Jump to content

Gary Glitter


pavman
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7538657.stm

 

Understand he is free today and UK authorities have stated they would welcome him home so they can assist in monitoring and his rehabilitation!

 

I can think of a few ideas to better spend our tax payers money on

Edited by pavman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

then they should take appropriate steps to rehabilitate him.

 

Pedophiles are beyond rehabilitation, they even admit it themselves, also they cannot see anything wrong with what they do, always the innocent child that suffers.

 

I'll be interested to see the outcome of his return, no matter where he goes the press will follow him. According to the documentary, after his escape to Cuba, he has a couple of incidents to account for,

 

BJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did the crime and he has done the time.

 

If the UK authorities consider him to be a risk as a result of his innate tendencies, and are prepared to let him return to the UK, then they should take appropriate steps to rehabilitate him.

 

Regards,

 

LS

 

i can only think of one rehabilitater by the name of

 

A. BULLET. heard he very good at his job :good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did the crime and he has done the time.

 

Regards,

 

LS

 

You sound like a Sympathiser to me :good:

Hang the ****** i say - infact NO, thats to bloody quick and easy for him - nice slow and very very painful death would be much better for the likes of him and the rest of the perverts out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did the crime and he has done the time.

 

Regards,

 

LS

 

You sound like a Sympathiser to me :good:

Hang the ****** i say - infact NO, thats to bloody quick and easy for him - nice slow and very very painful death would be much better for the likes of him and the rest of the perverts out there.

 

When it comes to crime and punishment old boy, sympathy doesn’t enter into it.

 

What I advocate is the notion if you commit a crime you ought to pay the penalty set out in law. Once that penalty is discharged that should be the end of it.

 

Now, I’m sure that you could have a long debate with us chaps here regarding what does and does not constitute an appropriate penalty. Those same points that you make in your post should be made to your MP, that’s what they’re there for.

 

:good:

 

Regards,

 

LS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with child molesters ('cause I can't spell pediophiles :lol: ) is they don't stop they get worse and even the authorities know that so yes my vote would be for Mr A Bullet to do the job.

 

I heard a woman on the radio the other day talking about how she'd been the victim of abuse since the age of four. When she eventually told people (when she was in her 30's) and it was a family friend, her father wrote, WROTE, to the man. Restraint or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did the crime and he has done the time.

 

Regards,

 

LS

 

You sound like a Sympathiser to me :lol:

Hang the ****** i say - infact NO, thats to bloody quick and easy for him - nice slow and very very painful death would be much better for the likes of him and the rest of the perverts out there.

 

When it comes to crime and punishment old boy, sympathy doesn’t enter into it.

 

What I advocate is the notion if you commit a crime you ought to pay the penalty set out in law. Once that penalty is discharged that should be the end of it.

 

Now, I’m sure that you could have a long debate with us chaps here regarding what does and does not constitute an appropriate penalty. Those same points that you make in your post should be made to your MP, that’s what they’re there for.

 

:hmm:

 

Regards,

 

LS

I think that you totally missed tulky's point about being a sympathiser, however, would you be so dismissive of this case if one of your family had been on the receiving end of his "attentions"? I don't think so either.

You also appear to have overlooked the fact that he may have served a sentence, but he is not rehabilitated, and never will be, he will offend again.

Your sympathy should be for the victims, who are serving a life sentence, not for the offender.

Edited by bob300w
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you totally missed tulky's point about being a sympathiser, however, would you be so dismissal of this case if one of your family had been on the receiving end of his "attentions"? I don't think so either.

You also appear to have overlooked the fact that he may have served a sentence, but he is not rehabilitated, and never will be, he will offend again.

Your sympathy should be for the victims, who are serving a life sentence, not for the offender.

 

On the contrary Bob, I understood Tulky's post entirely. The victims of pre-empted crime, especially the young or otherwise vulnerable, will always elicit my sympathies, as well they would of almost everyone reading this. That, I would have thought, would go without saying.

 

The point I was making in my original post, and the one I chose to expand upon, was that criminal justice is not something that should be governed by passion and mob-rule. Instead it should be applied evenly, according to the severity of the offence committed.

 

In the cases of those who act out of a psychological predilection, their punishment should perhaps be tackled differently, so that the punishment (and it should be a punishment in the event of a crime being committed) has a longer-term constructive effect.

 

But once the period of punishment is over, if further rehabilitation of the offender is required for their own good or the good of society in general, then this should be applied sympathetically – according to the needs of the individual.

 

Regards,

 

LS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you totally missed tulky's point about being a sympathiser, however, would you be so dismissal of this case if one of your family had been on the receiving end of his "attentions"? I don't think so either.

You also appear to have overlooked the fact that he may have served a sentence, but he is not rehabilitated, and never will be, he will offend again.

Your sympathy should be for the victims, who are serving a life sentence, not for the offender.

 

On the contrary Bob, I understood Tulky's post entirely. The victims of pre-empted crime, especially the young or otherwise vulnerable, will always elicit my sympathies, as well they would of almost everyone reading this. That, I would have thought, would go without saying.

 

The point I was making in my original post, and the one I chose to expand upon, was that criminal justice is not something that should be governed by passion and mob-rule. Instead it should be applied evenly, according to the severity of the offence committed.

 

In the cases of those who act out of a psychological predilection, their punishment should perhaps be tackled differently, so that the punishment (and it should be a punishment in the event of a crime being committed) has a longer-term constructive effect.

 

But once the period of punishment is over, if further rehabilitation of the offender is required for their own good or the good of society in general, then this should be applied sympathetically – according to the needs of the individual.

 

Regards,

 

LS

I agree with what you are saying, however a person cannot be made to undergo further rehabilitation without either his consent, or a court order surely? If Gary Glitter refuses any treatment, and as his case was not in this country, I don't see how he can be compelled to, where does that leave the situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One Government Minister was on the radio saying that once back in the Uk, Glitter will not be allowed to travel abroad. Theory is one thing. If it is so easy to get into the country, I am at a loss as to how they are going to enforce that one.

 

Despite the fact he will not immediately be in prison, I suspect life for Glitter will be as unpleasant as his case merits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TV footage of him smiling in court while the victims mother was distraught said it all. He is a predator and shows no feeling or remorse. I think the fact that he was a major celebrity will make certain his life will never be normal and he will always have to look over his shoulder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must step in on behalf of my noble friend.

 

He's not defending Gadd, the penalties / safeguards in place or anything else about this case.

 

He's simply saying (correct me if I'm wrong LS) that the rule of law is paramount. If the law needs changing, so be it, but there can be no place for extra-judicial punishment. But in the end the law is the law, something most people on here (presumably) accept.

 

Just one tiger DF? You're getting soft in your old age :lol: .

 

Robert

Edited by Maiden22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...