Fook me. Savile, DLT, Rolf Harris, Freddie Starr, Stuart Hall.
Who next, The Queen?
cant they were innocent it was freddie mercury
Fook me. Savile, DLT, Rolf Harris, Freddie Starr, Stuart Hall.
Who next, The Queen?
Here's hoping!
Fook me. Savile, DLT, Rolf Harris, Freddie Starr, Stuart Hall.
Who next, The Queen?
Tim Fisher ,,,,,,,,,,, sorry different charges
Genuine quote from Stuart Hall on Fighting Talk in 2005:
"Your average ten year old can instruct you in oral and anal sex"
"Your average ten year old can instruct you in oral and anal sex"
One of my favourirtes was from a Villa game he was commentating on in 1990.
"Ian Ormondroyd, like the late great Douglas Bader, great in the air, not so clever on the ground"
When you consider that the legal system from Police to lawyers to Judges was and probably is still heavily male orientated ,coupled with a touch of incompitence and Discouragement ,its a wonder any complainant has the guts to sit in court and tell it as they feel it.
PREDATOR Stuart Hall has been jailed for just 15 months for sexually assaulting more than a dozen young girls — one was just nine years old.
The shamed former It's a Knockout host, 83, sat grim faced in the dock as he was sentenced to the equivalent of just 32 DAYS in prison for each of his 14 assaults.
He is likely to serve half his sentence or less behind bars before being freed on licence.
The veteran BBC broadcaster could have been jailed for up to five years for his catalogue of crimes.
He groped 13 girls over two decades of preying on vulnerable youngsters aged nine to 17.
The shamed former It's a Knockout host, 83, sat grim faced in the dock as he was sentenced to the equivalent of just 32 DAYS in prison for each of his 14 assaults.
He is likely to serve half his sentence or less behind bars before being freed on licence.
The veteran BBC broadcaster could have been jailed for up to five years for his catalogue of crimes.
He groped 13 girls over two decades of preying on vulnerable youngsters aged nine to 17.
Not comparable cases. Hall's crimes occurred over 25 years ago when laws were less defined. He was also treated more leniently because in 1986, in front of a probation officer, he resolved to stop his behaviour, cease drinking and be celibate, and has kept his record clean since then.
There will be a lot of political headlining over this, so it is worth reading the full judgement: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...s/stuart-hall-sentencing-remarks-17062013.pdf
I think you've read that wrong. He did'nt tell a probation officer in 1986 about stopping his behaviour. He told the probation officer this year during the gathering of pre sentencing reports. His solicitor would of told him to say this as no more incidents had come to light since then.
if i have read it wrong then what was he seeing a probation officer for in 86?
True. You're right, crossed wires. Nevertheless, the historical element is what played heavily into the lenient sentence. Not comparable with a 30 year old man guilty of recent crimes under modern legislation.
That fella got 5 or so years today, although it still isn't right what he did at least it was consensual so why the difference in sentencing? I understand it was a while ago but even so, does that mean if somebody murdered somebody in 1901 and for some reason were still alive they would be hung?
