blonde poker forum

Pathetic.

done deal before trial?

Out in 8?

Justice right there

Called it.

And an absolute travesty IMO.

All the facts are contained in

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-stuart-hall

Gives the background, mitigation and policy behind the sentencing rather than wild speculation.

quite a tough read

Yes I've read it.  I'm not necessarily saying that the Judge did anything wrong with the options in front of him.  I just think the fact these sentences run concurrent is wrong, a problem within the legal system rather than this judge's ruling.  From a personal point of view I don't think his age should have come into mitigation.  There are arguments for child's age to be considered in mitigation, not for an elderly person IMO.

a quite disgusting "length" of sentence

25% off for pleading guilty and saving his victims from more hurt!  That's ridiculous, as he didn't plead guilty and instead said the accusations were lies.  Then when it was clear he'd be found guilty after a trial, he pleads guilty.

Hope he has some nice company inside.

Out in under 6 months

attorney general reviewing the sentence

The defence's argument for mitigation seemed to centre around the fact that he'd only abused a dozen or so children, compared to Savile's 1,300+. 

That's hardly a defence.

Holy shit. That is gross.

From hero to zero. Imagine being a parent who sent your kid for elocution lessons? Or even worse having the evil bastard round for dinner and him fiddling with your 9 year old. These parents must feel so guilty.

This seems a very short sentence for such an awful breach of trust. The only good thing is that the victims do not have to be put through any more trauma at a trial by some barrister or another.

Good riddance to him, hopefully he won't come out.

As you say, it isn't a defence. It is a reason why the sentence he should receive should be lower than someone whose offences (in number, type or both) were worse.

how about he's old, he's had a life of criminality, actually fucking punish him.

if you want to take into account age then why not stop ruining young lives with stupid sentences (hi der usa) and acknowledge that nothing we can do to an oap peado is going to be enough, why bother a) with an insulting sentence, b) allow him out early c) bother paying x£ per year to house and lock him up when we could just end him.

I meant it was used by the defence as an argument for a lessening of his sentence.  His sentence isn't greater than someone who has carried out fewer offences, because his sentences run concurrently.  Comparing him to Savile in order to reduce his sentence is ridiculous imo.  It's like saying Peter Sutcliffe only killed 13 women so he can't be compared to Harold Shipman.

surely you can only imprison pol pot, everyone else pales in comparison.

First time I've read through a complete summing up like that.

Disturbing as these things are, and whilst I have no principled objection to quite extreme punishments (castration, death penalty for example), I found it easy to follow and easy to see why the judge concluded/sentenced as he did.

Me too.

I wonder if the fact that 15 months probably represents most of his remaining life is taken into account?

i am probably naive but reading that report and that the "minor offences" are not enough to be charged shocked and saddened me

Why was the rape charge allowed to "lay on file"?

Does that mean they didn't think he would get convicted or something else?

Well, Sutcliffe and Shipman both killed people, whereas Hall's offences weren't as serious as Savile's. Not just the number, but the type. His lawyer was doing his job in pointing out that, with all the publicity in the last year, some people might tar them both with the same brush.

seems like it's a case of well the 70s gonna 70s and it was all pretty rife.

def should be put down rather than a 6 week jolly getting looked after in prison.

His offences were pretty much identical to some of Savile's.

And me (although I do have a principled objection to the more extreme punishments mentioned)

Some, definitely. But I thought Savile had others that were a lot more serious.

how can touching a girl who is underage even through clothing ever be deemed minor?

because it is, when compared to other types of abuse that sadly occur all too often.  Yes it's wrong, it's not nice to think about but unlikely, imo, to cause any lasting ill effect to the victim, where as less 'minor' offences most definitely could be the cause of serious long term issues.

Acknowledge this is your opinion, to which you have full rights too of course, but really? Are you actually saying that?

so in essence... "its ok sweetheart, he didnt really touch you did he, it was just your tee-shirt/skirt?

The more I think about it, the angrier it makes me. His defence barrister said " merely 13 girls unlike Saviles 1300"!

So that's 13 lives he could of totally tilted unless they had really good support in place. 15 months. The recurrent sentences sends out a really freaky message too. 15 months for " inserting his finger into a 13 year olds vagina" ( who was drunk). All the same sentences and lesser run at the same time. It's just not right.

