|
24 Nov 05 - 07:11 PM (#1613154) Subject: BS: Gary Glitter From: Richard Bridge 5 dollar prostitute under the age of consent - potential for statutory rape sentence to be firing squad? Something a bit screwy here? |
|
24 Nov 05 - 07:13 PM (#1613155) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: TheBigPinkLad Need more info ... ? |
|
24 Nov 05 - 07:32 PM (#1613165) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Maybe it is thought that a girl under the age of consent is not mature enough to make an informed choice. In which case he took advantage of her ill informed life choice, which would be abuse and he then had sex with a child who has not developed emotionally enough to give consent? I think firing squad is way too severe, but hey I don't live there or make their laws. |
|
24 Nov 05 - 07:45 PM (#1613173) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave'sWife this isn't his first sex offense though, is it? Wasn't there something icky about child pron with him a few years back? |
|
24 Nov 05 - 07:46 PM (#1613175) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave'sWife pron = PORN sorry |
|
24 Nov 05 - 07:48 PM (#1613178) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST He was in prison in UK for sex with underage girls in UK. One being a friend of his daughters who would stay over night. These girls were very young. And he is a thoroughly nasty piece of work. |
|
24 Nov 05 - 07:55 PM (#1613183) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Sorcha Link? |
|
24 Nov 05 - 07:56 PM (#1613184) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Big Al Whittle rock n'roll eh? |
|
24 Nov 05 - 08:39 PM (#1613205) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave'sWife Here's a link for those of us who have morbid curiosity: Glitter 'had sex with girl, 12' Gary Glitter An arrest warrant was issued for Gary Glitter last week Ex-glam rock star Gary Glitter has been accused of having sex with two girls, one aged 12, police in Vietnam said. Gary's latest underage Sex scandal That photo of him is frightening! As for his prior offense, th article states: "Glitter was found guilty in the UK in 1999 of possessing child pornography and served two months in jail." |
|
24 Nov 05 - 08:46 PM (#1613209) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave'sWife Oh my.. it get's even worse - it appears for years now he has been ping-ponging around south-east asia in search of underage sex. Gary gets deported from Cambodia for sImilar sex stuff Why isn't he in a rubber room somewhere? Oh wait.. he'd like that... |
|
24 Nov 05 - 08:47 PM (#1613211) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Sorcha Sick. Hey, come chat, Dave's wife! |
|
24 Nov 05 - 09:13 PM (#1613230) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave'sWife I'm there in chat. Where are you? And..what's up with that man's eyebrows? Oh.. check this out - sums up the last 15 years of Gary's life succinctly: >>> Glitter, who rose to fame as a glam rocker in the 1970s, is best known for Do You Wanna Touch and Rock and Roll (Part 2), which is still frequently played at sporting events. <<< |
|
25 Nov 05 - 04:16 AM (#1613361) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Do they have Christmas decorations in Vietnam? No but I believe they will be hanging glitter this year... |
|
25 Nov 05 - 04:24 AM (#1613366) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave Hanson Paul Gadd [ Garry Glitter ] is a serial paedophile, he likes it and wouldn't stop if he could, if the Viet Namese execute him this will be no great loss to humanity, personally I don't believe in capital punishment, he ought to be locked up forever in the worst possible hell hole of a prison. eric |
|
25 Nov 05 - 04:41 AM (#1613376) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Big Al Whittle warms your heart to see the spirit of brotherly love and forgiveness, at this special time of the year. I would have machine gunned him personally throughout the 70's for his music, but I feel sorry for him for the sexual proclivities that he seems to have beeen born with and can't be tolerated because they do harm to others. If he's going to be locked up, we should fess up and take charge, he's one of ours. Vietnam is too poor to be sorting out stuff like this for us. What kind of society sets people like this free to scour the world for predatory pleasures. It's our fault we shouldn't have set him free. He should have been assessed by a psychlogists in prison. And only released into some sort of programme of care and protection - for us all. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 04:48 AM (#1613379) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: John O'L Apparently he's looking to go to Chile next, where the age of consent is 12. Assuming he survives his Vietnam adventure of course. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 04:52 AM (#1613381) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Rasener How the hell was he released in the first place. Paedophile offences are framed in terms of rape, sexual assault, indecency, making or possessing child pornography and so forth. The Macquarie Dictionary defines paedophilia as "sexual attraction in an adult towards children". The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word as: "sexual love directed towards children". Paedophiles come from virtually all social, income, racial, ethnic and age groups. This man is an evil minded repulsive bastard who should never be allowed to walk this earth again. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 05:03 AM (#1613386) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: George Papavgeris I am against the death sentence, but if he cannot control himself he is a very real danger to innocent lives. He should be locked up for life in Vietnam (he went there of his own free will, did he not), and his estate should be sold off to pay for the costs of the incarceration - no tax payer of any country should have to shoulder the cost. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 05:06 AM (#1613388) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Paul Burke He was convicted of possession of illegal pornography, a nonce offence. AFAIK he was not convicted of any actual offenses against individual children; he would have served a much longer sentence if he ghad been. He served the sentence handed out by the court. Anything else should wait until the evidence is produced at the trial. There is no death penalty for anything in truly civilised societies. Having said that, he seems to have gone out of his way to make it easy for people to jump to conclusions, following the established and well documented paedo trail to SE Asia. He's also not the brightest button on the card: his conviction in the UK happened because he went into a computer shop, saying "Mend my computer, but don't look at anything on the hard drive..." I suspect he will end up in prison for a very long time. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 05:08 AM (#1613391) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: George Papavgeris I agree, we should wait until the evidence is produced. Then he should be locked up. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 06:38 AM (#1613431) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Harmony Angel I don't believe in the death penalty but in cases like this, I have no objection what-so-ever to those proved guilty being surgically castrated. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 07:25 AM (#1613450) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Max Like many who grew up in the 1970's Gary was a big part of our lives. We all loved his music and a great show man. Sad it's come to this. We are near afraid to play his music now ! Yes what he's done is wrong, these countries need to do something about their under age sex problem. It's a honey pot for the weak.I know Gary also comitted crimes in this country which again I know was wrong, but it's no sicker than these creeps in guy clubs with a leather strap pulled up their ass hugging another man. And every night you turn on the television one of these bastards is presenting a programme. Frankly I see Gary as ill. These creeps I see as sick and forced down all our throats daily.Spread of Aids down to them, which no one can say is untrue. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 07:40 AM (#1613458) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Rasener Guest Max What gays do to each other is their problem as long as they do it to consenting adults. What Gary Glitter has done is totally unacceptable. You may think he is ill and as long as people like you are around, then bastards like him get away with it. Lock him up, hang him, shoot him, shoot his bollocks off - I care not, providing he can no longer do it again. I have no problem playing his songs, but thinking he is around to do what he has been doing makes me disgusted. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 07:45 AM (#1613462) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: George Papavgeris Agree, Villan - GUEST-Not-Max simply found an opportunity to vent some irrelevant spleen. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 08:21 AM (#1613481) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Jeri If GUEST,Max wasn't trying to be ironic, it's even more ironic. This stuff happens in third world countries - always has/always will. It happens anywhere poverty exists. You can punish people you catch taking advantage, but as long as people are desparate for money, they're going to be selling whatever people will buy. I associate Glitter with THAT song. The one that someone combined with the Dr Who theme so they're now stuck together in my head. If he did anything else (besides get arrested), I don't know about it. How many guys go to places like Cambodia for a 'sex holiday'? Glitter's just a famous one who got caught. And no, I don't have an answer. It's just that where there's one former rock star with a recognizable name, there are probably hundereds of family members and guys-you-work-with who get away with this sort of thing on a regular basis. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 08:37 AM (#1613491) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Rasener I don't really think it matters who it is. Get rid of them all. There is no excuse for what they do. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 09:04 AM (#1613503) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Paco Rabanne Why didn't he just pop over to Spain? The age of consent there used to be 12, but I think it's 13 now. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 10:00 AM (#1613534) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Paul Burke That's an important point Ted. The age of consent is a legal matter, and a social matter, not moral. The age at which people become sexually active (marry in thge old days) has varied vastly over years and cultures. Typically the lower end about 12, the upper about 18. The matter of morals is in the abuse of people who can't consent because they are too immature - whatever age they are. Furthermore, sexual abuse is not the only way adults abuse children. Advertising aimed at children, not caring if their diet is screwed up, that they start smoking or drinking, or trying to get them to apply pressure to each other and to their parents to comply with the latest marketing craze, are all abuse too. And as for those who stuff kids' minds with racism, I don't think there's a pit deep enough for them. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 01:42 PM (#1613690) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Max A few very touchy here about Aids spreaders. I wonder why ? |
|
25 Nov 05 - 01:51 PM (#1613698) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Max hate to burst your homophobic bubble but heterosexuals are the group that sees the highest incidence of aids. As for gary glitter, he went to Vietnam for the opportunity he knew would arise, why on earth should he be deported back to UK for imprisonment, it was hardly a deterrent last time was it? Let him rot somewhere filthy. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 01:55 PM (#1613703) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST There is plenty of evidence that people who are abused in childhood develop serious problems in later life - maybe some of them are condemned to a 'living death'. Children need to be nurtured and educated - not violated. Gary Glitter deserves everything that is coming to him - try as I might, I can't work up any sympathy for him. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 02:25 PM (#1613718) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,David Hannam Why would you even try to work up sympathy for him? I believe that the law should protect children with every possible means. The death penalty for offenders proven via DNA evidence should be simply be punished by capital punishment. All recent polls have indicated the British public share this sentiment. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 02:26 PM (#1613719) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Hannam minus the first 'b' |
|
25 Nov 05 - 04:34 PM (#1613762) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST the death penalty is a sign of uncivillised society |
|
25 Nov 05 - 05:17 PM (#1613784) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Peter K (Fionn) So you're an authority on DNA, David Hannam? Even if you, few jurors are likely to be. So they have to rely on what they're told by other poeple. Other people, including specialist witnesses, are sometimes mistaken or deceitful, or didn't you know? weelittledrummer has it exactly right in my view. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 05:52 PM (#1613808) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: greg stephens A lot of people here are always ready to cast the first stone. We could always wait and see the evidence. Funny how Oscar Wilde was soon rehabilitated, but recent perpetrators of the same offence(underage sex) seem to get pilloried even worse. These people of course need controlling, but the hanging/shooting/cut off their bollocks brigade I find a lot more disturbing than a few perverts. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 06:09 PM (#1613820) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,David Hannam Even if you, few jurors are likely to be. So they have to rely on what they're told by other poeple. Other people, including specialist witnesses, are sometimes mistaken or deceitful, or didn't you know? Yes, mistakes are made due to the factors you mention above, which is why i said capital punishment should only be implemented when it is proven via DNA evidence. Restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers should be an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute, as by DNA evidence or being caught red-handed. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 06:13 PM (#1613823) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,David Hannam but the hanging/shooting/cut off their bollocks brigade I find a lot more disturbing than a few perverts. The problem is that we are not talking about a 'few perverts' as though you imply 'few' equals harmless? We are talking a mass epidemic of paedophilia in the UK. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 06:21 PM (#1613827) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2 A lot of people have a perfect right to throw the first stone, Greg Stephens, because they do not live in a glass house as far as this issue is concerned - ie, they do not dream of destroying the lives of innocent children by interfering with them sexually. I'm with El Greko, let him spend the rest of his life with the cockroaches in a Vietnamese prison, if fairly found guilty. |
|
25 Nov 05 - 07:45 PM (#1613861) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Rasener Greg Stephens Have you got any daughters. If so would you like these perverts to sexually abuse them. Maybe you haven't got any children, which would make me understand why you make such comments. Young children need to be protected from all scumbags who want to abuse them. Even one scumbag is too many. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 01:35 AM (#1613972) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave'sWife Oscar Wilde? I don't believe he was convicted of having sex with children. He as convicted of being a homosexual, yes? Was that blue blood boyfriend of his under the age of consent? |
|
26 Nov 05 - 02:04 AM (#1613981) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: dianavan I've seen the damage done to children (male and female) and know that many will become abusive adults in later life. Because I know this, I also know that paedophils have probably also been abused as young children. My sympathy stops there. There must be a way to break this cycle of victimization. Perhaps the only way to stop this cycle is through imprisonment. I thought of house arrest but that would only work if computers and videos were also banned. At any rate, the movement of these criminals must be watched very closely so that they will not harm any more children. Unfortunately, I think it is a worlwide problem and until we tackle the problem of human trafficing, paedophilia is going to thrive. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 02:39 AM (#1613992) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Manitas_at_home Was Oscar Wilde rehabilitated? I thought he died in disgrace, and shunned by his former friends and admirers, in Paris. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 05:17 AM (#1614017) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Georgiansilver Sadly, a large majority of the young females in Vietnam see prostitution as a "job" and willingly go into it for the few dollars which give them a better standard of life....which in some way negates the "abused child" factor in many cases. However, I believe that GG lives there for a reason! He has taken advantage of a situation and found himself at the precipice of life by his own choice. I still go with the belief we have in the UK that a person is innocent until proven guilty but that for all of us is as good as it gets....unfortunately, the guilty have been found 'innocent' by courts as have the innocent been found guilty. I await the results of GG's case with anticipation...hoping that whatever the truth is will out and justice will be done either way. Again, 'sadly' as I have said justice is not always done...either way. Best wishes, Mike. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 08:38 AM (#1614079) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Peter K (Fionn) 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. If any of those who had been convicted had also been hanged, what redress then? (And what "recent polls" do you have in mind when you talk about the popular attitude to capital punishment?) 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. 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. 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. 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.) The sociologist Stanley Cohen wrote: "Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylised and stereotypical fashion by the mass media. Sometimes the panic passes over and is forgotten; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce changes in legal and social policy or even in the way the society conceives itself." That was in 1972 and all that's changed is that the media is even more reckless and irresponsible now than it was then. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 08:50 AM (#1614083) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Tam the man Gary Glitter he's great at children's parties, all round children's entertanter |
