Jailed BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall charged with raping 2 girls

[News_Editor]

LONDON, ENGLAND (BNO NEWS) -- Veteran British television and radio presenter Stuart Hall, who is currently serving 2.5 years in prison for sexually abusing more than a dozen young girls as young as 9, was re-arrested Wednesday and charged with 15 counts of rape relating to two young girls.

The new charges were authorized by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) after prosecutors found "sufficient evidence" to prosecute Hall, age 83, for 16 alleged sexual offenses against two girls. It is alleged that the presenter committed the offenses against one girl, aged between 14 and 16, from 1976 to 1978 and another girl, aged between 11 or 12 and 15, from 1976 to 1981.

"This decision to prosecute has been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the CPS legal guidance on rape and sexual offences and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) guidelines on prosecuting cases of child sexual abuse," said Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS North West, adding that it is "in the public interest" to pursue the case.

Prosecutors said the first victim was raped at least seven times in the city of Manchester while the second victim was raped at least eight times while in Stockport, Wilmslow, Manchester and Sale. The sixteenth charge refers to an alleged indecent assault of the second victim in Stockport in 1976.

Afzal said the CPS authorized the charges after a "careful review" of the case. "May I remind all concerned that Mr Hall has a right to a fair trial," he emphasized. "It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice that trial. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."

The new charges came just a day after St. James's Palace confirmed Queen Elizabeth II had decided to strip Hall of his Order of the British Empire (OBE) that was awarded in 2011 for services to broadcasting and charity. "The Queen has directed that the appointment of James Stuart Hall ... shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order," the palace said.

Hall was sentenced to 15 months in prison in June after he pleaded guilty to sexually abusing more than a dozen young girls between the ages of 9 and 17. The investigation had been launched in October 2012 when police received an anonymous letter which alleged Hall had sexually abused the writer when she was a young teenager in the 1970s.

The presenter was eventually arrested in December after four other victims came forward independently, but Hall initially denied all the offenses before pleading guilty on April 16 to fourteen counts of indecent assault. He denied raping a 22-year-old woman and prosecutors decided to drop the case, leaving it to lie on file.

The woman who wrote the anonymous letter that sparked the investigation and led to the first arrest eventually came forward in December to identify herself. She was interviewed by officers and gave a formal statement, but she later asked prosecutors not to pursue her case after learning Hall had pleaded guilty in the other assaults.

During the sentencing in June, prosecutors called Hall an "opportunistic predator" and Judge Anthony Russell said he would have received 20 months in prison if the case had gone to trial, but he reduced the sentence by five months to reflect his guilty pleas. That 15-month jail sentence was doubled by the Court of Appeal in July.

(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: [email protected].)

[hanno]

Hall was sentenced to 15 months in prison in June after he pleaded guilty to sexually abusing more than a dozen young girls between the ages of 9 and 17

15 months for sexually abusing more than a dozen kids!!! He should have his nuts cut off, that sentence is a joke.

[Chicog]

They should simply sentence the paedo to life without parole and save the state the expense of dragging all these skeletons out of his already wide open closet.

[sms747]

out come the pitchfork brigade to see who can come up with the most extreme comment on punishment, how about hang him up by his keys and throw away the balls?

[hanno]

out come the pitchfork brigade to see who can come up with the most extreme comment on punishment, how about hang him up by his keys and throw away the balls?

Sounds good enough to me......

Seriously, my tolerance for nonces is pretty low, being a father myself. And the sentence IS a joke, there are probably shop lifters in the UK that git bigger sentences.

[Chicog]

out come the pitchfork brigade to see who can come up with the most extreme comment on punishment, how about hang him up by his keys and throw away the balls?

Why is it "pitchfork" to demand a custodial sentence that fits the crimes? Just because he's old doesn't mean he should get away with it.

[sms747]

People do tend to go over the top thought don't they. I agree that the sentence was far too low, 7-9 years would be more like it.

[Chicog]

People do tend to go over the top thought don't they. I agree that the sentence was far too low, 7-9 years would be more like it.

Yes and then take any other offences into consideration unless they are worse crimes.

[Asiantravel]

If he is found guilty of rape, I would assume this is a more serious crime than whatever definition is attached to sexual abuse? Rapists usually get quite long sentences so perhaps the courts will be tougher this time around

[johna]

Stuart Hall has friends in the right places, word around the camp fire is that his light sentence is a reward for his silence on others in the BBC

[Marcel1]

And than people complain about the Thai justice system... they're all messed up. hang him by his balls slow torturing all sounds fine for me

[MJP]

Stuart Hall has friends in the right places, word around the camp fire is that his light sentence is a reward for his silence on others in the BBC

It's got a long way to run has this. I notice the MSM have managed to keep a lid on Haut de la Garenne. Some very nasty stuff that.

