I don't understand it. Stuart Hall got a few months for penetrating a nine year old girl plus others. This guy gets 22 years for fumbling a few boys. That's almost a life sentence yet Hall got little more than a slap on the wrists. How do they work it out?
God knows how they work out the sentences but as usual your "facts" are wrong. Hall was found guilty of indecent assault (bad enough) not rape and he was sentenced to 15 months, sentence currently under review as possible " unduly lenient".
Souter was found guilty of indecent assault, indecency with a child, serious sexual offences and seven counts of possessing indecent images of children and the case was described by police as "one of the worst cases of prolonged child abuse"
Perhaps if he got a life away from contributing to threads on the forum and used the time to read through some of the replies that he has posted, he might get an inkling of why others feel as they do about his contributions.
All that said, joe is an entertainer.
What alleged rapes are those?
I don't understand it. Stuart Hall got a few months for penetrating a nine year old girl plus others. This guy gets 22 years for fumbling a few boys. That's almost a life sentence yet Hall got little more than a slap on the wrists. How do they work it out?God knows how they work out the sentences but as usual your "facts" are wrong. Hall was found guilty of indecent assault (bad enough) not rape and he was sentenced to 15 months, sentence currently under review as possible " unduly lenient".
Souter was found guilty of indecent assault, indecency with a child, serious sexual offences and seven counts of possessing indecent images of children and the case was described by police as "one of the worst cases of prolonged child abuse"
As soon as I read joe's thread opener and newboy's reply, I got the feeling that unless he, ( joe), admitted that he had got it wrong, he was going to be in deep sh*t. And I was right! Joe has been well and truly kicked into touch by newboy in this thread and his subsequent attempts to gain the upper hand have fallen flatter than a billiard table.
While I have no doubt that subsequent repies from joe will claim that he has 'kicked ass', I can clearly see that he hasn't ,he knows that he hasn't and others who have read through the thread,also know that he hasn't.
Perhaps if he got a life away from contributing to threads on the forum and used the time to read through some of the replies that he has posted, he might get an inkling of why others feel as they do about his contributions.
All that said, joe is an entertainer.
I don't understand it. Stuart Hall got a few months for penetrating a nine year old girlAs soon as I read joe's thread opener and newboy's reply, I got the feeling that unless he, ( joe), admitted that he had got it wrong, he was going to be in deep sh*t. And I was right! Joe has been well and truly kicked into touch by newboy in this thread.as usual your "facts" are wrong. Hall was found guilty of indecent assault (bad enough) not rape
Don't be silly. The abuse of a nine year old girl is far worse that sausage fondling.
I didn't get it wrong. .........yes you did! You said he penetrated the girl!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bolo. Answer me right here and right now - do you believe those sentences to be correct? Well do you?
I haven't got it wrong. Would the Guardian lie? http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/17/stuart-hall-trial-indecent-assault-girls[/QUOTE]
Having read the article I can only agree that you did not get it wrong. But you were most economical with the truth in that you quoted only part of the statement giving readers the impression that Hall had raped the girl. The actual quote reads:"
"Hall had touched her breasts and then penetrated her with at least one finger".
This is vastly different from your opening post which read, and I quote, "Hall got a few months for penetrating a nine year old girl plus others".
With regard to his sentence, if it had been my daughter, then I would have demanded a much longer sentence.
Hall originally received just 15 months