BS: Gary Glitter

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 07:30 AM

Even if doctors felt that paedophilia could perhaps be 'cured' or 'kept at bay' in some way, how could we ever take the risk of letting such perverts loose in society? We'd be risking the untold suffering of defenceless children. Thos twins in my class were 12 yrs old, and had been sexually abused up until the age of five. Their father had been imprisoned, released after a mere 6 years, and on release, although refused private access to them, demanded his right to have 'supervised' contact every week. He also demanded the right (unfortunately we couldn't refuse him) to have an interview with their teacher (me) about their educational progress. These girls were very, very strange Almost totally silent and nervous, they made no friends and seemed to me to be frozen in a sort of horrified traumatic state. I cannot concede that these types of abusers should ever walk free.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 06:31 PM

Paedophilia, it's incurable.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Silas
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 12:18 PM

"people can change"

Nope. There is NO evidence that these scum ever change.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: goatfell
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 12:10 PM

people can change

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Silas
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 05:06 AM

Bernard - which of my remarks are erroneous?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Silas
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 05:03 AM

Jack I have read it, the most telling piece is this "served a few months in prison, came out and gave a press conference apologising for his misdemeanours and then promptly, on the face of it, disappeared."

So he admits the offence - what more do you need?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Bernard
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 05:03 AM

Silas - your erroneous remarks could get you into a libel situation. As Jack says, READ the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 04:33 AM

Silas, how about you read Chris Barratt's piece and think for a few minutes before hitting the keyboard?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Silas
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 03:36 AM

"We should always be sure of our facts - rumours and speculation regarding Captain Schettino (Costa Concordia) are a case in point."

Hold up. How can you possibly compare the two? The Captain of the liner has been the subject of mass speculation. Gadd has been tried and convicted by his peers and is as guilty as hell.

I can't believe that you people are prepared even to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is responsible for the rape of children - it don't get much worse than that.

Second hand computer - yea right.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Bernard
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 06:45 PM

Paul - have you read the article? It may just affect your opinion, as it did mine...

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 06:08 PM

Bernard:

er, Vietnam?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 05:46 PM

I too watched the documentary on UK television a while back about a group of paedophiles in Prison, and their attitude to their offences was breathtakingly evil. They called the child abuse they had committed their 'Hobby', and maintained that the children 'asked for it' and in fact enjoyed the physical 'attention'. They genuinely sseemed to have no idea that their sexual predations were in any way wrong, and resented very much the fact they were being punished. They also described in some detail how they set about grooming a victim, in the most wily of ways. Whether these men are mentally sick, victims themselves or unable to stop abusing children, IMO they should never be free to have the opportunity. I might add I had the dreadful task of interviewing a paedophile myself. He was the parent of twin girls in my class. He'd been in Prison for abusing them, and didn't have any shame whatsoever about it. After five minutes I made an excuse and left the classroom, summoning the Head to take over. I just couldn't sit there alone with him any longer, evil seemed to exude from his every pore. Please don't let your 'compassion' for these people blind you to their wickedness. They must not be allowed freedom, it's just too dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Bernard
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 04:46 PM

To be fair, there can be other reasons for asking a techie not to look at the contents of a hard drive. There could, for example, be bank details and other financial information - mine being a case in point.

It's remotely possible that images could remain in the internet cache - trojans and the like can download unwanted images, for example. Admittedly, the images reported to have been found may not fall into this category.

However, if you have a secondhand PC and have set up a new user profile, you may not have access to files a previous user put there, especially if you are as technically ignorant as Mr Gadd appears to be.

I acquired a secondhand laptop (riddled with spyware) some years ago, and became aware that the previous user was fond of dodgy websites... the difference is that I knew exactly how to clear the unsavoury stuff from the machine

Since reading the Wordpress article (link posted by Jack Campin above), it's patently obvious that his crimes have been blown out of all proportion by the media, even to the point that some of the reports about his activities in Vietnam may even be a total fabrication. Read the article to understand what I mean.