[Credo]

Stuart Hall has friends in the right places, word around the camp fire is that his light sentence is a reward for his silence on others in the BBC

I would think a light sentence would be given by a court and the court would reward someone for cooperation; not for silence.

[NanLaew]

Stuart Hall has friends in the right places, word around the camp fire is that his light sentence is a reward for his silence on others in the BBC

If that is indeed the case, then there will be a whole lotta preverted Beeb <deleted> puckering in light of these new, more serious charges.

[thequietman]

People do tend to go over the top thought don't they. I agree that the sentence was far too low, 7-9 years would be more like it.

His admission of guilt has now opened the flood gates and many more charges will be forthcoming. I would suspect the prosecution made a deal with him in order for his admission of guilt - a leaner sentence. They wouldn't have told him however, that they were going to pursue him again after his first conviction. (common tactic)

While I don't condone this, I think its important that tv'ers remember that the age of consent in the UK is sixteen years old. Many teenagers admit to losing their virginities around the ages of 12 or thirteen. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the ages of teenagers and if you are in a bar that is for patrons of ages 18 or over, more so. This guy was a huge celebrity as far as the UK goes and would have had many teens pushing themselves on him. Should he have asked them for i.d. ? Yes. In the moment, would he have? No. When a beautiful young voluptuous girl is pushing herself on you, would you walk away ? Many will say yes and that they would insist on an i.d. That's commendable. But when the lady looks well in excess of her years, would you ask or just assume ?

I know, assuming anything in todays society is foolish but I just wanted to put the thought in your heads and ask, would you have done something different ?

The UK it appears has no statute of limitations. Coming after someone over 20-25 years after the alleged incident is a little hard to understand. In todays politically correct society, it is the males word over the females and more often that most, the male is disbelieved.

This guy admitted to the crimes, fair enough, he needs to go down for his crimes. Once again I don't condone this guys behavior but if it happened to you..........................

Food for thought.

[wolf5370]

People do tend to go over the top thought don't they. I agree that the sentence was far too low, 7-9 years would be more like it.

His admission of guilt has now opened the flood gates and many more charges will be forthcoming. I would suspect the prosecution made a deal with him in order for his admission of guilt - a leaner sentence. They wouldn't have told him however, that they were going to pursue him again after his first conviction. (common tactic)

While I don't condone this, I think its important that tv'ers remember that the age of consent in the UK is sixteen years old. Many teenagers admit to losing their virginities around the ages of 12 or thirteen. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the ages of teenagers and if you are in a bar that is for patrons of ages 18 or over, more so. This guy was a huge celebrity as far as the UK goes and would have had many teens pushing themselves on him. Should he have asked them for i.d. ? Yes. In the moment, would he have? No. When a beautiful young voluptuous girl is pushing herself on you, would you walk away ? Many will say yes and that they would insist on an i.d. That's commendable. But when the lady looks well in excess of her years, would you ask or just assume ?

I know, assuming anything in todays society is foolish but I just wanted to put the thought in your heads and ask, would you have done something different ?

The UK it appears has no statute of limitations. Coming after someone over 20-25 years after the alleged incident is a little hard to understand. In todays politically correct society, it is the males word over the females and more often that most, the male is disbelieved.

This guy admitted to the crimes, fair enough, he needs to go down for his crimes. Once again I don't condone this guys behavior but if it happened to you..........................

Food for thought.

Also no ID cards in the UK, who carries a passport with them? However, this may be so for the borders, but a 9 year old? This is also back in the 70s and 80s so young teens, and pre-teens, weren't generally so apt to make them selves up (make up) and go out as they are today (and parent were less inclined to allow them to!).

As a father of 2 young teen age girls, I would come down on him and others of his ilk like a ton of bricks. However judges often (as recent front page cases has shown) are too old and too out of touch for such crimes, we had a judge saying that a 13 year old rape victim was a "sexual predator" and "possibly had the upper hand".

[MJP]

Paul Gambaccini arrested in Operation Yewtree inquiry

Yet another famous BBC name many respected, arrested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24779908

This is worth listening to . . .

http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/bbc-dj-paul-gambaccini-admits-jimmy-savile-was-a-necrophiliac/

The very last sentence uttered by Gambaccini in the interview; "He [saville] said things that gave the game away" . . . just before the interviewer cuts him short. Voice very nervous and shaky too.

