• The Golf Monthly forums will be offline briefly for maintenance at 3pm GMT. We expect to be back online within 30 minutes, but will update the notice if anything should change. Thanks for your patience!

Stuart Hall and other 1970s Celebs

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,705
Visit site
I hope I'm not berated when I say that I am actually rather sad to hear of Stuart Hall's admissions of 14 charges of indecent assault today. Why a bit sad? Well as difficult as it might be to believe mfor those of a more recent vintage - for some folks of my age the likes of Stuart Hall were actually very central to our teens and the enjoyment we got out of TV. Add his name to that of GaryGlitter, Jimmy S and others, and accusations being made against Rolf Harris and no doubt others who will be named in similar context in the coming months and years - and what you have for the likes of me is a bit of a dismantling of a lot of our childhood and teens. And it is sad and a little painful.

As I say - it is all a bit sad for me. I can't defend him but will ask the question about whether the seriousness of a criminal act should be judged in the context of today's morality and mores, or of those of the time in which the act(s) were committed.

p.s. maybe I should claim compensation due to trauma, upset and stress I am suffering as a result of these revelations - I jest - just
 

chrisd

Major Champion
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
25,008
Location
Kent
Visit site
Agreed. I find it hard to believe that would have been less of a crime back then.

It certainly would have been the same than as now. The difference would have been older girls, I was 20 in 1972 and started work, like most at 15, so we were at work and mixing with adults much more, were naïve but in other ways pretty street wise at an age that people today wouldn't even be able to leave school.

Things were very different as were attitudes to sex, race and other matters. Life was forever changing, its quite strange that girls in those days were much less free and easy than today where the girls are more laddy than the boys. No girl would go out on a Saturday night to get bladdered intentionally and whilst we all claimed to be having IT most of the claims were just bravado. Also, we got married much younger, if you weren't married by the age of 25 you were considered to be "on the shelf" where nowadays hardly anyone has left uni!

I was engaged at 23 and bought a house 3 months before the wedding and my wife and I didn't stay in the house once overnight until the day we married as it would have been unheard of! Imagine that these days!

You do have to look at the attitudes back then and not always judge by those of today - but - you can never ever excuse anyone who did anything improper with underage girls, then or now!
 
Last edited:

Liverbirdie

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,155
Location
liverpool
Visit site
(Quote - Well as difficult as it might be to believe mfor those of a more recent vintage - for some folks of my age the likes of Stuart Hall were actually very central to our teens and the enjoyment we got out of TV. Add his name to that of GaryGlitter, Jimmy S and others, and accusations being made against Rolf Harris and no doubt others who will be named in similar context in the coming months and years - and what you have for the likes of me is a bit of a dismantling of a lot of our childhood and teens. And it is sad and a little painful.Quote)

I agree on this part, I'm waiting for Basil Brush to be hauled in next, after having his way with a little vixen.

Then I will cry.:(
 

mikee247

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
618
Visit site
Classic case of using power and influence from being a celebrity to take advantage of the defenceless. I cant say what I would do to them but it involves removal of certain body parts for a starter. :angry:
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,705
Visit site
It certainly would have been the same than as now. The difference would have been older girls, I was 20 in 1972 and started work, like most at 15, so we were at work and mixing with adults much more, were naïve but in other ways pretty street wise at an age that people today wouldn't even be able to leave school.

Things were very different as were attitudes to sex, race and other matters. Life was forever changing, its quite strange that girls in those days were much less free and easy than today where the girls are more laddy than the boys. No girl would go out on a Saturday night to get bladdered intentionally and whilst we all claimed to be having IT most of the claims were just bravado. Also, we got married much younger, if you weren't married by the age of 25 you were considered to be "on the shelf" where nowadays hardly anyone has left uni!

I was engaged at 23 and bought a house 3 months before the wedding and my wife and I didn't stay in the house once overnight until the day we married as it would have been unheard of! Imagine that these days!

You do have to look at the attitudes back then and not always judge by those of today - but - you can never ever excuse anyone who did anything improper with underage girls, then or now!

Thanks Chrisd - I'm glad it's not just me - you get what I'm saying - others appear not to - at least to the same extent. I do not excuse Stuart Hall in any way.

I then ask the open question about yesterday's crimes being judged in the context of today's standards - or should they be judged by the standards of the time when they were committed? - as practically difficult that might well be. I'm thinking that if you were guilty then - then you should have admitted your guilt and taken the punishment imposed back then. By avoiding admitting your guilt you take the chance that your crime if found out or admitted will be viewed more serriously and the punishment will be worse. Conversely of course if it was a crime then but it is not now then you will have got away with it - or should you?
 

MegaSteve

Tour Winner
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
7,304
Location
In the slow lane...
Visit site
Of all those currently being named Stuart Hall is the least I am surprised about... Back in the days of 'knockout' he nearly always managed a squeeze of the boobs of the girl delivering the joker card... Think it was well known and we used to watch out for it... Think the girls knew what was coming and presented themselves so it would happen... Harmless fun? Most probably but seems there was more to it...
 

bladeplayer

Money List Winner
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
9,145
Location
Emerald Isle
Visit site
I hope I'm not berated when I say that I am actually rather sad to hear of Stuart Hall's admissions of 14 charges of indecent assault today. Why a bit sad? Well as difficult as it might be to believe mfor those of a more recent vintage - for some folks of my age the likes of Stuart Hall were actually very central to our teens and the enjoyment we got out of TV. Add his name to that of GaryGlitter, Jimmy S and others, and accusations being made against Rolf Harris and no doubt others who will be named in similar context in the coming months and years - and what you have for the likes of me is a bit of a dismantling of a lot of our childhood and teens. And it is sad and a little painful.

