Stuart Hall’s Sentence Increased To 30 Months

Untitled

Prisoner Ref 5638319-2 OBE

Stuart Hall’s derisory sentence of 15 months has been doubled to 30 months (two and a half years).

It is still less than 9 weeks for every child he abused but at least it’s better than it was.

Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, had told the Court of Appeal that the sentence “when coupled with the aggravating features… failed adequately to reflect the gravity of the totality of the offences, and the public concern about offences of this nature”.

“Even if the individual sentences for each count are appropriate given the statutory maximum available, some should have been made to run consecutively so that the total sentence passed reflected the culpability of the offender, the harm caused and [would] deter others,” he said.

He added that “it appears to me that the sentence was unduly lenient”.

Lord Judge said it was the court’s view that the statement made by Hall prior to conviction, in which he branded the accusations as “pernicious, callous, cruel and above all spurious”, was a “seriously aggravating feature”.

Interestingly, Mrs Justice Macur, who is currently reviewing The Waterhouse Report, was one of the judges who heard this appeal. Though what, if anything, can be inferred from this judgement as regards that review is anyone’s guess.

Well done to all those that lodged a complaint about the previous sentence.

About these ads

12 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

12 responses to “Stuart Hall’s Sentence Increased To 30 Months

  1. Principle5000

    The Previous Sentence was a Sick Joke and this Present Sentence is
    still a Slap on the Wrist

    Child Abusers Deserve Capital Punishment

  2. this is good news but i still feel he should get more, i also think the judge should order him to pay his victims with his vast wealth.
    just leaves Graham Ovenden who did not even plead guilty and still claims he is innocent…
    Andy

  3. Principle5000

    I Agree Wholeheartedly

    That Suspended Sentence is an Insult to the Victims of Child Abuse

    That Sick Filth is Not ” Art ” and Anyone that could buy it is a Sicko

    • My sentiment also, that includes MacAlpine as he had a good part of that vile collection, so where does that leave the bbc,itv and sally scarecrow??
      Andy

    • Pleb

      You are wrong on the count that Ovenden’s work is, manifestly, “art” by any definition. Profound distaste of the subject matter, no matter how distasteful is not, itself a critique. The paintings and drawings that are currently the focus of ill-informed low-level public sentiment follow in a direct tradition in fine art: look at the paintings and drawings of Balthus, and Egon Schiele, for example. (Look them up on Google while you can, before the morons in charge block them.)
      Have you any idea – any idea at all – what these are worth in artistic terms? let alone cash value. The latter which of course, is signifcant.
      Ovenden is a fine artist and his work is worth preserving for posterity.

      • I hope you’re not forgetting that Ovenden was convicted of child abuse.

        If it is art then, a crime scene photographer is an artist also.

        Did Balthus, and Egon Schiele sexually abuse children before drawing them ?

        As to what they’re worth, I’d suggest that was subjective. I wouldn’t wipe my arse with them but Lord McApine might pay big money. I’m always inclined to believe high prices for mediocre work inflates the ego of both that purchaser and the artist.

  4. Pingback: Stuart Hall’s Sentence Increased To 30 Months | justiceforkevinandjenveybaylis

  5. Terry

    He’ll be out in just over a year anyway.

  6. Principle5000

    That shows what a Failure British Justice is

  7. Pingback: Stuart Hall Sentence Doubled « Alternative News Network

  8. Pleb

    To gojam:

    Not at all. Graham Ovenden was convicted in open court. That much is a fact. What is not established fact (yet) is that is that the act of Ovenden’s painting – in itself – constitutes an offence in law. By all means let the CPS prosecute if they believe that that is the case. For my own part, all this starts to have a distinctly plebby and Nazi-flavour of “entartete” art. (Google “entartete” and “entartetekunst” and you’ll see what I mean.)

