the sir jimmy savile obe thread
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
- Status
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I kept thinking, I'm sure I just read that, over and over.
there was some weird code from the website that fucked things up when c&ping.Dismisses some of it:
Translation: "you have famous friends and you're still going down."
I'm trying to work out exactly why but I'm a trifle uneasy about this post
#Not a point of/for discussion.
not-bono-ever
meh
"His barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300."
Well thats all right then.Compared to saVILE, hes a saint
Well thats all right then.Compared to saVILE, hes a saint
It is possible that lady who was allegedly raped has been talking to the Crown throughout and didn't really want to go ahead unless necessary.
So maybe if prison doesn't kill him she'll go for it.
not-bono-ever
meh
assuming he doesnt go around shanking other inmates - he'll do half- might be out to see in the New year or thereabouts
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
To story and existentisalist; I am actually honoured to post on the same board as you. You have shown a huge amount of guts and grace, in dealing with this
Yetman
Cheesecar Fucksquad #1
Fez909
toilet expert
I'm trying to work out exactly why but I'm a trifle uneasy about this post
#Not a point of/for discussion.
I know you said you don't want to discus it, but I just want to reiterate I was not making a personal judgement on the amount of harm or seriousness in an emotional/physical/abuse sense regarding the various crimes. I simply meant how the justice department view them as measured by the length of sentence.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
He is 83, and has a heart problem. In terms of "the rest of his life", 15 month sentenced is probablyt the equivalent of giving a 40 year old 15 years.
I, too, was somewhat appalled at the lightness of the sentence, but I think we have to (even reluctantly) remember that this is a man who had a reputation that has been utterly destroyed, who is in poor health, and is about to embark on 8 months of an experience that will be extremely frightening and alien to an old man.
Don't get me wrong - I have my reasons for wishing that this vile old cunt, who only seems to have grudgingly acknowledged his guilt in any case, the nastiest and most miserable of final days. But I recognise that he has already granted some pretty miserable years, not just days, to those he abused for his own gratification, and I really, really don't want to stoop to anywhere near his level...
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Another example of the terrible harms that Savile has done. I'd like to think that the judge increased his sentence purely on the basis that his barrister had the temerity to mention him in the same sentence as Savile.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
There are many people on this board whom I am honoured to share a board with. The support - in terms of likes, PMs, and supportive public posts - has been a significant part of moving me forward in a healing process that has taken 40 years to really begin. You can all be proud of yourselves: you know who you are.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Given the leniency of the sentence, if that was the case, would the judge have otherwise given two points on his licence and a hard stare?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Given his celebrity, the comparative lightness of the sentence, and the nature of his offences, I suspect they're going to be bending over backwards not to make it look like he's getting the light touch treatment. I certainly hope so.Less than that on tag probably
OTOH, here is a man who used to be admired by many, and who has now been (reluctantly - he didn't even had the good grace to 'fess up when the first allegations came in) shown to be the nastiest, grubbiest and most opportunistic of abusers, trading his public persona and reputation for the opportunities to grope and assault little girls. The idea that he might, as a tagged criminal, have to endure the disgust of others during trips to the post office, etc., is almost enough to have me wishing that on him, rather than the misery and horrors of incarceration.
Whatever, I imagine that his final years are going to be very, very different from what he had imagined and hoped for.
Good. *grumpycatsmiley* That's poetic justice.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I'd like to have thought that the fucker was going to get the full black cap treatment, but that wasn't ever going to happen. And - despite my own private feelings - we serve no purpose by getting into a kind of sentencing auction. In reality, Stuart Hall has already paid the bulk of the price he is going to pay for his crimes: his disgrace is complete. Incarceration of such an elderly, frail man really needs only to be a token gesture.
I imagine that, for those whom he abused, the biggest vindication will be the fact that he was forced - yes, forced by the weight of supportive allegations that came after he was charged - to retreat from his position of posturing outraged innocence, and plead guilty to a catalogue of vileness spanning both a wide range of ages - from 9 to 16 - and a wide timescale, starting in 1966. There can be no doubt that what he admitted to was an indiscrimate, consistent, and unrepentant course of conduct over many years, and their experiences are now acknowledged, and his offences public knowledge. I suspect that if you asked most of them, they would say that, while nothing could be too harsh a punishment for what he has visited upon them, their greatest satisfaction would have been his acknowledgement of the truth of what they have said occurred.
To bring it back to me a little, my abuser gave a "no comment" interview when questioned by the police. He is in his 70s, and likewise in poor health: it is unlikely that he'd survive more than the shortest prison sentence. For my part, I don't want his life shortened - quite the contrary. I would like him to spend as much time, in the autumn of his years, thinking about the harms he did, and (hopefully) experiencing some measure of guilt over that. I don't know yet whether I will get to see that happen, but I am delighted to know that Stuart Hall's victims will have had that satisfaction.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
It is a privilege to be on the same boards as you
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Crispin Aylett needs to look through his first year legal texts and remind himself what "mitigation" actually means. "All of 13 victims" is 13 victims too many.
not-bono-ever
meh
I think mr Aylett was scraping the barrel for his odious client - he was effectively saying that Stu should be congratulated for only noncing 13 kids, when he could easily have really abused his positon and nonced hundreds like saVILE - he should be rewarded for his control, not punshed for his errors of judgement
the fucking cunt.
the fucking cunt.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I should damn well hope so. 15 months is a final insult to his victims
story
Changing the facts
This is the bit that bewilders me somewhat:
Now I know that the law has to be adhered to scrupulously and all that. But it makes no sense to me that he (anyone) should be sentenced according to the tariff available at the time of the offence. If we've decided that it's worse than we previously agreed, and it merits a longer sentence, then why sentence at the earlier - less enlightened - tariff? Either we've moved on or we haven't. Either the crime is worse than we collectively agreed at the time, or it isn't. So if he was caught and convicted then, he'd have got a shorter sentence... and so he only gets the short sentence now, even though he's hidden it and lied and deceived for all these years...? I don't get that. Perhaps I'm being dim.
