Stuart Hall

I bet given his age he'll be out on licence in about 3 momths. The prison authorities will be asking- what's the point of jailing an 83 year old!!

You could well be right. His last offence was in the eighties so it looks as if he has been celibate for over twenty years.

The old bastard should have been given 5 years minimum IMO, fuck his age, he should have to pay for the sick and disgusting things he has done.

I totally agree, couldn't believe the 15 month sentence he got.  You'd get more for Burglary.

Some of his victims were children of his friends. He lured their teenage daughters to his home on the pretence of giving them elocution lessons. Once safely inside they had to have a bath and then wear nothing other than one of his shirts. I reckon the psychologists will have a field day trying to figure out his mindset.

15 months really isn't enough for his abhorrent behaviour tbh.

It's a knockout!

I always thought that it was a 10 count, looks like he's been given a 20 count.

Effing ridiculous.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Some of his victims were children of his friends. He lured their teenage daughters to his home on the pretence of giving them elocution lessons. Once safely inside they had to have a bath and then wear nothing other than one of his shirts. I reckon the psychologists will have a field day trying to figure out his mindset.

15 months really isn't enough for his abhorrent behaviour tbh.

Really that's pretty sick. I'm surprised one of the fathers didn't do him.

The maximum sentence for this offence (not rape) at the time it happened was 2 years and that was therefore the maximum the judge could have given. Given that since that time, the maximum has risen to 10 years you'd think that the judge would have given him the full 2 years, but apparently he had to take into account the chances of him reoffending which are probably slim to none.
Personally I don't like to argue with the law, but on this occasion I think it's a travesty.

I do think that the legal principle of sentences being limited to what they were at the time of the offence is correct though - if you fart in the street and in 2 years time they make it illegal for example.

What bugs me is that his age has been taken into consideration.

Just because he's an old man shouldn't mean he gets a more lenient sentence.

I think the biggest factor in his favour is that he held his hand up and pleaded guilty. The Judge will have given him some credit for that.

The law is a fucking joke, the guy i mentioned a while back who had sex with his stepdaughter, she's of age and consented so he say's, its been going on for ages, they convicted him  on mobile sex messeges they sent to each other because she liked him to describe what he was going to do to her, she then fell out with her mum and he stopped the affair, she then turned them round to look bad on him to get back at her mum, he's just got 4 years.

Norpig wrote:just read about this, he was so adamant when he was charged that he was not guilty. Who's next i wonder?

Maybe Adam Ant?

lololol, very good.

I can't believe Benny Hill has never got a mention