Unfortunately, people are all too quick to form their own opinions based entirley upon what has been reported, with complete disregard for the truth.

As someone once said, 'Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story'.

I'm not saying the man was completely innocent, but far less of a danger to society than he has been painted. Possibly.

We should always be sure of our facts - rumours and speculation regarding Captain Schettino (Costa Concordia) are a case in point.

People are often guilty of confusing their own opinions with fact...

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 04:27 PM

He's a paedophile goatfell and it's incurable, he may have served a prison sentence but he's still a paedophile and he always will be.

He will do it again.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 03:48 PM

Well. according to what I read at he time, he asked the techies to mend it, but not to look at the hard drive... what you're really saying about him is that he isn't a kiddiefiddler, he's just a miser of very limited intelligence.

I think he's both.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Eoin O'Buadhaigh
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 02:04 PM

I like his music. Yes the computer he left in for repair had images of children, but I accept his plea that he bought it second hand and had no knowledge of the images.

Some would say, what is the difference in him and the likes of Will Young or Elton John.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Silas
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 06:32 AM

Well, for all of you Glitter apologists out there remember this. He was convicted of being in possession of child pornography.
This means that children, young kids are being raped, buggered and abused to provide photographs and videos to feed the depraved appetite of evil bastards like him. God alone knows what the victims of this abuse will go onto in their future lives, but there is no doubt that they are damaged both physically and mentally from this abuse.
Anyone in possession of this sort of stuff is a guilty as the people who actually carried it out and they should be put up against a wall and shot. No, I am not joking.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 06:03 AM

I have a sound clip of GG on Desert Island Discs (BBC Prog where celebs choose their fave records) At the end the guest is allowed one luxury to take to this island. GG said "A blow up woman doll, and a can of elastoplast"
When the presenter (Roy Plomley) pointed out that GG couldn't take two items, GG said "I'll have the can of elastoplast then"
It's a chilling listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Jack Campin
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 06:01 AM

This makes some rather telling points about Glitter's notoriety:

http://chrisbarratt.wordpress.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: andrew e
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 08:37 PM

An interesting discussion here.

http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=65&func=view&catid=2&id=79464

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Bernard
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 06:01 AM

I believe electronic copies of his autobiography will be available in shops in the PDF aisle...

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 07:31 PM

I think all those little girls of all those nationalities should apologise for causing trouble to such a great artist.

And the computer technicians of Bristol should hang their heads in shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Eoin O'Buadhaigh
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 11:33 AM

It was announced yesterday on the radio that he plans a world tour and an autobiography during his comeback. Would (should) he be allowed into any country being a confessed paedophile?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: goatfell
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 09:03 AM

I like Gary Glitter, whatever the man done is in the past, let him move on

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: MartinRyan
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 09:01 AM

Looks like a troll based on a rumour...

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Musket
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 08:56 AM

I thought the drama "The Hanging of Gary Glitter" was an attempt to make macabre entertainment out of a disgusting situation by introducing another disgusting (imaginary) situation.

That said, I would have similar thoughts about a comeback tour by him. Methinks society would be best served by remembering his act before his sins, rather than see an act by a paedophile cashing in on his circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 07:29 AM

I not so sure about any tour being a sell-out somehow I can't see many people shouting it from the roof-tops that they would like to go to his show. It would have been a sell-out if he hadn't have been such an idiot apart from anything else. Before his behaviour came to light everyone was talking about his extravaganza show in nearby Shepton Mallett which by all accounts was quite amazing. Today it could have been a thousand times better but I would be very surprised to see people flocking to buy tickets, it will be interesting to see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 07:23 AM

Flamers succeed again

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,davetnova
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 06:29 AM

Leave Gary alone, all he want's to do is settle down and have children.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: goatfell
Date: 19 Jan 12 - 03:24 PM

Gary Gillter, that well known Children's entertainer

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 19 Jan 12 - 02:27 PM

I see Gary is planning a comeback tour - and releasing an autobiography.