|
26 Nov 05 - 09:08 AM (#1614088) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST We are NOT living in an epidemic of paedophilia oh really. get ur facts right! |
|
26 Nov 05 - 09:49 AM (#1614096) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: greg stephens Oscar Wilde has indeed been rehabilitated, though after his death. Admiring him is perfectly respecatble, as is admiring Henry V and other paedophiles. Wilde was accused of plenty of sex with underage boys(though the technical charges brought may have been only with adults, I am not sure.). The English have always popped abroad for what was made illegal at home, and Joe Orton(to name one notorious example) is a regularly performed and not-particularly-vilified plawright, though a read of his immensely entertaining diaries reveals in total detail exactly what he got up to in Morocco. I am not saying these activities should be ignored, merely that they should be not be got out of proportion. And yes, I have got children. And no, of course I woudnt have wanted them to have underage sex with Gary Glitter, or Oscae Wilde, or Joe Orton, or Jonathan King. But all those options, for example, are considerably less bad than their being murdered, or run over by a drunk driver, for example. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 09:56 AM (#1614098) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Mr Red By Gadd - the Glitter has long tarnished. Come to think of it - it was tinsel as I remember - little substance. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 11:32 AM (#1614135) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Peter K (Fionn) Greg, I don't think Wilde was ever accused of sex with under-age children. However I don't know what the age of consent was in the UK in 1895. (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.) |
|
26 Nov 05 - 12:19 PM (#1614152) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST 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. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM (#1614153) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST (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. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 12:35 PM (#1614155) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Once Famous 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. |
|
26 Nov 05 - 03:40 PM (#1614233) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Don Firth 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 |
|
27 Nov 05 - 10:46 AM (#1614699) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Peter K (Fionn) 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. |
|
27 Nov 05 - 11:23 AM (#1614723) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Once Famous 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. |
|
27 Nov 05 - 11:35 AM (#1614727) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: TheBigPinkLad 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. |
|
27 Nov 05 - 01:36 PM (#1614804) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Jim in London 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. |
|
27 Nov 05 - 02:27 PM (#1614846) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Dave Hannam 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. |
|
27 Nov 05 - 04:51 PM (#1614914) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: dianavan 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? |
|
27 Nov 05 - 05:36 PM (#1614956) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: M.Ted >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-- |
|
27 Nov 05 - 05:37 PM (#1614958) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Georgiansilver 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. |
|
27 Nov 05 - 06:58 PM (#1615018) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,kendo 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 |
|
27 Nov 05 - 07:07 PM (#1615024) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Big Al Whittle 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 |
|
27 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM (#1615134) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Peter K (Fionn) 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. |
|
28 Nov 05 - 02:07 AM (#1615222) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: dianavan 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? |
|
28 Nov 05 - 04:05 AM (#1615251) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: s&r If there is an abuse of power can an act really be consensual? Stu |
|
28 Nov 05 - 04:25 AM (#1615262) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: DavidHannam 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. |
|
28 Nov 05 - 04:26 AM (#1615263) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: DavidHannam Sorry just realised the thread/link is apparent in the post you made. Apologies. |
|
28 Nov 05 - 04:55 AM (#1615279) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: DavidHannam 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. |
|
28 Nov 05 - 05:01 AM (#1615284) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/MOS020101005.pdf |
|
28 Nov 05 - 05:24 AM (#1615300) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Georgiansilver 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. |
|
28 Nov 05 - 06:28 AM (#1615333) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Big Al Whittle 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.... |
|
28 Nov 05 - 07:11 AM (#1615353) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,David Hannam 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? |
|
28 Nov 05 - 09:03 AM (#1615413) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Peter K (Fionn) 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 |
|
28 Nov 05 - 10:00 AM (#1615470) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,David Hannam 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. :-) |
|
28 Nov 05 - 11:04 AM (#1615529) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: *daylia* 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. |
|
28 Nov 05 - 11:17 AM (#1615538) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: stevenrailing i hate it when people cut and paste. daylia try independent thinking for a change. plus ur talking utter crap |
|
28 Nov 05 - 11:21 AM (#1615542) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: stevenrailing 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. |
|
28 Nov 05 - 11:26 AM (#1615546) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: *daylia* 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. |
|
28 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM (#1615579) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: TheBigPinkLad 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. |
|
28 Nov 05 - 04:37 PM (#1615762) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Peter K (Fionn) 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? |
|
28 Nov 05 - 04:40 PM (#1615765) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,kendo 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 |
|
28 Nov 05 - 09:26 PM (#1615994) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: dianavan 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. |
|
29 Nov 05 - 06:04 AM (#1616190) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Hannam 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. |
|
29 Nov 05 - 07:02 AM (#1616222) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Peter K (Fionn) 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? |
|
29 Nov 05 - 08:39 AM (#1616276) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,David Hannam Oh dear. Run along Peter |
|
29 Nov 05 - 09:50 AM (#1616321) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: *daylia* 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"? |
|
29 Nov 05 - 10:37 AM (#1616342) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: *daylia* 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? ;-) |
|
29 Nov 05 - 10:43 AM (#1616344) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,get 'em while they're young 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..!!!????!!!! |
|
29 Nov 05 - 11:33 AM (#1616394) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: *daylia* 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. |
|
29 Nov 05 - 01:10 PM (#1616479) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Peter K (Fionn) 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. |
|
29 Nov 05 - 02:25 PM (#1616523) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: M.Ted 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-- |
|
29 Nov 05 - 06:51 PM (#1616740) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,zak 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 |
|
29 Nov 05 - 09:29 PM (#1616839) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: dianavan 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. |
|
30 Nov 05 - 12:21 AM (#1616930) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: M.Ted 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-- |
