Stuart Hall, 15 months.

[aaron1867]

Pathetic.

[outragous76]

done deal before trial?

Out in 8?

Justice right there

[TommyD]

Called it.

And an absolute travesty IMO.

[TightEnd]

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.

[outragous76]

quite a tough read

[TommyD]

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.

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.

[horseplayer]

a quite disgusting "length" of sentence

[kinboshi]

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.

[Dubai]

Out in under 6 months

[horseplayer]

attorney general reviewing the sentence

[kinboshi]

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.

[gouty]

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.

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.

[Tal]

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.

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.

[titaniumbean]

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.

[kinboshi]

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.

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.

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.