I see he's (SH) lost his OBE now.

And I thought it stood for Order of the Buggery Empire and was hoping to win one.

I wear my father's OBE in The Pink Marble Egg, with pride.

JK2006 wrote:

I wear my father's OBE in The Pink Marble Egg, with pride.

I am in a similar position regarding the OBE, but was told - in no uncertain terms - that I could not wear it.

As 'no orders of chivalry are hereditary.'

Thus, it remains in a box.

What a sleazy lot these lords and barons are. They know perfectly well to resist media pressure.

If I may say so, this was an excellent, very well-written and courageous letter. Well done for writing it.

Regarding honours and medals, in this case I normally do work on the assumption of guilty until proven innocent.

Over 6000 people seem to have read this in the past 24 hours - rather more, I suspect, than would have read it in full if published in the Daily Mail. Funny how the Internet is changing our habits. Many e mails and messages - most positive - leaving aside the expected negatives, the main objections seem to be - why would anyone pay any attention to a convicted criminal? Indeed. Sadly, rather like deciding editorial content by such reasons as opposed to whether it is good or not, many people do appear to think the character or position of the writer is more important than the veracity or not of points being made. I find that odd but clearly a widely held attitude. Secondly - why have I sent it? Many seem incapable of understanding, let alone believing, that anybody could simply want to improve a situation. Thirdly - am I an apologist for crime? No. Read the letter again. But most of all simply cannot believe anybody would plead guilty to something they had not done.

This last puzzles me. Do readers really have 100% faith in juries? Or do they simply not believe that judges ask - indeed, reward - defendants who plead guilty even if they are innocent but cannot prove it? Or do they think nobody would be found guilty of crimes that never happened? I must admit, I found that extraordinary. Some evidence - yes. None at all - only individuals claiming something and others denying; it seemed not to be proof, to me.

Even given all this, can they not consider it possible that, given a choice between months or years in prison, most innocent people would choose the shorter time?

It seems some people simply do not have the ability to feel that could be done. And, determined to feel the comfortable certainty that miscarriages of justice don't happen, they continue to feel that, in law, we are considered innocent until or unless proven guilty.

I only hope they never have to discover how hard it is to prove your innocence. Many of my critics from 13 years ago have discovered that, or will be doing so over the next few months, themselves.

But I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

"Don't, whatever you do, Plead Guilty"...

JK2006 wrote:
Even given all this, can they not consider it possible that, given a choice between months or years in prison, most innocent people would choose the shorter time?

Especially at his age when he might not even have years,and the additional 15 rape allegations just makes the whole thing look even more ridiculous (I think it's gone beyond suspicious), were where these people the first time round and why have they never reported this before, ALL 15 of them?

It was a good letter I hope they do take what you said on board...

And the problem being the same as in your post, Anon; people (including Judges) tend to latch onto the simplistic headlines without looking at the detail. It seems only TWO girls (so far) have claimed all these rapes. "Please, Uncle Stuart, can I come round to be raped again?".

JK2006 wrote:
And the problem being the same as in your post, Anon; people (including Judges) tend to latch onto the simplistic headlines without looking at the detail. It seems only TWO girls (so far) have claimed all these rapes. "Please, Uncle Stuart, can I come round to be raped again?".


Because children are willing doesn't necessarily mean it isn't rape, but in this case It was probably the girl who had a relationship with him. (Her "story" was in the newspapers)

JK2006 wrote:
And the problem being the same as in your post, Anon; people (including Judges) tend to latch onto the simplistic headlines without looking at the detail. It seems only TWO girls (so far) have claimed all these rapes. "Please, Uncle Stuart, can I come round to be raped again?".

Ah it's the same two claiming several rapes each. Well as they say, once is unlucky, twice is terribly unlucky, 3 times is downright stupidity. I suppose I don't know the circumstances, but still... Where were they a few months ago when the police were building their case? It stinks to high heaven...

Anon wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
And the problem being the same as in your post, Anon; people (including Judges) tend to latch onto the simplistic headlines without looking at the detail. It seems only TWO girls (so far) have claimed all these rapes. "Please, Uncle Stuart, can I come round to be raped again?".

Ah it's the same two claiming several rapes each. Well as they say, once is unlucky, twice is terribly unlucky, 3 times is downright stupidity. I suppose I don't know the circumstances, but still... Where were they a few months ago when the police were building their case? It stinks to high heaven...

I am speculating that Hall pleaded guilty in a "deal" to avoid the "rape" charges (if it was an affair there are probably witnesses) and once he was safely jailed they charged him anyway.
Is this possible?

Doubt it Honey; they would never have dropped the rape charge if there was evidence - these must be more recent allegations provoked by the publicity.