BS: Gary Glitter

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 12:19 PM

Don't forget Pete Townsend. He talked his way out of it.Police at the time were in shock he got away with it. One officer I knew who was working on the case said he was in shock that the charges were dropped a very smart lawyer wouldn't let him answer anything and came up with the research into paedophiles story.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM

(I think it was raised from 12 to 13 some time during the 19th century, but I don't know if they went even further with the nanny state in that century.)

nanny state? What a strange way to describe child protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 12:35 PM

There was a recent news story about a woman in her 40s and a young teen male I believe. She, like others basically got her hand slapped and that is about it.

The usual ranters who make such a big deal to hang him by his balls or cut them off purely represent the double standard in society when the shoe is on the other foot. There is virtually NEVER any public outcry when it is the other way around a male is victimized by a preditor older female.

Never is there anything but a quick curiosity story. But it happens. And I never hear anyone call for the same treatment for the woman who has the same mindset as the Gary Glitters of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 03:40 PM

If you're thinking of the Mary Kay Letourneau case, Marty, she didn't just get a slap on the wrist. Her husband divorced her and she got hard time for statutory rape. Even though some people apparently do, the law doesn't recognize gender differences in cases like this.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:46 AM

Guest, I was being a little bit ironic with that"nanny state" reference. It is a fact, however, that when such legislation is introduced, it is usually decried as nannying by its detractors - whether the issue is the age of consent, compulsory wearing of seatbelts or smoking in enclosed public spaces.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:23 AM

Don

I remember that case and she deserved it. But it seems like many other women get off much easier, and that as a general rule, men think of it as a much less serious crime when it is the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:35 AM

Oscar Wilde (and some of his pals) was involved with 'tuppeny nutting' at least once. Girls as young as twelve would troll the posher pubs that had cubicles and give the lads a ham-shank for pennies. The tossees were fined in batches along with the publican who was deemed most wrong for allowing it it on the premises. The kids were girls, of course, so it didn't kick up too much of a stink.

Appropriate that 'Gary' is the rhyming slang that orifice.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Jim in London
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 01:36 PM

He was not prosecuted for under age sex in the UK but for having pornographic images of young girls on his computer which broke down and he took into a computer shop where they were found and the police informed. Though our police were aware of allegations that then came to light they had no solid evidence on which to prosecute the pervert. On being released from Prison he fled to Asia without ever signing the sex offenders register this would be the most we could prosecute him here for. Hopefully the Vietnamese will be able to establish a solid case which his money will not be able to buy him out of and he will be put away for good thereby saving other young kids from him.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Dave Hannam
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 02:27 PM

First, two points for David Hannam.

1) How is your second post about DNA supposed to address my point that jurors will never know whether DNA has proved a case? They (judges too) must rely on expert witnesses to interpret the scinetific evidence. There have been cases in the UK of such witnesses lying on oath or making grossly misleading claims about the probabilities associated with DNA science. A whole series of convictions in the west Midlands were quashed when it emerged that a senior police officer had persistently lied about forensic evidence.(And what "recent polls" do you have in mind when you talk about the popular attitude to capital punishment?)

As i said, a case for capital punishment in my opinion should be backed by Irrefutable evidence backed, i.e guilt beyond dispute, caught red-handed AND backed by DNA evidence.

By your reckoning, you could suppose Myra Hindley & Brady 'could' have been innocent? Of course they weren't, they should have recieved the punishment that they deserved, i.e removal of the face of the earth.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crime/_story/0,13260,942118,00.html

67 per cent support the death penalty.

http://www.mori.com/polls/1995/notw950804.shtml

77 per cent support the death penalty.


2) No need to get hysterical David. We are NOT living in an epidemic of paedophilia. Trends are hard to monitor because reporting levels were historically low. But if there has been any significant increase in individual cases coming to public notice (and I'm not sure that this is so) then it will largely be because paedophiles have been driven off some of their traditional hunting grounds - the churches, scouting and to some extent teaching, etc.

Actually, we are living in an epidemic. It is not hysteria on my part, but reasoning of the situation we live in where Nearly 79,000 children are currently looked after by local authorities in the UK. Estimates now state that at least1 in 4 males and 1 in 3 females will have survived some form of sexual abuse before reaching the age of 18! In the UK, that accounts for over 20.83% of the population!That means in excess of 10,400,000 people in the UK are survivors of sexual abuse.

You must have another definition on what an epidemic is?

It seems extraordinary, given the mood nowadays, that in the 1970s paedophilia was, in some degree, recognised as a clinical condition like psychopathy, and serious work was directed towards seeing whether people could be "cured". In those days, paedophiles were sometimes quite open about their proclivities and even had their own association. In fact their press officer was a member of the NUJ who worked for the Open University in his day job.

Indeed, a sympton of liberalism gone mad, when to suggest a peadophile could be 'cured' was the ultimate madness. I take it you are not suggesting that such a perversion is simply another form of sexuality are you?

