Gary Glitter Twitter row

[CowboysGal]

There has been a mini-storm brewing today following a new Twitter account, allegedly set up by Gary Glitter. There are lots of calls for the account to be closed. Am just wondering how everyone feels about this. Obviously the idea of a man, or woman for that matter, convicted of crimes against children having a social networking account sends chills down your spine, but is it an offence? Should it be? If so, where does that level of policing end?
I was chatting about this with a friend earlier and still can't decide how I feel about it. I don't think it's possible to ban people from the internet and particular sites or if it ever will be.

I am surprised that he would want to draw attention to himself given the nature of his crimes.
It is a difficult one to judge. Obviously his heinous crime makes him infamous and I doubt that any right minded person would want to follow him. That just leaves the wrong minded.
OTOH, what happens to freedom of speech if he is censored.

I wouldn't support the creation of a creation of a new offence.

I actually wouldn't see the point. How a convict, one released, lives with notoriety is one of the things that goes with the territory.

On a utilitarian note, if someone wanted to groom children on the Internet, they would hardly use a notorious name on a major site.

It is up to all Internet users to remember that anyone can be anybody online. That notorious killer/rapist could be under any name.

As Meditrina rightly says anyone can access normal forms of communication which is why we teach our children how to use the internet safely and why they shouldn't pass out personal information etc. Chances are this is a malicious (sick) joke rather than the man himself. He was a massive self-publicist in his heyday but, ever since he got arrested, he's been totally off the radar.

I doubt its really him anyway.

What exactly could he do via twitter using his real [or known by] name anyway?!

Can there be long-term conditions put on someone? Control orders were ruled illegal weren't they? But would this be injunction/probation condition/ASBO territory? Anyone know?

But I doubt it would be enforceable. You don't have to prove you identity to sign up. Internet cafes abound. There's no way of knowing who is behind the username, or what user names an individual has.

I'm almost certain it is an account made for some kind of entertainment,there have been a ton of 'joke' accounts designed to get people's knickers in a twist so they can sick back and feel very clever. As you rightly said Meditrina and Amberleaf anyone who wanted to groom children surely wouldn't chose such a public way to do it and his notoriety would draw such a level of interest that he'd be unable to get away with anything, I'd hope.
I only posted the question because I was talking with a friend about it and for the first time ever I was completely on the fence.
She was quite enraged and adamant that the account should be closed down. Aside from the fact that the anonymity of the internet would make it almost impossible to enforce in the foreseeable future, I don't know that after a person has been punished and served time that sanctions should be imposed on them for the rest of their lives. The big sticking point I guess is that we are talking about paedophilia which because of its very nature requires a level of supervision.
Have a feeling my friend won't be letting this drop so I may just be agreeing with her viewpoint when we next meet.

If she doesn't like Glitter, tell her she can also find @maozedong, @adolfhitlerok, @jacktheripperRP, @raolmoat, @myrahindley, @ianhuntley.... and many, many more other Twitter accounts dedicated to notorious criminals past and present, paedophiles being no exception. As everyone has said, a serious paedophile intent on finding new victims wouldn't use their own name or even the name of an ex-con. They create false identities.... so her ban would have no effect whatsoever.

Why would anyone want to do that though? This is a genuine question BTW.

It's not the real Gary Glitter - here's a blog post by the bloke who (apparently) set it up, to make a point about internet safety: glitterontwitter.tumblr.com/

He makes a very good point that if Gary Glitter or any other paedophile were going to set up a twitter account, they would be very unlikely to use their real names, but could very easily attract lots of young followers by setting up as a Justin Bieber/One Direction fan account.

he sounds a bit of a berserker himself TBH.

Hmm interesting blog exexpat and I do get the point he was making, those are many of the arguments my friend was making for banning 'Glitter' and others like him from the internet. I'm not sure that could ever work and prefer to try and ensure my DC are aware of the dangers, are aware of how faceless the internet is and to realise that the virtual world is very different from real life. Asking internet providers and sites like Twitter to do the 'protecting' on parents behalf will lull everyone into a false sense of security.
Amazed he managed to get that many followers! Do the other accounts you mentioned have a similar amount of followers Cogito?

Banning would never work. It takes 30 seconds to set up a twitter account, you don't need to provide a real name or address, there is no way you could vet people, on there or any other internet site (MN and facebook included) without shutting down the entire internet as we know it.

That's why you have to educate your own children about internet safety, people not necessarily being who they appear to be, etc etc.

And of course Gary Glitter and others managed to abuse children without the aid of computers for decades.

