Glitter's in the Gary

[father smurf]

Well soft prisons are anothre matter for debate... and if people like this where left in open population - you may find that other inmates may have polite discussions about the ramification of their crimes.

[staffsMike]

Well soft prisons are anothre matter for debate... and if people like this where left in open population - you may find that other inmates may have polite discussions about the ramification of their crimes.

Because they give criminals a bad name? lol

I do agree that serving a term in prison isn't really enough for them though. It's rehabilitation and or preventing them from reoffending that is needed.

Don't come this nonsense of, do the crime, do the time and then let them be.. That is not how it will ever work with any crime and espeically one as dispicable as abusing children. Once an abuser, always an abuser whether they have managed to give it up or not, it is something they are or have been capable of. Chemical castration isn't a bad idea, seems to get results in those with the sort of sexual drive that causes them to commit the crime. I'm sure there are further reasons than sexual drive for some of them though..

[directhex]

Because they give criminals a bad name? lol

you'd be surprised.

your average violent killer thinks pretty much the same as Koolpc, when presented by a child abuser. the end results aren't pretty

[father smurf]

Apparently in many cases they're kept away from "general population" to reduce risk of "accidental" injuries

But prison is not a punishment for any crime at the moment... at least not severe enough.

[G4Z]

I have a little daughter and i am so concerned how these pedo bastards are getting away with puny sentences nad let out to re-offend again and again.

The law needs to get tougher. Simple.

GAZ's ideas are wrong. Tough punishment is the only way to treat these scum. We need to0 send a hard message to Glitters boys that their actions will be dealt with severly.

Prison etc is no good. Look how many time Glitter has been in prison!!!

Yeah, that's what we need, get 'tougher' that always works. Its right up there with 'Crackdowns' in terms of effectiveness.

You're just so closed minded you won't even consider alternatives, as far as your concerned you have a child therefore protecting children must happen at any cost (which is a cost usually borne by the taxpayer or any individual who values their liberty).

Well, I think you're wrong. There are some costs that are too high, for example trading our sense of justice, our values as a society and our very liberty. Most child abuse is actually perpetrated by relatives, therefore if we take the 'protect the children at any cost route' it won't be long before we are monitoring all parents 24/7, because they are the source of most of this abuse right? CCTV in the home? why the hell not if it protects the kids?

Also, just as a side note, I am really sick of the parents and the sense of entitlement they have for their kids. They are your kids right, not mine and I don't see what right you have to demand the government protects them at all costs and from any threat (including violent games, swearing on TV and all that). You're the parent, therefore you do it and leave me out of paying for it via my taxes.

[[GSV]Trig]

You're the parent, therefore you do it and leave me out of paying for it via my taxes.

I dont see a problem with that...

[Splash]

GAZ's ideas are wrong. Tough punishment is the only way to treat these scum. We need to0 send a hard message to Glitters boys that their actions will be dealt with severly.

If (as you've said, I personally haven't done any in-depth resarch into the matter) these people cannot be "cured" or retrain their brains so as not to act on the urges what difference will sending a "hard message" make?

Prison etc is no good. Look how many time Glitter has been in prison!!!

And how many times would that be? I'll be honest - I don't know the answer (I know he did a stint for being in posession of child pornography, plus his time in Vietnam but I'm not aware of any others. I'm not saying that 2 stints in chokey is a small amount, but it doesn't seem to me to be something to hold up and exclaim about as a massive number, as you seem to be doing.

Also as pointed out elsewhere - where are your Christian morals now? Doesn't your God preach forgiveness?

[Lucio]

Got kids have you?
I have and if a **** like that ever did anything to my kids there'd be **** all of him left for the moralistic cocks to do anything with..

Ok, how about this then

Your child grows up, and is accused of being a paedophille. We'll assume that he/she hasn't done it.

Only downside is you've gotten your way with the laws and in fact, it's now legal to kick the crap out of a paedophille with zero comeback.

Your child gets murdered by a lynchmob...

Do you accept this is allowed??? Would you even be upset that your child has died because of someone accusing him of a crime??



Second thought experiement

As above, but your child actually commited the acts they were accused of (however massively unlikely, this is after all a thought experiment). It turns out that an incredibly rare genetic disorder was responsible for this happening.

Would you still be happy for your beloved child who previously has done nothing wrong, to be beaten to death for something that wasn't really their fault??


You might try and argue that this will never happen, that your beloved children would never do anything wrong and that I can't possibly understand the fear you feel for their safety knowing convicted paedophilles exist in the world.

[directhex]

If (as you've said, I personally haven't done any in-depth resarch into the matter) these people cannot be "cured" or retrain their brains so as not to act on the urges what difference will sending a "hard message" make?

won't someone think of the chiiiiiiiiiiiildren?

And how many times would that be? I'll be honest - I don't know the answer (I know he did a stint for being in posession of child pornography, plus his time in Vietnam but I'm not aware of any others. I'm not saying that 2 stints in chokey is a small amount, but it doesn't seem to me to be something to hold up and exclaim about as a massive number, as you seem to be doing.

once in the UK, in 1997. 4 month sentance for child pornography offences, 2 months served.

once in vietnam, in 2006. 3 year sentance for child molestation, 2.75 years served.

Also as pointed out elsewhere - where are your Christian morals now? Doesn't your God preach forgiveness?

pretend christans have no christan morals.

[Lucio]

I wish I knew the answer. But people need to stop calling for public hanging etc, understandable though it is, because only intelligent, rational and realistic debate will ever see an answer.

