General Chat

I should think that he may want to stay in prison for the rest of his life. I'm assuming that his family won't want him back - would you let him near your grandchildren? Surely his wife wouldn't allow him back into the family home. Personally I couldn't bear looking at him let alone live with him. His life is ruined - he is not the celebrity he once was and never will be. Not much life to leave prison for.

He won't get an easy time in prison - inmates for crimes like he has committed usually receive punishment in prison.

It's incredible how many so called 'celebrities' think they are invincible and can get away with unspeakable crimes.

What a way for his life to end. How the mighty are fallen eh?

Bet he tries to get out on Health issues...

Nowt would surprise me but they should keep him laid on the concrete floor and then he won't have to exert himself too much..

Still a dispicable sentence :-|

He has to sleep on the bottom bunk because he is too frail to get to the top one.

Shame.

all childhood robbers should be hung Twice :-( :-(

Less than three years for molesting a nine year old child is not justice.

At least Isuppose it has been increased. I still hope that he serves the full thirty months (although I know that this is unlikely).

I hope that his family wash their hands of him and he has no where to go when he gets out.

Perhaps living on the streets at his age will be worse than being in prison.

Still not long enough.He should have got at least 3/4 years for each abuse and it doesn't matter how long ago it happened.

The perpetrators are charged now so they should be serving the sentence that is today's current sentence.

String him up by his Rollocks and leave him hanging there for a few days.

Bet he would be saying ""my human rights are being contravened""

But what about the victims human rights especially when they were young,


Bet this gets RR'd.

The judge who originally sentenced Stuart Hall, Judge Anthony Russell, said at the time of sentencing him, that for most of the offences the maximum sentence at the time they were committed was two years, but the remainder carried a potential term of five years.

At the time I did not think 15 months was long enough and I do not think the increase in the sentence today to 30 months is not long enough. Why if as said by the original judge that some potentially carried a term of five years, was it not increased to 5 years?

There again Lord Judge said today that some of the victims had written to the court and said they were disappointed by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve's decision to challenge the original length of the sentence, what they wrote may have had some bearing on today's decision but we will probably never know what these victims said in their letters to the court.

Still not long enough, but maybe he'll suffer some what whilst in there!!??

jude

still not long enough but at least it has acknowledged that it was too lenient in the first instance - so will he be enjoying his Christmas dinner in clink?

Which means he will serve fifteen. He has already served some and they will take into account how long he was in custody.

Still not long.

Stuart Hall has had his sentence doubled today by the Court of Appeal.

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

Dear All

Hello

I was livid when I heard the sentence on the news.


Stuart Hall should have been given two years at least for each persons life
he ruined.

That way he would never have been released.


This judge and his decision makes a total mockery of the justice system.

There has not been any justice for the people who were abused.


Take gentle care
Very best wishes
EOS
xx

He could be out on Parole within 5 months....if the other inmates don't get to him first.

castration without anaesthetic
is way to good for the likes of him :-(

The Attorney General is to examine whether the 15-month sentence handed to broadcaster Stuart Hall for sexually abusing young girls was "unduly lenient".

The 83-year-old former It's A Knockout presenter was jailed earlier after admitting indecent assaults on 13 girls.

The attacks spanned three decades and involved children aged as young as nine.

A "small number" of complaints have been made about the sentence, prompting an investigation by the Attorney General's Office which has the power to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal.

A lawyer representing some of Hall's victims said they felt "vindicated" after the sentencing.

A worker from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) - who gave Hall a good character reference during the trial - has since stepped down.

Harrowing details of the sex abuse suffered by his victims were described at Preston Crown Court.

It is interesting listening to the news bulletins on the radio.

An hour ago he was referred to as "veteran broadcaster".

Now (on same station) he is "former broadcaster".

I wonder what he will be in the next bulletin.

Exactly the same happend with Sir Jimmy.

His age has got nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned, the ages of the kids he abused does,
Didn't concern him did it ?
Hope he gets some of his own medicine inside.