He had faults, but as a show man he was second to none. The tour will no doubtbe a sell out. How many guys can put on such a stage act these days. Freddie Mercury came second in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: gnomad
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM

Potential, absolutely, and yes it is worrying because we cannot know.

As I remarked earlier, though in a slightly different context, the fact that we generally overcome our baser instincts is what elevates humans above the animals. That we do not do so universally is the human tragedy.

How long before we get someone who wants to put bromide in everything, just to be on the safe side?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM

I think it could be true, gnomad, but how will we ever know? Some of the more militant feminist factions want us to believe that every male is a potential rapist. Should we also believe that every human is a potential paedophile? Worrying:-(

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: gnomad
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 12:04 PM

An observation for the debate: Most people who prefer adult company (of whatever gender) are not rapists (disregarding a fairly rare feminist view that ALL men are rapists) but a few of them are.
It is possible that a similar proportion of paedophiles fail to contain their urges, we only become aware of those who fail. If this is the case I suppose that we should be glad that restraint is winning, but it would mean that there are an awful lot of potential offenders out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM

Guess you could be right SJ. Funny though isn't it - How come everyone else can control themselves but they can't? Perhaps their 'illness' isn't so much their liking for children but the fact that they cannot keep themselves in check? Maybe cutting the dangly bits off would work in that case!

Or bromide in the tea?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:41 AM

Dave, there was a very interesting programme on UK TV around 18 months ago, about a group of paedophiles in the UK. The thing that I found most disturbing was their (seemingly genuine) belief that they were doing nothing wrong - and that they were being hounded quite unreasonably by the police and press. They all constantly insisted that they themselves were the victims, not the children they abused.

I doubt that such people could ever be 'educated to keep their urges in check' because they see no reason to do so. Incarceration is the only sure way to prevent them re-offending. (IMHO of course!). :-)
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:12 AM

I believe when he finaly snuffs it he want's his ashes putting in an Etch-a-Sketch - So th ekids can still play with him...

Seriously though, to SJ's post about not feeling sorry for them. I agree wholeheartedly with the points made about sympathy for the victims and keeping children safe. I thought originaly perhaps there was a reason to feel sorry for the paedophile. However as I was writing that very thought it came to me that perhaps there shouldn't be?

My thoughts were originaly that the paedophile has no choice in the matter. His (or her - lets not forget those!) liking for children cannot be helped any more than my liking for women or Reggie Dwights liking for men. Then the flaw in my reason hit me like a ton of bricks. No - they cannot help their liking for children. For that they should be pitied. They do not however need to do children any harm. Using their unusial sexuality as a defence for paedophilic attacks is like using hetrosexuality as a defense for rape.

Perhaps education is a way forward to help both the attackers and the attacked? Could a paedophile, while never being 'cured' of his illness, ever be educated to keep his urges in check - like most other human beings? Or is it too late by the time they are adult. Perhaps we need to educate children, from an early age, that ANY type of unwanted attention is wrong?

Can we differentiate between paedophilia as an illness and the acting out of the urges caused by it? Can we explain that difference to our children? Tough one. Don't know if I could but I would like to try. Surely there is something between the 'send them on rehabilition courses' and 'cut their balls off'. Is there?

Gives me something to mull over on a rainy day in Salford anyway!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 04:41 AM

Gary Glitter a great person to have a child's party

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:10 AM

GUEST, that well-known dyslexic.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:07 AM

Gray Glitter that well known Chidren's enterainer

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:53 AM

Well put Alanabit. I can go with that. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:35 AM

so not much chance now of Gary Glitter ever
being awarded a Knighthood then ?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: alanabit
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:17 AM