    I cannot possibly speak for Balthus (but Google his “The Guitar Lesson” of 1934 and decide for yourself). The case of Egon Schiele is far more interesting in regard to your argument and that of other commentators elsewhere and on your blog, however, for Schiele was the subject of an exhaustive police enquiry and trial in Germany in May 1912. He was sentenced to three days in prison for “exhibiting an erotic drawing in a place accessible to children”. The maximum sentence was six months hard labour; the judge even publicly burned one of his drawings before an excited crowd. Schiele had been accused of abduction and seduction at the same time but the charge was dropped. Draw your own conclusion in context of Graham Ovenden and Egon Schiele’s respective crimes – both real and those never brought to court. (Frank Whitford’s excellent book on Schiele, published by Thames & Hudson can give some perspective, and there is plenty of stuff on the web.) There is a curious resonance in the case of picture burning with the Nazi’s burning of “decadent” books in May 1933. I think it fair to opine that Nazi book-burners were somewhat lacking in intellectual judgement and aesthetic capacity. History does seem to bear that out.
    Your observation about a crime scene photographer is both interesting and pertinent. let me extend your scene of crime photographer to a child abuser taking pictures of his (or her) misdeeds. Clearly the crime scene photographer is not the perpetrator of a crime. _Actual_ photographers of child abuse most probably are. What I find a grayer area, however, is the culpability in law of the original owner of child porn photographs (as opposed to paintings of proven artistic and financial value) when posted and sold/exchanged via the internet and the owner of the server who keeps the electronic material accessible to all and the ISPs who allow transmission of these images. This is one reason why I think that all the “hoo-hah” at the moment by Prime Minister Cameron is so much guff and hot air and a (fairly) obvious diversion to keep the plebs happy. It is not Google, Yahoo et. al who are the potential culprits. This is a digression from the question of painting, though, except insofar that it would be instructive to know if it your opinion (and the opinion of your readers) that possession of one of Schiele’s nudes from 1910-1912 constitutes an offence in English law? (If, by the way, any of your readers own one and would like to donate it to me – gratis – I should be delighted to take possession.)

    I, for one, would be fascinated to see the progress of such a case (Ovenden, for example) through the courts. Ultimately, though I think your argument fails because painting – as painting – is not a photograph and neither is painting (verb and noun) sexual abuse. I do accept that photography of child abuse unquestionably is. But painting? If you can accept that Jaques-Louis David is not the murderer of Marat then a painting by Ovenden does not make him – insofar as can be proved by a painting – a child abuser.

    Regarding your taste in arse-wipe I agree entirely with your asseveration save that in the case of Balthus and Schiele history tends to suggest that they are neither mediocre nor without value.

    • Plebeian is a term when used which always assumes an hierarchical social structure and the users place atop of that structure, as it does in its abbreviated form, it’s an assumption I do not make. Just as I do not attribute the term ‘philistine’ to those that do not appreciate my own tastes.

      Manet’s Olympia shocked audiences in 1865 who found it ‘vulgar and immoral’ not because of its nudity but because it plainly depicted a prostitute gazing back at the viewer. The example you’ve put forward of Egon Schiele appears to me to be in a similar vein.

      The argument you make appears to rely on the assumption that cultural tastes are forever shifting, that child abuse images may not be acceptable now but were acceptable in the past and may well be acceptable in the future, such is the fickle nature of cultural tastes.

      I would disagree with that analysis. I would suggest that society’s attitudes to child abuse, images of child abuse, and perpetrators of child abuse are evolving in a positive direction. Just as I would argue that our attitudes to women’s suffrage or slavery have evolved for the better.

      I do not foresee a time in the future when the child abuse images of Graham Ovenden will be rehabilitated, just as I don’t see a comeback for slavery in the future.

      I do not believe my view is any different from The Tate, ironically an art gallery paid for by slavery.

      “The Tate has removed from public view works by artist Graham Ovenden, including a screenprint that features an image of a young naked child, saying that his conviction on six charges of indecency with a child and one of indecent assault “shone a new light” on his work.”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/apr/03/tate-removes-graham-ovenden-prints

      If we must attach monetary value to art then I would bet that a Graham Ovenden would not make a great deal of money in a public auction. They may retain some monetary value in the private market but then so does child pornography, just because someone is willing to pay for it does not mean it’s art.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s