Suffragette1 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 The more information relating to these "sordid stories" (which implies the victim is sordid and not the perp..no news there from you) the better..The public will then be able to get an insight into the "sordid" details of how these nasty pieces of work operated. It may also break down barriers that victims who are still struggling to come forward because of issues still arising from these "sordid" perveyours of youth innocence. Every word you type reinforces the fact you are an apologist for child molesters. The anti-victim prejudicial language is highly disturbing. "Sordid stories" = experiences of childhood sexual abuse by "an opportunistic predator". Those who use abuser friendly terms and language reveal themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 they clearly are motivated by money! how long before their whole sordid story will be in a tabloid paper or magazine or made into a documentary??....within the next year i guess! and why should they get compensation ?? the law punishes the guilty and we still await Mr halls punishment....no need to sue him or his estate......................or was that the plan???:suspect: all along this and all the other cases What do you mean? Are you saying there are a group of people who engineered being assaulted by Stuart Hall, with the express purpose of being able to sue him 30 odd years later. You seem to have lost sight of the simple fact that Stuart Hall has sexually assaulted a series of girls and young women. He is the cause of the current situation, not them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Therefore if one is assaulted by a poor person they get no financial recompense but if the perpetrator was wealthy their victim would be able to get financial recompense. It is making the first victim a victim a second time. Indeed. What can I say to that? Poor people have less money. Is this new to you? I'm sure these money grabbing 9 year olds will be trying to be raped by a rich man from now on. It's much more profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 It's ironic that there are those on here who support confessed paedophiles who also support extraditing someone who has committed no crimes in this country to one where evidence has been extracted using torture. You couldn't make it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 The anti-victim prejudicial language is highly disturbing. "Sordid stories" = experiences of childhood sexual abuse by "an opportunistic predator". Those who use abuser friendly terms and language reveal themselves. It is very insightful that some equate the revelations from the victim of a sexual crime to a sordid kiss and tell story from a footballers wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 It's ironic that there are those on here who support confessed paedophiles who also support extraditing someone who has committed no crimes in this country to one where evidence has been extracted using torture. You couldn't make it up. Spot on..very perceptive too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 There is a possible downside to people chosing to sue their attacker. Stuart Hall has admitted his guilt to some accusations (some have been left on file). I don't know if this is out of true remorse and he is trying to now lessen the burden of court appearances for his accusers, or it is because the evidence is so great that he is sure to be convicted and is trying to reduce his sentence. Either way, his confession has left him open to civil action, which will hit his future standard of living, and that of his family. Anyone else in the same position as Hall, in future, might think twice about admitting guilt, if it would always result in future loss of financial security. They might continue to protest their innocence to the bitter end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Stark Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 If Mr. Hall is being punished by law for his behaviour why are some of the victims going to sue him ? There is only one answer to that question. They want to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 i suspect in all cases "MONEY" is it really hard to believe that after 40 or so years in this case and pretty much all the others that someone suddenly decides "oh yes i think i was abused " all that time ago........and they didnt think to come forward before:suspect: disgusting is the word for these chancers:roll: That's very dismissive. There are lots of reasons why the victim of abuse didn't come forward before. And you have gall to accuse the victims of abuse as 'disgusting chancers'. That's an apt description for the perpetrators. I hope for everyone's sake you're just being provocative and what you've said doesn't reveal your true thoughts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 There is only one answer to that question. They want to make money. Really, is that the only conclusion that you can draw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.