Garry Glitter - I don't get it?

[expatinscotland]

here

Can't Thai authorities cuff this scumbag and force him on a plane back to the UK?

I thought when you were deported from somewhere that means authorties put you back on a plane for your home country and you didn't have a choice about going there?

That's appalling.

I wouldn't criminalise anyone holding images actually but I doubt anyone on mn would agree with me. And the reaction against GG is just so ridiculous - it shows the British at their very worst but the herd of people have always liked to be led like sheep by the tabloid press or its equivalent.

What she should do is put more mney into looking at what causes people to have the sexuality that they have, whether genetic factors play a part, if we can even screen in utero... would mumsnet posters like to know if their baby for example carried a gene which would make it more likely their son would like to rape girls under 10 for example?

Then we secondly need to look at what ways work in helping people control their sexual urges. 25% of married female mumsnet posters will commit adultery and in a sense be unable to control their sex urges so I am sure at least those one will have sympathy with those who find it hard to do so. Those who just cannot keep their knickers up and have to play away with other men will know they can cause untold damage, destroy marriages and hurt children and yet the sex urge is so very very strong they cannot resist. I imagine it is the same for some but not all men who have the urge to have sex with children under 10 etc.

Good points Xenia re. the need to give it more consideration.

That is what is lacking, which is terrible. So much fear but very little of it channelled into anything constructive.

Glitter is well aware that he will probably be torn limb from limb by a baying crowd at some point, and while I don't have any sympathy for him I don't think that's a GOOD outcome.

We've lost perspective. It is ironic that at the end of my garden, two-tonne lumps of metal are hurled down the street at 40 miles per hour every five seconds, but my neighbour recently told me that she doesn't allow her nine-year-old daughter out by herself because "As I'm always telling her, she could get bundled into a van by a man in two seconds."

I don't think research into causes/ support for victims of child abuse and punishment are mutually exclusive.

I also don't think it helps to pretend child rape is the same as burglary and that once a perpetrator has "done his time" we can just give him back his liberty the way we would a bank robber. I think the therapy/ counselling and supervision needed is different in character and amount and it's just not happening properly at the moment. The GG case is useful in focusing people on that issue, but it's a pity it won't lead to any real effective measures. Because they would cost lots of money and people don't want to pay more taxes. (Although long term, it would cost less to prevent child abuse in the first place than to deal with the terrible aftermath.)

Gary Glitter clearly isn't remotely interested in anyone helping him control his sexual urges.
I am sure the people who torture children will be pleased that Xenia is opposed to criminalising those who pay for it all.

Dittany is right. There is a lot here about how it is so mean that he is having his photograph taken, as if that is such an awful thing to happen to a bloke who only pays people to torture children and rapes them himself. I support the battle of the British Government to ensure that when he arrives back he is placed under the strictest supervision and - I hope - has his passport taken away so some of the poorest most exploited children in the world are at least safe from this particular paedophile.
As for having his picture taken as his postures in airports, does anyone really think this is 'having his human rights taken away'?

Dittany is right. There is a lot here about how it is so mean that he is having his photograph taken, as if that is such an awful thing to happen to a bloke who only pays people to torture children and rapes them himself. I support the battle of the British Government to ensure that when he arrives back he is placed under the strictest supervision and - I hope - has his passport taken away so some of the poorest most exploited children in the world are at least safe from this particular paedophile.
As for having his picture taken as his postures in airports, does anyone really think this is 'having his human rights taken away'?

the problem with decriminalizing downloading paedophile porn is that it would take the commodity side out of the equation, which is the driving force behind the industry.

Those who download the stuff are usually more accountable than those taking the images.

It is ridiculous to say that downloading child porn should not be criminalised. The people who do it, provide the market that makes it worthwhile for paedophile porn merchants to torture the children in the first place. Criminalise the supply and you restrict the demand to only the extremely determined. If it were not criminal, I suspect even more people would access it. FGS why should people look at pictures of children being tortured and not be punished for it? The "they're only pictures" argument simply doesn't stand up imo.

Perhaps Xenia would give her rationale for not criminalising those who collect child porn?

Xenia I think that the genetic thing is a red herring. Reasearch shows that most people who commit sexual abuse against children were abused themselves as children. Thus nurture would seem to have an awful lot to do with it, as opposed to a simple genetic disposition.

Let's also not forget that not all of those with a gene for fancying children will go on to assualt them. Many men who fancy adult women manage to go around without raping them.

What would your plans be for the people who had the rogue gene? Terminate the pregnancies? Offer them lifelong councelling? Follow them everywhere for their whole lives?

No. What we need if for crimes against women and children to be reported more frequently and taken seriously, to be prosectued vigorously and for people who have commited such crimes to be given suitable (i.e. long) sentences and not released while they pose any threat whatsoever.

Morningpaper you cannot say thay the ridiculous knee jerk reaction of ordinary people to the incredibly low risk of stranger abduction relates to this GG thing at all.

GG is a convicted child molester. He is not an imaginary bogeyman. The reason it is being havily reported is because he is British and has committed awful crimes.

I don't see people on this thread baying for his blood, as much as you keep saying it. What I see is a conversation about how people like GG can be prevented from causing harm.

xenia you have got to be 'kidding' legalise child porn ??

Absolutely LittleBella.

Lol at Xenia's supercilious "I don't expect anybody on MN to agree with me".

We must all be really stupid to think that being in possession of child porn isn't perfectly acceptable.

Possession of an image of any image ought not to be a crime. Whilst I accept if no one paid no one would make I don't think the criminalisation of the possession of it is a step too far. It's the people who make children engage in acts against their will who ought to be stopped.

If GG did not want his face pictured why didn't he put a bag over his head? He had a whole flight to rig up a sheet or something. It wouldn't have been that hard.

Sadly most abuse of children is by parents and people known to them. The least safe place most children can be is in their own home. More education for women to spot when men in their lives are abusing children around them would help as would even more issuing to all children of child line cards and contact details so they can report anything done to them that should not be done both sexually and in terms of violence in the home too at which they are probably at even higher risk.

The GG thing will die down in a few days but the urge for some men (not sure about women - are there women aroused by sex with children?) to rape under 10s etc will remain and we need effective examination of the causes and then treatment for that. Whilst most pregnant woemn wouldn't want ot be screened if it becomes possible in future to ascertain if their child is gay I suspect some might want to know if they are going to give birth to a child who might be 100% likely to engage in sexual assaults on children. We also need to look at what makes people act on sexual urges.

Why would Mrs X fancy the pants off her neighbour but never get down to business whereas Mrs Y cannot stop herself? Is it because one has a higher sex drive? Is it because one has a strong religious and moral code imposed on her by her parents? Is it because the sexual feelings they each feel are different? Is it that one is the sort of person who cannot put off until tomorrow what they want now - a sort of in ability to resist impulses? Presumably the issues are similar whatever type of sexual impulse it might be. Is it the fear of punishment - if you'll be stoned to death for committing adultery you might choose not to do it. If the worst that will happen is your husband throws you out and you can claim 50% of all he has then you might well take the risk.

Xenia - you have a very valid point; that most of the crimes against children are by people known to them (family, usually).

The boogie man behind the bushes or stranger in the playground is a very very small percentage of the overall crimes against children.

The problem with using the 'liberty' argument as far as people being able to look at what they wish in regards to paedophillia is that it is funding an industry. Also, many paedophiles graduate from looking to actually molesting children.