Stuart Hall ?

[anneasquith]

as above, do you agree his prison sentence should have been doubled ?

[Old_Geezer]

Ah hawksley. I think you missed the difference that exists between an individual (who is assumed to control their own behaviour) committing an offence, and the State that is expected to abide by the rules it made/agreed to. One can not justify the State committing acts against human rights simply because an individual stoops so low.

[guilliebrougues]

I Think he should have got life and I mean life, stay in prison until he dies.
And that applies to anyone who gets life, it should mean just that!

[pixie373]

I think a minimum of five years for the severity and ages of the children involved. I'm very surprised he only got 15 months in the first place.

[Butterbun]

His real punishment will be the shame if he feels any, being away from his cinema sized TV and his recliner chair. At his age being deprived the use of these will be telling.

[bazwillrun]

Yes, but as I said in the other post on this, theres an awful lot of other derisory sentences for far more serious crimes and nothing is done

[phleb]

Yes it needed increasing, but bit more than double would have been better, although what he did was unforgivable and no sentence will help! Castration comes to mind!

[Mass_Hysteria]

The maximum sentence "then" was 5 years. Now it is 10 so he should have got the full 5 years.

[viv38]

With a bit of luck, he won't come out again.

[THECORBYLOON]

The sentence reflects the law at the time of the offences and his age has been taken into account I believe. I can see the reasoning behind using the law at the time of the offences because had he been caught, he would have serrved a a shorter time in gaol than under current guidelines. That being the case, why take his age NOW into account? Surely folk cannot have it both ways? If they look at that law at the time of the offence, why not look at the AGE at the time of the offence as they do with crimes carried out by juveniles but convicted later in life as adults?

[FredPuli43]

30 months allowing discount for late plea of guilty means the judges were thinking of about three and a half years on a fight. Given his age and first time in prison and that most or all of the offences ,including the one on the 9 year old were fairly low tariff in themselves that may be seen as about right. The one count of rape was left on file. I do think that if he had fought it all in the defiant manner that he had with the press;that it was all malicious fabrication ; he

[FredPuli43]

..he would have got 5 years. To that extent it was a bit lenient

[netibiza]

I still think it is way to lenient, even for an old man. We thought he was such a lovely, family ,jolly man when he was doing It's a knockout, we loved him, I am bitterly disappointed in him. And to make things worse, he has put all his wealth and assets into his wife's name so his victims cannot claim a penny.

I've always asked the same question as Hawksley.

I just wish Savile was alive now to face the degradation and the shame.