Is it correct that he has to be sentenced in according to the law 25 years ago?

no I'm not saying anything of the kind Waz - that's a big leap you've made there.

what he did was wrong and he deserves to go to prison for it.  that does not mean that those particular offences were not, comparatively, minor ones.

yes, the law as was between 1967-1986.  As the sexual offences act, in law, didn't come into 2003, the judge had restricted elements.  that said the judge could have still given him a max of 2-5 years. Under today law it could have been 10years.


In essence he got 32.5 days for each crime.  Of which likely to spend only the equivalent 16 days per crime behind bars.

accept its a big leap, apologies. emotive and all that..

but the essence is the same, the main "issue" as horseplayer stated too, how can you call it a minor offence...even if you compare it to anything.  Otherwise you could argue that his defence lawyer is right to bring up that it was "only" 13 girls...which is a minor number when comparing to the 1300 recently..thus, go lightly on Hall?

and to say that a older man, touching a vulnerable underaged girl wouldn't cause any lasting effects on her/him as it was through clothes is an bigger insult

I didn't say such actions 'wouldn't' cause lasting effects. I said that i felt they were less likely to than other, more serious offences (eg rape)

You did say "unlikely" yes, however I'll have to agree to disagree on how I've taken your further words and wording.  Rape will have a lasting effect that is clear, but I still dispute its "unlikely" to have a lesser lasting effect for a minor offence.  And I maintain, you can not compare this kind of stuff to class an act of such disgust to a minor "status" - imo.

Child abuse is a touchy subject

The thing that I find really illogical about the whole thing is he's getting pretty much the same jail time as he would get  if he only committed the most serious offence.  However had he done that one, been caught, then done another and been court he would spend a longer total time in jail albeit in two spells.  It's like the others are freebies.  Just makes no logical sense.

Are some of you insane ?

I have two daughters 13 & 14 .....can you please think what if this was your daughter !

a minor offence is pinching a mars bar from the corner shop.

Don't compare it to anything or anyone else has done

He should of got 5 years

Good post

I think you're looking at the wrong context - it's not that they're a minor offence, it's that they are a minor child abuse/sex offence.

Obviously all child abuse and sex offences are serious but you still have to differentiate between different types.

Agree he should have got at least 5 years

I really struggle that you can with this type of crime.

Are you saying that keeping a girl captive, beating her, raping her several times and leaving her for dead would be the same as touching her once through clothing?

Of course you have to differentiate.

http://ukcrime.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/stuart-hall-sentenced-to-15-months/

makes me really sad for those victims.....


hard not to be very angry with Hall.

simply outraged by this lenient sentence . disgusting
should make no odds as to the age of the offender , their perceived reputation or when it was committed.

some guy got sentenced to 3 1/2 years the same day for graffiti.

ffs im so ANGRY ! and everyone should be up in arms about this !

Direct action , protests , marches . come on everyone !
Sentencings such as this wont change otherwise.

It will probably seem worth it after such s pathetic sentence

Surely there's a big difference between standing in front of kids in their underpants and actually raping and/or torturing a child.

The law has already changed.

Interesting to see what this guy in comparison to Hall

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22991868

Obviously he will get more than that, probably double as the law takes the "position of trust" very seriously

2 very different cases.

Obviously couldn't be more different.

Don't see the point in jailing this guy, except perhaps as a deterrent to others.

Don't think he's a danger to anyone.

Agree with you however if they let him off without a jail term then future "predators" can have a free pop at  15 year old pupils knowing as long as they say they love them then its a get out of jail free card.

Think 99.99% of teachers realise that a relationship with a 15 year old student is wrong and wouldn't cross that line.

It is an interesting case.

There are many countries where getting married and having kids at 13 is not only legal but also the normal practice.

You could argue its a case of 2 people in love so what harm is being done.
You could however argue that he should know better and should not abuse the trust for his sexual gratification.
My arguement would be they are both nuts! and vunerable.

I think an appropriate sentence in this case is to ban him from teaching and sstop him from making any contact with the girl until her 16th birthday.

Because I live quite near where they're from it has had extensive coverage on the local news. When it first happened my first impression was that he was possibly a little 'misguided'.

But after more details came out my impression now is that he isn't/wasn't necessarily predatory but somewhat more opportunistic.

