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?

What I find chilling about attitudes like Norman's is it's this bury your head in the sand approach.

Oh, if we just ignore people like him they'll go away.

Let's just turn our heads.

It implies that stuff like this can't happen to you.

I honestly think Norman, whether he realises it or not, shows a disturbingly racist attitude in his stuff about 'sex with underage girls in the Far East'.

He's just trying to prove his superiority over the tabloid journalists

I feel no pity for this man.

But I agree with the article; some of the papers are determined to stir up hysteria, and there are people in society who will react by taking the law into their own hands.

If we don't agree with the way the laws work, we need to make that known, and attempt to get them changed.

No-one is suggesting that the rights of the convicted are more important than the rights of any child.

But vigilantism is not the way to go.

This doesn't sound liberal I know, but I kind of thinkthat when an adult abuses a child they have forfeited their human rights. jmo. He's a revolting man.

The article talks about a lot more than just vigilantism - if that was all it refered to then people wouldn't be so offended by it

I agree with the article. This thread has just descended into pantomime ranting.

the braying mob at its best.

Surely if the man in question had complied entirely with the order for him to return to the UK alot of the media covergae would have been avoided or at least not so condemning.
if the man had ever apologised for his crimes or even admitted he had a 'problem' or that he was wrong then people may not detest him quite so much.
The fact that he turned his planned return to the UK into a pantomine is his fault as much as the medias.

It depends how you interpret the article, KM.

The title is 'His life is destroyed. So why hound Gary Glitter?'.

His life is ruined. He has ruined it himself, by committing terrible acts, and he was, quite rightly, punished for his crimes.

He has served his sentence.

I don't see the title as being sympathetic to him - it is stating a fact - his life is ruined.

Do you think that he should be hounded by the press and the public for the rest of his life?

Where do we draw the line?

He is a despicable man, who has caused great hurt, and he needs to be on the sex offender register for life, and be monitored by the police.

But it is the job of the police to deal with him. Not the newspapers. Not the general public.

I am dismayed that some posters are implying that anyone who does not support a public lynching somehow agrees with what this man has done, and has no sympathy for his victims.

That is simply not true.

But just what the value of a mob of tabloid press shoving a camera in the mans face all the way back to Britain is beyond me....I really don't think it was necessary or worthy reporting...

The article was absolute shite....it served no prpose whatsever aart frm to question te morality or at least compassion of the author

FFS.
Parp.

I haven't really followed it. What was the evidence he had underage sex and how old were the girls?

the girls were 10 and 11 xenia..

I think the evidence was that the two girls were living with him and no-one really denied that there was a sexual relationship.

I saw an interview with him saying that he hadn't realised that the age of consent in the country was 18. How that explains him having sex with 10 and 11 year olds is anyones guess.

I think the problem with all of this is the sentencing. If someone is a threat to the public they should not be released yet time and time again multiple sex offenders are released after short periods of time. I don't get it.

In England he has a long history of interest in and sex with girls under 14. He spent up to 12 hours a day seeking out 'child porn' - including many images of babies of two being raped and this:Mr Royce said they showed "very young children, some appeared as young as two, in the main ranging from three, four, five and six up to possibly about nine or 10".
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."
In Vietnam, he befriended prostitutes and asked them to find him children to rape. It could not have been a more calculated or premeditated crime. The children involved in the trial were 10 and 11.
He has never apologised. Never shown any remorse. He clearly thinks he has never done anything wrong. As others have said, if he had come back to England immediately at the end of his sentence then there would have been much less publicity. Frankly, I think showing that men who rape children will face serious problems in future is a very good thing. Sex tourism is still treated as a joke, as something jolly and funny that 'lads' do in Thailand or Vietnam. In factg it is modern slavery. Attitudes need to change.
The fact that the victims are foreign does not make them less human, as Matthew Norman appears to think.

I am sure there are plenty of victims in the UK too.

We haven't even begun to deal properly with people who want sex with children before the age of puberty in this country. We should spend a lot more on research, genetic research and ways to deal with it than we do. In Victorian London there were child brothels in London - at least we've progressed beyond that but I doubt we've eradicated within a certain proportion of the population which will sadly include a good few partners of mumsnet posters who find the thought of sex with a child exciting.