RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


Ref -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:07:57 PM)

I can't believe the sentencing either. 15 months?! It's disgraceful how short that is. I don't care if he's in his 80s, he should be serving a sentence that fits the crime(s).

[:@]




jonson -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:10:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

The judge seemed to be overly interested in the sentences at the time of the crimes - surely entirely irrelevant?


Wow. So whenever anyone harps back to the "good old days" we can safely assume they mean back when fiddling with 9 years olds wasn't really that bad.

I wonder also if the sentence was purposely short so that any other potential and accused "celebrities" plead guilty a bit quicker, thus saving a lot of time and expense.
Assuming they are guilty, of course.
When I heard it on Radio 5 I honestly thought when they said 15 they'd follow it up with "years" not months.




galvatron -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:14:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

The judge seemed to be overly interested in the sentences at the time of the crimes - surely entirely irrelevant?


Wow. So whenever anyone harps back to the "good old days" we can safely assume they mean back when fiddling with 9 years olds wasn't really that bad.

I wonder also if the sentence was purposely short so that any other potential and accused "celebrities" plead guilty a bit quicker, thus saving a lot of time and expense.
Assuming they are guilty, of course.
When I heard it on Radio 5 I honestly thought when they said 15 they'd follow it up with "years" not months.



I was also aghast at hearing 'months'. One of them was 9 years old FFS! Didn't that kid who stole mineral water in the riots get 18 months?!




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:30:28 PM)


quote:

Didn't that kid who stole mineral water in the riots get 18 months?!


To be fair, they should have away the key, if you're going to nick drink during a riot at least make sure it's booze! [:-]




thatlittlemonkey -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:41:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

But longevity is increasing, not decreasing. He's a relatively well-off first world male. There was no reported health issue made in court as part of a plea. I really doubt 15mths is close to a life sentence.

The judge seemed to be overly interested in the sentences at the time of the crimes - surely entirely irrelevant? If older generations didn't appropriately punish criminals that's their problem, and not one we should consider.


Maybe wishful thinking then... [:D]

The fact that the sentence is going to be reviewed is interesting - obviously the hope is that they'll give him longer. The time when the offences occurred or (if the defence were to lead us to believe) the volume in comparison, shouldn't be a factor. That's 13 lives he's wrecked.




Goodfella -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 8:38:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thatlittlemonkey

Please, don't for a second, believe that I am excusing the crimes or the length of the sentence (he should have far more), but I would imagine that his age would be a big factor in this. After all, at 83, 15 months could end up being a life sentence. However, it was not nearly as long as it should've been.


It could, it could not, however if you are going to operate age into sentencing, then why isn't age also reflective, then, and I don't fully agree with this myself but not for the reasons you may think, in the victims of the crime for which he is being sentenced. One was as young as 9 years old, I'd say that is about as defenceless for a victim as you can get and one who has, whether or not and we obviously don't know the long-term effects, had her life shattered by this, even if she was perhaps young enough that it has not figured into her psychology as perhaps as if she was 21 and sexually assaulted but that is really my point, it should be totally irrelevant but if it is then what about those things being taken into factor as well? Also, he wasn't 83 when he committed the crimes, for so long he has gotten away with these heinous acts, presumably protected to a degree but his position of power and influence, but when we won't get into that too much until the full enquiry into the BBC in relation to these kind of cases is complete.