Just to underscore Greg's point that attitudes change, it's worth noting that each of the 25 counts against Oscar Wilde stated that the alleged behaviour (always in private, and always between consenting adults) offended "against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity." Incidentally, Dave's Wife may wish to note that "Bosie" (Alfred Lord Douglas) was never mentioned at all in the indictment. The individuals cited were prostitutes.

I don't think Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for child abuse!

Like weelittledrummer I am sure that nobody who finds sexual gratification in a pre-adolescent child does so out of mere wilfulness, and that whatever makes them so disposed is something over which they have no control. Partly for that reason I find the lust for vengeance expressed by people like the Villan sickening and depressing. (And yes, I do have a daughter, Villan. So what? If she fell victim to a paedophile, that would be a tragedy for two families.)

This is utter tripe. Sorry, usually i am more tactful. By your reckoning, Sydney Cooke who abducted over 20 children, raped them then killed them was 'not in control' of his actions? This is tripe. Everyone is accountable for their actions, and considering that child perverts do not contrary to opinion live in the dark alleys of British streets, but in fact hold seats of parliament, council chambers, high courts as judges/magistrates, they are clearly not of the 'unintelligant' sort!

That was in 1972 and all that's changed is that the media is even more reckless and irresponsible now than it was then.

Well i agree here. Considering the media push promoting sexual deviancy, homosexuality, and ever-younger girls paraded for the pleasure of men, the media is irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 04:51 PM

Martin says - "There is virtually NEVER any public outcry when it is the other way around a male is victimized by a preditor older female."

Not so, Martin. In fact the public is usually more shocked because it is a rare occurrence.

It is also different in as much as females accused of molestation are generally in an 'ongoing' realationship with the minor.

Men are generally not involved in any kind of relationship and are guilty of multiple offenses against very young girls.

Can you site examples of women who preyed upon multiple, underage victims?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 05:36 PM

>Hopefully the Vietnamese will be able to establish a solid case which his money will not be able to >buy him out of and he will be put away for good thereby saving other young kids from him.

For your reference, here is a ranking ofMost and Least Corrupt Countries in the world--Vietnam seems to be the fourth most corrupt country in Asia, so your hopes are misplaced--

Child prostitution, and other forms of prostitution, are tourist industries in Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam--It is unlikely that charges are being made against Gary Glitter simply as a product of good law enforcement--

The cynic in me suspects that it is being done as a publicity ploy by Vietnamese officials who are now under international pressure to crack down on sex industries--it shows that they are doing their job, and that rather than being complicit in an unsavory business, they are the "victims" of predatory Westerners--

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 05:37 PM

In the early 1970's. I was working as Officer in Charge of a Childrens Establishment in a certain city in the UK. At one such other establishment, two women were Officer in Charge and Deputy...aged 21yrs and 19 yrs respectively. It had long been suspected that they had been having sex with the young male residents and when the home was raided, they were found in bed with two teenage boys. They were immediately offered posts in Elderly persons homes. Had they been males in bed with female clients they would have been suspended on the spot and the Police informed....They would have been arrested and gaoled...
So Dianavan....yes I can cite one example.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,kendo
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 06:58 PM

dianvan i can think of a few women who prey upon adolescent boys, one woman in my area has had a few local lads aged about 14, my own brother was one of them, of course the lads dont complain as there isn.t any money in it as she isn,t a local authority employee,
shes just a single mum with drug problems, As for gary glitter I am quite sure this is just another news of the world attempt to get him convicted, they tried it before and paid a woman £10k to say he indecently assaulted her when she was 15 with the promise of another £25k if he was convicted, as was reported on the ITV news tonight the locals in vietnam have said it's quite common for children to try frame wealthy men in Vietnam and the promise of £10 k in vietnam would be like a lottery win, Glitter has had to flee to these third world countries because there is no other places would accept him after his child porn conviction. Glitter was very wrong to have viewed child porn but the news of the world is sinful in the way it can villify someone years after they have paid their debt to society.
In the eighties America went through a phase of satanic abuse claims and hundreds were imprisoned and lost their families or commited suicide, it was only years later that it became known that satanic abuse hadnnt existed but was just a way for poor families with no morals to get compensation, try changing newspapers

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:07 PM

Yes I do believe that serial killers and most crimes of this nature are committed by people hardly in control of themselves. Dennis Nilsen said that was really what was wrong with the idea of Hanniball Lecter was the picture of him as a controlled being - in actual fact the loss of self control is the one factor very commonly testified to. If one person said it, it would be an excuse. As loads of people have remarked on it - it is an established fact. Its time we sorted these problems out - why we are producing so many of these freaks.

Another thing; Gary Glitter, Alvin Stardust, Suzy Quatro, Slade...when all these gits were dominating the charts that's when English music fell into the malaise. At the time it was possible to hear great versions of The Writing of Tiperary, The Band Played Waltzing Matilda, I could not Take My Eyes of Her, the Roger Brooks songbook - any night in a folk club. And these songs were not even getting record deals, on the radio, nothing.... whereas a few years previously good stuff from the folk clubs like Streets of London was getting to graduate to a wider audience.