It's really fairly common for girls to have crushes on male teachers, it takes a certain kind of man to take advantage of that opportunity. I agree that he doesn't seem to be a general danger to the public, but I think even if they just jailed him as a deterrent measure to others that would be more than enough justification by itself.

The bottom line is he had sex with a 15 year old.

Isn't that statutory rape?

Jail IMO.

How would you feel if it was your 15 year old daugther?

I always read this 'how would you feel it it was your... etc' type of post on blonde, but I'm not sure that's the best way to approach the legal system when discussing a fair and just sentence. If a judge thought about his own daughter as the victim, then surely that would make for a less objective decision.

I would feel like I've fucked up badly as a parent.

I agree, and I would feel that way if I was the parent of the guy too.

My point is the guy should be held accountable for the fact he "groomed" (if indeed he did). 15 year old girls are very vunerable, even with the best parenting.

Exact what I thought. The girls parents need to take decent amount of the responsibility IMO

ya but in this moron infested world, no one has to take any responsibility even when they do something.

Mine was to Camel

mine was to myself, nothing to see here, move along please.

went to that school

live about a mile away from it now

without going into to much detail the family have to take a fair amount of the blame from what i can tell

The thing here though is 15 is way below the law. It's illegal for a teacher (or any other position of trust professions) to have sexual relations with any pupil under the age of 18, not 16. Whether it is consensual or not doesn't change this, although obviously if it wasn't consensual then you'd be looking at a rape charge.

I was going to say something like, he is taking responsibility because he's going to jail, but then realised that obviously that was bollocks.

All along I've wondered why he didn't plead guilty, and I still can't work it out.

He took her to France and as she was underage then consent was irrelevant.
Similarly he must have known that pleading not guilty would mean it would come out that they were definitely having sex.
And he was her teacher so it's a massively illegal abuse of trust and taking advantage of his position of authority, plus he knew she was particularly vulnerable when it all started which would also come out from pleading not guilty.

And that's even before you add on the testimony from his wife who he had only recently married when it started  to make him generally look like a bit of a douchebag.

His only defence seems to be that he thought she was going to commit suicide so he was basically 'looking after' her, which as well as being a bit shaky isn't really even a defence - it's mitigation at best.

All in all I find it completely bizarre that he pleaded not guilty -  but being a moron who just couldn't admit he was in the wrong would explain it.

Can you link to where it says it's illegal for a teacher to have sex with a 16 year old?

Also, sex with a 15 year old cannot be consensual in the eyes of the law, because the 15 year old is below the age of consent.

Man got 12 months for breaking into his ex birds flat, and stole her lingerie. Seems fair, given Stuart hall got 15 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_(Amendment)_Act_2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_(Amendment)_Act_2000)

Obviously not relevant in this case but I was doing teacher training around that time so I remember it being mentioned - but the only advice or training we were given was around not leaving yourself open to false allegations; I think it was pretty much just assumed that you didn't have to give any training to tell people it was wrong to actually do anything.

It's worth mentioning in training because you could end up in a sixth form college where the pupils are 16+. I mean it should still pretty obviously be a no-no but perhaps it's not quite as obviously wrong as if you were in a secondary school.

So is it only if the child is a student in your class?  If you're a teacher that doesn't teach that student are you still in a 'position of trust'?

In the school/college at all.

Just the 5.5 years...

The whole thing is ridiculous.

He got one year for the abduction (an abduction where the 'victim' willingly went along of her own accord), and 5 and a half for the sex with a 15 year old, which was something which only sprung up today for 'legal reasons' - the legal reasons being that this isn't even an offence in France so couldn't be used as the basis for the international arrest warrant to bring him back.

When the appeal was made in France for people to be on the lookout for them, they couldn't understand what the problem was.

Yes, he did wrong, and certainly shouldn't ever be a teacher again, but four times worse than Stuart Hall, who abused a string of young girls, including a nine year old?

The law needs to protect 'minors' - and so a custodial sentence is probably correct here.  But 5 years!  Surely some 'common sense' needs to be applied as well?

Sexually abuse more than a dozen children as young as 9 years old, and you get 15 months.   

Doesn't seem right, does it?

Good old British justice

I honestly don't know how I feel about the guy tbh, there was certainly an upsurge in the tone yesterday once he had been found guilty, with paedophile and predatory being words that hadn't been used before in this case by the media.