Strongly suspect the BBC in those days was one big paedophile ring which likely extended into the landed gentry class. Bring on Haut de la Garenne. Let's get that properly investigated by an independent police force and get the "authorities" on Jersey out the way.

Edited November 2, 2013 by MJP

[boomerangutang]

Why weren't these things reported decades ago when they happened? In the US, where I'm from, girls are taught to report such things. In Britain, are girls taught to not mention it? Did the rapist scare them so much - to not speak about repeated offenses? If some of the first girls to be raped spoke up, then it's possible that all those who got raped later, might have been spared. Perhaps it's also a reflection of lax law enforcement in GB. Another factor: sometimes parents don't give enough credence to what their kids say and/or are too meek, embarrassed or busy to follow up. Additionally, many parents are just out of tune with their kids.

To all parents of young kids reading this thread: There are some lessons to be learned. I had 2 daughters, and I made it crystal clear what inappropriate touching was, and that they should tell me of anything inappropriate. Do Brit parents do that with their precious little ones?

[yingyo]

Hall was sentenced to 15 months in prison in June after he pleaded guilty to sexually abusing more than a dozen young girls between the ages of 9 and 17

15 months for sexually abusing more than a dozen kids!!! He should have his nuts cut off, that sentence is a joke.

There are many things the Western World gets wrong.

One of them is certainly child sex crime sentences.

I won't dig it up, but in Western Australia about 5 years ago 9 adult males convicted of gang raping a 10 year old girl were spared jail and sentenced to community service, by a female judge!

[Scott]

There are many reasons why children don't report sexual assault. First of all, many do, but they are not believed or they report it to someone who is complicit in the assault. Second, they don't always have the language skills to explain what happened. Finally, many come from dysfunctional families where there may be alcoholism, drug abuse, single parent families or the child may be in a custodial care facility.

Many, many reasons.

[Exsexyman]

There are many reasons why children don't report sexual assault. First of all, many do, but they are not believed or they report it to someone who is complicit in the assault. Second, they don't always have the language skills to explain what happened. Finally, many come from dysfunctional families where there may be alcoholism, drug abuse, single parent families or the child may be in a custodial care facility.

Many, many reasons.

n the case of Saville, quite a few of the girls reported his abuse, but as Scott says they weren't believed. They were actually punished for reporting it! " How dare you say these terrible things about Uncle Jimmy, He does so much good for this children's home", etc etc. The man was a monster, It will all come out eventually, he was protected for the best part of fifty years,by people who are right at the top of British society. Remember that he could come and go as he liked in Buckingham Palace, Spent ten consecutive New Years at Chequers with The Thatchers when she was Prime Minister, these are undisputed facts. It was common knowledge what Saville and his friends were up to, he was supplying young boys to the highest in the land, right up to the Prime Minister of the day. Anybody who is still in denial should check out Haute De la Garrene childrens home on Jersey, also Elm Lodge Guest House in London on Google. The powers that be will keep throwing in a few celebrities in a desperate attempt to keep the great unwashed Daily Mail / Sun readers happy, in what hopefully will be a futile attempt to protect the Great and the Good. It has already been established that Cyril Smith, a prominent MP was protected by the powers that be because his exposure would have brought the Government of the day down. He was even awarded a Knighthood! The Thatcher Government sacked the management committee at Broadmoor Psychiatric Hospital, a hospital for the criminally insane, a top security hospital, and installed Saville as the leader of a task force to run the place. Despite him having no psychiatric qualifications whatsoever! He was overulling doctors, evidence coming to light now that he was abusing patients there, they even gave him his own set of keys that gave him access to all areas, his own apartment there, where it is on record that he took young girls there to spend the night with him., Here are a couple of very disturbing links which that shows the scale of this scandal, One of Saville's mates atr Broadmoor was Peter Sutcliffe, better known as the 'Yorkshire Ripper' Saville actually tried to use his influence to allow Sutcliffe to have 'Conjugal Visits'!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100184881/when-jimmy-savile-met-peter-sutcliffe

Look at the self satisfied expression on Saville's face, scary.

http://www.channel4.com/news/broadmoor-savile-was-a-lunatic-in-charge-of-the-asylum

In case anyone is wondering where i am coming from here, i was a psychiatric nurse in the UK during the 70s and 80s, so hopefully i do know a little of what i speak.