Since then England has continued to carpet bomb total shite into the charts in our small island. the the record co. exec.s get surprised when the product is taken to the states and in the larger market - the abject inferiority of our domestic writing becomes immediately manifestly obvious. Oasis and Robbie being the two latest examples.

having said that GG wasn't a serial killer. I bear him no ill will. I hope he sorts his life out.

And I don't want to live in a country where we cut bits of people off. despite the fact that our leaders are willing to sacrifice the lives of other peoples children to initiate just such a state.
http://bigalwhittle.co.uk/id6.html

all the best

big al

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM

Bigpinklad, can you give any references for those claims about OScar Wilde or is it just gossip?

Dave: thanks for the references re public attitudes to the death penalty. It is the earlier one (from 1995) that shows the higher level of public support (76 per cent, by the way, not 77) so at least attitudes are moving in the right direction.

Here is some more evidence in support of that: Even in this fevered atmosphere of despair and disgust at child murder [ie in the wake of the Soham murders] only 56% told the Mail's pollsters they wanted capital punishment. Guardian 21 August 2002

A YouGov poll in January 2003 also showed 56 per cent in favour. And if you were beguiled by Lord Stevens' call for the reinstatement of capital punishment, he based his case on its deterrent effect in the US. Yet more than three in five of US police chiefs believe it has no significant effect on homicide rates. What would impact on the rates of most crime - and I'm all in favour of achieving it - is the the certainty of detection.

The number of children in care is wholly irrelevant to your hysterical cry that we are living in a "mass epidemic of paedophilia". You should be providing evidence to show that paedophilia crimes have dramatically increased, or does your hysteria run to believing that this "epidemic" has been going on for generations? And when you say "child perverts do not contrary to opinion live in the dark alleys of British streets, but in fact hold seats of parliament, council chambers, high courts as judges/magistrates you perhaps need to remind yourself that child abuse occurs overwhelmingly within families.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I believe that killing and abusing people is wrong, and should be punished - hence no qualms about Sidney Cooke being jailed. (Not "Sydney" by the way.) I did however have serious qualms when, after his release in 1998 a police spokesperson announced that if Cooke did not co-operate with them they would make his whereabouts public knowledge. It is a sad day when our police abrogate their responsibilities to the lynch mob.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 02:07 AM

Mike and Kendo-

What would I know? I live in the relatively civilized, Pacific Coast of America. The only time I have ever read about women and boys are a couple of cases of high school teachers and their students. One was imprisoned and the other was on house arrest. Both, of course, lost their careers and the respect of family and friends. In both cases, the sex was consensual. An abuse of power for sure, but definitely consensual.

As to the British(?)examples, all I can say is I'm shocked.

I'm also shocked that in both examples, it was never reported to a trustworthy adult or brought to court. If it had been, I'm sure justice would have been swift.      

But ya gotta admit, its rare for women to tried for sexual assault of children and I don't know any women who likes child porn. There is, on the other hand, a very high incidence of men who like child porn.

Yes, we need a solution to a problem that is getting bigger every day. So far, we haven't found a cure for pedophaelia.

A special kind of prison, perhaps? I think its kind of hard to keep them with the regular prison population because they don't last too long. They definitely need to be watched but at the same time I think we should house them humanely. I think of it as a mental health issue. Who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: s&r
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:05 AM

If there is an abuse of power can an act really be consensual?

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: DavidHannam
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:25 AM

Dave: thanks for the references re public attitudes to the death penalty. It is the earlier one (from 1995) that shows the higher level of public support (76 per cent, by the way, not 77) so at least attitudes are moving in the right direction.

The Mori Poll cited 77% actually. Yes, indeed public support is heading in the right direction. A consistent majority overall.

Here is some more evidence in support of that: Even in this fevered atmosphere of despair and disgust at child murder [ie in the wake of the Soham murders] only 56% told the Mail's pollsters they wanted capital punishment. Guardian 21 August 2002

That is certainly interesting, can i have the link please?

A YouGov poll in January 2003 also showed 56 per cent in favour. And if you were beguiled by Lord Stevens' call for the reinstatement of capital punishment, he based his case on its deterrent effect in the US. Yet more than three in five of US police chiefs believe it has no significant effect on homicide rates. What would impact on the rates of most crime - and I'm all in favour of achieving it - is the the certainty of detection.

Yougov poll, interesting again, any link? I actually do not subscribe to the US model. Their system is barbaric and inhumane and certainly not cost-effective.

The number of children in care is wholly irrelevant to your hysterical cry that we are living in a "mass epidemic of paedophilia". You should be providing evidence to show that paedophilia crimes have dramatically increased, or does your hysteria run to believing that this "epidemic" has been going on for generations? And when you say "child perverts do not contrary to opinion live in the dark alleys of British streets, but in fact hold seats of parliament, council chambers, high courts as judges/magistrates you perhaps need to remind yourself that child abuse occurs overwhelmingly within families.

