15 months for Stuart Hall

Some people seem to believe that because such sexual abuse was rife in show business in the 1970's it should just be forgotten. I am willing to bet that the children affected haven't forgotten it.

It was rife in some offices I worked in too!

I assumed the 'bewildered' comment was an implication of the early stages of dementia - does it elaborate anywhere on the 'bewildered and confused'

Whilst not wanting to trivialise your point Nfk, you were presumably older than Hall's victims. I know it was rife in my workplace and, although I was rather timid, I was aware enough not to go in the strongroom with various male members of staff and to pass the word around.

Agreed. What I mean is, it wasn't just show biz types who thought groping girls was ok, whether 12 and still at school or 15 and not long in the world of employment.

Yes, I agree. I do think there are degrees of 'groping' though - most office creeps limited themselves to a quick fondle or squeeze...

It happened on the tube or on a crowded bus too ... A squeezed boob or a hand up the skirt... Could never pinpoint who did it but it happened frequently...it was a different time, not better or worse, just different. Just look at On The Buses and other comedy programmes at the time. If girls made a fuss there was something wrong with THEM! I had an awful time between 12 and 16, hopefully my granddaughter won't suffer the same situations.

To hell with degrees - any uninvited and unwanted sexual attention is wrong, always has been and still is. Let's not make any excuses for the arrogant swines who thought they could 'cop a feel'.

I'm not making excuses for anyone. But digital penetration is a bit different to a pat on the bum.

It's not about making excuses.

If I'd been raped throughout my childhood I might not feel too chuffed to have people insisting that what I went through was no different to someone having their breast felt at age 15.

It's so hard to stay focussed on what men like Stuart Hall have done to harm children. No wonder these nasty offences get minimised and applied to young women and teenagers who are on the verge of being able to give informed consent. But these children couldn't be confused with mature teenagers and young women - their attraction was their immaturity. They were sexually assaulted, with insistence and by ignoring refusal, pain and/or fear. To get your head round that is nigh impossible, even for hardened professionals. It's not a quick grope that men go to prison for - the fine detail that enables the CPS to prosecute is nasty and sexually intrusive, but the most awful part of it is the theft of a chldhood that can't be got back.

I'm confused by your post when.

All of Hall's victims were not young children according to the information out there.

Also, I don't think it's hard to 'get your head' around these things at all.

I've read some harrowing and heart-rending accounts of young boys, for instance, who were regularly and violently abused and buggered in a care home and who attempted suicide because of it.

Of course, it's possible you have some insider information not available to the public.

Derisory is the word which springs to mind.

I don't have insider information, I just read extensively because I specialised in this work. Hall's convictions are against children. The ones lay on file include offences against adults. Personally, I have never reached the stage of having got my head round abuse of children, doubt I ever will. All I can say is, the more I learn, the more questions I am left with.

I see what you are saying.

I think the nature of my work made it absolutely necessary that I could 'get my head round' all sorts of extreme situations, including sexual abuse (though not that often).

I was a juror on a case which involved sexual abuse a few years ago.

I should say by 'getting my head around' I don't mean becoming blaise and accepting of the awful things people do to each other.

I've suggested here that what SH has been found guilty of might be on the lighter end of the sexual abuse scale. I say that because I only know what I've read and that doesn't mention actual penetration. But yesterday I read about a music teacher who repeatedly raped a young teenage student more than twenty years ago. He thought he'd got away with it until the woman, now in her 40s and a mother of four, found the courage to bring a complaint. During the trial the woman was subjected to such aggressive questioning that in her despair she killed herself. She never saw her attacker found guilty and imprisoned for his terrible crime. By comparison I still consider instances of inappropriate fondling less terrible even though I know that any inappropriate touching can leave an effect on the victim's life that can't be justified.

There is bad and there is worse. Bad is bad enough but worse is worse.

Well put, elegran.

It's going round in circles because of the language being used, mollie. Inappropriate fondling is not what is being referred to - it's indecent/sexual assault. Sex offenders will use words like 'inappropriate' and 'fondling' to try to excuse them for the way they have groomed, assaulted and invaded a child's body - in the same way a domestic violence perpetrator will claim he only 'gave the missus a slap' when in fact he has broken her nose and put her in hospital.

Hall won't have 'only' fondled even when it was 'just a hand up a skirt' - he would have been visibly sexually aroused (that's the point of the assault) and what child is able to deal with that?

Point taken but I'm referring to what I've read, not what he's said in his own defence. I know what feelings such events create and how those feelings can set up certain lifelong behaviours in the victims so I'm not trying to make light of these offences. Hopefully SHs victims will find some peace and a sense of closure now.

Just on the ten o'clock news - the case is being referred because the sentence is unduly lenient for the indecent assaults he is convicted of.

I saw that ... That's good news, isn't it!

The case is being reviewed to see IF the sentence is too lenient. I hope we don't get another politically motivated decision.

He will probably die in prison anyway.

I think it is right and proper that abuse cases are brought to light and dealt with but I would feel happier if large sums of money were not involved in compensation claims.

Do we know if any of his victims have been compensated? He has pleaded guilty, so the verdict did not depend on unsubstantiated claims made in the hope of financial gain. I think people whose lives have been blighted by sexual abuse are entitled to some damages.

The sentencing guidelines advise two years for indecent assault as a starting point, so there is some surprise that the convictions weren't based on two years times the number of indecent assault convictions to run concurrent.

Why should victims of childhood sexual abuse not be compensated in some way for the harm done to them? If he'd broken one of their limbs we wouldn't quibble. Hall has been busy transferring his assets to family because he expects to be sued. If I was a member of his family, I wouldn't want any part of it.