I say it all in my song "Plead Guilty" in which the final chorus goes "whatever you do... DON'T plead guilty".

Lawyers always urge those accused of sex offences to plead guilty - since no proof is needed and witnesses tend to tell similar stories, thanks to the questioning police officers, they will almost certainly be found guilty and pleading guilty is meant to get a lower sentence for not "wasting court time".

Believe me, I've been there, it stinks.

The chords of that song came into my head straight away when I just heard the news...

I know the sentence is shorter but surly nobody nobody nobody would say they were guilty of such a horrible thing if it wasn't true?

Unless the events were "trivial" like Jimmy Savile touching someone's leg or kissing them in public?

Oh yes Honey; you are told - "you'll get 5 years - if you plead guilty and save the court time (and the poor victims all the trauma) you'll only be given 2 years"... an 81 year old man thinks "I'll take the lower sentence - the damage is done anyway; my career and life is over... why prolong the agony?".

And the delicious combination of lawyers, judges, media, police, CPS - all say "look, everyone will say "no smoke without fire" even if you were acquitted, which you won't be... we might even manage to keep you out of prison, some "community" sentence because of your age and health"...

You really don't understand the extraordinary surreal situation unless you've been in it.

Went to the wrong school ?

www.stuarthall.org/index.cfm?go=sh.page&pageID=86

I'm not going to argue with the owner of the board, I haven't been in the situation. But I also think that it is highly unlikely that even an old man would admit something like this if it didn't actually occur, surely? He is a powerfull (TV production and idea owndership legacy) and well off individual who I can't for the life me would prefer to admit something if it wasn't true rather than forever be branded..........surely if 100% innocent of the severity of charges, your memorial legacy whend ead would still mean something to you? He is married with kids, so the admission has to take into account the family dynamic as well...............

We all probably have a preference for a good Obituary , even a dead celebs estate

JK2006 wrote:
Oh yes Honey; you are told - "you'll get 5 years - if you plead guilty and save the court time (and the poor victims all the trauma) you'll only be given 2 years"... an 81 year old man thinks "I'll take the lower sentence - the damage is done anyway; my career and life is over... why prolong the agony?".

And the delicious combination of lawyers, judges, media, police, CPS - all say "look, everyone will say "no smoke without fire" even if you were acquitted, which you won't be... we might even manage to keep you out of prison, some "community" sentence because of your age and health"...

You really don't understand the extraordinary surreal situation unless you've been in it.

Yes. I see.
What an absolutely miserable situation! These "plea deals" interfere with justice. For this man it could mean the difference between dying in prison or not.
All the fuss expense and stress of a trial and at the end of it nobody has the foggiest if the accuser is guilty or not!

what do you think would have happened if you had pretended to be guilty?

Realistically how many octogenarians do people know who have the appetite or ability to withstand days or weeks of legal ping-pong by two smarmy barristers regarding charges that cannot be proven or otherwise? Which is another reason why these people are targeted.
MWT is claiming the glory "due to #Savile" as you would expect.

I imagine 'The Savile Police' have their eye on Brinsworth House before trawling around other UK Nursing Homes

Mr Reason - I totally agree with you; indeed, I didn't pause before telling my lawyers "I didn't do it so I won't plead guilty". As it was, I defended myself (virtually impossible) - was convicted in the first trial; acquitted on all charges in the second trial so the Judge ordered all other claims abandoned and sentenced me for the FIRST verdict to seven years (the guidelines were 2 years) saying they were a sample of all claims.

I felt he should have allowed me the fact that I was acquitted at the second trial to ALSO indicate my innocence and that the two trials cancelled each other out in sentencing terms. He did not (better publicity).

After my experience I can absolutely understand why many plead guilty. I met many in prison who had done that and therefore had to do courses so as never to do it again - VERY stressful and unpleasant admitting you wanted to do things that were, in fact, anathema to you.

I've never regretted pleading NOT guilty and I am still, as a result, fighting to get my wrongful convictions thrown out.

But people nearer the ends of their lives must surely think - bite the bullet, spend less time (if any; there might be a decent judge) in prison, reputation over...

Unless you believe Hall could have defended himself well enough to get the allegations thrown out, be acquitted (I've done that too; incredibly difficult and only possible because the "victim" fell apart on dates and motives) and then get accepted back into society - once more leaping onto the BBC. Really?

British law has been moving towards the US' outrageous and corrupt 'plea bargain' system for a long time.

The very idea you should receive a longer sentence for pleading 'not guilty' and then be found guilty is an anathema. The excuse you are saving the court time and money by pleading guilty...it's a travesty. Of course in a sex case.....you are then accused of putting the claimant/victim through further abuse and so on. It's a lose lose situation.

I notice one charge...kissing a girl on the lips. My God..there must be tens of thousands of men and women in Britain today who could face that charge.

insanity.

It is a similar situation with child protection. If social workers are sent to investigate a complaint of mistreatment or neglect the advice from those who have been through it is to co-operate with them and "accept help" even if the accusation is false,because the more you complain the greater the chance of losing your children.

One of the charges as Hedda points out is 'kissing someone on the lips'.

I'd best hand myself in this afternoon...I'm a serial offender. Perhaps I'll see you lot down there too...rather cosy us all being nicked together.

Hope the allegations are all false as he is a legend on the radio and his hugely missed.

Enough said

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/49119...child-sex-abuse.html

hedda wrote:
I notice one charge...kissing a girl on the lips. My God..there must be tens of thousands of men and women in Britain today who could face that charge


The girl was 13 - do you not think that is relevant enough to mention?

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
I notice one charge...kissing a girl on the lips. My God..there must be tens of thousands of men and women in Britain today who could face that charge


The girl was 13 - do you not think that is relevant enough to mention?





I've kissed my 12 year old niece...am I in trouble ?...not the lips mind you...the cheek..but is there a difference ? We must be told. Me and the few hundred thousand (million?) others who did likewise need to know.

Oh God..just remembered...I've hugged her as well. Like Savile and that Nolan bird..argghhh

perhaps the context is relevant as well, dontcha think ?

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:

The girl was 13 - do you not think that is relevant enough to mention?



I've been listening to Radio 5 this afternoon and they are stating that one of the girls was 9 years old. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was innocent would plead guilty to an offence that involved a 9 year old.

Almost everyone seems to find it impossible to believe Hall would have pleaded guilty to that unless he WAS guilty.

Fair enough. But you must agree that if your lawyers tell you that you will be convicted for certain and get two or three times the length of prison, you wouldn't at least consider it.

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
I notice one charge...kissing a girl on the lips. My God..there must be tens of thousands of men and women in Britain today who could face that charge


The girl was 13 - do you not think that is relevant enough to mention?





Oh for gods sake what sort of kiss are we talking about here before you get ?

Define a 'kiss on the lips' for me? I'm confused.

hedda wrote:
I've kissed my 12 year old niece...


When Hall assaulted his 13 year old victim, he was in his 50's - old enough to be her grandfather.

If you think that this type of behaviour is acceptable, you are wrong.

Mr Hall is now a convicted sex offender who did not even attempt to defend himself.