That is fair enough Johnny. Undoubtedly our first concern is for the victims. But might you not be open to persuasion that an even more terrible outcome is when the victim becomes an abuser? That seems to be the cycle. I don't think that is the same as making excuses. If we can make people feel that they have control over their actions - as well as responsibility for them - we may be able to break this cycle.
Some forty years ago, along with three other boys, I was beaten in the middle of the night in my pyjama trousers by a man, who shouted out, "Dirty! Filthy! Boy!" with each stroke. I was eight. In those days, he was able to masquerade as a disciplinarian rather than the paedophile, the more accurate description, which would be applied nowadays. I don't know what became of that wretched man, but I do believe that his childhood was no happier than mine.
I have been pretty fortunate in life since then. Maybe the same was not true for Ian Dunlop, whom I mentioned in my earlier post. In short, I am not making excuses for abusers. Like you, I believe that people, who commit crimes, which hurt the victims terribly, can expect severe retribution. That does not make it an effective response to abuse.
I guess that above all, you want to see the potential victims of paedophiles better protected. That is what we both want. My own view is that retribution without rehabilitation wastes money and diminishes our own humanity. It is what Ian Dunlop did that I hate - not the man himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 07:14 AM

Cheers Alanabit, although we're diametrically opposed on this one I respect your opinions too. However I do have a certain sympathy with the unnamed GUEST - I've worked with the victims of child-abusers and I find little reason (in fact none at all) to feel sorry for paedophiles. I'm afraid I'm a member of the 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime' brigade here. As with all crime, it's the victims who matter, not the perpetrators. My earlier comment about chopping their gonads off was, in retrospect, rather flippant, but I certainly believe they should be taken out of circulation for a long, long time (preferably for life). They can't abuse while they're banged up.
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: alanabit
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 03:04 AM

One can't argue with that sort of "logic". My respect to Strolling Johnny. He posts under his own name.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 05:56 PM

To those who feel sorry for the prick I HOPE IT IS NOT YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER HE IS ABUSING

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: alanabit
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:24 PM

No they don't actually Johnny. Just ask Ian Jack Dunlop, a recidivist sex offender, who was given life sentences plus for a series of horrible assaults on young boys in 1975. The judge deliberately sentenced him with the intention that he would not re-emerge from prison until he was an old man.
I remember Ian's case well, because I knew Ian. He was a likeable, polite and interesting man in addition to being a good guitarist and pianist. He was also a paedophile, who committed a series of terrible offences. I abhor the offences as much as you do. Indeed, I wrote earlier, that if I were in the position to prevent one against my child or yours, the assailant might well suffer serious injury.
However, we do need to distiguish between our abhorrence of the crime and of the offender. Of course my sympathies lie primarily with the victims. They must be the first to receive protection. Most child molesters are victims themselves though. It is easy to say, "They are not normal people". Indeed, they are not. They have usually suffered abuse in the family, sometimes in state institutions and some have suffered abuse in some of the nastier boarding schools, which were very much a common part of our culture in the last century. Given proper support and help, they do not necessarily become offenders. That is what the excellent linked article was about a couple of posts previously.
There is a tenet, which is supposed to be the basis of the philosophy of the Japanese prison service, "Love the criminal: Hate the crime". A vengeful and vindictive justice system is unlikely to change anyone for the better. Why waste money on a system, which sends people out worse than when they went into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:39 PM

If the consequences of their base and perverted actions were sufficiently terrifying (for the perpetrators that is, it's already terrifying for their innocent and helpless victims), they might think twice before they go kiddy-fiddling. It's precisely because they get nothing more than a pat on the head and a "there-there-then, it's not your fault" that they continue to do it and, in many cases, they fail to see the wrong in what they do.

If your dog shits on the living room carpet, you don't pat it and make soft coo-ing noises, you take the appropriate action, which is to make it realise that, if it does it again, it's going to feel pain. Simple. Treat 'em the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 05:41 AM

Interesting article in last weeks guardian.

We will never get any reduction in attacks of children until those who were themselves abused are given adequate help to prevent the cycle of abuse continuing, and until a person with paedophilic tendencies would feel free to go and seek therapy for it before he/she does anything, without being judged or worrying that people will find out and brand them a monster.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: alanabit
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 12:33 PM

It is just because people don't care that we have child molesters. They are easier to make than to cure.