Citing the statistic i cited of number of children in care is not answering the point. I mention that figure merely to comprehend the level of child abuse in general in the UK.

I said,
"Nearly 79,000 children are currently looked after by local authorities in the UK. Estimates now state that at least1 in 4 males and 1 in 3 females will have survived some form of sexual abuse before reaching the age of 18! In the UK, that accounts for over 20.83% of the population!That means in excess of 10,400,000 people in the UK are survivors of sexual abuse."

How does the figure of 10,400,00 estimated survivors of sexual abuse not figure as an epidemic?

Indeed, most occurances of child abuse do happen in the family. But to ignore the fact that peadophiles are infecting the whole British-System would be irresponsible. belguim in recent years had a similar problem, still do, where child-perverts were uncovered at the very height of the Belguim establishment. The issue of family child abuse as a social-sickness is a wholly other issue and a controversial one at that, which i won't go into.   

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I believe that killing and abusing people is wrong, and should be punished - hence no qualms about Sidney Cooke being jailed. (Not "Sydney" by the way.) I did however have serious qualms when, after his release in 1998 a police spokesperson announced that if Cooke did not co-operate with them they would make his whereabouts public knowledge. It is a sad day when our police abrogate their responsibilities to the lynch mob.

Sorry about the spelling error, i never made the effort to get his name right!!!!

Sydney Cooke who abducted over 20 children, raped them then killed them was 'not in control' of his actions?

I take it you are not suggesting that such a perversion is simply another form of sexuality are you?

Any chance of answering these earlier questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: DavidHannam
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:26 AM

Sorry just realised the thread/link is apparent in the post you made. Apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: DavidHannam
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:55 AM

A YouGov poll in January 2003 also showed 56 per cent in favour

Indeed, January 2003 YouGov found 56% supported it, later the same year in December 2003 they found 62% supported it. So it does seem to be going one direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 05:01 AM

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/MOS020101005.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 05:24 AM

Last year in the UK...I can't remember all the details...but a woman teacher had a relationship with a pupil and it hit the headlines....does anyone know the result of the investigation or was this also hushed up?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 06:28 AM

yes its another form of sexuality - thank your lucky stars you ain't got it.
this correspondence reminds me a bit of the Victorian trained doctors who insisted to Freud that the bloke who had the irresistable urge to lift ladies skirts wasn't suffering from a SEXUAL problem - oh no it couldn't be because he also had the urge to lift his sisters skirts.

Mind you I was waiting for the bullshit about Victorian values being the answer to all our problems to raise its head.

Bring back Maggie Thatcher, the gold standard, stop pissing about and march the troops and send the gunboats into Dublin, and everything will be Jake...Len Hutton will score a century and all will be right with world.

can't bloody wait....

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 07:11 AM

Oh dear!

To clarify for weelittledrum only, it was a question whether or not that person believed seriously that peadophillia was another form of sexuality?

I.e, heter, homo, and in this case 'peado'.

Sorry that wasn't anyMORE clear.

For the record, it is of course not a legitimite form of sexuality, but a perversion! Do you agree/disagree weedrum?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 09:03 AM

Dave, my dictionary includes this under perversion: pathological deviation of sexual instinct. On that basis I'd say the word is applicable to the condition of paedophilia. The same dictionary says under perverse: obstinately determined when in the wrong; capricious and unreasonable in opposition; wrong-headed, stubborn; wayward; deliberately wicked. I would not describe paedophiles this way.

Just to bemuse you a little further, I should emphasise that I am talking only about paedophilia and paedophiles. If they murder, rape, abuse children etc then those actions are crimes.

I don't want to put words in weelittledrummer's mouth, but I think the point you're missing is that a paedophile who refrains from child abuse consigns himself - and I accept that it is usually "he" - to lifelong sexual frustration, exacerbated by the fact that he has had that lifestyle thrust upon him - rightly thrust upon him, but putting him in a different category from, say, priests who opt for celibacy as a matter of free choice.

For that reason I do indeed, as WLD suggests, thank my lucky stars that I am not a paedophile.

Far from supporting your "mass epidemic" theory, your other figures merely confirm that wherever people have power over others, particularly in families and institutional environments, there is a tendency - one might almost say a predisposition - towards moral debasement and abuse of the vulnerable. This is not an epidemic, it's the human condition. And it's the same the world over. You'd better get used to it because it's not going to change much in our lifetimes.

Two minor points: 1) re the Mori poll, your eye has been caught by a figure from the 1970s. I was referring to 1995, as I said. 2) I should have given a link re the attitudes of US police chiefs. Here's one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4457402.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 10:00 AM

Dave, my dictionary includes this under perversion: pathological deviation of sexual instinct. On that basis I'd say the word is applicable to the condition of paedophilia. The same dictionary says under perverse: obstinately determined when in the wrong; capricious and unreasonable in opposition; wrong-headed, stubborn; wayward; deliberately wicked. I would not describe paedophiles this way.