I guess we will never know, but I think he is probably on the wrong end of this one

The use of the word paedophile is factually incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

"As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger"

This sentence is not justice, it makes me extremely angry.

The guy was (and probably still is) stupid, misguided and fckd up.

Sticking him in prison for 5 years is not going to solve anything.

I went to an all boys school. When I was 15 my form teacher was called Miss Griffiths who also taught french. She was about 22, spoke with a french accent, and was smoking hot. Everybody fancied her, students, parents, other teachers. If she had of approached me one day and suggested we run away together to France for sex I would have wept with joy.

interesting innuendo mantis

That's what Mantis went to school for.

(http://www.spreadsheetsmadeeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/550x336px-LL-93d4d87c_South-Park-nice.jpeg)

Why didn't he plead guilty?

The underage sex thing would not have been an issue then.

How can he be sentenced for something he hasnt been found guilty of?

That's what I wondered all along, he's basically never had any defence.

And I agree that the paedophile talk is misused - although in the trial the prosecution said to the jury that they might not think that paedophile is the right label, but that was irrelevant. It was all the other stuff, in particular the abuse of trust that they were really out to get him for.

But she was 14 when the relationship started, I don't think he should be awarded too many brownie points for waiting until she was 15 before he started having sex with her, and it sounds like she was fairly troubled but instead of putting off her crush he actively encouraged it and kept it going - that does sound quite a bit like grooming doesn't it? And although it doesn't have a legal impact, when it started was pretty soon after he'd got married - which at least tells you something about his general moral character.

5 years is a bit harsh, but whatever sentence was appropriate (maybe 2?) it should be doubled because of the abuse of authority - so I don't think it's too harsh.

Also the maximum is 7 and he never admitted he'd done anything wrong and never showed any remorse - from a technical point of view it's not exactly surprising that he got so close to the maximum.

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-jeremy-forrest (http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-jeremy-forrest)

sentencing remarks, they don't add much - but that website is pretty good for any court case related discussion I think

He pleaded guilty to the sex charges.  The jury didn't have to find him guilty of these charges, just the abduction charge,

Why hasn't Bill Wyman been arrested yet?

Someone told me - rightly or wrongly - he offered himself to the police and was told they weren't interested in him.

Mandy Smith is now 42 - how old does that make us all feel?

How old was Mandy Smith when Bill Wyman first felt her?

Felt, 13 - fucked, 14.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

She might be 42 but she's well fit in comparision to his current wife. I thought it was a picture of him with another band member!

Seems Aaron wasn't the only one who thought 15-months was unduly lenient: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23271739

edit: Apologies, didn't realise this was old news:

Can't believe that the BBC site has summed up his offences like this. Having read the court report linked to earlier in this thread, his offences were far more gross and sinister than they portray (although obviously these two offences are bad enough).

agreed

not quite sure why or how the bbc felt the need to express the offences like that

at best very inaccurate

and more allegations have come to light today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10179390/Stuart-Hall-faces-new-rape-allegations.html

Wonder if that's the case that was 'on file' (whatever that means), or an entirely different one?

not sure not much detail yet

Not in any way to demean a very grave matter, but it is a sad day when one of only three serious newspapers in the UK does not employ subeditors who do their job without at least a degree of competence.


used his celebrity status to pray on young girls.

Which are the three? Five serious dailies surely - Times, Independent, Guardian, FT, Torygraph.

I guess you're not counting the FT. The Times has turned pretty easy-reading in the last few years, but surely it still counts as a serious newspaper.

Times, Telegraph, Guardian.

The FT is stunningly good, excellent in every way, but I see it as a specialist daily, rather than a regular newspaper.

The Independent is but a shadow of its former self, in my personal opinion. Very little real, in depth, news.

They should have used that as a subtle pun during the last Vatican scandal.

What are the chances of him getting a fair trial if these new allegations make it to court?

He's reviled by the whole country

hopefully very slim

i hope he gets a fair trial and if he is guilty he is convicted and gets the punishment he deserves

Lol Mr h.


You hope he doesn't get a fair trial?

to be frank yes

He has got away with an awful lot for far to long

But how would you know that without a fair trial?

Do you think that it's enough just to be accused?

Fair enough, we may be pretty sure that Stuart Hall is guilty, but if we decide that without the benefit of a fair trial, what happens to the next bloke to be accused?

Are we then to decide who deserves a fair trial and who doesn't?