Stuart Hall arrested/charged/prosecuted

[boyfriday 21]

No it isn't, as demonstrated by this topic, several of you all share the same false memory.

 

Perhaps it's just you who's wrong.

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2013 at 16:37 ----------

 

No idea what you are talking about, just to clarify, I haven't tried to defend anyone, therefor I haven't put any effort into defending anyone.

 

What you have done is try to speculate on the sincerity of Hall's guilty plea and the possibility of his victims suffering from 'false memories', is that correct?

[MrSmith 10]

Perhaps it's just you who's wrong.

 

How can I be wrong, I know what I think and I don't think what you and several other members think I think, therefor you have all formed the same incorrect conclusion and all created a memory of something I didn't say, and in doing so proved the point I made several pages ago.

 

What you have done is try to speculate on the sincerity of Hall's guilty plea and the possibility of his victims suffering from 'false memories', is that correct?

 

No, what I have done is demonstrate that you are wrong in your assertion that a guilty plea means the person must have committed the crime.

Edited June 21, 2013 by MrSmith

[Halibut 12]

Wrong about what?

 

 

 

No, what I have done is demonstrate that you are wrong in your assertion that a guilty plea means the person must have committed the crime.

 

As you well know BF et al have been asserting that Mr Hall is guilty, not referring to guilty pleas in a general sense.

[boyfriday 21]

No, what I have done is demonstrate that you are wrong in your assertion that a guilty plea means the person must have committed the crime.

 

It's a fatuous argument to run with this particular subject matter. My only interest is the wellbeing and recovery of the victims.

 

So just to bring closure, given the weight of evidence against Hall and his admissions do you believe he's guilty?

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2013 at 17:03 ----------

 

As you well know BF et al have been asserting that Mr Hall is guilty, not referring to guilty pleas in a general sense.

 

....spot on.

[Halibut 12]

It's a fatuous argument to run with this particular subject matter. My only interest is the wellbeing and recovery of the victims.

 

So just to bring closure, given the weight of evidence against Hall and his admissions do you believe he's guilty?

 

Can I lay a tenner he won't give a straight answer?

[boyfriday 21]

Can I lay a tenner he won't give a straight answer?

 

I don't have money to burn H.

[Halibut 12]

I don't have money to burn H.

 

I'm not too poor right now - I'll make a £20 donation to Suffragette's group providing aid to abused women if he comes up with a straight answer.

[MrSmith 10]

It's a fatuous argument to run with this particular subject matter. My only interest is the wellbeing and recovery of the victims.

I didn't force you to make the statement that prompted my response and you didn't have to respond to my response. This is after all a discussion forum, not sure what you expect to happen when you express your opinion on it.

So just to bring closure, given the weight of evidence against Hall and his admissions do you believe he's guilty?

 

 

I don't have an opinion either way because I'm not privy to all the evidence.

[Halibut 12]

I don't have an opinion either way because I'm not privy to all the evidence.

 

What's been have the purpose of the dozens of posts you've made on this thread then?

 

I think you're both dishonest and manipulative.

[boyfriday 21]

I don't have an opinion either way because I'm not privy to all the evidence.

 

Read the judge's sentencing remarks, here's a small extract

 

Counts 10 and 11 involved a girl who was 15 who you met in your role as a television presenter. She was indecently assaulted by your sexually kissing her in her home on one occasion and on another occasion at the BBC studio when she was in her bra and knickers you took her to a settee, lay next to her and asked to use an object to massage her vagina. There is an abuse of trust element in these offences.

 

Counts 12, 13 and 14 are serious because they involved 3 children at your home on the same occasion, ostensibly attending for elocution lessons. No doubt the parents of these children were pleased that such a person as yourself was offering elocution lessons to them, and you breached the trust they placed in you by assaulting their children for your own gratification. You persuaded the children to use the bathroom together and then they came to the lounge where you were dressed only in underpants. The assaults themselves were not of the most grave kind but the abuse of trust is serious and it appears that you set up the circumstances to enable these offences to take place.

 

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-stuart-hall

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2013 at 17:43 ----------

 

What's been have the purpose of the dozens of posts you've made on this thread then?

 

I think you're both dishonest and manipulative.

 

..and I'd agree

[LeMaquis 10]

I think you're both dishonest and manipulative.

 

Co-incidentally that's what paedophiles tend to be. Coincidentally, of course,