Well without referring to your dictionary for guidance on your moral standing, do YOU think peadophilia is a legitimate form of sexuality?

Personally, i DO describe peadophiles as wicked, unlike yourself, as does every normal thinking person on this site i imagine.


Just to bemuse you a little further, I should emphasise that I am talking only about paedophilia and paedophiles. If they murder, rape, abuse children etc then those actions are crimes.

You are kidding me yes? So Sydney Cooke was not a peadophile? Because he murdered, raped and abused children??????

I don't want to put words in weelittledrummer's mouth, but I think the point you're missing is that a paedophile who refrains from child abuse consigns himself - and I accept that it is usually "he" - to lifelong sexual frustration, exacerbated by the fact that he has had that lifestyle thrust upon him - rightly thrust upon him, but putting him in a different category from, say, priests who opt for celibacy as a matter of free choice.

For that reason I do indeed, as WLD suggests, thank my lucky stars that I am not a paedophile.

lifestyle thrust upon him? Are you kidding me? A peadophile chooses to do what he does! Do not take an individuals freedom of choice of away from them.

Far from supporting your "mass epidemic" theory, your other figures merely confirm that wherever people have power over others, particularly in families and institutional environments, there is a tendency - one might almost say a predisposition - towards moral debasement and abuse of the vulnerable. This is not an epidemic, it's the human condition. And it's the same the world over. You'd better get used to it because it's not going to change much in our lifetimes.

Well as i said, the social issue of child abuse, and its class-structures and factors is for another thread. You obviously don't consider over 10 Million children suffering from sexual abuse an epidemic? I do! End of subject.

Two minor points: 1) re the Mori poll, your eye has been caught by a figure from the 1970s. I was referring to 1995, as I said. 2) I should have given a link re the attitudes of US police chiefs. Here's one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4457402.stm

Indeed you are correct. Sorry, my bad. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 11:04 AM

I'm not sure that human history supports the view that pedophilia is a "perversion".   Check out the interesting, albeit godawful and controversial evidence and hypotheses about the universal practice of incest and child abuse here, at Lloyd deMause's Institute for Psychohistory

The articles are long, but they are definitely worth the read. To quote from one of the articles, The History of Child Abuse

"In several hundred studies published by myself and my associates in The Journal of Psychohistory, we have provided extensive evidence that the history of childhood has been a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes--and the further away from the West one gets--the more massive the neglect and cruelty one finds and the more likely children are to have been killed, rejected, beaten, terrorized and sexually abused by their caretakers.

Indeed, my conclusion from a lifetime of psychohistorical study of childhood and society is that the history of humanity is founded upon the abuse of children. Just as family therapists today find that child abuse often functions to hold families together as a way of solving their emotional problems, so, too, the routine assault of children has been society's most effective way of maintaining its collective emotional homeostasis.

Most historical families once practiced infanticide, erotic beating and incest. Most states sacrificed and mutilated their children to relieve the guilt of adults. Even today, we continue to arrange the daily killing, maiming, molestation and starvation of children through our social, military and economic activities...."

And from The Universality of Incest

...It is incest itself - and not the absence of incest - that has been universal for most people in most places at most times. Further-more, the earlier in history one searches, the more evidence there is of universal incest, just as there is more evidence of other forms of child abuse.(14)

Childhood in much of India begins with the young child being regularly masturbated by the mother, "high caste or low caste, the girl 'to make her sleep well,' the boy 'to make him manly..."'

This practice has been said to be widespread by many reliable observers, including Catherine Mayo - whose extensive investigations in India in the 1920s led to the first child marriage laws(90) - a physician,(91) an ethnologist,(92) a religious scholar (93) and a sociologist.(94)

As is the case with virtually all non-Western cultures, the child sleeps in the family bed for several years and regularly observes sexual intercourse between the parents. The extent to which Indian parents go beyond this and overtly have sex with the child cannot be determined. Rampal, the sociologist who recently did interviews modeled on the Kinsey studies about contemporary Indian sexual practices, concludes that "there is a lot of incest...It is hidden along with other secrets of families and rarely gets a chance to come out, like seduction at the hands of trusted friends of the family... To arrive at even a passable estimate of incest cases would be to touch the hornet's nest.. no one will ever confess to such a deed, therefore, any attempt to collect statistics may prove to be futile at present."(95)

Boys as well as girls are reported as being masturbated and raped by the men in the family, including fathers, older brothers, uncles and cousins.(96) By the time children are four or five, they are usually taken to bed at night by others in the extended household ...

So acceptable is sex between close relatives in India that uncle-niece and cross-cousin marriages were preferred among certain Indian groups.(100) As the old Indian proverb has it, "For a girl to be a virgin at ten years old, she must have neither brothers nor cousin nor father.

Historically, all the institutionalized forms of pedophilia that were customary in the Far East are extensively documented for the Middle East during its earlier infanticidal childrearmg mode, including child marriage, child concubinage, temple prostitution of both boys and girls, parent-child marriage (among the Zoroastrians), sibling marriage (among the Egyptians, among both royalty and commoners), sex slavery, ritualized pederasty, eunichism, and widespread child prostitution."


