flowwolf Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 They get pineapples in prison? The lags are living in the lap of luxury. If they don't I would send them one just to do the job on Hall.
Parafox Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 If they don't I would send them one just to do the job on Hall. Would be a killer on his wrinkly dried up old anus.
Rincewind Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Would everyone had been calling for all this 40 years ago? As far as I know it was teenage girls at a time when they used to throw themselves at 'pop and radio stars' Not saying what he did was right but Times have changed. The 60's ans 70's was a great time for young men to be radio DJ's and pop music presenters. Wish I'd hadn't been so ugly back then.
purpleronnie Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Would everyone had been calling for all this 40 years ago? As far as I know it was teenage girls at a time when they used to throw themselves at 'pop and radio stars' Not saying what he did was right but Times have changed. The 60's ans 70's was a great time for young men to be radio DJ's and pop music presenters. Wish I'd hadn't been so ugly back then. No they wouldn't and that doesn't make it better, theres no question that what went on back then was much more 'accepted' than it is today, and I assume the sentencf Mr Hall got was because they have to pre date it.
Rincewind Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Just look at the old TotP footage. There is Jimmy Saville with arms around girls with skirts halfway up their backsides. Can't remember it but I could imagine my mum and dad saying 'Disgusting'
ADK Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 I'm guessing there's alot of non celebrities from the same era who are guilty of similar offences but don't have the lure of juicy compensation.
flowwolf Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 I'm guessing there's alot of non celebrities from the same era who are guilty of similar offences but don't have the lure of juicy compensation. Or juicy fanny's.
21st Century Fox Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Or juicy fanny's. Never let it be said that flowwolf doesn't bring something insightful to a discussion.
flowwolf Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Never let it be said that flowwolf doesn't bring something insightful to a discussion. Oh come on CF have you never been lured by a juicy fanny ?
Bayfox Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Would everyone had been calling for all this 40 years ago? As far as I know it was teenage girls at a time when they used to throw themselves at 'pop and radio stars' Not saying what he did was right but Times have changed. The 60's ans 70's was a great time for young men to be radio DJ's and pop music presenters. Wish I'd hadn't been so ugly back then. Youngest victim was 9!!!
Rincewind Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Youngest victim was 9!!! Did not know that. Not good then. Although I don't think that age was the norm.
flowwolf Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Did not know that. Not good then. Although I don't think that age was the norm. Come on Ken that does not make it right. If he had only had sex with one child aged 9 he should still be chemically castrated and jailed until he dies in there. Just think what that little girl went through ?
Orkneyfox Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Come on Ken that does not make it right. If he had only had sex with one child aged 9 he should still be chemically castrated and jailed until he dies in there. Just think what that little girl went through ? Not that it was right but he didnt ahve sex, he put his hand up her skirt. we have to deal with what was real not what someone else told us. The one count of rape kept on file is of more interest as to why it was not pursued.
Rincewind Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 I did not say it was right. What I said was others who may bw allegde3d to have behave inappropriately at a time when it was common for girls 13 upwards to flirt with them. Years ago fathers used to bounce little girls on their laps, kiss them goodnight and hug them. Activities that could be c misconstrued these days. Stewart Hall may have done wrong but it is strange that a lot of those doing the accusing have suddenly aquired superb memories. I think it is hard to prove going by todays standards.
flowwolf Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Not that it was right but he didnt ahve sex, he put his hand up her skirt. we have to deal with what was real not what someone else told us. The one count of rape kept on file is of more interest as to why it was not pursued. Probably because it was Jordan and he lost his watch up there.
flowwolf Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 I did not say it was right. What I said was others who may bw allegde3d to have behave inappropriately at a time when it was common for girls 13 upwards to flirt with them. Years ago fathers used to bounce little girls on their laps, kiss them goodnight and hug them. Activities that could be c misconstrued these days. Stewart Hall may have done wrong but it is strange that a lot of those doing the accusing have suddenly aquired superb memories. I think it is hard to prove going by todays standards. Thing is Ken he admitted it and pleaded guilty. Now he would not have done that if he did not know they had got him bangs to rights. The evidence must have been cast iron or his solicitor would not have advised him to plead guilty in the first place. If this dirty bastard had put his hands up my daughters dress age nine and I caught him he would have been in no fit state to plead anything. I hope some con with a hatred for nonce's get to him in nick.
Orkneyfox Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Probably because it was Jordan and he lost his watch up there. Is that why he's doing time......?
Kitchandro Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 I did not say it was right. What I said was others who may bw allegde3d to have behave inappropriately at a time when it was common for girls 13 upwards to flirt with them. Years ago fathers used to bounce little girls on their laps, kiss them goodnight and hug them. Activities that could be c misconstrued these days. Stewart Hall may have done wrong but it is strange that a lot of those doing the accusing have suddenly aquired superb memories. I think it is hard to prove going by todays standards. Oh Ken
flowwolf Posted 19 June 2013 Posted 19 June 2013 Is that why he's doing time......? Thank god it was waterproof.
Rincewind Posted 19 June 2013 Posted 19 June 2013 Oh Ken OK maybe that came out wrong. I'm not a father. But I would imagine that the number of parents that hug their children for evil purposes is a very small percentage. If Stewart Hall did those things then he deserves to be punished but there will be many others who at worst put an arm around the child. 40 years on this could be remembered differently. If it was not for all the media coverage they may not be questioning the actions and remember a different version of events.
Captain... Posted 19 June 2013 Posted 19 June 2013 He referred to the 1,300 complainants in the Savile case and said: "Instead, in the dock today is a frightened and bewildered 83-year-old man answering for the touching - no more, no less - of all of 13, not 1,300, victims over a quarter of a century ago." Seeing as he wasn't accused of violent rape or even sexual intercourse with minors and is clearly no current threat to society I don't really see the point in jailing him, would much rather see him taken for every penny he has and that put towards victim support and teaching the fvcking police to respond to accusations of rape and paedophilia, even if committed by celebrities or Muslims. I do find it odd that his solicitor is trying to defend him by saying he only touched 13 girls, not 1,300, he is only 1% as bad as Jimmy Saville, he still nonced 13 girls, doesn't matter how many times anyone else did it.
Rincewind Posted 19 June 2013 Posted 19 June 2013 Agreed about putting money towards victim support. I'd also like it put towards education and crisis centres for all victims of abuse. Prevention is better than cure.
Webbo Posted 19 June 2013 Posted 19 June 2013 Seeing as he wasn't accused of violent rape or even sexual intercourse with minors and is clearly no current threat to society I don't really see the point in jailing him, would much rather see him taken for every penny he has and that put towards victim support I'm sure the victims would just prefer the money.
Captain... Posted 19 June 2013 Posted 19 June 2013 I'm sure the victims would just prefer the money. Well I'm not sure how it all works, as a criminal trial rather than civil, are the victims awarded compensation, I thought fines in criminal cases went to the state, but I could be wrong. I have not read anything about him having to pay anything. But either way whether the money goes to the victims or the state, it still makes more sense not incarcerate him at tax payers expense when we are making cuts here there and everywhere.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.