Stuart Hall jailed for only 15 MONTHS

(40 Posts)
ghayes Mon 17-Jun-13 13:33:47

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222

Ridiculously short sentence IMO. They should have locked him up and thrown away the key.

GobbySadcase Mon 17-Jun-13 13:34:35

I'm surprised he got jail time at all due to his age and health. Glad he got some, though.

MammyKaz Mon 17-Jun-13 13:39:19

Just over one month per offence angry That is disgraceful. i don't care what his age or state of health that is not justice for those he assaulted.

RowTheBoat Mon 17-Jun-13 13:41:15

Absolute disgrace!

bunchamunchycrunchycarrots Mon 17-Jun-13 13:41:26

Unfortunately I think his age and health have probably played a part in the length of the sentence. But jail time is good IMO. I didn't actually think he would get jail time.

GobbySadcase Mon 17-Jun-13 13:42:09

Don't get me wrong. Not excusing, justifying etc. he's an appalling disgrace.

I honestly thought he'd get some ridiculous community sentence.

CaramelLatte Mon 17-Jun-13 13:45:32

No not long enough but more than I expected, I honestly thought that due to his age he would not have had to serve time, justice is not always served is it? Especially where celeb types are concerned.

MammyKaz Mon 17-Jun-13 13:54:06

Just in case, my comment wasn't directed at anyone it just angers me so much that this is considered to be appropriate punishment for this man. He's hardly shown compassion & remorse given his initial denial statement etc

Onesleeptillwembley Mon 17-Jun-13 13:56:01

Aged or not, that's disgraceful. Maybe the more people that make a noise the better. Hopefully there will ve a judicial review.

cerealqueen Mon 17-Jun-13 14:17:03

What about the life sentence of the people he abused. DISGRACEFUL. I don't give a shit how old he is, he didn't care about the age of the children he abused did he?

Onesleeptillwembley Mon 17-Jun-13 14:34:26

Actually it's a shame that he can't be given extra time for the vicious false things he originally saud about the victims. Hopefully someone expert in civil law would take this on.

Pinebarrens Mon 17-Jun-13 14:51:16

its disgusting. horrible vile man. he should've got a far far longer sentence irrespective of age or health.

what about the victims age or their subsequent health after the event?

I am suprised that he was jailed tbh, I thought he would of `got off` with a suspended sentence, lets hope he has a very unpleasant time inside.

But yes, I agree 18 months is not a long enough sentence at all.

avacuppa Mon 17-Jun-13 17:09:31

'His barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.'

Is that what passes for mitigation nowadays?!

Onesleeptillwembley Mon 17-Jun-13 17:12:33

Had all of 13 victims come forward. All of which he branded as wicked liars.
If justice was law he'd get more than 15 months for that alone.

MardyBra Mon 17-Jun-13 17:12:40

angry

crazynanna Mon 17-Jun-13 17:16:08

Does seem short, but agree his age/health had an influence.

20 years ago, DD's abuser got the same sentence for 3 counts of indecent assault on her, so comparing the amount of victims here, yes it was short. Or we had a bloody good judge.

ohforfoxsake Mon 17-Jun-13 17:22:30

angry

hackmum Mon 17-Jun-13 18:43:53

The man who defaced the Rothko painting got two years.

I think that says something about the justice system's priorities.

AnyaKnowIt Mon 17-Jun-13 19:45:07

The Attorney General are now looking into it.

MrsTwgtwf Mon 17-Jun-13 19:59:56

There is a campaign to lobby the Attorney General by making a complaint. Eddie Mair on PM was practically begging us to make one.

Don't suppose anyone's got a link? I think if lots of people complained it would send a useful message.

Really sorry about your dd, crazynanna. sad

avacuppa Mon 17-Jun-13 20:00:32

Here is a link to the judge's sentencing remarks: www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/stuart-hall-sentencing-remarks-17062013.pdf (warning: contains details of the offences).

Some interesting points:
* the judge has to apply the maximum sentences that were in effect at the time that the offences were commited (25yrs ago), rather than those currently in force (which are longer).
* age was taken into account by reducing sentence by one third (a standard rule/practice apparently), i.e. he would have got 2yrs if not for his age.
* the fact that he pleaded guilty (albeit not at the first opportunity) was given some weight.

cerealqueen Mon 17-Jun-13 20:04:44

Well he will get crucified in prison, so his time will be short but intense.

NiceTabard Mon 17-Jun-13 20:15:21

So he has been rewarded for getting away with it for years.

Fucking outrageous.

One count of rape lying on file as well.

A strong message to people interested in engaging in a spot of serial paedophilia, I think.

NiceTabard Mon 17-Jun-13 20:19:07

Why do the sentences always seem to be concurrent?

Why not add them up like they seem to in the states?

If you added that lot up he would be in for a good few years and quite right too.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now