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?

We should force him back here, he is our citizen and our problem. One of the best things this govt have done is to make paedophiles not be allowed international travel so they can't travel to countries where you can pay to have sex with children.

he's here now.

somewhere in hiding.

although how he means to hide with that ridiculous goateee i don't know.

I've just looked it up, glad he's back

"Welcome to the hell that will be living in Britain where everyone knows you Gary"

fucker

thanks expat

Agree with the article linked in Enid's post of Fri 22-Aug-08 13:19:38.

I wonder, do some people actually think that what he has done is less awful and therefore he is deserving of our sympathy because the victims were (mainly) Thai and Vietnamese little girls and tiny, terrified child prostitutes in Cuba, and not 'real' little girls like our own nine, ten, eleven year old children? Because otherwise I cannot understand it.

This quote came from his British trial for possessing images of child sexual abuse and torture. You might choose not to read it.

The judge said the pictures he had seen were pornography "of the very worst possible type". He added: "One image showed a little girl who was seven or eight years old with her legs tied together, gagged, with her hands tied behind her back bearing the marks, real or artificial, of a savage beating. It was entitled The Lovers' Guide to Better Child Sexual Abuse."

That's the problem I have with the Independant article. He uses the words "underage girls" rather than children of 10 and 11. To me this language suggests an older girl of 15.

Also he says "I regard the appetite for pre-pubescent sexual partners more as grievous curse than wicked choice". I don't agree with this.

I am glad he is here not because he will be hounded but because now everyone knows who he is and his money is less likely to buy him access to children in this country.

Why does anyone feel srry for him...honestly?

srry = sorry

Yes, slimy Matthew Norman seems to think that a man of 60 with a long documented history of wanting to rape and hurt tiny children (the ones he sought out on the internet were as young of TWO FFS) can't possibly rape children if they come from 'The Far East'. Because we all know that all those slitty eyed Lolitas are just whores aren't they? and

maybe it paedophilia is made more palatable for Norman Matthew if you have had some kind of vicarious acquaintanceship with the paedophile.

dunno know. these journos always end up talking about themselves these days. newspapers-come-blogs.

Yes, it's so crap isn't it? 'I met Gary Glitter once and he didn't try to rape me, so he must be a decent bloke and we should all be nice to him'. Why was that published?

I think the worse he is seen to be treated and more of a pariah he is, the better. People who travel abroad to rape children (like Elisabeth Fritzel's evil father) should see that people will hate and revile them - and that they will be caught and not be able to run away from what they have done and go back to a normal life. Rape tourism is a big industry and the kind of men who enjoy it should see what could happen to them. Humiliation, ostracism and loss of freedom.

Why does he have to sign the sex offender's register again? He was convicted of having child porn previously. Wouldn't he have signed it then?

Even if you believe that it is a grevious curse as opposed to wicked choice, you still have to recognize that he decided to act upon these urges. He didn't seek help after he served his punishment in this country, instead he made a wicked choice to go abroad and seek out vunerable girls where he thought he had less risk of being caught.

He is a wicked wicked man. And that is not tabloid talk, that is fact.

I would hate to be classed as a 'wolly minded liberal' if it means thinking someone like this is worthy of 'human rights.' I'm certain that the people wouldn't be quite so agreeable if it were there daughters that had been the victim of this man.

Next they will be calling for the release of Ian Huntley, but then his victims were british so maybe not.

Oh, you are heartless Kerrymum. That poor bloke. Can't you see those children that he raped, and the tiny toddlers and little girls of eight who were bound and tortured to provide him with sexual gratification have really spoiled his fun. That was so mean of them. I think they should be punished for it, don't you? Maybe that could be Matthew Norman's next column: 'Why aren't we tougher on foreign underage girls who ruin the lives of decent british pop stars?

I think he does have human rights. But they don't include the right to a nice anonymous stay in a place where he can get on with the business of raping children. Nobody has hurt a hair of his stupid beard. He is completely unrepentant. He thinks he is wonderful. Why do people feel sorry for him?