I'd never heard of "pederasty" till I read those articles. So I looked up this Wikipedia article on Pederasty and found out more than I ever wanted to know ...

Pederasty, as idealized by the ancient Greeks, was a relationship and bond between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside of his immediate family. In a wider sense it refers to erotic love between adolescents and adult men. The word derives from the combination of pais (Greek for 'boy') with erastis (Greek for 'lover'; cf. eros). In those societies where pederasty is prevalent, it appears as one form of a widely practiced male bisexuality.

In antiquity, pederasty as a moral and educational institution was practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome. Other forms of it were common, and also found among the Celts (as per Aristotle, Politics, II 6.6. Athen. XIII 603a) and among the Persians (as per Herodotus 1.135).

More recently, it was widespread in Tuscany and northern Italy during the Renaissance. Outside of Europe, it was common in pre-Modern Japan until the Meiji restoration, in Mughal India until the British colonization, amongst the Aztecs prior to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and in China and Central Asia until the early 20th century. The tradition of pederasty persists to the present day in certain areas of Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa, and Melanesia....

OK, I think's that's enough for now. It seems to me that Gary Glitter and others of that particular brand of infamy have become the most conveniant scapegoats for one of the most hidden, widespread and unmentionable of human sexual behaviours.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: stevenrailing
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 11:17 AM

i hate it when people cut and paste. daylia try independent thinking for a change. plus ur talking utter crap

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: stevenrailing
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 11:21 AM

Just to bemuse you a little further, I should emphasise that I am talking only about paedophilia and paedophiles. If they murder, rape, abuse children etc then those actions are crimes.

Peter K (Fionn)you are also talking s***. a peadophile can be a rapist/childabuser, murderer. peadophilia is a CRIME! you come across like you make excuses for these turds.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 11:26 AM

Can't say it as well as Lloyd deMause, sorry.

I suggest you read the material before attempting to criticize it.   You'll sound a lot smarter that way. It'll take at least a week to plow through them - that's how long I had 'em on my desktop, and I'm a fast reader.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM

PeterK - the reference is only slightly more than gossip. Sorry, I can't remember where I originally read this, it was such a long time ago when I was doing a paper on Wilde at university. Wilde's name appeared alongside others in regard to 'an incident that took place at an hostelry in Kentish Town' There was on the docket another incident (same date) involving a young girl at the same hostelry, and another involving the publican of the same hostelry. Fines all round. I only remember it because it seemed the outrage against Wilde was inflamed not because he was homosexual, nor promiscuous, nor even paedophilic but because he broke the mores of class.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:37 PM

Thanks BPL.

To Dave Hannam, stevenrailing and anyone else of comparably simple intellect who needs this spelling out: being a paedophile is not a crime. If a paedophile indulges his sexual urges (and of course some of them do - do you think I hadn't worked that out?), then that is a crime. Are you really too stupid to see the difference? Or is it that you want to see people punished for what they think? In which case, bring on Orwell's thought police.

And Dave Hannam, I wonder if you can remember choosing your sexual orientation - be it heterosexual, homosexual or whatever? And what pros and cons you considered in reaching your decision? If we do indeed exercise free choice in the matter, do you seriously think anyone would choose paedophilia?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,kendo
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:40 PM

As a newcomer to this blog , having only made one other post i feel that perhaps it is wiser to try annd not be too critical of other posters. itis my belief though that copying and pasting small snippets of text is fine, however i do think that to paste very long tedious pages is counterproductive as most readers either ignore it or give it cursory glance.    Regarding the Gary glitterstory i feel that it cannot be stressed enough that the type of predatory paedophiles such as Sidney Cook are as rare as rocking horse sh*t , in fact there are but a handful of such men throughout the country.
By far the very vast majority of sex offences are commited in the home
(approx 85%) with the remainder being mainly one off incidents and a very tiny amount of serial offences, despite these facts the myth that is often expounded by feminists that sex offenders (paedophiles) ALWAYS reoffend is still falsely believed by most people, this myth is reinforced by the media, the truth of the matter is that sex offenders are the least recidivist group of any offenders with the eception of murderers. The belief has been so strongly reinforced in people that even when confronted with the facts in black and white people still tend to not believe it.
A lot of men hae been falsely imprisoned in this country in the childrens home scam, Oh yes i am sure there    were some guilty but it is my belief and the bel8ef of a great many lawyers that a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place. Some men have been released after the evidence was found to be invented for criminal compennsation and many more are in the pipeline. whilst it is reprehensible that any child should be interfered with it is a far greater crime in my view to put a man in prison for such a heinous crime and in many cases the loss of his family because of the hysteria of the witch hunters

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 09:26 PM

Found this on safe-nz.org:

"So what should we do with them?