If a man beats and rapes his wife, and she finally finds the courage to come forward to report it, is he only to expect a sentence that may have been handed down had she reported him in youth?
Fifteen months does seem very short, given the numbers of his victims (that mitigation argument was insulting), their age, and the length of time he was active. And his lies, his awful denial. I can only assume he is either mad (unable to discern the truth) or maliciously deceitful.
Listening to the 6 o'clock news last night (please don't ask me to recall who was speaking), I was struck by the truth of what was being said: that many of his victims don't much care about the length of the sentence so much as they do about the fact that justice has been seen to be done: that there is now public acceptance of what happened to them: they are believed, they have been heard, they are no longer doubted or disbelieved.
And the other thing is this: that his denial and the subsequent need for his victims to prove their statements, to go through it all over again: that amounts to a second assault. Every time someone has to disclose, especially if that disclosure is doubted, all the emotions and thoughts and reactions that accompany the initial assault are repeated. This is well documented and recognised, and I'm sure that anyone who has been through something similar will recognise this.
All the people involved with the Hall case will now be struggling to process the fall out of the initial abuse, the denials and lies, and now the short sentence.
Fifteen months, out in eight: acceptable because of his frailty and the shortness of his life... really? The children he abused: their life was short when he assaulted them, and they've now had a lifetime of living with what he did to them. And what about their fragility, as children, and as a result of the damage he did to them.
existentialist has expressed my own thoughts about how I hope things play out for him: self-knowledge and the knowledge that he is despised by all: that is fit punishment.
Makes me wonder what sentence Savile would have been given had he lived and been caught. Would his work for charity be held up as mitigation?
Now I know that the law has to be adhered to scrupulously and all that. But it makes no sense to me that he (anyone) should be sentenced according to the tariff available at the time of the offence. If we've decided that it's worse than we previously agreed, and it merits a longer sentence, then why sentence at the earlier - less enlightened - tariff? Either we've moved on or we haven't. Either the crime is worse than we collectively agreed at the time, or it isn't. So if he was caught and convicted then, he'd have got a shorter sentence... and so he only gets the short sentence now, even though he's hidden it and lied and deceived for all these years...? I don't get that. Perhaps I'm being dim.
If a man beats and rapes his wife, and she finally finds the courage to come forward to report it, is he only to expect a sentence that may have been handed down had she reported him in youth?
Fifteen months does seem very short, given the numbers of his victims (that mitigation argument was insulting), their age, and the length of time he was active. And his lies, his awful denial. I can only assume he is either mad (unable to discern the truth) or maliciously deceitful.
Listening to the 6 o'clock news last night (please don't ask me to recall who was speaking), I was struck by the truth of what was being said: that many of his victims don't much care about the length of the sentence so much as they do about the fact that justice has been seen to be done: that there is now public acceptance of what happened to them: they are believed, they have been heard, they are no longer doubted or disbelieved.
And the other thing is this: that his denial and the subsequent need for his victims to prove their statements, to go through it all over again: that amounts to a second assault. Every time someone has to disclose, especially if that disclosure is doubted, all the emotions and thoughts and reactions that accompany the initial assault are repeated. This is well documented and recognised, and I'm sure that anyone who has been through something similar will recognise this.
All the people involved with the Hall case will now be struggling to process the fall out of the initial abuse, the denials and lies, and now the short sentence.
Fifteen months, out in eight: acceptable because of his frailty and the shortness of his life... really? The children he abused: their life was short when he assaulted them, and they've now had a lifetime of living with what he did to them. And what about their fragility, as children, and as a result of the damage he did to them.
existentialist has expressed my own thoughts about how I hope things play out for him: self-knowledge and the knowledge that he is despised by all: that is fit punishment.
Makes me wonder what sentence Savile would have been given had he lived and been caught. Would his work for charity be held up as mitigation?
It's a side-effect of applying principles.
If possession of a Swiss Army Knife were made illegal, effective December 2013, it would be unjust to prosecute you for having one now. And - here's the principles bit - so on.
The judge did, however, have discretion up to the maximum allowed sentence at the time; which would not have been applied at the time. The judge did say that current practice informed his decision. The review will have to decide whether it informed it enough.
Of course, the review will show that Something Is Being Done while everyone's on the case, and will report when everyone's forgotten it. Which is not the whole point. Oh, no!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Personally, I don't like the fact that I live in a society that sends 83-year-olds to jail in anything other than very exceptional circumstances. This isn't one of those, imo.
This is not to underplay the damage he has done. He certainly deserves to go to prison. But that doesn't mean it's right to send him to prison.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
"There's nothing exceptional in sexually abusing 13 young people"
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
wtf is that supposed to mean?
If you want clarification about what I meant by that, just ask, ffs.
- Status
Similar threads
