Talk:Stuart Hall (presenter)

Personal life

I deleted a comment:

He is the "husband" of Granada TV weatherman Fred Talbot.

and Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people added by an anon, User:82.108.114.202. Is there a source? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am deleting is openly gay as I don't see any evidence for this. It possibly refers to other Stuart Hall.--JBellis 11:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just added details of Hall's marriage which should dispell the above rumour --Seedybob2 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Marriage implies heterosexuality. It does not dispell anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.101.166 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Granada Reports

There is no evidence or citation of Hall ever being on Granada Reports so this has been removed. There is no mention of it on any biographical material relating to him. Paul210 06:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See Bob Greaves section of this article [1] It mentions Hall & Greaves on Granada Tonight (the replacement for Granada Reports) - I remember him being on there as well, I'm sure there will be a reliable source somewhere to back it up. Seedybob2 08:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester City?

I've listened to Stuart Hall on 5 Live for many years and was unaware of his supposed affiliation with Manchester City. I have had an inkling of some affection, but nothing more. I think a citation is needed. Guv2006 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Palace F.C.

Hall has referred to a time when he played football at Crystal Palace and he turned down 20 quid a week and left to earn better money elsewhere. Are there any refs for this? It would add to the bio. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Arrest over rape allegations

The BBC has reported Hall has been arrested and questioned over rape allegations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20605267 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.123 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

He has just been arrested over allegations of indecent assault. Must update — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.115.117 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication of why the allegations are all over twenty-nine years ago? Is this something that is reserved for celebrities? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it's something reserved for some celebrities in the wake of what has been discovered about their former BBC colleagues. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Can we please not jump the gun on categories etc? I am well aware that he should be labelled for what he is, but we are not and should not be a rolling news service and I think that in some cases there are legal procedures to be completed before he can be categorized as A/B/etc. I am really not clear why we should be in a hurry here. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He has not been sentenced but he has been convicted, which is the important thing. PatGallacher (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pleading guilty in court is not the same as being sentenced by a judge. There is no need to jump the gun on these categories.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware that they are not the same, but pleading guilty does mean that you have been convicted. Exactly what gun is being jumped here? PatGallacher (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Although IANAL, it is not going to hurt to wait until a judge sentences Hall. See [2].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pat says "pleading guilty does mean that you have been convicted" - does it really? Is it literally the same thing? That's what troubles me. Obviously in a small short case it has that effect; it's immediate. In this one, he's on bail till sentencing ... I am not sure where that leaves it, legally. What is the precise moment at which you are convicted? Being "convicted" sounds like a process of some sort, something that is done to you - but do you just invoke it automatically in the very moment that you say "guilty"? I've looked at a few news stories and the only times, in those I've found, that they use "conviction" they are quoting a police officer - I have yet to see an RS that says in its own voice that he has been convicted. Maybe he has, technically, but I am not sure how we would know. If you do have an RS for him being convicted then great, let's see it. Otherwise I do feel it's gun-jumping - we don't have the evidence. I agree with ianmacm ... waiting will do no harm. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case of child sexual abuse. Of course pleading guilty to an offence means you are convicted of it, can you produce a source which suggests otherwise? PatGallacher (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that people do not have any hang-ups about updating relevant articles within minutes of the announcement of the result of the South Shields by-election, 2013. PatGallacher (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I RV'd Ian on this but am not wedded to it and would rather discuss. Surely the article should have something in the lead about today's news? He is now notable for that as well as his former fame, and it seems odd that it is not accessible in the lead paragraph: indeed I fear that it will lead to more vandalism once the protection is off. How does it not meet WP:LEAD? Surely there is something notable, that should be mentioned, in this? Someone please educate me. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My preference would to be to wait until he is sentenced to avoid rolling news-style writing, but I'm not going to edit war.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree absolutely on avoiding rolling news - it's just that I feel that we are going to have to have something about it there, even just as an attempt at a temporary solution, pending it settling down a bit. But I also am not up for a fistfight over this so having said my piece I'll shut up now! I will not in any case re-revert (or is it re-re-revert?) this. With thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just read this after editing the lead. What I've done is expanded it by a sentence or two to refer in a bit more detail to his presenting work. I've retained the reference to today's news, but at least now there is some more background material to take into account in discussing whether any mention is undue weight. I'm happy with the balance, as of my last edit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this an offence under UK law?

Apparently two of the offences are "indecent penetration". Not an offence I've heard of under English law. Would this, baldly described, be "rape"? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This article in The Independent refers to "digital penetration" which is clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Committal to Crown Court

The third paragraph under "Prosecution and conviction" has a sentence reading: "The prosecutor argued that the issues concerned were serious enough that Hall should stand trial at Crown Court, to which the defence did not object."

The inclusion of this sentence suggests that it's noteworthy that the trial was committed to Crown Court, when commitals for sexual offences are pretty standard practice. It would have been more noteworthy if it had stayed at the Magistrates', not least because magistrates' sentencing powers are very limited, e.g. they can give a maximum of 6 months in prison. Should the sentence be removed to avoid confusion?