As I say - it is all a bit sad for me. I can't defend him but will ask the question about whether the seriousness of a criminal act should be judged in the context of today's morality and mores, or of those of the time in which the act(s) were committed.

I understand what you are saying also mate ,its like a betrayal by people you looked up & enjoyed & were such a part of your growing up , you feel there was a connection to your youth & the good times & now all this is being eroded by finding out what these "people" were capable of ..

The question you ask is very valid , should the law of the time or the law of now be applied to the case .. like if you committed a murder in 1970 as an 8 year old & it was only found out now , are you charged as a child or an adult ..
one I genuinely don't have the answer for ,Times were very different then , but the crime was as serious then as it is now .. so if I had to give an answer id say the full rigours of the law now ..
 
Last edited:

Hobbit

Mordorator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
19,882
Location
Espana
Visit site
I hope I'm not berated when I say that I am actually rather sad to hear of Stuart Hall's admissions of 14 charges of indecent assault today. Why a bit sad? Well as difficult as it might be to believe mfor those of a more recent vintage - for some folks of my age the likes of Stuart Hall were actually very central to our teens and the enjoyment we got out of TV. Add his name to that of GaryGlitter, Jimmy S and others, and accusations being made against Rolf Harris and no doubt others who will be named in similar context in the coming months and years - and what you have for the likes of me is a bit of a dismantling of a lot of our childhood and teens. And it is sad and a little painful.

As I say - it is all a bit sad for me. I can't defend him but will ask the question about whether the seriousness of a criminal act should be judged in the context of today's morality and mores, or of those of the time in which the act(s) were committed.

p.s. maybe I should claim compensation due to trauma, upset and stress I am suffering as a result of these revelations - I jest - just

The very thing I said to Mrs Hobbit this morning. In a bizarre sort of way I feel my youth has been spoilt a wee bit, especially with the Stuart Hall revelation.

That said, and he has admitted it. Hang him, seriously, hang him. Spoiling a child, whether 9yrs old or 15, is just plain sick. Yep, its still a hanging offence in my eyes.
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,705
Visit site
IMO should spend the rest of his life behind bars.

..and given he is 84 yrs old that ain't gonna be that long. So is jail the mosty sensible and humane (given his age) punishment a civilised society can had out to Hall? Really. If the last offence was let's say 25 yrs ago - then you could say he is hardly a danger to society as of today - certainly wouldn't be now that he has admitted the offences. Given his age do we as a society really have to lock someone up for the rest of his life for this? Remember - the rest of his life is not 14 yrs or 20 or 30 yrs - but the rest of his life. BTW - before you jump down my throat it's a question not a plea on his behalf.
 

Keeno

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
576
Location
South Lanarkshire
Visit site
..and given he is 84 yrs old that ain't gonna be that long. So is jail the mosty sensible and humane (given his age) punishment a civilised society can had out to Hall? Really. If the last offence was let's say 25 yrs ago - then you could say he is hardly a danger to society as of today - certainly wouldn't be now that he has admitted the offences. Given his age do we as a society really have to lock someone up for the rest of his life for this? Remember - the rest of his life is not 14 yrs or 20 or 30 yrs - but the rest of his life. BTW - before you jump down my throat it's a question not a plea on his behalf.
I find your logic very odd. He chose to ruin more than one childs life. He doesn't deserve any special treatment for getting away with it for years?
 

pokerjoke

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
10,852
Location
Taunton ,Somerset
Visit site
..and given he is 84 yrs old that ain't gonna be that long. So is jail the mosty sensible and humane (given his age) punishment a civilised society can had out to Hall? Really. If the last offence was let's say 25 yrs ago - then you could say he is hardly a danger to society as of today - certainly wouldn't be now that he has admitted the offences. Given his age do we as a society really have to lock someone up for the rest of his life for this? Remember - the rest of his life is not 14 yrs or 20 or 30 yrs - but the rest of his life. BTW - before you jump down my throat it's a question not a plea on his behalf.


The trouble is if you give a lenient sentence due to age,and i can see your point,others
might think the will be let off too.
Do we then let Rolf Harris,or Dave lee Travis off if found guilty.
These type of people prey on young innocent children,hoping they will never get caught.
Give them the punishment they deserve and let them suffer like their victims.
Ive got no sympathy,and he actually denied all allegations trying again to get away with it.
 

HomerJSimpson

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
73,232
Location
Bracknell - Berkshire
Visit site
I don't think for one minute his actions can be defended and nor can any of those in the celebrity limelight now being tracked down. If it was my kid even after all these years I'd want justice same as if it was the guy next door doing the horrid acts. However I do think on one level when I was younger and much more innocent about the world the likes of Hall, Harris etc were my childhood. It seems sad to think of programmed like Knockout now being tarnished.
 

Keeno

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
576
Location
South Lanarkshire
Visit site
Not less of a crime but less spoke about and less done about. I know a guy who's wife was outcast by most of her family because she was molested as a child..by her uncle. He got 3 years and she still gets the grief, the victim.

Agreed fully on the point your making. Thats why the law has to do the right thing now.
 
Top