|
30 Nov 05 - 03:30 AM (#1616954) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Paul Burke 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? |
|
30 Nov 05 - 03:53 AM (#1616968) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Hannam 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?????? |
|
30 Nov 05 - 06:08 AM (#1617055) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Paco Rabanne 99 is the new 100. |
|
30 Nov 05 - 08:04 AM (#1617100) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Strollin' Johnny 100 is the old 99 Ted! |
|
30 Nov 05 - 08:04 AM (#1617101) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: *daylia* Paul, I was being sarcastic there. And Janine, there's always been plenty of women who diddle little boys. And girls. |
|
30 Nov 05 - 12:40 PM (#1617338) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,the joy of pseudonames Wow. lol. Thankfully i access through siv software mudcat directory, and your ISP is the same as a named poster. ..hmmmm.. though thinly diguised with 'humour.. should that be taken to translate as implied BNP threat tactics typical of.. "we know how to find you and know where you live.." ????? ################################################## Why are you afraid to be open about who you are? why David, should i be ??.. why do you need to view the world and manipulate human interaction in terms of "fear" ????????? i just think its enjoyable to play around with the great big bumper fun bag of internet creative anonymity.. .. but back to topic.. if Glitter is guilty, he deserves full and appropriate punishment and treatment.. same as anyone who maliciously or misguidedly conives to pervert the minds of vulnerable youngsters in the promotion extreme hate politics.. |
|
30 Nov 05 - 04:03 PM (#1617483) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,David Hannam No, i just wondered why you would post under guest when you are a regular contributor anyway. I don't know your address, nor do i wish to know, there are more pressing matters in my life than your address my friend. It just seemed odd thats all. :-) |
|
30 Nov 05 - 07:27 PM (#1617624) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Mted but it is people like yourself tht perpetuates the myth, just like the people who kept the satanic abuse myth running for years. it is painful for some people to accept the truth because many need a scapegoat for all the ills in society and god help anyone who should try and remove,lessen or confront the figures of their hate. i noticed that you quoted some spurious canadian source that claimed 2 out of 3 reoffend after 15 years. that is hogwash , the actual numbers that ever reoffend are very low, here are the official Government figures # NCJ-163392 (February 7, 1997), Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault, finds the recidivism rate of 2,214 convicted rapists released from prison was 7.7% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (6.8%). # NCJ-193427 (June, 2002), Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, finds the recidivism rate of 3,138 convicted rapists released from prison was 2.5% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (1.2%). In April, 2001, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) released a report also on the recidivism rate of released sex offenders. In Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases, Office of Policy, Bureau of Planning and Evaluation, Paul Konicek, Principle Researcher, (available at www.drc.state.oh.us), the recidivism rate of 879 sex offenders released from Ohio's prisons in 1989, after ten (10) years, was found to be 8% for new sex offenses. The ODRC study finds its When confronted with these facts the witchunters generally come up with the other excuse of 'well they must have had lots of other victims' another example of how the media has brainwashed somepeople. |
|
30 Nov 05 - 08:05 PM (#1617646) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,BillyTheFish I'm not sure how we would survive in this country without child abuse. We talk about it, investigate it, analyse it, react to it, shudder from it. The whole country seems to get off on it. The people can't seem to get enough of the stuff. There must be at least ten chat shows a week in the mainstream media roping in its viewers with salacious tales of abuse and wrongdoing. The newspapers are full of it, with lurid, captivating headlines and details of court cases and long prison sentences. The police are now trawling all the care homes egging ex-residents to come forward with their tales and offering thousands of pounds in compensation for the best of them. It goes on. But, let's just take a look at who, or what, gains from child abuse. Solicitors, judges, barristers, prison officers, probation officers, court workers, social workers, newspapers, magazines, therapists, psychiatrists, doctors, psychologists, psychoanalysts, the police force, television (soaps, discussions, drama, news) radio, CHILDREN'S CHARITIES, false accusers, fantasists, other prisoners (who like to see themselves as better) priests, counsellors, victims (fake ones), care home workers, feminists, lying women, depressives, those with dull lives, actors, politicians, civil servants and, probably, many others. And, presumably, the child abusers themselves are getting something out of it!? The whole of Britain is enmeshed in child abuse. It's like a murky fog that envelops the entire country and poisons the people's psyche. It must be a turn-on though, mustn't it? After all, so many people CHOOSE to watch it, talk about it, read about it. Even in fiction, people can't get enough of it. Films, documentaries, soaps, news and chat shows, just can't get away from it. And they wouldn't do it if it didn't ATTRACT high viewing figures. And ATTRACT just about says it all. When people find something truly disgusting they flee from it. They don't seek it out and salivate over it. The nation just loves it, and the millions (literally) of 'professionals' who also love it, and benefit hugely from it all, well, what would they do without it? How would they earn their money or justify their existence? And how would the big charities earn their money? What would happen to their jobs? Unless they all continually scare us and the children, and pump up the hysteria, how do they get their money? And what else would the media talk about to fill in the gaps? Well, there's always sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape, I suppose. But then they already do that in the UK. Perhaps, we should take a tip from our American cousins and seek fresh ventures. Over a million of them actually believe that they have been sexually abused by aliens in spaceships. And some have even tried to claim compensation from 'abusers' who are currently alive, and innocent of everything today, but who, apparently, abused them in previous lives! Now, that might be fun. And it would make a welcome change |
|
01 Dec 05 - 07:21 AM (#1617991) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: *daylia* Hear hear, Billy the Fish! I really like your aliens idea. Here here, Spock! |
|
02 Dec 05 - 01:08 AM (#1618246) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: M.Ted I find it extremely interesting that an GUEST, an anonymous poster, should go to the trouble of citing sources--especially since the website that cites those sources particular sources is here Why Megan's Laws are Unconstitutional for those of you who don't click the link, it is an article advising prisoners on ways to avoid being classified as sexual predators. My feeling is that you, and perhaps some of the others who are posting here may have a special interest that you haven't really owned up to. Rather than quote statistics, I will simply post this link Blog of Joseph E. Duncan and this Convicted sex offender faces two kidnapping counts and remind you that the little girl he raped, her little brother, who he murdered had civil rights, too-- |
|
02 Dec 05 - 09:32 AM (#1618485) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST surely any mature sane adult accepts by default that paedophiles are sick and need treatment..[and serious punishment when convicted] however, its now becoming very difficult to raise a rational voice of concern regarding the demonising cultural/institutional/media hysteria dominating this extremely problematic social issue.. especially when the "if you dont unconditionly agree with what I say, then you must be a closet paedo !!!" mentality becomes alarmingly the 'norm' of debate |
|
02 Dec 05 - 11:49 AM (#1618607) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: M.Ted The predominant view expressed here seems that the issue has been overblown by media hysteria and is not really very important. The reality is that there is a lot of child abuse, both physical and sexual, out there. Despite what some seem to think, there is not a lot of money for treatment of victims, there are few resources for intervention, and there is little money for, and little interest in prevention. The interest level goes down even lower when the issue is treating offenders--GUEST, 9:32 am demonstrates the ambivalence of society well by saying "surely any mature sane adult accepts by default that paedophiles are sick and need treatment..[and serious punishment when convicted]"-- And GUEST 7:27pm, who, seems to be an advocate for convicted offenders, is frustrated and angry because offenders who have been convicted and served their time are permanently branded as"Sexual Predators" by the courts in order to placate a society that has become hysterical over the issue. (I wish that he would re-read what I had said carefully--the high recidivism rate that I mentioned was specifically for serial child sexual predators--the individuals who victimize large numbers of children over time--yes, they are a small percentage of the individuals who are convicted of sexual offenses, but over time, they seem to have a strong tendency to continue their behaviors--and yes, not all sexual offenders are child predators, and yes, the sexual offenders who are not child predators have a fairly low rate of recidivism, at least for sexual crimes, though many are returned to prison for parole violations)-- |