No idea... just did a simple search on some notorious names and 'pop' up came several accounts, no problem at all. On the whole it's best to keep kids off Twitter, Facebook etc. until they're old enough to deal with the seamier side of life. If it's not criminals masquerading under assumed names, luring in victims it's saddos with some kind of misdirected hero-worship problem.

In Scotland certainly, don't know if it's the same in England, a "managed" sex-offender (that is one on a Court Order, or released on licence) can be banned from using the internet. It's difficult to enforce, but basically, they wouldn't be allowed to own any equipment which could go online, and if they were caught using a PC elsewhere they could be recalled to jail.

Titwillow Yes it is the same in England but as you say it is very difficult to Police.

I work in this area and am aware of registered sex offenders who have FB etc accounts which is why my DCs are very clued up on internet safety (not 'friending' anyone they don't actually know in real life, not giving personal details out etc etc'

It is very difficult to Police the internet re this but you can stop yourself (and others) becoming a victim by being sensible and following basic safety rules in the same way you should in life

It's easy enough to buy a phone and PAYG sim to go online with though so although they 'could' be recalled to jail I think it's an easy condition to get around with a bit of sneakiness. I did say to my friend that abusers have been grooming children for years without computers but it was pointed out to me that the internet has made grooming a lot easier, an undeniable fact and another reason us Parents should try to make ensure our children are clued up.
I spoke to our headteacher about offering parents a 'guide to keeping kids safe on the internet' class but haven't managed to persuade her yet.

Cowboys Gal I understand your point about people who've served their time being able to get on with their lives. The thing with Glitter is that he didn't change his spots, at all. He left prison in the UK and then went straight off to a part of the world where it's easier to get hold of children to abuse. There's a very good reason he got deported from Vietnam and 19 countries said they wouldn't let him in. And he doesn't even admit he's a paedophile- he blames the press for what's happened. So you're very right, he needs a lot of supervision! I don't believe in the death penalty, but wish he would have the decency to kill himself.

Flangelina I am certain a person like Glitter cannot change their spots whether they admit to the offences or not. I've actually come off the fence a little to the side of my friend in agreeing with her that if it were possible to lock down and completely police the internet then yes he and his kind should be denied any access whatsoever, but still that isn't realistic is it?
When my friend and I were first talking about this I think I kind of got my teeth into a different argument than the one we started out with. She was insisting that Glitter should not be able to access the internet at all and anyone like him should be prevented from having any social networking accounts. Of course that'd be the ideal but people would have to be caught and prosecuted in the first place and this would then be difficult to enforce. My initial point was that children should be educated to protect themselves and I think I got more caught up in that than the point she was trying to get over.
There is a part of me that believes that once a punishment is handed out and served it isn't right to hand out life-long sanctions but I know that is different when it comes to crimes of this nature, rightly so. After re-reading my OP I see it sounds a bit like I was saying that this man had served his time and should be allowed to have his twitter account but I was just trying to put down my thoughts about how to deal with a situation like that considering the realities of the internet.
I'm with you completely on your death penalty get out clause Flangelina.

It's not realistic to keep people off the internet no, especially not people who are rich enough to go somewhere and be unscrutinised. And honestly, there were paedophiles and child pornographers before the web was ever invented- it's not the internet that makes Glitter dangerous.

But if someone's still a danger, monitoring them and stopping them from doing certain things is arguably not necessarily even a sanction as such. It's primarily protection for others, rather than punishment for them. I think stopping him from going on Myspace is lulling people into a false sense of security, though. It takes more than that.

Coming to this a bit late, and wanted to say a few things.

First to Cogito - I have been on Twitter for a couple of years and had no idea that those accounts existed, so I guess they are not well known.

Someone said last week that (at the time it was assumed to be the real GG), there was a lot of fuss about nothing, since he was the one paedophile that we actually knew about. There are plenty more that we have not recognised, and sadly many more living amongst us too.

IMO, the idea is unworkable and foolish, as it gives the impression of safety without actually protecting children.

I would not let my children use Twitter, although I would let them use FB with appropriate controls in place, because Twitter is a very adult medium. It is not a place for kids.

And my way of protecting children is to inform them of the dangers, and to involve them in keeping themselves safe.

Nice alliteration.
I agree that known paedos are less worrying than unknown ones. I hate the way the GG paedo thing means alot of glam rock from my childhood is never played, although doubt anyone could hear "Do you want to touch me there" without sniggering these days, both at the awfulness of the lyrics and their dreadful appropriateness.
If you are going to be a paedo you are better off being a film director than a pop star as Roman Polanski shows. I doubt anyone would moan if he had a twitter account.