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 true Dittany the phrase does imply a consensual act, which unfortunately happens to be with someone under the legal age of consent.

A lot of "watering down" seems to happen with the terminology when it comes to child abuse. I'm sure I'm guilty of it myself, it's easy to pick up the terminology used by the press.

We should look for another word as a 'paedophile' means, 'love of children'

Person who sexually assaults children would work.

But it's not so snappy.

I don't see the tabloids, or in fact any of the press, ready for a new word just yet.

Haha, I thought this would be a thread about how you don't GET the weird obsession with Glitter

But it is a thread obsessing ABOUT Glitter

I don't understand why this sells papers

Why is this so fascinating?

I didn't say the child consented.
Are we saying these people are mad or bad? If they're bad and served their time - that's that. If they're mad they can't help what they do and are continuously a risk to children in our culture.

I think it's disgusting the way so many people are reported to be saying they won't deal with him, hospitals saying they hope he won't come for treatment as if he were Hitler or Pol Pot or something. Doesn't a society show its true face in how it deals with its pariahs? Its compassion etc? I don't see much of that about but I am sure I am in a minority of one.

I think what's far more terrifying than paedophilia is our obsession with paedophilia.

Xenia I agree: either he is responsible for his actions and evil or he is mentally ill and therefore not responsible and we should look after him (e.g. by sectionning him). But if the former then he has served his time, one would think

Well, it depends how you define pariah. If we are talking about pariahs who are so for reasons beyond their control - people born into the wrong caste, that's one thing. People who put themselves outside society by their actions - Dr Mengele for example - are quite different. I would expect any hospital to hope he didn't present for treatment, but of course still to treat him, as they would have to do.
He has had no ill treatment whatsoever. He has merely been told he can't enter certain countries - an entirely reasonable decision given what he has DONE (as opposed to what he is).

He may have 'served his time' but that is irrelevant. We all know that people like Glitter who show no remorse at all will go on to rape more children, destroying their lives far, far more effectively than he has 'destroyed' his own. He will rape again unless people know what he is like and he is monitored and controlled.

by firing squad.

I think it's a contentious point isn't it. And it applies to other crimes too. (Whether someone is mad because it implies they haven't taken responsibility for their crime becuase they are ill?).

I think one of the key things is rehabilitation. Whether it is actually possible to rehabilitate paedophiles because I do wonder whether it is. And then the question becomes, if it isn't, how do we then deal with them as a society.

ie he may not be entirely responsible for his sexual feelings and desires, but he IS responsible for acting on those desires. The two are different.

msdemeanor i agree

my gp said to me - they are an arrogant breed - see no wrong in their actions

but you don't know that though.

Murderers are let out, as are rapists of women. People generally aren't locked up for their whole lives.

I think the problem is:

People who commit crimes because of poverty, addiction, tough background etc can be rehabilitated. They have committed crime due to circumstance. I suppose white collar crime would fall into this as well, and things associated with addictions like gambling or alcoholism.

People who commit crimes because they enjoy it. Like sex offenders, some muggers, some people who knife people etc.

I think if your brain is wired in a way which means you enjoy inflicting suffering, then the chances of rehabilitation are minimal. If your sexual desire is for children between 5 and 12, and you can't control that desire i.e. you abuse, then I don't see how that can be controlled or rehabilitated. Same goes for people who rape adults. As long as they are pretty much following all of these people when they come out, that's OK I suppose, but I see many cases where people have multiple offences and are still let out to abuse yet again.

I agree with oi's point about rehabilitation. Isn't it the case that those convicted of child sexual abuse have an unusually high rate of recidivism? As such, it's only reasonable (given the nature of the crime) that people continue to treat such people with extreme caution. Obviously, tabloid hysteria and naming-and-shaming is counterproductive, though.

I am not at all sure that naming and shaming is counter-productive, actually. I think shaming is a good thing when it comes to people who like to watch toddlers being raped and other little girls being bound and tortured, and who then go on to rape other little girls. As I said before I think there is not enough shaming connected to rape tourism.

yes, there tends to be a huge knee jerk reaction in this country doesn't there.

In my mind, people who abuse the elderly (that recent 'walking stick case' make me really shudder) - or any crime where the victim is deliberately picked out because they are less likely to fight back - deserve uproar too but unfortunately, those sort of crimes tend to get less attention.

'As long as they are pretty much following all of these people when they come out, that's OK I suppose, but I see many cases where people have multiple offences and are still let out to abuse yet again. '

But the only way to truly stop their re-offending is to continue to keep them locked up, particularly those whose crime has a high rate of reoffense, regardless of their probation/parole, monitoring.

I think until a mode of rehabilitation can be established, it's in the best interest of society that such individuals contine to be incarcerated indefinitely for the greater good.

I think it's counter-productive in that it makes released prisoners more likely to go to ground and give probation services the slip, whereas a degree of anonymity means that the offender is more likely to stay in touch with probation/social services (and therefore be checked up on, at least in theory).

MsDemeanor that is true, I have just remembered that DH has told me about a bloke at work who likes to go to Thailand on all his holidays and the gist was it was for the little girls.

And we both gave a .

Now if DH had said X is going to Butlins this weekend to look for a little girl to rape, that would have been a quite different conversation. And it would have been a conversation with the police.

The problem with naming and shaming is we don't live in villages anymore. There is much more movement. In the old days everyone knew who the funny old man was and avoided him. Now the funny old man can make a new life for himself anywhere he wants, or go abroad.

How does one know who is going to reoffend?