Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Stuart Hall Arrested

2

Comments

  • Options
    Max Clifford arrested now.

    Such a nice fella as well.
  • Options

    Max Clifford arrested now.

    Such a nice fella as well.

    I bet he struggles to shut the cupboard door with all those skeletons - other people's of course.

  • Options

    Max Clifford arrested now.

    Such a nice fella as well.

    Who is he going to take advice from?
  • Options
    "If I go down for this you're all coming with me" would be his thinkin.
    Could be a very threadbare pantomime season this year!
  • Options

    "If I go down for this you're all coming with me" would be his thinkin.
    Could be a very threadbare pantomime season this year!

    I've been thinking along the same lines, I think the floodgates will open now the gate keeper is in trouble

  • Options
    No charges have been brought against anyone yet, according to radio reports tonight.

    I am not sure why it is necessary to go around arresting all these people and feeding it to the media. Surely they are entitled to a bit of confidentiality before any charges are brought. Reputations are irreparably damaged, guilty or not.
  • Options
    why? Don't tell me the Chuckle Brother's are involved as well?
  • Options
    edited December 2012
    ads said:

    why? Don't tell me the Chuckle Brother's are involved as well?

    Yep, to me to you :-)
  • Options
    Is one of the chuckle brothers a paedophile? - Allegedly

    There is no proof that either Paul or Barry have any connections with paedophilia. Barry was accused of trying to bed the mum of two young fans in 2007.

    Chuckle Brothers, Paul and Barry Elliot, got their big break with the BBC in 1985 when they recorded thirteen episodes as two loveable canine characters on The Chucklehounds. This series is still shown and enjoyed throughout the world by millions.

    ChuckleVision was first shown on 26 September, 1987 and the filming of series 22 is complete and will be released on the BBC on 31st October. It normally pulls in over three million viewers and is screened thirty weeks out of the year.

    Dates for the 2013 Tour The Chuckle Brothers Meet the Phantom at the Theatre will be released on Sunday 14th October!


    Read more http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/is-one-of-the-chuckle-brothers-a-paedophile/3508894#ixzz2EInwtQAs
  • Options
    I hear they wanted to interview Harry Corbett for sticking his hand up Sooty.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Apparently, Jeremy Beadle had a small hand in it too!
  • Options
    Charged.
  • Options
    edited January 2013

    Charged.

    Again.
    He's already been charged with indecent assault. Now also rape and further assault charges.
  • Options
    edited January 2013
    Crickey is their no end to the shenanigans of 70's and 80's celebrities?
  • Options
    its ok he will play his Joker................
  • Options
    Games without frontiers eh Mr. Hall ?
  • Options
    It's A Knockout for Stuart now!
  • Options
    Remember there are alleged victims in this, not so funny if it was someone you knew or a family member, its a rape charge FFS, no humour to be found.
  • Options
    The jokes are aimed at Stuart Hall. Sorry DA9, with you on most things but not this. I don't like Frankie Boyle style humour but I'd stand up for the right for it to be aired.
  • Options
    DA9DA9
    edited January 2013
    Riviera said:

    The jokes are aimed at Stuart Hall. Sorry DA9, with you on most things but not this. I don't like Frankie Boyle style humour but I'd stand up for the right for it to be aired.

    They maybe so, but it belittles the seriousness of the charges, we agree to disagree.

  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    BIG_ROB said:

    Apparently, Jeremy Beadle had a small hand in it too!

    LOL..

  • Options
    DA9 said:

    Remember there are alleged victims in this, not so funny if it was someone you knew or a family member, its a rape charge FFS, no humour to be found.

    I agree. Rape jokes are NEVER funny.
  • Options
    I dont know how they can possibly get a conviction. Whether he is guilty or not, how on earth can they prove it other than someones word against his?

    Depending on your age, could any of you remember a bird you did 40 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 10? Somebody famous like him must have had loads of women. So what is his defence going to be?

    "I have no recollection whatsoever of this person or event".

    Prosecution evidence will be one person's recollection of events. It's extremely unlikely that there is any physical evidence 30-40 years after the alleged offences.
  • Options

    I dont know how they can possibly get a conviction. Whether he is guilty or not, how on earth can they prove it other than someones word against his?

    Depending on your age, could any of you remember a bird you did 40 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 10? Somebody famous like him must have had loads of women. So what is his defence going to be?

    "I have no recollection whatsoever of this person or event".

    Prosecution evidence will be one person's recollection of events. It's extremely unlikely that there is any physical evidence 30-40 years after the alleged offences.

    Not true.

    Today's Guardian says: 'The indecent assault offences are alleged to have been committed between 1967 and 1986 and to involve 10 girls aged between 9 and 16. The rape is alleged to have been committed in 1976 against a 22-year-old woman.'

    So that is 10 / 11 women potentially giving evidence against him, plus any witnesses.

    There will possibly be physical evidence in terms old diaries, letters, contracts, DVDs of TV shows, etc.

  • Options
    A bird you did?nice.Is that the way you look at it?If he is being charged the CPS must have good grounds.I agree with DA9 we shouldn't belittle the crime by making cheap jokes,rape is a very serious offence it happened to someone close to me,so you will excuse me if I don't find it funny.
  • Options
    Exactly. So the rape was 37 years ago and will be one womans word against his. His defence will surely be that he has no recollection of her at all. And how would he be expected to remember a random woman from so long ago anyway.

  • Options

    Exactly. So the rape was 37 years ago and will be one womans word against his. His defence will surely be that he has no recollection of her at all. And how would he be expected to remember a random woman from so long ago anyway.

    It's not really about what he remembers is it?
  • Options
    A spokesperson for Lancs police said "an 83 year old man has been charged..."

    Seems a bit late for them to be affording him a bit of anonymity!
  • Options

    I dont know how they can possibly get a conviction. Whether he is guilty or not, how on earth can they prove it other than someones word against his?

    Depending on your age, could any of you remember a bird you did 40 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 10? Somebody famous like him must have had loads of women. So what is his defence going to be?

    "I have no recollection whatsoever of this person or event".

    Prosecution evidence will be one person's recollection of events. It's extremely unlikely that there is any physical evidence 30-40 years after the alleged offences.

    Not true.

    Today's Guardian says: 'The indecent assault offences are alleged to have been committed between 1967 and 1986 and to involve 10 girls aged between 9 and 16. The rape is alleged to have been committed in 1976 against a 22-year-old woman.'

    So that is 10 / 11 women potentially giving evidence against him, plus any witnesses.

    There will possibly be physical evidence in terms old diaries, letters, contracts, DVDs of TV shows, etc.

    This.

    He may not recollect anything (if it happened) but, with this many people involved, and a young girls penchant for keeping secret diarys etc, and the prosecution able to place him at certain times and locations due to his TV/radio and celebrity appearance work/schedule, they may not necessarily need forensice evidence to persuade a jury to convict.

  • Options
    Apologies - no offence was meant to anyone and I don't condone the behaviour the man has been charged with. I just have a dark sense of humour at times is all.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!