A drug syndicate working out of London that supplied Class A drugs in large-scale operations to several parts of south-west England including Plymouth and Bristol saw several of it's high-ranking perpetrators sentenced to between 18 and 21 years in prison today. Rightly so, a thoroughly-deserving sentence and I am in no ways suggesting that because they were not directly responsible for the ill-health, injury, pain and misery that drugs of this type inflict on people's lives and all those around them, as well as sometimes fatalities, this makes them less partially responsible but the nature is similar in the essence of cause to effect so I would ask why the sentenced handed to Stuart Hall doesn't reflect this line of thinking more? I heard the report on the radio and the judge in question handing down the sentences to the drug-dealers to that very approach of the traumatic effect that they had so heartlessly contributed to people's lives (contributed as well, drug addicts make a starting choice that ultimately leads down a road in the majority of cases, those sexually abused as children, actually those who suffer any form of sexual abuse, don't) and had done it purely for their own personal gain, in this case, money, in the case of someone sexually abusing children, well anywhere you want to put it really, a widely-debated issue, personal satisfaction? Power? Twisted and evil sexual arousal? Who knows. But the point is although these two different sentences may be different in their very nature, they are not in the motives of the perpetrators necessarily and the possible effects and outcomes for the victims, so where does the difference come in them then?

I have never heard of any judge taking into consideration the sentencing of crimes of that nature at the time they were committed either when cases come to court like in these circumstances either, sentencing is often reviewed with regards to the different types of crimes committed, especially in the wake of recent concerns over prison populations, which in my personal opinion is a cheap and awful reason to review sentencing in this country because frankly it shows what I have often felt about the government and the CPS that the victim, and they are not still alleged at this stage, the accused has been convicted, but the victim is still not the priority and we have a justice system loaded in the criminals favour but that's getting slightly off topic.

I hope the review goes through and the current sentence is overturned and replaced with one that better fits the crime, and if that means Stuart Hall passes away in the prison that is the price you pay for the disgusting crimes you commit, and he should feel lucky he got to see so much of his life in the meantime given what he'd done but finally and thankfully he's been prosecuted and now he should face the full extent of the law. regardless of his current personal circumstances.




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (18/6/2013 10:26:27 PM)

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?




MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (18/6/2013 10:39:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?


I'm sure it didn't cross their minds that a celebrity would risk his career so he could fuck little kids. Also, did he have a personal connection with the parents?




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (18/6/2013 11:00:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?


Yeah, that actually happened. They spoke about it on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 today.




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/6/2013 1:19:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?


Yeah, that actually happened. They spoke about it on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 today.


Fucking hell. I don't have a 13-year old daughter but if I did, I wouldn't want to be in the bathroom whilst she was bathing. Much less let a grown man, friend-of-the-family or not, 'bathe' her.

So fucking wrong...




Goodfella -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/6/2013 2:39:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?


I'm sure it didn't cross their minds that a celebrity would risk his career so he could fuck little kids. Also, did he have a personal connection with the parents?


I agree, I'm surprised at the decision by the parents still of course, in this modern-age it strikes as odd to say the least, but this was a different era and we don't know the context of this either, I'm not sure will have gone, "So, can I bath your young _______?" "Of course you can Stuart."

Do we know when the sentencing review is likely to take place?




jonson -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (26/7/2013 1:56:08 PM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23460778

Stuart Halls' sentence doubled to 30 months. Wow. [8|]
That might see the old fucker off though.




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (27/7/2013 10:30:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23460778

Stuart Halls' sentence doubled to 30 months. Wow. [8|]
That might see the old fucker off though.


Nah. They'll keep him nice and safe in the nonce wing, with TV and a rug and everything.

Evil bastards are people too, they have human rights and need to be treated like little cherubs, didn't you know?

[sm=fighting01.gif]




DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (11/8/2013 11:19:48 AM)

Utter twat:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23653172




Skiba -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (11/8/2013 1:08:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Utter twat:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23653172

Bloody hell...young girls may well throw themselves at famous people but they then have the responsibilty to act the correct way.

He also goes on to trivialise mental health issues with his "thoughts about suicide". Cunt




emogeek -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 12:19:59 PM)

Rolf charged...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23880768





James2183 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 1:12:50 PM)

Brings a whole new meaning to "Can you guess what is it yet?" [&:]




great_badir -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 1:40:46 PM)

Also explains all those noises.

