JK - 7 years
SH - 15 months ("Judge Russell said Hall would have received 20 months after a trial but he reduced the sentence to reflect his guilty pleas.")One of the "victims was 13years old"
Something wrong here! especially when reading the facts on JK's charges and ages of guys involved.
Maxy must be considering his options now!

5 months off for guilty plea and (let's not forget - rape charges dropped, with many years for them if found guilty)... he'll serve 7.5 months... out by Xmas just in time for festive It's A Cop Out - or Plead Guilty, the new legal game.

My track is available as the theme tune.

JK2006 wrote:
5 months off for guilty plea and (let's not forget - rape charges dropped, with many years for them if found guilty)... he'll serve 7.5 months... out by Xmas just in time for festive It's A Cop Out - or Plead Guilty, the new legal game.

My track is available as the theme tune.

JK. 7.5 months means he'll be out late January. (Back to school for you sir!)

It's British Justice that needs to go back to school Dixie; there are always extra bits and pieces taken into account...

I wonder if they will send him to an Open Prison - that would be 'adding insult to injury'

In my opinion it is a ridiculously short amount of time in jail for "molesting a nine year old"
If Stuart Hall confessed to get a lighter sentence it was hardly worth it.

Probably be diagnosed with something serious soon and be hospitalised for the duration. 5 months max and out by Xmas as JK predicts.

Should serve as a valuable lesson to all the others - whatever you do, don't plead guilty.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In my opinion it is a ridiculously short amount of time in jail for "molesting a nine year old"
If Stuart Hall confessed to get a lighter sentence it was hardly worth it.

Ah, but here you see you've been misled by hysterical media coverage. He didn't "molest a nine year old" in any sense of the word - unless you count being invited by their parents (family friends) to enter their bedroom to say goodnight and tickling them on the leg when they pretend to be asleep. Of all the allegations against him this was the most spurious and would have been laughed out of court if it had come anywhere near being scrutinised by a jury.

Stuart Hall didn't "confess" he simply pleaded guilty to save himself the stress of two years of investigations, legal fees and a show trial defending himself against allegations that are impossible to prove either way. It has sadly cost him his reputation but he's at the very least closed the file and will now spend the summer doing some light gardening in an open prison before fading away to retirement.

Still a grotesque miscarriage of justice and my thoughts are with his family tonight.

Highly intelligent and accurate post TBS (Turner Broadcasting System? CNN?) and I agree with every word.

TBS wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In my opinion it is a ridiculously short amount of time in jail for "molesting a nine year old"
If Stuart Hall confessed to get a lighter sentence it was hardly worth it.

Ah, but here you see you've been misled by hysterical media coverage. He didn't "molest a nine year old" in any sense of the word - unless you count being invited by their parents (family friends) to enter their bedroom to say goodnight and tickling them on the leg when they pretend to be asleep. Of all the allegations against him this was the most spurious and would have been laughed out of court if it had come anywhere near being scrutinised by a jury.

Stuart Hall didn't "confess" he simply pleaded guilty to save himself the stress of two years of investigations, legal fees and a show trial defending himself against allegations that are impossible to prove either way. It has sadly cost him his reputation but he's at the very least closed the file and will now spend the summer doing some light gardening in an open prison before fading away to retirement.

Still a grotesque miscarriage of justice and my thoughts are with his family tonight.

He didn't just plead guilty, he made a statement apologising to the victims. If that isn't a confession what is? I can understand how people are railroaded into pleading guilty but why apologise?
I have now read the judges comments. It is not very clear about the nine year old. It says he moved his hand towards her vagina, which implies that he did not touch it,yet the judge describes it as a serious offence, and how can that be, unless he did molest her there?

I am not usually swayed by media coverage, and I had been very sure until his admission that this case was just about the most trumped up of all because of the journalists "anonymous letter" (written in exactly the same style of writing as herself and "accidentally destroyed" ) followed by the girl above the age of consent who had his hand over her fully clothed breast when he put his arm round her (but didn't stop him)and now just happens to be a recently retired police officer from the very force that investigated him.

However, I find it hard to believe that someone would apologise in public and concoct a story about deciding in 1986 to never do it again, and humiliate the entire family and themselves for the sake of a five month shorter sentence.
If the nine year old's allegation would have been laughed out of court then why not fight it?

It seems that he was sentenced according to the penalties at the time of the offences,which explains why the sentence was light, so I think he would have been aware that the plea would not drastically reduce it?

Not everyone is innocent, and it is not impossible that the outrageous and underhand trawling methods will occasionally uncover an actually crime.

The judges comments....www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Docum...remarks-17062013.pdf

Oh "regrets" and "apologies" are all part of the deal, Honey, and you have to remember that the rape charges were dropped - which removed about 10 years from his sentence.

Kissing on the lips a thirteen year old, fondling the breast of a sixteen or seventeen year old, cuddling a ten year old, and putting your hand up the skirt of a nine year old are all capable of being called, variously, "attack", "assault", "molestation", or "abuse", as quickly begins to become apparent after a brief survey across media accounts collated by incident.

Other than the skirt business, none of these terms seems warranted by the behaviour described, and their use in this way weakens their force. The level of exaggeration casts even the skirt business into doubt.

news.sky.com/story/1104682/stuart-hall-j...sex-attacks-on-girls
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/17/stuart...decent-assault-girls

yes I think TBS may be correct.

I see the NSPCC has had a real good go at some unfortunate who had the temerity to give Hall a reference and they have been punished and silenced.

It reminds me of a case a few years ago in Sydney where a former prosecutor was jailed and his 20 referees were soundly accused of all and sundry and being fellow travelers by the Murdoch media.

Fortunately for them they were mainly judges, lawyers, barrister and academics (including my pal) and Rupert soon settled about 30 grand on each...it's a pity our former NSPCC referee doesn't sue for libel.

The Dunking Stool beckons for any who dare claim the Witch (or her cat) may be innocent.

Judges notes on sentencing give more details: www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Docum...remarks-17062013.pdf

Never been to prison so can't imagine what his first night must have been like. At 83. I've heard tell the first night is the worst even for a much younger man.

Only if you're a very sensitive petal on a very delicate flower. Another one of those myths, FC, put out by the media to bolster the justifiable fact that nobody should ever commit a crime.

JK2006 wrote:
Oh "regrets" and "apologies" are all part of the deal, Honey, and you have to remember that the rape charges were dropped - which removed about 10 years from his sentence.

Are they really? I had no idea people were forced to apologise. So he made a deal to confess to minor or trumped up charges to escape being charged with rape? Why would they allow a serious charge to be dropped? and what would happen if Stuart Hall made a statement now, explaining how he was forced to plead guilty? After all, nobody can seriously believe that he remembered touching an adult's breast over her blazer sometime in the seventies, even if it was true.(and even if he was guilty of the rest)

Perhaps I've watched Shawshank Redemption too many times. I myself couldn't cope with the lack of privacy. Having to shower and shit in view of others. Couldn't stand it. Maybe I'm a delicate fat petal.

The "shit" part isn't meant to happen and if it does, there are many of us out here poised to make a stink, if you'll excuse the expression.
Group showers? You either get used to it or, like I did, you work out when nobody else will be there.
It's no fun being locked up but it's not as bad as they say; we get used to anything... how about those hostages like Terry Waite chained to a radiator in the dark 24 hours a day?