Stuart Hall - 15 months

This is a Joke and how does this send the right signals out to people , a frail old man yeh right

WTFingF?! That's disgraceful, how the hell did they try to justify such a weak sentence?

no idea mate , but really he should not see daylight again

Completely agree. Well, with any luck the shock will kill the rancid old b'stard.

Chris SW wrote:Completely agree. Well, with any luck the shock will kill the rancid old b'stard.

we can only hope

The most annoying thing about all of this is the lack of suspicion , don' know about you but the hours I spent as a kid watching Jim'll Fix it , It's a Knockout etc , My Mum used to (Bless her Soul) dote on Ken Barlow , and to find out all of this stuff

No doubt there will be loads of people crawling out of the woodwork to make statements like "I always knew there was something not right about him" ...etc but fact is apart from a few police and bosses within BBC etc and of course the victims, then nobody did

Apparently the punishment was given as it would have been when the original offense took place some 50 odd years ago. In a way I have to agree the judge did the right thing.. Times were very different in those day's and women suffered indecent comments and the like all the time as they began to work in a male environment. Men felt it was just fun to touch a lass up and have no come back.. Now it would not be acceptable for that to happen.. but could you go back to all those men and charge them with indecent behaviour now??? I can't get my head around the fact that they left if for so long.

pag wrote:I can't get my head around the fact that they left if for so long.

They left it so long because, as you've already said, it was 'the done thing' in those days. We now live in an enlightened time where most people agree that it isn't acceptable to touch up a woman work colleague purely because she's a woman. But back then, no woman could complain because she would have lost her job!

Plus, don't forget that these were not women - they were children! Not the same thing at all.

I've just read that one was a young as 9.. which I wasn't aware of. I think they sentence is to do with his age, if he were younger he would have got more I'm sure.. seems odd though that the crime should be given a lesser punishment just because of his age.. if he's guilty then he's guilty no matter what his age.. he shouldn't be let out.

pag wrote:.. if he's guilty then he's guilty no matter what his age.. he shouldn't be let out.

I quite agree.

Trouble is, the sentence has to be delivered in accordance to the sentencing at the time of the crime. Back then, less emphasis was placed on child molestation and rape in the court of law.

Eleanor wrote:Trouble is, the sentence has to be delivered in accordance to the sentencing at the time of the crime. Back then, less emphasis was placed on child molestation and rape in the court of law.

I agree Eleanor, Unfortunately for his victims, he gets a light sentence, while they have a life sentence

It's disgraceful. There's talk of there being a retrial to get a heavier sentence due to complaints, but it won't be by much. He's claiming he has two years to live due to a heart condition - they won't imprison him for two years if he's dying. It's sick that he's pretty much getting away with it.

well if they roll back the punishment to the time of the crime lets bring back hanging

This is currently being discussed on the Jeremy Vine Radio 2 show now 12 pm.

This sentence is an absolute joke

Absolutely disgraceful .................He may get a game of its a knockout inside!

Inezmaria70 wrote:Absolutely disgraceful .................He may get a game of its a knockout inside!

Maybe some big black guy will want to play find the soap

I know, it is shocking