|
02 Dec 05 - 01:45 PM (#1618705) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST well here are one or two facts that show how ludicrous your argument is mted. approx 2000 kids are killed by firearms each year in the USA~ approx 5000 kids are murdered by parents or siblings in the Usa each year' but less than 50 are killed by strangers each year in the USA. according to these facts it is far safer for a child away from home so why dont we have an online database of parents? they are far more dangerous to children, and hey while we are at it why not have a online register of gun owners as they kill 40 times more kids than sex abusers, out of a population of 300 million. any child death is bad but a country with so much gun death should ban the bloody things, instead of facing the real problems its easier to find scapegoats |
|
02 Dec 05 - 02:03 PM (#1618713) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,09:32 AM the problem here seems to be agreeing on maintaining an appropriate level of serious awareness of the true extent of paedophile abuse.. while not succumbing to irrational widespread over-hysteria.. which only distracts from the key issues.. and serves the interests of individuals and groups who thrive on simplistic manipulation of mass emotions.. and have their own cynical agendas for creating social demons and scapegoats.. |
|
02 Dec 05 - 02:15 PM (#1618720) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,parent I have no interest in the statistics on reoffending or otherwise. I have an interest in my childrens' welfare. I am also not hysterical. Once an adult has abused a child he/she in my mind loses all rights to protection. They prey on children because they think they are cleverer and therefore more powerful than their victim. I don't believe in capital punishment but would quite willingly volunteer to brand every sex offender on the forehead with the words SEX OFFENDER. I realise they would need a very wide forehead. Do I think that is over the top? No, I think their possible victims should be warned of their tendencies in a way that they (the victims) will recognise. |
|
02 Dec 05 - 02:20 PM (#1618726) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Is your forehead wide enough to take the words Gullible buffoon?oh well i guess not but maybe they could shave your head and tattoo it all the way round |
|
02 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM (#1618740) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,parent Gullible buffoon? Some folk on this thread have a perverse attitude to protecting minors. At the end of the day as parents we do what we feel is right. My conscience is clear. If adults wish to get their sexual kicks from kids, the kids are entitled to know who they are. I would allow a released offender who is undergoing counselling to have one letter lasered off as every year of successful therapy and rehab passes. Then again, maybe I wouldn't. |
|
02 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM (#1618741) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,BTW Mted Mted you have some curious surfing habits or dubious to say the leastbut your accusation of my getting statistics from that website are totally untrue, i got them from the official Ohio state site statistics here:http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf |
|
02 Dec 05 - 02:38 PM (#1618749) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST guest parent you clearly are ignoring the facts so there is no point in my continuing arguing with you, I dont feel sorry for these people any mmore than i do any other criminal but i refuse to be brainwashed and manipulated in my thinking by commercial interests and government for their own gain. the most startling statistic to mme is the less than 50 stranger child murders each year, outof 300 million that is tiny, esp compared to the 5000 child murders by immediate relatives, someone needs to do a serious expose on this but of course commercial interests will shoutdown any truthseekers, it has remarkable similarities to the pendle witch hunts in england |
|
02 Dec 05 - 02:42 PM (#1618755) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Child murders? It is common knowledge that most are commited by family. I am advocating branding child sex offenders. Child murderers I wouldn't release back into society. |
|
02 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM (#1618763) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Oh I see so you would brand the 85% of sex offenders who are the childs parents or siblings? sounds like a double punishment for the child to me, not only has she been indecently assaulted but her dads gotta wander round with a big tattoo on his head,it will make the weekly outing to the burger bar real fun |
|
02 Dec 05 - 02:58 PM (#1618770) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: M.Ted And what is my arguement, GUEST 1:45pm? The most extreme abuses, like most extremes of everything, are rarer, but are painfully real--the abduction of Carlie Bruscia and her rape and murder are very real to many Americans, we saw the abduction on television--the more brutal a crime, the wider the circle of people who know of it, and are affected by it. I guess you could say 50,000 people a year are killed in traffic accidents, and 400,000 die of lung cancer, so why were we so upset about terrorism, when only 2,600 or so Americans were killed on 9/11, and a lot fewer in each of the subsequent years--but it isn't just about numbers-- Personally, I work for a child-abuse prevention organization, I see statistics, studies, and government reports on this every day, and I also see victim's accounts, so this isn't just an excercise in argumentation for me-- |
|
02 Dec 05 - 03:48 PM (#1618791) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Well good luck in your job but as a freethinking individual i feel that I have the right to express an opinion when i can see glaringover reactions to something that is a very tiny minority of all reported crime against children, and an even more miniscule amount of all total recorded crime, BUT IT SELLS, Newspapers . tv documentaries, Tv series, social workers, police funding,call charges from people wishing to find out about local sex offenders and most of all The childrens charities, in my country the myth is beginning to be exposed and lots of false allegations have been coming to light, quite a few cases where men have been locked away for years after being charged with childrens homes abuse where they worked as carers, these false allegations netted in a lot of money in compensation for the 'victims' and of course the solicitors and newspapers had a field day. there is something very odd though about this, and that is that even though these men have been finally proved not guilty of the offences after having their lives ruined, and that it doesnt seem to attract the same media attention that a claim of sexual abuse does and those poor men are left to try and pick up the remnants of a shattered life after years in jail, hey and guess what,,,,,,,,,,,,, the people who made the false claims in the first place and got the compendsation cant be touched, many commit suicide of course after losing their fammily, home and work and it sickens me that this can be allowed to happen in a civilised world... Only today six people were released after spending a few years in Outreau France,,,, they were vi9ctims of an a so called paedophile ring prosecution, the case when it was tried was absurd but the media carried it through, there were seven originally but one commited suicide in jail. Now that the satanic abuse and the bogeymman myths are gradually being exposed the childrens charities have found a new banner BULLYING OMG School BULLYING! they got all kinds of hotlines and police reporting systems if u are getting bullied at school, Until we realise that these so called moral guardians are merely parasites we wont move on |
|
02 Dec 05 - 04:22 PM (#1618820) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Oh I see so you would brand the 85% of sex offenders who are the childs parents or siblings? sounds like a double punishment for the child to me, not only has she been indecently assaulted but her dads gotta wander round with a big tattoo on his head,it will make the weekly outing to the burger bar real fun If a childs father sexually abuses her/him I think he kind of gives up his rights to getting in the nuggets. |
|
02 Dec 05 - 04:43 PM (#1618831) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: M.Ted If anyone is over-reacting, it is you, GUEST--you're as bad as the people that you complain about. |
|
02 Dec 05 - 05:15 PM (#1618852) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST very sorry to hear abot the carol bruschia case, there are many cases of child murder each week but the predator ones are the ones that the media hideously exploits for profit, here is a video you maynot see in america, it is not for the fainthearted but it might help you get things into perspective Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre |
|
02 Dec 05 - 05:30 PM (#1618861) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST yes I do because america is sick, theyy create bogeymen then i=gnorethe reality of real 'child abuse like thiFallujah - The Hidden Massacre s |
|
02 Dec 05 - 05:35 PM (#1618866) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST hMM THE LINK DOESNT WORK ON THIS THREAD, I SUPPOSE THE bUSH BOYS WOULD BLOCK THIS ONE ANYWAY |
|
02 Dec 05 - 06:03 PM (#1618882) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST ok sorry last attempt http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmv |
|
03 Dec 05 - 11:10 AM (#1619299) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Big Al Whittle just suppose they are werewolves and hair grows over the tattoos saying I am a sex offender. I feel we need to be prepared for these problems and anticipate them. Great idea, though. Those bastards who don't bring library books back, and what about an I FART IN LIFTS tattoo. The man who thought this one up is clearly a genius. |
|
03 Dec 05 - 11:21 AM (#1619305) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: zak Those men are indeed evil and i do believe as you say that they have lycanthropic abilities, we should boil them in acid and any remnants of bone that remain should be crushed and powdered then sent into space in a rocket clearly marked PEDO |
|
03 Dec 05 - 02:13 PM (#1619387) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Big Al Whittle Ringo Starr's kid....? |
|
03 Dec 05 - 10:29 PM (#1619594) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,l'il tweety paedo paranoia TWEETY: I taut I taw a paedophile a creepin' up on me I did! I taw a paedophile as plain as he could be! That paedophile is very bad, he sneaks up from behind I don't think I would like it if I knew what's on his mind I have a strong suspicion that his plans for me aren't good I am inclined to think that he would *@$? me if he could SYLVESTER: I am that great big bad old paedo, Sylvester is my name I only have one aim in life and that is very plain I want to catch that little bird and *@$? him right away But just as I get close to him, this is what he'll say TWEETY: I taut I taw a paedophile a creepin' up on me I did! I taw a paedophile as plain as he could be! That paedophile is very bad, he sneaks up from behind I don't think I would like it if I knew what's on his mind I have a strong suspicion that his plans for me aren't good I am inclined to think that he would *@$? me if he could Yep.. they're everywhere !!!!! BEWARE.. BEWARE !!!!!!.. |
|
04 Dec 05 - 01:35 AM (#1619651) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,rural mob justice Where be thit Paedo to? I know where he'll be, He'll be up yon Wurzel tree, Cuz I be after he! Now I sees he, And he sees I, Bugger'd if I don't get 'im Wit a gurt big rope I'll string 'im up Paedo, I'll 'ave thee! La la la la la la La la la la la la Lynch a Paedo! (Audience Answer) Allright! |
|
04 Dec 05 - 04:31 AM (#1619664) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Big Al Whittle I think we're entering the realms of fantasy here..... |
|
04 Dec 05 - 06:02 AM (#1619686) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST ive just rehojned this convo. are we now making light of children suffering abuse? |
|
04 Dec 05 - 08:59 AM (#1619749) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Big Al Whittle I believe Latin is still on the syllabus in some schools |
|
04 Dec 05 - 11:16 AM (#1619805) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,paedo basher baiter "are we now making light of children suffering abuse?" I'd sincerely hope the answer from all of us is.. "OF COURSE NOT, NEVER !" ..child abuse is an all too deadly serious issue.. Paedophiles are sick 'wicked' individuals who need preventative treatment, and punishment if found guilty of child abuse. however mass media fueled reactinary irrational paranoid cretinous vicious mob vigilante culture deserves to be ridiculed by any means.. whether by sarcasm & satire, crude or sophisticated.. its all fair game.. ..when social reason & objectivity is eroded and violated by cynical and manipulative right wing agendas. |
|
04 Dec 05 - 12:16 PM (#1619827) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST yes. every agenda is a right-wing agenda ;-) |
|
04 Dec 05 - 05:37 PM (#1619970) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: dianavan Thank goodness the media has brought the problem of child sexual abuse to light. If they hadn't, many children would still be suffering in silence. Its because the issue has become public information that parents and the general public are more aware. ...and yes, guest, most child sexual abuse is committed by family members or friends of the family, which makes it even more important that children are encouraged to tell someone they trust. When abuse is committed by a family member, it is more difficult for the child to come forward. What is it, guest and zak, that makes you think that this crime should be kept secret? |
|
05 Dec 05 - 07:16 AM (#1620296) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Strollin' Johnny Right on the button d. |
|
05 Dec 05 - 11:40 AM (#1620446) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,singalongaGuest "What is it, guest and zak, that makes you think that this crime should be kept secret?" could you please be more specific.. which guest are you refering to.. .. and apparently 'implying' may possibly be a depraved undercover paedo.. I'm the 'comedy song' folkie guest.. i detest paedo's I certainly want the public to be aware of any real threat paedos pose to children.. [but at the same time would prefere them to voluntarily accept treatment, without being driven underground and into hiding, and off the radar scope of mental health and police agencies] Of course communities need to be kept informed of local potential threats to their children.. ..but in a more rational and objective form of media reporting; with less emphasis on cynical manipulative scaremongering propaganda.. and the whipped up fury of ignorant ill-informed mass vigilante 'hate' mobs.. The problems of paranoid suspicion, violence and disorder with which they can infect decent society.. [..resulting from profiteering irresponsible and ideologicaly motivated media self interests..] ..are too high a cost and not acceptable in a supposedly civilised culture. clear enough.. ??? |
|
05 Dec 05 - 12:05 PM (#1620452) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,parent Of course communities need to be kept informed of local potential threats to their children. And that is the problem. Once released their identity is NOT KNOWN to communities. They are rehoused next to you and me without our knowledge. And voluntarily accepting treatment helps who exactly? It helps the ones who wish to fly under the radar and not seek help. |
|
05 Dec 05 - 12:29 PM (#1620468) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,11:40 AM ok.. 'preferably'.. ideal world scenario.. paedos volunteer to commitment for treatment.. local community is aware of them and calmly tolerates their existence if they stay away from children.. But.. real flawed world scenario.. health/social and police authorities need more realistic and pragmatic powers to persuade paedos that 'voluntary' lifetime treatment is the best & safest option if they want to survive living in a community where key law/social/youth/church officials have been provided with their names & addresses...... |
|
05 Dec 05 - 01:04 PM (#1620488) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,parent I live in a city of approx 10 million people. How many released sex offenders would you hazard a guess also live here? Under the data protection act (amongst others) the professionals who know their names and addresses know them in confidentiality. They are not passed around like idle gossip. The community is NOT aware of who they are. The children that live on their streets are NOT aware of who they are. You mentioned church/social and youth services being privy to the information. As they are historically the three most notorious breeding grounds for child sexual abuse am I meant to feel safer that they know who the sex offenders are? If a dog bites a child there is more outcry than there is over paedophilia. The dog is invariably put down. Other dangerous breeds are banned or muzzled. We protect our children against potentially dangerous animals, but potentially dangerous humans have the right to live next door to us and remain unknown to us. I'm sorry but there is something inherently wrong with that. Sentences should be longer and treatment should be compulsory, release should be dependant upon psychiatric reports and identities should be known. If someone feels as though their 'rights' have been infringed by having these conditions imposed on them, then there is a very easy way to avoid them. Stay away from children. If they can't manage that then prison is the best place. |
|
05 Dec 05 - 01:36 PM (#1620507) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,01:04 PM ok, add 'neighbourhood watch' organizers, etc to list of community leaders privvy to paedo ID info.. the point is, one formal/informal way or another.. you should know if a confirmed paedo lives next door.. .. just dont persecute [or try not to beat the shit out of] him unless you know for certain he's been up to anything involving children |
|
05 Dec 05 - 02:00 PM (#1620515) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,GUEST,11:40 AM oops.. cut'n'paste error.. that should have been GUEST,11:40 AM my reason for joining in here [my soapbox issue] is that people shoud resist jumping to the wrong conclusion that anyone who is concerned by corporate media fueled mass vigelante paedo paranoia/over-reaction, poisoning modern 'civilized' society, is therfore pro paedo 'rights' or even worse 'one of 'em'!!!!???!!! |