Have to say I'm shocked and disappointed, if it is indeed true (no mention of him denying the allegations this time, although it is early days in his arrest I guess).

Still not quite sure what is meant by "making" indecent images(?). I say that cos some of you may remember earlier this year I had a paranoid brick-shitting moment when I was searching online for some (Japanese) make-up for my niece (her favourite brand), which unfortunately in English shares the exact same name of a type of website that might have included the likes of Saville, Hall and (allegedly) Harris amongst its members. "Safe search" my ass.

In other words, I'm shitting bricks again...




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 5:38:32 PM)

As I understand it the law can be either taking photographs but also includes if a person is storing images on a computer having downloaded them from the internet.




Hood_Man -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 5:57:02 PM)

I don't think I can really put into words how this makes me feel. Disappointed is probably the closest at the moment, I was hoping the past few months that this would turn out to be a case of him helping the police with their investigations or something.




Darth Marenghi -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 9:33:28 PM)

Well, innocent until proven guilty guys.




Chief -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (3/9/2013 10:47:14 AM)

[image]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/1471/rjgl.jpg[/image]




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 5:34:28 PM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-24032449

Michael Le Vell found not guilty.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 5:38:03 PM)

His lawyer sounds awful - there's a quote in there about him saying someone who claimed to be abused at 6 had an 'agonising lack of detail'. Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused? [&:]




jonson -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 5:40:40 PM)

Well let's have the accusers mug on the front page of every newspaper for a few days then. What a fucking bitch.




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 7:03:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

His lawyer sounds awful - there's a quote in there about him saying someone who claimed to be abused at 6 had an 'agonising lack of detail'. Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused? [&:]


She also claimed he'd abused her as recently as three years ago though. Perhaps the lawyer's choice of words wasn't great but it may have just been a polite way of saying she was clearly lying (which she was).
I've read quite a lot about the case and I reckon it was pretty clear from the off that the accusations were pure fantasy. While I don't particularly have muchsympathy for the girl at the minute, I reckon it's her idiot mother who should be taking a long hard look at herself.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 8:23:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

His lawyer sounds awful - there's a quote in there about him saying someone who claimed to be abused at 6 had an 'agonising lack of detail'. Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused? [&:]


She also claimed he'd abused her as recently as three years ago though. Perhaps the lawyer's choice of words wasn't great but it may have just been a polite way of saying she was clearly lying (which she was).
I've read quite a lot about the case and I reckon it was pretty clear from the off that the accusations were pure fantasy. While I don't particularly have muchsympathy for the girl at the minute, I reckon it's her idiot mother who should be taking a long hard look at herself.


Equally, though, childhood abuse and blocked memory go hand in hand to the extent it's almost commonplace. Had I read that comment before the verdict it would obviously have been worse - but fighting for your client or not. it's IMO a bit off.




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 10:00:57 PM)

I have no idea if the Coronation Street bloke did what he was accused of... if he did that awful shit, then he belongs in a deep dark cell... but if there is no solid proof, could any rational jury convict him?

I hear that the young girl behind the curtain was crying her eyes out a lot of the time... it must have been awful for the jury to hear.  But a court trial has to go by solid facts... and there were none in this case.  And if you're putting someone on trial who puts on a performance for a living, how can you judge him against someone else who may or may not be putting on a performance?  Are we going to put some acting coaches on the stand to judge who is more realistic?

I truly hope that Mr Le Vell is innocent.  And, if not, that the 'victim', if thats what she is, makes a decent life for herself.

What a grubby, awful case.  I'd have hated to be on that jury. 




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (11/9/2013 1:23:00 PM)

quote:

but fighting for your client or not. it's IMO a bit off.


No it's not... I would tell my brief to use everything in his arsenal to prove what a lying little cow she is! [:@]





Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (11/9/2013 1:25:02 PM)


quote:


I truly hope that Mr Le Vell is innocent. 



He is innocent, he's the victim here... and her identity is to remain secret forever.




Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.100586E-02