Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Back to forum list |
Back to The Lounge |
Jump to newest |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15 months???? How disgusting is that" you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i never liked him much when he was on telly in the 70s. i detest people who abuse women, especialy children, but seeing how old he is i think 15 months is long enough and that he has been punished in a way by his good name and reputation being damaged." sorry but I dont agree say that to the poor kid whos no longer a kid just a fooked up head na no matter how long its still not engh | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i never liked him much when he was on telly in the 70s. i detest people who abuse women, especialy children, but seeing how old he is i think 15 months is long enough and that he has been punished in a way by his good name and reputation being damaged." Sorry dont agree at all 15 months is noo way long enough makes me so mad | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i never liked him much when he was on telly in the 70s. i detest people who abuse women, especialy children, but seeing how old he is i think 15 months is long enough and that he has been punished in a way by his good name and reputation being damaged. Sorry dont agree at all 15 months is noo way long enough makes me so mad" brains an legz what more could I ask lol x | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just as a matter of interest, what sentence would the ones that disagree with his 15 months give him?" simply an I really really really really mean this shoot the cunt | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15 months???? How disgusting is that you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil " what would you do in those 5 minutes.. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15 months???? How disgusting is that you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil what would you do in those 5 minutes.." look up | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just as a matter of interest, what sentence would the ones that disagree with his 15 months give him? simply an I really really really really mean this shoot the cunt " Wow | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15 months???? How disgusting is that you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil what would you do in those 5 minutes.. look up" and that would make you a muderer yes..? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense?" meaning ????? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15 months???? How disgusting is that you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil what would you do in those 5 minutes.. look up and that would make you a muderer yes..? " if it was my little girl he touched yep with pleasure an il gladly do the what is it 8 years for it werth every second | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i never liked him much when he was on telly in the 70s. i detest people who abuse women, especialy children, but seeing how old he is i think 15 months is long enough and that he has been punished in a way by his good name and reputation being damaged." What has his age got to do with it. He may be in his 80s but he's still a paedophile. His sentence shouldn't be anything to do with his age. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense? meaning ?????" 1) It's one of those idle threats people make when they know it's never going to happen. 2) People likely and able to engage in genuine violence seldom announce their intentions in advance. It's seldom more than talk. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our justice system is crap. 15 months? Some are saying that's enough time? Dont think so. If it was you or your kids it would not seem right. If it was in the USA he would be looking at life. I know they dont get it right all the time but agree with them on stuff like that. " Our justice system isn't the same as the US justice system. They don't actually get life sentences as far as I'm aware, they get a number of years, some into the hundreds. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15 months???? How disgusting is that you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil what would you do in those 5 minutes.. look up and that would make you a muderer yes..? if it was my little girl he touched yep with pleasure an il gladly do the what is it 8 years for it werth every second " so your banged up, poss lose your house as your jobs gone and the person who most needs your support is miles away.. how does that help the child.. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ........so your banged up, poss lose your house as your jobs gone and the person who most needs your support is miles away.. how does that help the child.." It's not about helping the child. It's about trying to compensate for would-be avenger's inability to do anything constructive + the whole 'macho' nonsense men feel the need to demonstrate in such circumstances. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just got back from seeing the van carting him away from prison. should have been longer than 15 months " You actually went to the court to see him being taken away to prison?...... | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think castration is the required punishment for these kind of crimes" I don't think at his age castration would be much of punishment unless it was carried out using a rusty carving knife dipped in flesh eating bacteria by a man with a shaky hand and bad eye-sight..... | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think castration is the required punishment for these kind of crimes" I should think that at the ripe old age of 83 castration would be a pointless punishment..... It would be akin to taking a driving license off of a blind man. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I do think that being imprisoned as a sex offender at his age and after a life of celebrity could prove incredibly difficult for him to cope with physicaly and mentally but regardless the sentence seems too lenient to me and I don't think age or health should be used in mitigation when sentencing." All the reasons why he should be locked up. He didnt think of his victims ability to cope with life and the future did he? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense?" Bluster, bravado, machismo, bullshitters all spout the "give me five minutes" bollocks when they disagree with the judiciary etc. Quite amusing really. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense? Bluster, bravado, machismo, bullshitters all spout the "give me five minutes" bollocks when they disagree with the judiciary etc. Quite amusing really. " Often makes me wonder just what is lacking in their lives for them to feel the need to try and asset their masculinity in such a way. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense? Bluster, bravado, machismo, bullshitters all spout the "give me five minutes" bollocks when they disagree with the judiciary etc. Quite amusing really. " I concur....... | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His sentence takes in to account the fact that at the time the offences were committed the maximum sentance was 2 years. Presumably it is then less than the maximum for pleading guilty. It will be interesting to see if their is any the precedent for sentencing to be in line with the punishment at the time of the offence rather than the time of conviction. Unsurprisingly the Attorney General has already been approached to review whether the sentence is unduly lenient. I do think that being imprisoned as a sex offender at his age and after a life of celebrity could prove incredibly difficult for him to cope with physicaly and mentally but regardless the sentence seems too lenient to me and I don't think age or health should be used in mitigation when sentencing." | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His sentence takes in to account the fact that at the time the offences were committed the maximum sentance was 2 years. Presumably it is then less than the maximum for pleading guilty. It will be interesting to see if their is any the precedent for sentencing to be in line with the punishment at the time of the offence rather than the time of conviction. Unsurprisingly the Attorney General has already been approached to review whether the sentence is unduly lenient. I do think that being imprisoned as a sex offender at his age and after a life of celebrity could prove incredibly difficult for him to cope with physicaly and mentally but regardless the sentence seems too lenient to me and I don't think age or health should be used in mitigation when sentencing." If the tariff is set at what it would be at the time of the crime, how would it work for someone who committed a murder when the death penalty was in place??? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His sentence takes in to account the fact that at the time the offences were committed the maximum sentance was 2 years. Presumably it is then less than the maximum for pleading guilty. It will be interesting to see if their is any the precedent for sentencing to be in line with the punishment at the time of the offence rather than the time of conviction. Unsurprisingly the Attorney General has already been approached to review whether the sentence is unduly lenient. I do think that being imprisoned as a sex offender at his age and after a life of celebrity could prove incredibly difficult for him to cope with physicaly and mentally but regardless the sentence seems too lenient to me and I don't think age or health should be used in mitigation when sentencing. If the tariff is set at what it would be at the time of the crime, how would it work for someone who committed a murder when the death penalty was in place???" That's a thought that crossed my mind. The judge's logic is shocking and I'm genuinely intrigued to see if there is any sort of precedent. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do love the "string em up", "I'd kill im if e touched my little uns", "bring back angin that's what I say" brigade. Makes me nostalgic for the 1970's. Back when chicken tasted like chicken, you could leave your front door unlocked and there was a friendly copper on every street corner. " And the trains ran on time | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's in line with current sentencing tariffs...." So it seems it isn't | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's in line with current sentencing tariffs.... So it seems it isn't " But it is, the judge has sentenced him within the guidelines, what he hasn't done is sentenced him at the top end of the tariff scale. He could have given him Seven to Eight years maximum according to the tariff guidelines, according to tonight's news, but he has used the discretion afforded to our judiciary and chosen to hand down less. His age, guilty plea, and extent of the offences would have been taken into account. Is 15 months enough?.....of course it isn't, but the judge is perfectly able and entitled to choose to hand down this sentence. Many, less famous offenders receive similar sentences, they just don't make the news because they are not household names. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's in line with current sentencing tariffs.... So it seems it isn't But it is, the judge has sentenced him within the guidelines, what he hasn't done is sentenced him at the top end of the tariff scale. ." Lot's of conflicting posts it seems, some say he was sentanced as to what he would have been sentanced then and you say it is the same as now. Either way, whichever one it is, I don't think it is enough, whoever it is. I am sure it makes the news though for other offenders, they just probably don't get noticed as much or front page stuff. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All sentences for sexual offences are too light, but because of our do-gooder society the criminals are often portrayed as the victim's. Should go back to the old days where the community were allowed to hand out the punishment with no repercussions. But that will never happen in todays society. " what happens when some little shit names one of your loved ones on a social media site as a paedophile..? and the good upstanding members of the community lynch them..? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's in line with current sentencing tariffs.... So it seems it isn't But it is, the judge has sentenced him within the guidelines, what he hasn't done is sentenced him at the top end of the tariff scale. . Lot's of conflicting posts it seems, some say he was sentanced as to what he would have been sentanced then and you say it is the same as now. Either way, whichever one it is, I don't think it is enough, whoever it is. I am sure it makes the news though for other offenders, they just probably don't get noticed as much or front page stuff." It's five years (10 years if the child is under 13) since the 1956 law was amended in the late 80's. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was sentenced to 15 months..he gets a 1/3 off that for pleading guilty and half off for good behaviour so he could and probably will be out in 5 months! ! " The third off was already reflected in the 15 month sentence handed down. He would be expected to serve half that sentence....ie seven and a half months. He may be eligible for HDC...Home Detention Curfew or tag and could be out earlier. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All sentences for sexual offences are too light, but because of our do-gooder society the criminals are often portrayed as the victim's. Should go back to the old days where the community were allowed to hand out the punishment with no repercussions. But that will never happen in todays society. what happens when some little shit names one of your loved ones on a social media site as a paedophile..? and the good upstanding members of the community lynch them..? We are taking about people found guilty, and I don't agree with suspects being named for that reason until they have been found guilty. " | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do love the "string em up", "I'd kill im if e touched my little uns", "bring back angin that's what I say" brigade. Makes me nostalgic for the 1970's. Back when chicken tasted like chicken, you could leave your front door unlocked and there was a friendly copper on every street corner. And the trains ran on time" The cops were corrupt & the trains ran on time my ass!!! ..........the chicken was tastier though!! | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the same day hall got his crappy sentence a graffiti artist in London got 3 years for writing his name on Walls! Seems a little unfair to me. " Maybe it was particuarly poor art | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the same day hall got his crappy sentence a graffiti artist in London got 3 years for writing his name on Walls! Seems a little unfair to me. Maybe it was particuarly poor art " Lol | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do love the "string em up", "I'd kill im if e touched my little uns", "bring back angin that's what I say" brigade. Makes me nostalgic for the 1970's. Back when chicken tasted like chicken, you could leave your front door unlocked and there was a friendly copper on every street corner. And the trains ran on time The cops were corrupt & the trains ran on time my ass!!! ..........the chicken was tastier though!! " And a 'respectable' adult who took an interest in your kids could be trusted to be alone with them... Times and attitudes have changed but some for the better. Although the cult of celebrity may mean that this could still happen today - hopefully todays attitudes mean that a child would be able to speak out and not have to repress it for 30+ years. And to all those advocating violence if it had been one of their children remember that many abusers will persuade their victims that mummy and daddy won't believe them or will be angry or even separated from them if they tell. Far better to engender an environment of trust instead of perpetuating violence. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to all those advocating violence if it had been one of their children remember that many abusers will persuade their victims that mummy and daddy won't believe them or will be angry or even separated from them if they tell. Far better to engender an environment of trust instead of perpetuating violence." | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15 months???? How disgusting is that you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil " it's a cop out Wolf | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If this had come to court back when it happened , he would have walked. Small mercies" I doubt he will be able to walk much after a few days in prison. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is being said that Hall has got 15 months as that would be the level of sentencing he would have received had he been caught at the time the offences were committed. On that basis, if someone were to be convicted now for a murder committed in 1960, would we hang them now...??? After all, that was the sentence at the time, was it not...??? Feel some people are wriggling on this one. Just hope the Attorney General feels the same way.... ted. " So true. The victims take him to civil court and sue the fuck out of him too | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All sentences for sexual offences are too light, but because of our do-gooder society the criminals are often portrayed as the victim's. Should go back to the old days where the community were allowed to hand out the punishment with no repercussions. But that will never happen in todays society. what happens when some little shit names one of your loved ones on a social media site as a paedophile..? and the good upstanding members of the community lynch them..? We are taking about people found guilty, and I don't agree with suspects being named for that reason until they have been found guilty. " you dont exactly make that clear in your post though do you? as weak as this sentence is and sends out the wrong message imho its far better to have the justice system we have with its inherent problems than some form of vigilante thuggery.. as shown by the NOTW campaign think it was Sarah's law, there are folk within 'our communities' who with your preference would be stringing up paediatricians.. as for only when found guilty, too many documented cases whereby the names of some falsly accused have 'been leaked'.. not sure i agree on the being named point, in Halls case many victims only came forward once he was charged.. no doubt they felt that they 'would now be believed' and given the circumstances of the case their evidence added weight and ensured a conviction.. respect its a delicate one as in naming someone there will even post acquittal be the 'no smoke without fire' pov.. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is being said that Hall has got 15 months as that would be the level of sentencing he would have received had he been caught at the time the offences were committed. On that basis, if someone were to be convicted now for a murder committed in 1960, would we hang them now...??? After all, that was the sentence at the time, was it not...??? Feel some people are wriggling on this one. Just hope the Attorney General feels the same way.... ted. " Doesn't really work that way around. If something is now a crime that wasn't before you cannot retrospectively prosecute them. The sentencing applies in the same way. Same thing applies if something is no longer a crime you can't go back and prosecute for it. Whether we are outraged or not that's how all civilised countries run their legal systems | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd castrate all peadophiles with a blunt spoon. Sorry but that's how I feel. " And I'd lock up all people who wish to harm other people deliberately. Sorry but that's how I feel. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd castrate all peadophiles with a blunt spoon. Sorry but that's how I feel. " Vegetables...the lot of them!! | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think he did have a lenient sentence, and there seems to be a blackout as to which prison he is in, or is that because he is in an open prison because of his age and who he is, just like the mp"s with the driving offences etc etc " His age will have an impact on sentencing and also on his placement. As a rule driving offences aren't why MPs have gone to jail, it was one mp and he lied about it. His punishment was commensurate with others committing similar crimes. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently the Court of Appeal considered 82 cases that were referred to it by the Attorney General last year as being 'unduly lenient'. The sentence was increased in 62 cases...approximately 75%." That's why they exist Of course 82 cases is a very very small percentage of the total number of cases heard. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently the Court of Appeal considered 82 cases that were referred to it by the Attorney General last year as being 'unduly lenient'. The sentence was increased in 62 cases...approximately 75%. That's why they exist Of course 82 cases is a very very small percentage of the total number of cases heard." The Court of Appeal has a Civil and Criminal Division which deals with more than 'unduly lenient' sentences. Appellants can appeal length of their sentence as well as conviction. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is being said that Hall has got 15 months as that would be the level of sentencing he would have received had he been caught at the time the offences were committed. On that basis, if someone were to be convicted now for a murder committed in 1960, would we hang them now...??? After all, that was the sentence at the time, was it not...??? Feel some people are wriggling on this one. Just hope the Attorney General feels the same way.... ted. Doesn't really work that way around. If something is now a crime that wasn't before you cannot retrospectively prosecute them. The sentencing applies in the same way. Same thing applies if something is no longer a crime you can't go back and prosecute for it. Whether we are outraged or not that's how all civilised countries run their legal systems " I'm fully aware of the points you make, but I was trying to highlight that there is a certain 'hypocrisy' in the justice system re: historically-related sentencing. Comes down to the 'Man on the No. 8 bus' position, does it not? Is 15 months for such crimes - regardless of whether that would have been the sentence if handed down contemporaneously - fair and reasonable to ... the man on the no. 8 bus. Ie. the average man in the street. By the reaction across the media and by the public, it would seem 15 months is 'lenient' in most people's view. What would be appropriate is another debate. ted. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Court of Appeal has a Civil and Criminal Division which deals with more than 'unduly lenient' sentences. Appellants can appeal length of their sentence as well as conviction. " And your point is? In this case it is for 'unduly lenient' And the point being that last year 82 cases were heard in the category of being 'unduly lenient' of which approx 75% were increased. And in this case the appellant is probably the prosecution and not stuart hall or his defence team. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is being said that Hall has got 15 months as that would be the level of sentencing he would have received had he been caught at the time the offences were committed. On that basis, if someone were to be convicted now for a murder committed in 1960, would we hang them now...??? After all, that was the sentence at the time, was it not...??? Feel some people are wriggling on this one. Just hope the Attorney General feels the same way.... ted. Doesn't really work that way around. If something is now a crime that wasn't before you cannot retrospectively prosecute them. The sentencing applies in the same way. Same thing applies if something is no longer a crime you can't go back and prosecute for it. Whether we are outraged or not that's how all civilised countries run their legal systems I'm fully aware of the points you make, but I was trying to highlight that there is a certain 'hypocrisy' in the justice system re: historically-related sentencing. Comes down to the 'Man on the No. 8 bus' position, does it not? Is 15 months for such crimes - regardless of whether that would have been the sentence if handed down contemporaneously - fair and reasonable to ... the man on the no. 8 bus. Ie. the average man in the street. By the reaction across the media and by the public, it would seem 15 months is 'lenient' in most people's view. What would be appropriate is another debate. ted." The problem is that the media generate much of the "most people's view" by being highly selective in their reporting of the case. The reality is that the case should be heard in a court of law and then appealed in the appropriate way, the media normally choose an "outraged" position, tell us all we should be disgusted and then report that we are indeed disgusted. The court of appeal will look at the sentencing and make a decision. My prediction is, that unless they give him the maximum sentence people will again be "outraged" and off we go one more time. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that the media generate much of the "most people's view" by being highly selective in their reporting of the case. The reality is that the case should be heard in a court of law and then appealed in the appropriate way, the media normally choose an "outraged" position, tell us all we should be disgusted and then report that we are indeed disgusted. The court of appeal will look at the sentencing and make a decision. My prediction is, that unless they give him the maximum sentence people will again be "outraged" and off we go one more time. " You are, of course, quite correct. The media always takes the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' position so I try my best to disregard them. It's up to the Court to decide and, if there is something wrong with the sentencing rules, to refer THAT back to the Min of Justice. As per usual, the media-influenced general public will blame the wrong target - in this case, the Judge. But then, I've no doubt it suits 'someone, somewhere's' case for that status quo to continue... ted. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Court of Appeal has a Civil and Criminal Division which deals with more than 'unduly lenient' sentences. Appellants can appeal length of their sentence as well as conviction. And your point is? In this case it is for 'unduly lenient' And the point being that last year 82 cases were heard in the category of being 'unduly lenient' of which approx 75% were increased. And in this case the appellant is probably the prosecution and not stuart hall or his defence team." My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Court of Appeal has a Civil and Criminal Division which deals with more than 'unduly lenient' sentences. Appellants can appeal length of their sentence as well as conviction. And your point is? In this case it is for 'unduly lenient' And the point being that last year 82 cases were heard in the category of being 'unduly lenient' of which approx 75% were increased. And in this case the appellant is probably the prosecution and not stuart hall or his defence team. My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! " Sorry I misread that. I realise that. The number is still small though especially in the case of changed sentencing. The AG ones tend to be done for political reasons in many cases (appeasing Public outcry) | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The dirty perverted bastard should rot in prison and never be let out " Excellent thanks for that input. Do you have any insights on the specifics of the case at all? Anything you've based that specific point on perhaps? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! " You don't say!!! TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld. You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed. The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence... | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Increased to thirty months!!!!" Last I saw him on telly he didn't look like a man who has thirty months left in him. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! You don't say!!! TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld. You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed. The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence..." I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me. He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!! | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! You don't say!!! TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld. You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed. The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence... I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me. He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!! " Hey don't bring me into this! I suspect though we will have the usual "it's outrageous I'd kill him" posts now | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! You don't say!!! TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld. You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed. The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence... I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me. He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!! Hey don't bring me into this! I suspect though we will have the usual "it's outrageous I'd kill him" posts now " I suspect you will be right. There's already been a few but await the onslaught. I'll try to keep you out of future posts lol | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The dirty perverted bastard should rot in prison and never be let out Excellent thanks for that input. Do you have any insights on the specifics of the case at all? Anything you've based that specific point on perhaps?" Probably all of it. He is a pervert there is no getting away from it. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"he has just had his sentence doubled and they say its the maximum they can give him apparently" As I understand it.....sentencing in historical cases has to be carried out according to the sentences that were available to the courts at the time that the offences took place....so they have their hands tied | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! You don't say!!! TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld. You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed. The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence... I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me. He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!! " Ah, sorry. I've gone back and read from the beginning of where this started and I misunderstood where each quote started and ended , could do with being able to determine who quoted what in the cases of multiple quotes. It's fairly obvious that 80 odd cases is a minute amount of the appeal court case load, and that most appeals are made by the convicted and not the prosecution or AG. Please accept my apologies | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I doubt if he'll see out 15 months to be honest, he looked very frail when he appeared at his trial." When Ernest Sunders was released from Ford Open Prison in June 1991 after serving only 10 months of a 30 month sentence, it was on grounds that he was suffering from Altzheimer's Disease. He then held at least three more Executive or Board positions before his retirement.... and never showed any sign of Altzheimer's again.... Not that I'm suggesting anything about how Prisoner Hall looked at his trial.... ted. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I doubt if he'll see out 15 months to be honest, he looked very frail when he appeared at his trial. When Ernest Sunders was released from Ford Open Prison in June 1991 after serving only 10 months of a 30 month sentence, it was on grounds that he was suffering from Altzheimer's Disease. He then held at least three more Executive or Board positions before his retirement.... and never showed any sign of Altzheimer's again.... Not that I'm suggesting anything about how Prisoner Hall looked at his trial.... ted." Having had executive positions I'd say Alzheimer's would've helped! | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I doubt if he'll see out 15 months to be honest, he looked very frail when he appeared at his trial. When Ernest Sunders was released from Ford Open Prison in June 1991 after serving only 10 months of a 30 month sentence, it was on grounds that he was suffering from Altzheimer's Disease. He then held at least three more Executive or Board positions before his retirement.... and never showed any sign of Altzheimer's again.... Not that I'm suggesting anything about how Prisoner Hall looked at his trial.... ted. Having had executive positions I'd say Alzheimer's would've helped!" Hmmm.... maybe.... | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! You don't say!!! TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld. You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed. The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence... I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me. He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!! Ah, sorry. I've gone back and read from the beginning of where this started and I misunderstood where each quote started and ended , could do with being able to determine who quoted what in the cases of multiple quotes. It's fairly obvious that 80 odd cases is a minute amount of the appeal court case load, and that most appeals are made by the convicted and not the prosecution or AG. Please accept my apologies " Hey not a problem....thought the heat was affecting you lol Agree with you on the quote system...I have contacted Admin in the past to see if they can just show one post in a quote rather than a whole string...and to have the posters name attached to the quote would be a bonus | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Post new Message to Thread |
back to top |