If we take the European and United States approach then we could impose chemical castration as a condition of parole. A number of countries already use surgical and chemical castration to good effect with stunning cuts in recidivism rates in Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany Iceland and many states in USA. Depo-Provera for example, has been used quite successfully. Also, a new drug Triptorelin would be a good place to start. While Depo-Provera has reduced paedophile recidivism from 50% to below 5%, Triptorelin has been reported in the New England Journal of Medicine to have a success rate of 100% when used in conjunction with psychotherapy."


What's more, the side effects are minimal and can be administered easily by monthly injection. Chemical castration cuts reoffending as it cuts unacceptable urges. It works.

kendo - Whereever did you get this information? "the truth of the matter is that sex offenders are the least recidivist group of any offenders with the eception of murderers." Please state your source.

The rate of recidivism is highly variable in all studies. No study actually measures the same length of time or the length of time it takes to re-offend.

I will acknowledge that you may be right but I would like some scholarly proof of your statement. Paedophiles are usually intelligent. Just because they don't get caught, doesn't mean they're not re-offending. When I say there isn't a cure, I mean its pretty hard to change someone's sexual preference. All you can really do is render them somewhat harmless.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Hannam
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:04 AM

To Dave Hannam, stevenrailing and anyone else of comparably simple intellect who needs this spelling out: being a paedophile is not a crime. If a paedophile indulges his sexual urges (and of course some of them do - do you think I hadn't worked that out?), then that is a crime. Are you really too stupid to see the difference? Or is it that you want to see people punished for what they think? In which case, bring on Orwell's thought police.

Existential rubbish. They, frustrated or not, are mentally backward, and sick, but to suppose they can be cured, is a complete non-issue. Most academics in the field admit they can not be cured. If a person is having such thoughts then they are mentally ill! But....that illness does not take freedom away, it never does, it is a fallacy of modern thought that illness removes freedom of choice.


a paedophile who refrains from child abuse consigns himself - and I accept that it is usually "he" - to lifelong sexual frustration, exacerbated by the fact that he has had that lifestyle thrust upon him - rightly thrust upon him, but putting him in a different category from, say, priests who opt for celibacy as a matter of free choice.

Hmm. 'Thrust upon him', you see, there you go again, removing the human his attributes of freedom. Nothing is thrust upon anyone!

If we do indeed exercise free choice in the matter, do you seriously think anyone would choose paedophilia?

Well would you share a room with a few folk 'suffering' from peadophilia. Oh that over there, thats bob, he likes children, but don't worry, he knows not to act upon it. lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 07:02 AM

Dave, your own posts say more about your mentality than I could ever do, so I think I'll quit while I'm winning.

dianavan, I meant to say that one of your earlier posts (26 Nov - 02:04am) made some good points. I too would be interested in any data about rates of re-offending, because what kendo said goes against what I have always understood. On the other hand, kendo's point is well taken that paedophiles as commonly understood by the term are mercifully rare birds.

But, dianavan, I would also be interested to know if there is any evidence to say that paedophiles tend to be intelligent. Or perhaps you mean they can be manipulative and cunning, as also associated with psychopathy?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:39 AM

Oh dear. Run along Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: *daylia*
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:50 AM

But, dianavan, I would also be interested to know if there is any evidence to say that paedophiles tend to be intelligent. Or perhaps you mean they can be manipulative and cunning, as also associated with psychopathy?

Whether pedophiles are considered "intelligent" or "manipulative and cunning" depends on time and place. For example, in Iran the legal age for marriage, for girls, was raised just recently from 9 to 12 years. In Spain, and in Italy and France too if I'm remembering correctly, the age of consent is still only 12. And in Japan, China and other Asian locales, adults having sex with young adolescents is and always been the norm.

In the Germanic countries, up till approximately a couple hundred years ago, "upper class" 10-13 yr old girls were given in marriage, by their fathers, to men at least a decade or two their senior.   And, following the wedding ceremony, the consummation of those arranged marriages was duly witnessed by the fathers-in-law and assorted male dignitaries.

Today, I suppose traditional "upper class" Germanic weddings would be called rape of a minor, and all involved would be considered pedophiles. I doubt many, if any of them were lacking in mental abilities or seen as "manipulative" or "cunning". Consider, too, that due to better food and medicine in modern times, the average age of menarche has dropped from approx 16 to 12 or even younger. So, generally speaking, a 13-yr old girl in C17 Germany was the physical equivalent of a 10 yr old today.

I've heard that Lewis Carroll was a pedophile, by today's Western standards. And according to some historians, ditto for Pythagoras and Plato and other famous Greek and Roman scholars.

Were any of those people "unintelligent"?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: *daylia*
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:37 AM

FYI, and at the risk of offending people with cut and paste (I don't have these figures memorized, sorry) - Age of Consent, from Wikipedia

Argentina - 13
Brazil - 13
Canada - 14
Mexico - 12
US - usually 16, but varies from state to state
Guyana - 12
China - 14
Japan - 13
Phillipines - 12
Spain - 13
Paraguay - 12
South Korea - 13

Wow, there must be millions of mentally deficient "perverts" roaming the globe, even today!   Will they ever be punished properly?   

