given signing over property such as paintings to other people does not alter who owns them according to the tax man for things such as probate and even signing over houses won't stop the council getting their hands on the value of the property for care charges so surely it must be easy enough to put something on the property so that when they both die the property is sold and due debts paid off and in that way she doesn't suffer for her husbands misdeeds and those who were abused get something
Maxatoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2013, 22:52
nanscombe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kent, Uk
Posts: 13,991
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.
And the next line of the quote says ...

Although he claimed that he was getting his financial affairs in order due to a heart condition that left him at risk of sudden death, lawyers acting for his victims said they would seek a court order to nullify the transfer of the property, worth an estimated 1.2 million, on the basis that he had relinquished ownership to avoid compensation claims
I still fail to see how they would get any money before he dies or she sells the house.

His legal punishment is being locked up.

The money is simpy the icing on the victim's cake which they are attempting to obtain by suing him. That is above and beyond the legal punishment.
nanscombe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 17:43
loonattic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 479
disgraceful they are after money.probably why they brought all this up in the first place.
loonattic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 18:41
Valdery
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Somewhere over the rainbowpool
Posts: 3,584
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.
No one said she had committed a crime, no one said she knew anything about his crime, I do not begrudge her keeping her half of her legal entitlement to the home as his spouse.

I do however think it unprincipled for her to obtain and afford him the wherewithal to transfer his half of the home to her and it duplicitous of him sign it over to her just before he goes to court on charges of paedophilia, bit suspicious don't you think? I know what questions I would be asking my husband should he suggest this action...if you are so innocent and these people making the claims are just "scurrilous, etc, etc", why do you feel the need to do this?
Valdery is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 18:58
Valdery
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Somewhere over the rainbowpool
Posts: 3,584
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.
No, I certainly don't nor would want to see him in the stocks...just locked up (preferably years and years ago), thus keeping his destructive perversions away from those civilised people you talk about, but more importantly safeguarding the ones who are vulnerable for one reason or another.

I condemn him for what he did and for what he changed in that person's life. Their life, as they would have lived, ended the day he assaulted them. Who are we to judge what would lessen or make them feel better, if anything. It is also possible for offenders to use being contrite to benefit themselves and more often than not this happens, however, this man specifically decried these people publicly and I am sure harmed them even further with this.

The old man "close to the end of his life" had enough wiliness in him to transfer his assets so they could not be used as compensation or as you say redemption.

I feel compassion for the people he abused.
Valdery is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 19:18
nanscombe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kent, Uk
Posts: 13,991
Even if he had not "transferred his assets" I still don't see how they would have got any money any time soon, through a civil court case, because the major asset was in joint names.
nanscombe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 19:30
Valdery
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Somewhere over the rainbowpool
Posts: 3,584
Even if he had not "transferred his assets" I still don't see how they would have got any money any time soon, through a civil court case, because the major asset was in joint names.
They may have firstly asked for his assets to be frozen, eg, no transfer, no sale, etc. If a civil court had a finding of guilty and awarded compensation then the home would have to be sold, the proceeds divided, his wife would have then been left with the option of downsizing. Hope this helps.
Valdery is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 20:31
nanscombe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kent, Uk
Posts: 13,991
In that position I'd burn it down.
nanscombe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 20:59
konebyvax
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Ignoringtrollsville
Posts: 7,270
I literally can't believe the posters defending Hall's attempt at denying financial compensation by cynically transferring his obviously major asset (half of a 1.2 million home which i strongly suspect does not have any sort of mortgage secured against it) just before his trial started. It sort of beggar's belief. Being a lawyer/solicitor can be a grubby profession at times.
konebyvax 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 03:04.