I would be bold and do it myself, but I'm new to Wikipedia and just finding my feet. Thoughts? 81.145.162.95 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The source says "Prosecutor Joanne Cunliffe said the case should be sent to crown court because the charges are too serious to be dealt with at magistrates' court... Defence lawyer Louise Straw told District Judge Peter Ward there would be no objection to the case being sent to the crown court, where the matter would go before a jury." The current text in the article is an accurate summary of what the source says. It might be straying into original research territory to argue that it would have been standard practice to have the case heard before a jury.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to argue that it would have been standard practice to have the case heard before a jury - indecent assault under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 is an offence triable either-way, so that would be factually incorrect. What I'm trying to point out is that the current wording paraphrases the source, which is in itself a paraphrase, in a way that implies that the committal to Crown Court was made because the sexual offences were particularly noteworthy. That's a misrepresentation of the facts (see the government overview of sexual offending report, which states that committal rates to Crown Court for trial on sexual offences have ranged from 69% to 77% over the six years up to 2012.)

Would you accept an amendment to "The case was committed to Crown Court for trial" as a reasonable compromise? It keeps the relevant information on the committal, but removes the implication that Hall's offences were particularly serious for sexual offences. I realise it's a minor point, but it bugs me - probably because it borders on not being from a neutral point of view. 81.145.162.95 (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been more than a week without a response, so I've gone ahead and made the amendment. 81.145.162.95 (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead (again)

I've attempted to give a better balance to the lead by (1) re-adding the BBC profile quote, which gives some necessary context as to why he was perceived by the public as something more than the average BBC newscaster; and (2) removing unnecessary details about the dates and process leading to his convictions, which are covered in detail in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Honours

His OBE was annulled here - "THE QUEEN has directed that the appointment of James Stuart HALL to be an Officer of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, dated 31 December 2011, shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order" - and should not be reinstated in the lead or infobox. An IP keeps trying to reinstate it and has been warned for edit warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stuart Hall (presenter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131026202717/http://www.cheshire-today.co.uk/18266/stuart-hall-faces-flood-of-compensation-claims/ to http://www.cheshire-today.co.uk/18266/stuart-hall-faces-flood-of-compensation-claims/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Motivated by the Savile scandal before it was known to the public what Savile had done

Right now it's written in the article and in the source that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown got a letter in May of 2012 and that the letter was motivated by the Savile scandal. But the Savile scandal started in September of 2012. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is wrong and it is not correct what is written in this WP article. It is also strange that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has quoted the writer of the letter about the furore over Jimmy Savile since the writer could not possibly have known about that furore months before it started. Calle Widmann (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is odd. Savile died in October 2011, but it wasn't until the ITV documentary Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile broadcast in October 2012 that things started to unravel for Savile's reputation. There had always been mutterings about Savile, but the media didn't cover them in a big way until after the ITV documentary. However, it was known in early 2012 that the BBC's Newsnight had dropped a report that made similar allegations about Savile.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

True but the furore did not commence until late 2012 and in the article by Alibhai-Brown she's writing that the anonymous writer wrote that the "furore over Jimmy Savile has spurred me on". That i strange to write in a letter in May 2012, before the furore. I think that Alibhai-Brown has made a mistake. Calle Widmann (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown misinterpreted the timeline when writing the article in The Independent. There wasn't a furore/scandal about Savile in early 2012, and this did not happen until after the ITV documentary was broadcast in October 2012. In this edit, I changed the wording to reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It's better now but we are also now using a source in which something is doubtful. It's kind of risky. Calle Widmann (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any real Evedance he is still alive

He hasent been heard from publicaly since late 2016 which Is not really a long time but remember he was a somewaht frail 87 year old and he has got to be an even frailer 93 year old if he is even still alive. For a young person they would have long left (I Highly doubt Justin Lee Collins is dead) but and old man like Hall they only have a short time left on this earth no matter how healthy they are and alot can change in health within 6/7 years, No reason why he couldnt have died and it was left on the reporters cutting room floor. As a disgraced Celebrity with no family to support and Is not histpricaly important enoughe could have easily died in the interim which is maybe far-fetched but not impossible and It was never reported and who would care anyway he was a horrible predetor who's jolly perosna was a facade in a way he died in 2013 as soon as he was arrested. Its possqble his family had his death covered up and he can die and be buried in modest funaral away from those who would hinder them and the News people would sigh in relife as they dont need to deliver an awkward subject and saves BAFA from the difficult task of wheather or not he should be in the in Memoriam segment. Long story short no real evedence of being alive and when any evedence comes to light that he is still then ignore this however till then could it be feesable to move him to "Possibly Living people" Perosnanly I think its cowardly to ignore him if he died but its adifficult choice that the news media havent really had the chance to deal with atleast Savile they the younger reporters atleast who didnt know aboutSaviles crimes could rest on ignorance but Halls crimes went to light and seeing as he moved out and rented a modest house and has taken to modest life its possible he simply faded away as a commoner and was given a commeners send-off 2A00:23C5:FE06:F201:A07F:D997:E111:1E7F (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the guidance at "Category:Possibly living people" people aged over 90 who have had no mention in the last 10 years may be moved to this category. The last mention of him is in 2016, so he still has a few years to go. He was a fairly high profile case, so it's unlikely that his death would have gone completely unnoticed. PatGallacher (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If he had died it would undoubtedly have been in the news, so it's premature to write him off as dead. He has been out of the news for many years though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)