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,get 'em while they're young
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:43 AM

I despise kiddy-fiddlers and vile hate-monger BNP supporters
in equal measure..

both are equally 'perverted' and a potential danger to vulnerable young people..


Btw.. dodgy Scout-masters.. BNP youth camps & festivals.. 'Hitler' youth.. etc..


do ya wanna be in my gang..!!!????!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: *daylia*
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 11:33 AM

PS

itis my belief though that copying and pasting small snippets of text is fine, however i do think that to paste very long tedious pages is counterproductive as most readers either ignore it or give it cursory glance.

I posted a few very short paragraphs from 3 interesting, scholarly and controversial articles. I did that not only to give readers an alternative, credible and (imo) most thought-provoking historical perspective on the topic being discussed, but also to (hopefully) generate discussion about deMause's psycho-historical "evidence" and theories about incest, child abuse and pedophilia.

That's obviously just not going to happen here.   *sigh*

Oh well .... c'est la vie! Anyone genuinely interested in expanding their point of view by learning more about this subject would find the snippets I posted above anything but "tedious".

And anyone whose reading skills have surpassed about 4th grade level could read and digest the quotes I posted about 2 minutes flat. Although the articles themselves, as I warned above, would take at least a week or two to study properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 01:10 PM

I don't mind either way about the cutting nad pasting, but I think there used to be Mudcat guidance that on-topic material (folk/blues/folklore etc) should be cut and pasted into threads in case the links die, but off-topic stuff should be links only. Thanks anyway *daylia* - those facts are interesting and germain.

Btw, I did not mean to suggest paedophilia might be associated with low intelligence; I was just querying what I thought was a suggestion from dianavan that it might be associated with high intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 02:25 PM

Serial Pedophiles are not rare, as the recent scandals related to the Catholic Church have made all to clear. The serial offenders often elude arrest for familiar reasons-- a general unwillingness to believe the victims by people in positions authority, combined with the social position and influence of the offenders--and the high personal cost to witnesses and victims who come forward in criminal proceedings.

It is generally agreed that only a small percentage of the sexual predators who victimize children are ever prosecuted.

Statistics on recidivism are a real mixed bag, simply because there is no clear standard for what is to be measured and how it is to be measured--a US Department of Justice study showed that within five years of release, about five percent of people who had been convicted of sexual offenses against children were convicted of another sexual offense. A Canadian follow-up study showed that within 3.5 years, 1/3 were convicted of another crime, but only 10% of those were sexual offenses. Another Canadian follow-up study, however, showed that over a longer period of time, fifteen years, up to 2/3 were convicted of a new sexual offense against children.

Victims groups have pointed out that sexual predators are serial offenders, and those lower numbers in the first few years after release really really don't reflect a low rate of recidivism, they reflect a low rate of detection, and that the true rate comes out over time.

Some studies based on interviews with sexual predators have shown that they may have between 30 and 50 victims before they are apprehended. That means that, even in a large community, "a handful" of offenders leave many victims--

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,zak
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:51 PM

Some studies based on interviews with sexual predators have shown that they may have between 30 and 50 victims before they are apprehended. That means that, even in a large community, "a handful" of offenders leave many victim....

But if the allegations are false in the first place then the accused is being credited with 50 non existent crimes if you follow that philosophy. its a load of bunkum and with liuck in time the world will realise that many priests and careworkers havwe been used as a means to get easy money

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:29 PM

Fionn says, "I was just querying what I thought was a suggestion from dianavan that it might be associated with high intelligence."

Actually, I was meant that paedophiles were often intelligent, highly manipulative and able to avoid detection as opposed to stupid and easily found out.

One of the things that always amaze those who work to rehabilitate child victims of sexual abuse is how long it takes to discover the perpetrator, and the length of time they have been committing the crimes. Yes, they are intelligent. They are also cunning.

Most criminals aren't nearly as smart.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 12:21 AM

You're the one full of "bunkum" Zak--if the numbers come from the admissions of perpetrators themselves how could they be "false accusations"? They can't. People like you are the reason that these sick people carry on for so long--you don't see it because you don't want to see it--the thing is, it is out there--

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 03:30 AM

Daylia: Wow, there must be millions of mentally deficient "perverts" roaming the globe, even today!   Will they ever be punished properly?

So you believe in punishing the mentally deficient? In which case, which of us shall 'scape a whipping?

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: GUEST,Hannam
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 03:53 AM

BNP youth camps & festivals.. 'Hitler' youth.. etc..
do ya wanna be in my gang..!!!????!!!!

Wow. lol. Thankfully i access through siv software mudcat directory, and your ISP is the same as a named poster. Why are you afraid to be open about who you are?

But hey, after your informative post, you are bang on right i guess. lol. your the one in the know after all??????

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 06:08 AM

99 is the new 100.

Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 08:04 AM

100 is the old 99 Ted!