You have to wonder though, if we reached a point as a society where everyone would react to events like this in an intelligent and rational fashion, would in fact the events never occur??

How many people are latent criminals because they give into their emotions??

[father smurf]

once in the UK, in 1997. 4 month sentance for child pornography offences, 2 months served.

once in vietnam, in 2006. 3 year sentance for child molestation, 2.75 years served.

See my earlier point.

And I'd be very surprised to see if a veitnam prison is as soft as ours.

[Clunk]

You're just so closed minded you won't even consider alternatives, as far as your concerned you have a child therefore protecting children must happen at any cost (which is a cost usually borne by the taxpayer or any individual who values their liberty).

That isn't a good argument, especially when in your way of thinking, the paedophiles would be rehabilitated, tracked, treated and assessed for the rest of their lives, I would say that that would cost more than keeping them locked up because you would then have to provide them with housing and possibly benefits to live on.

There's also a real risk that they will offend again and when it's your child, will you change your mind? No?

I'm quite surprised that people are publicly defending the rights of a convicted paedophile, and not someone that was caught with images, did his time, and never re-offended, instead, he moved to a country where there was a steady stream of kids for sale and made a life of it.

I also understand that vigilante-ism isn't the way forward, but I do think that we are way too soft. As it stands, a paedophile can offend, and then be imprisoned for just a few months, segregated from the rest of the prisoners for their own safety, only to be released and re-offend.

One thing that came up in this thread was that the abused kids will then go on to abuse and is it fair to punish them hard as an adult because they were abused themselves? - Well, in my view, yes it is fair to punish them if they are a threat to our children. It's like saying, a child that witnessed a murder when they were younger, then went on to murder several people as an adult, should only be monitored and rehabilitated because it wasn't their fault to begin with, or a man that was raped as a child, then goes on to be a serial rapist, should he simply be treated and rehabilitated? - Is he simply just "ill" as people are saying about the paedophiles in this thread? - I just can't see the logic in that at all.

[Saracen]

..........


once in the UK, in 1997. 4 month sentance for child pornography offences, 2 months served.

once in vietnam, in 2006. 3 year sentance for child molestation, 2.75 years served.
.........

And he's now saying that the Vietnamese conviction was a "show trial", a "travesty of justice". If it was, it rather weakens even that record.

Personally, I know nothing whatever about the Vietnamese legal system. It may be a rubber-stamp for the wishes of the powers-that-be, and Glitter may have a valid complaint. Or it may be as good, or for all I know, better, than ours and his "travesty" remarks fall into the "he would say that, wouldn't he" bracket.

What makes me wonder a bit, I must say, is that the news suggests he did everything in his power to avoid coming back here, and only did so because there was nobody else that would take him and Thailand (where he was) wouldn't stomach him either, so he had no choice but to leave, by force if necessary. But he certainly didn't seem overly keen to come back here to proclaim his innocence and demand a fresh "impartial" trial, did he?

It might not exactly live up to the standards of "beyond reasonable doubt", but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and a predilection for water then personally, I'm not exactly astonished if it quacks.

[Lucio]

That isn't a good argument, especially when in your way of thinking, the paedophiles would be rehabilitated, tracked, treated and assessed for the rest of their lives, I would say that that would cost more than keeping them locked up because you would then have to provide them with housing and possibly benefits to live on.

When he mentions cost, I believe he's referring to the "cost" rather than physical monetry comparison.

Personally I'm in favour of using the cheaper between tagging and prison, as I believe that paedophilles are mentally ill and need incarcerating or monitoring for the rest of their lives.

I just argue against the people who say kick the crap out of them!

[Mossy]

He is not ill he knows exactly when he is doing, just read the local paper on my dinner and there is a shot of him smiling away at the airport didnt look ill to me. It says he is trying to use his 5 million pounds fortune to get into a differnet country as 19 have already sent him packing.

Personally I would love to knock that smile off his face but to see some people on here suggest hard punishment is not the way to punsih him for his "Mistakes" then i suggest you ask him to baby sit for your children and see if you change your mind. This guy knows exactly what he is doing and knows what he can and cant get away with why do you think he moved away from the UK? it wasnt " IN HIS HEAD " that made the decision it was a well thought out move.

It's like murdering someone then pleading insanity to get a lessser punishment most cases they are not insane but told to plead this to get a lighter sentance. A lot on here defend the way we punish but in reality we all know English law sucks and protect the criminals more than the victims thats the way of life. All this human Rights nonsense good when you think of it something there to protect our rights but in all honestly usually causes more harm than good. I think you should forfit your rights as soon as you do something like this, has had chances in the past in the UK to sort himself knew he could not get away with it so moved. You guys who support lesser punishment by all means welcome him back to the UK with open arms but I know personally I wont be at the gate with the key to my home town.

[Splash]

One thing that came up in this thread was that the abused kids will then go on to abuse and is it fair to punish them hard as an adult because they were abused themselves? - Well, in my view, yes it is fair to punish them if they are a threat to our children. It's like saying, a child that witnessed a murder when they were younger, then went on to murder several people as an adult, should only be monitored and rehabilitated because it wasn't their fault to begin with, or a man that was raped as a child, then goes on to be a serial rapist, should he simply be treated and rehabilitated? - Is he simply just "ill" as people are saying about the paedophiles in this thread? - I just can't see the logic in that at all.

Perhaps these cases need counselling to help them come to terms with their childhood experience, which may (again, I make no guarantees as I've not done any in-depth research on the matter) prevent them becoming a child abuser and perpetuating the cycle?

Or perhaps we should just kill everyone who ever gets abused to stop this happening?