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?

Oi the charges were dropped because GG paid the families to reduce the charges.

how do you know NotAnOtter? how do you know exactly what Gary Glitter has done? He will be assessed for his reoffending risk. They do that already.

This is what happens currently:

'Those deemed least likely to reoffend are required to register their address with police and notify them if they move or stay elsewhere for more than a few days.

Those whom police and probation officers deem to be a more serious risk, and who need to be intensively monitored, can be ordered to live in supervised accommodation.'

Many people reoffend. Husbands who beat up one wife usually spend a life time repeating the exercise. We can certanily do more for all offenders who will reoffend for all kinds of crimes but we shouldn't selectively pick on one man.

If people are saying people can choose not to act on their impulses (although most people are pretty bad at that and 25% of married women for example commit adultery etc etc) then we surely also have to argue that once time is served locking someone up after is wrong. If people can't stop themselves then they need care and compassion and measures taken to keep them away from children but you can't have it both ways.

I know the panels exist at the moment oi, but I guess my point is that they should be working to a higher standard of proof (proof of rehabilitation that is). As I understand it, when a prisoner reaches the end of his sentence, the expectation is that he will be released unless the panel thinks there is a compelling reason for continuing to hold him. I'd like to see that reversed - they should remain incarcerated unless the panel has a compelling reason to believe that they will not reoffend.

I think your comparison with mental health services is valid in some ways. I know (through bitter personal experience) that mental health teams are often under considerable pressure to release people from secure wards because of a lack of beds, whereas society's needs would sometimes be better served by extending the section to allow for further treatment. (Although of course most people secioned for mental health reasons represent no direct threat to other people.)

'v often the specialist will say how difficult it is to tell whether someone can be rehabilitated or not or how well they are faring in society.'

then why shouldn't the balance be on keeping the public safe by keeping them in?

there are plenty of re-offending stats kept out there. and certain crimes do have a higher rate of re-offending.

why is the public continually used as a guinea pig to test out if a violent offender - and i consider child rape a violent offense no matter if you want to call it paedophilia or downloading child porn or sex with an underage child, etc. - a violent offense because consent cannot be given due to the victim's age - can successfully re-enter society?

The reason I find the paedo-hysteria terrifying is because, as others have said, it drives people underground. Who would admit to paedophilic tendencies these days? You can't possibly admit to such things. So you end up thinking you are some crazed demon and spend your days downloading crap from the internet. Demonising anyone with a tendency to find children sexually attractive is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And there is such a VAST SPECTRUM of what we now call 'paedophilia', a lot of which is basically normal responses - there is a vast difference between finding a pre-pubescent child sexually attractive and fancying a 15 year old. So the line between what is NORMAL and what should be acceptable (but obviously not acted on) and what is DANGEROUS is not really there anymore.

Imagine if Sting released 'Don't Stand So Close To Me' now. He'd be villified as a pervert who should be chemically castrated.

i know oi becuse a doctor in a high security mental health unit taught me that sex offenders recidivism is extremely high

they frequently do not believe what they are doing is actually wrong

And what we KNOW about Glitter is that he downloaded lots of child porn (so do hundreds of thousands of other men in this country) and then took his computer to PC World for a PC Health Check when it started going slowly. He's hardly a criminal genius is he?

Very late to this but agree with otter - most paedophiles do not believe what they have done is wrong - so rehabilitation is extremely complicated.

From what GG has expressed, he is a classic case of someone who believes he has done nothing wrong.

Oi I would say that he is a tad risky given that:

He has been found guily and gone to prison in UK for very nasty child porn (2 year olds etc)

He has gone to vietnam and cambodia and stories about child sex abuse abound. He is convicted of child sex offences in vietnam.

Now. I woulnd't leave a small girl alone with him happily. He seems pretty sex-offendery to me. And in my view they don't change. No more than I can change my sexual attraction away from young (but not underage) men. You fancy who you fancy. In GG case if you also choose to express that, then you are dangerous to children.

no they don't (often believe it is wrong) which is why I was saying that very little society says changes that. And they often think the child fancies them and they are carrying out what they believe should happen. But that doesn't apply to everyone and there are differing grades here.

But I think locking EVERYONE up and throwing away the key is a gross overreaction. We already have a system in place. Sometimes they get it wrong. A lot of the time they get it right and we never hear about it.

From what I remember from the original case, isn't the problem that he hasn't really served his time, but paid a few thousand to the parents of the girls in order to get a reduced sentence?

I agree with one part of the article: Jackie Smith has been rubbish.

Chukky, who is going to be leaving a child with him? He is going to be monitored closely when he is here. He's hardly likely to be helping out in schools.

And I repeat again, he has not been convicted of rape. I think believing 'allegations' is very dangerous. I'm not saying he isn't a paedophile.

Of all the things going on in the world, for Glitter to make the front-page of our country's newspapers is quite extraordinary

Glitter sells newspapers. Whether you call that 'paedo-hysteria' or not, it's quite bizarre

So is it genetic? We now know being gay probably is. Are other sexual interests written in our genes? If so should we not be looking at genetic tests etc? Different cultures have had different views on child sex, the ancient Greeks and others and indeed on rape of wives - in my life time in the UK you couldn't be guilty of rape of your wife as marriage meant continuous consent to sex. So over the years and cultures society forms views on what is okay and what isn't. We now luckily are in a position where on the whole the strong cannot exploit the weak whether that's husbands exploiting wives, employers employees or adults children (...except in Jersey may be....)

Not only do sex offenders reoffend but their children often do too and their victims, awful cycles. But there certainly seems to be huge public hysteria. I wonder to what end? and yet go into any high street and you'll see mothers buying bikinis, lip stick and the like for very very little girls which is absolutely disgusting and inappropriate before puberty. We certainly have some warped ideas in the UK at present.

he was never charged with that kerrymum. Those are allegations.

kerry - ITN reported 'had sex'
i think the conviction was actually 'molestation'

morningpaper I have enjoyed some of your posts in the past but you are way off here.

GG has not just looked at child porn, and been convicted of it, with the judge commenting that it was some of the worst he had seen.

He has been convicted elsewhere of "tampering" with a 10 year old and an 11 year old.

Yes hundreds of thousands look at child porn in this country. A lot of it is "low level" whatever that means. And most of them don't act on it.

GG did and I can't see why you are calling this "paedo hysteria". He is demonstrably dangerous.

Look, having sex with children IS RAPE. Children cannot consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape. Ergo, Glitter is a rapist. Doesn't matter if that was the name of the charge or not. Calling the rape of children 'sex' is very dangerous, and plays right into the agenda of paedophiles like Glitter, who like to claim that what they do is for the pleasure of their victims. You cannot 'have sex' with children of ten. You can only rape them.