|
05 Dec 05 - 03:17 PM (#1620527) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,parent ok, add 'neighbourhood watch' organizers, etc to list of community leaders privvy to paedo ID info.. the point is, one formal/informal way or another.. you should know if a confirmed paedo lives next door.. .. just dont persecute [or try not to beat the shit out of] him unless you know for certain he's been up to anything involving children That is even more shocking! Less than 50% of the UK has neighbourhood watch schemes. There has to be a certain amount of interest in it to be set up locally. In highly populated inner city areas with transient populations the rate is far lower. They may work great in smaller areas though. I didnt realise they had access to criminal records, are you sure about that? The man who came knocking on my door asking if we were interested in setting one up, (with himself being in charge) has recently been divorced by his wife for years of domestic violence. I wouldn't trust him with any data protected information. He IS the local vigilante. And the only way to make sure the wrong people aren't targetted and 'beat up', is to ensure that the right people are identified. Easy really, no confusion then. We are so concerned about the rights of the convicted offender we have lost sight of the rights of the children to protection. Like I said we are quicker to protect them from dog bites. Once they are released from prison they are free to offend again unchallenged. And forget about the recommendation that they are rehoused nowhere near a school. There is no area in my city that is nowhere near a school. The latest one to hit our local headlines was actually rehoused in a third floor flat overlooking an early years 0-5 yrs nursery. His flat looked directly into their playground. When his whereabouts became known he was moved to an area three miles away and on the same street as a primary school. If the judicial system can't rehab them, and the police can't monitor them, then I am afraid even Mars is too close for comfort. We are not going to agree and we are going around in circles now. I am of the belief that they should have zero rights to anonymity. They have foregone them to get their sexual kicks. I only know of one, as stated above, in our locale, but he is certainly not alone. Which negates your argument that by one means or another we should know where they are living. The truth is we don't. In a city of approx ten million according to your reasoning he is the only one, because we know about him? I can see your point about the wrong person being attacked by a hate mob, and the reason this can happen at present is because their identities are kept secret. Do away with anonymity and those who deserve to watch their backs as they walk the streets will be the only ones living under that pressure. I don't advocate or condone violence, but if I were to see a known convicted child sex offender getting a kicking I am honest enough to say I would walk by and cross the road. |
|
03 Mar 06 - 04:41 AM (#1684123) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: George Papavgeris The verdict is out - guilty Gary Glitter found guilty |
|
03 Mar 06 - 05:07 AM (#1684144) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Bagpuss On the argument that people should be told about paedophiles living in their neighbourhoods. People seem to be unaware that the main reason for not releasing such information is not to protect the rights of the abuser per se, but rather to make children safer. At the moment, most released sex offenders have their whereabouts known by the police, so if there are any attacks, they know they would be the first port of call. Once that info is released to the general public, the offender is invariably hounded from their home and they move without informing the police where they are going. So then, you still have paedophiles living near you, but neither you nor the police know where they are. Bagpuss |
|
03 Mar 06 - 05:14 AM (#1684148) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Subject: BS: Gary Glitter From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Nov 05 - 07:11 PM 5 dollar prostitute under the age of consent - potential for statutory rape sentence to be firing squad? Something a bit screwy here? Only thing screwy is that the beast is still alive. Those poor kids. Poverty is a killer! |
|
03 Mar 06 - 06:04 AM (#1684175) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: alanabit Indeed poverty is a killer. How much easier to kill an ageing sexual misfit than it is to eradicate poverty. |
|
03 Mar 06 - 06:30 AM (#1684189) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST and who said we shouldn't aim to kill both? Ageing misfit? I hope you are not trying to provoke some sort of defence of this monster? |
|
03 Mar 06 - 06:35 AM (#1684193) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Strollin' Johnny Cut his nuts off and make him eat 'em. |
|
03 Mar 06 - 07:12 AM (#1684215) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: alanabit I don't think that calling someone an ageing sexual misfit sounds either like a compliment or an attempt to rehabilitate them. I don't particularly feel the need to demonstrate that I hate say, Gary Glitter, David Irving or Ossama Bin Laden any more than anyone else. They are all sad basket cases to me, no matter how unsavoury I find them. I have recently been in an interesting debate here with Peter K. on the Irving case. Although I do not agree with his views entirely, it is interesting to hear a man defend the rights of the unattractive bigot. I respect him for that. Similarly, the test of our compassion is not how much sympathy we can muster for brown eyed orphans, dewey eyed heroines and cute puppies. We owe human dignity to everyone - even the mass child torturer. Anything less and we diminish our own humantiy. I will have no truck with the "Up against the wall" mob. |
|
03 Mar 06 - 07:52 AM (#1684245) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: gnomad Thanks to alanabit & guest,bagpuss for injecting a degree of civilisation. Rereading some of the earlier posts I note that there is concern over chance that the "wrong person" might be beaten up or worse. This implies that there is a "right person" for such treatment. Sorry, can't agree; there is a right subject for due legal process, and punishment if justified, but no right victim for mob violence. I am aware that if sufficiently angered I would be quite capable of joining a mob, that doesn't make it a laudable, or even a decent, thing to do. That is what ought to elevate humankind above the animals, though if animals make moral judgements I reckon many would have cause to look down on us. |
|
03 Mar 06 - 09:00 AM (#1684300) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST We owe human dignity to everyone - even the mass child torturer. Well we'll have to strongly differ there. |
|
03 Mar 06 - 12:48 PM (#1684410) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: George Papavgeris GUEST, to keep the full context, alanabit said "We owe human dignity to everyone - even the mass child torturer. Anything less and we diminish our own humanity." Yes, you clearly do differ. |
|
03 Mar 06 - 02:26 PM (#1684469) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: ard mhacha It seems some people on this Site are as weird as the perverted scumbag who will be out by Christmas, is there an argument the man has been proven to be a sicko for a long time. Put him away for life, no child is safe with this monster around. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 02:49 AM (#1684811) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Strollin' Johnny Him and a lot more Ard. You're dead right. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 03:59 AM (#1684827) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,stevenrailing "We owe human dignity to everyone - even the mass child torturer. Anything less and we diminish our own humanity." No we don't. Being human (in sense of being civilized and inclusive in some sense of morality) is not something we are born with, it is something we strive towards. Glitter is not civilized, no sense of morality, (except one of a maniac) and is a threat to children born into a life of poverty. Glitter preyed on the poor, and abused them for it. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 04:01 AM (#1684828) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Don(Wyziwyg)T It seems that "out by Christmas" may be just the end of the first chapter. According to BBC news the police will be waiting to arrest him as soon as he arrives in the UK, after deportation from Vietnam. The plan is to charge him with possession of over 2000 child porn images found on his laptop. This comes under the new law permitting British citizens to be prosecuted for their actions while abroad. Good news for British parents. Don T. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 04:13 AM (#1684836) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,stevenrailing Yes we can but hope that the above comes into frution. Either way, he should never be allowed back on streets again. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 05:12 AM (#1684859) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: alanabit I am not sure what the correct penalty for child molesting is. Wiser heads than mine have experience of dealing with perpetrators and victims. I would want to listen to them. We are all disgusted by child abuse, which does not mean we all have a clear understanding of it. I would quite possibly severely damage a child molester, whom I caught attempting the act - whether it was my child or yours. That does not make it justice though. It is dangerous to get into bidding auctions about what retribution molestors should suffer. "I would hang them!", "No, cut their balls off!", "No, we should whip, stab and hang them! (Iranian justice). That says more about us that it does about the criminal. There is something rather unsavoury about feeling justified in allowing our basest instincts to take over. The world needs a bit more justice and a bit less revenge. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 05:48 AM (#1684877) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2 I think the poor pathetic bastards who feel up and molest children on the spur of the moment without being able to control themselves should be treated with some pity and understanding - couselled helped, but ultimately locked up unless they can change their ways. Rock spiders like Glitter, on the other hand, who coldly and carefully set out to gratify themselves by destroying children's lives, should be hung up by the balls on lengths of rusty barbed wire - and if that appalls you, alanabit, then I'm afraid I don't care. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 09:22 AM (#1684986) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Being in England where he is well known and can't hide would be better than being released and allowed to live abroad. He has spent the last few years in and out of dodgy bars surrounded by very young girls. Could that happen in England? I don't think so. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 12:33 PM (#1685094) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: alanabit It is just because people don't care that we have child molesters. They are easier to make than to cure. |
|
05 Mar 06 - 05:41 AM (#1685443) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Bagpuss 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. |
|
05 Mar 06 - 03:39 PM (#1685819) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Strollin' Johnny 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. |
|
05 Mar 06 - 04:24 PM (#1685859) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: alanabit 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? |
|
05 Mar 06 - 05:56 PM (#1685947) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST To those who feel sorry for the prick I HOPE IT IS NOT YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER HE IS ABUSING |
|
06 Mar 06 - 03:04 AM (#1686221) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: alanabit One can't argue with that sort of "logic". My respect to Strolling Johnny. He posts under his own name. |
|
06 Mar 06 - 07:14 AM (#1686309) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Strollin' Johnny 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) |
|
06 Mar 06 - 08:17 AM (#1686341) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: alanabit 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. |
|
06 Mar 06 - 08:35 AM (#1686350) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST so not much chance now of Gary Glitter ever being awarded a Knighthood then ? |
|
06 Mar 06 - 08:53 AM (#1686354) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Strollin' Johnny Well put Alanabit. I can go with that. :-) |
|
07 Mar 06 - 07:07 AM (#1687114) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Gray Glitter that well known Chidren's enterainer |
|
07 Mar 06 - 07:10 AM (#1687117) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Strollin' Johnny GUEST, that well-known dyslexic. |
|
08 Mar 06 - 04:41 AM (#1688062) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST Gary Glitter a great person to have a child's party |
|
08 Mar 06 - 09:12 AM (#1688204) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
08 Mar 06 - 09:41 AM (#1688226) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Strollin' Johnny 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) |
|
08 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM (#1688265) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
08 Mar 06 - 12:04 PM (#1688337) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: gnomad 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. |
|
08 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM (#1688343) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave the Gnome 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:-( |
|
08 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM (#1688353) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: gnomad 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? |
|
19 Jan 12 - 02:27 PM (#3292954) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2 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. |
|
19 Jan 12 - 03:24 PM (#3292984) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: goatfell Gary Gillter, that well known Children's entertainer |
|
20 Jan 12 - 06:29 AM (#3293251) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,davetnova Leave Gary alone, all he want's to do is settle down and have children. |
|
20 Jan 12 - 07:23 AM (#3293271) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: John MacKenzie Flamers succeed again |
|
20 Jan 12 - 07:29 AM (#3293275) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Patsy 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. |
|
20 Jan 12 - 08:56 AM (#3293305) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Musket 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. |
|
20 Jan 12 - 09:01 AM (#3293307) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: MartinRyan Looks like a troll based on a rumour... |
|
20 Jan 12 - 09:03 AM (#3293309) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: goatfell I like Gary Glitter, whatever the man done is in the past, let him move on |
|
20 Jan 12 - 11:33 AM (#3293405) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Eoin O'Buadhaigh 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? |
|
20 Jan 12 - 07:31 PM (#3293638) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Paul Burke 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. |
|
21 Jan 12 - 06:01 AM (#3293825) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Bernard I believe electronic copies of his autobiography will be available in shops in the PDF aisle... |
|
21 Jan 12 - 08:37 PM (#3294158) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: andrew e An interesting discussion here. http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=65&func=view&catid=2&id=79464 |
|
22 Jan 12 - 06:01 AM (#3294298) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Jack Campin This makes some rather telling points about Glitter's notoriety: http://chrisbarratt.wordpress.com/ |
|
22 Jan 12 - 06:03 AM (#3294300) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Ralphie 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. |
|
22 Jan 12 - 06:32 AM (#3294313) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Silas 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. |
|
22 Jan 12 - 02:04 PM (#3294574) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Eoin O'Buadhaigh 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. |
|
22 Jan 12 - 03:48 PM (#3294642) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Paul Burke 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. |
|
22 Jan 12 - 04:27 PM (#3294658) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave Hanson 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 |
|
22 Jan 12 - 04:46 PM (#3294667) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Bernard 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... |
|
22 Jan 12 - 05:46 PM (#3294685) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Eliza 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. |
|
22 Jan 12 - 06:08 PM (#3294694) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Paul Burke Bernard: er, Vietnam? |
|
22 Jan 12 - 06:45 PM (#3294706) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Bernard Paul - have you read the article? It may just affect your opinion, as it did mine... |
|
23 Jan 12 - 03:36 AM (#3294832) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Silas "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. |
|
23 Jan 12 - 04:33 AM (#3294848) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Jack Campin Silas, how about you read Chris Barratt's piece and think for a few minutes before hitting the keyboard? |
|
23 Jan 12 - 05:03 AM (#3294854) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Bernard Silas - your erroneous remarks could get you into a libel situation. As Jack says, READ the article. |
|
23 Jan 12 - 05:03 AM (#3294855) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Silas 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? |
|
23 Jan 12 - 05:06 AM (#3294856) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Silas Bernard - which of my remarks are erroneous? |
|
23 Jan 12 - 12:10 PM (#3295015) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: goatfell people can change |
|
23 Jan 12 - 12:18 PM (#3295023) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Silas "people can change" Nope. There is NO evidence that these scum ever change. |
|
23 Jan 12 - 06:31 PM (#3295187) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: Dave Hanson Paedophilia, it's incurable. Dave H |
|
24 Jan 12 - 07:30 AM (#3295364) Subject: RE: BS: Gary Glitter From: GUEST,Eliza 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. |