Fook me. Savile, DLT, Rolf Harris, Freddie Starr, Stuart Hall.
Who next, The Queen?
Fook me. Savile, DLT, Rolf Harris, Freddie Starr, Stuart Hall.
Who next, The Queen?
Fook me. Savile, DLT, Rolf Harris, Freddie Starr, Stuart Hall.
Who next, The Queen?
cant they were innocent it was freddie mercury
So hope this isn't true. Have always loved his match reports he could even make out games sound exciting.
Rolf Harris surely not.....
God yes he had 2 little boys
Pleaded guilty to charges. 1 case of rape put on file.
Does that mean somebody who is 30 and non famous can expect 32 days in jail for the same crime? Very much doubt it.
Not comparable cases. Hall's crimes occurred over 25 years ago when laws were less defined. He was also treated more leniently because in 1986, in front of a probation officer, he resolved to stop his behaviour, cease drinking and be celibate, and has kept his record clean since then.
There will be a lot of political headlining over this, so it is worth reading the full judgement: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...s/stuart-hall-sentencing-remarks-17062013.pdf
I think you've read that wrong. He did'nt tell a probation officer in 1986 about stopping his behaviour. He told the probation officer this year during the gathering of pre sentencing reports. His solicitor would of told him to say this as no more incidents had come to light since then.
if i have read it wrong then what was he seeing a probation officer for in 86?
True. You're right, crossed wires. Nevertheless, the historical element is what played heavily into the lenient sentence. Not comparable with a 30 year old man guilty of recent crimes under modern legislation.
I'm not following your logic.That fella got 5 or so years today, although it still isn't right what he did at least it was consensual so why the difference in sentencing? I understand it was a while ago but even so, does that mean if somebody murdered somebody in 1901 and for some reason were still alive they would be hung?