Gary Glitter

Diminuendo

Diminuendo

At the Start
Joined
Jun 3, 2003
Messages
1,453
Location
The West Country
Vietnamese police want to talk to Gary Glitter about reports the shamed glam rocker was seen with girls as young as 15 at a villa he rented, a government spokesman said on Thursday.

The communist southeast Asian nation's official Thanh Nien youth newspaper quoted neighbours in the southern resort town of Vung Tau as saying Glitter -- whose real name is Paul Francis Gadd -- had taken home several girls aged 15 or under.

Residents of the picturesque tourist town on the mouth of the Saigon River had also complained about his singing, the paper said.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung told Reuters police wanted to question the 61-year-old rocker about the allegations, which first surfaced in the British tabloid press.

"If we have evidence of child sexual violation, very strict legal measures would be applied," Dung said, adding that Glitter had since disappeared.

The age of consent in Vietnam is 16 and sex with minors is punishable by up to 12 years in jail.

Glitter was sentenced to four months in jail in Britain in 1999 after being found guilty of storing more than 4,000 images of child pornography on the hard drive of his computer.

After his release, he left Britain for Cuba and then later turned up in Phnom Penh.

Child rights activists managed to get him hounded out of Cambodia twice and have his name put on an entry blacklist, although Glitter filed lawsuits last year fighting the deportation orders.

Thanh Nien reported Glitter had been in Vietnam for about a year.

2746514395.jpg



What a sick git!
 
:o DIM are you sure its not GEAROID in disguise??????? :P :D :D he likes um young!!! 16 or over of course??? :P

...................................................................................................................

DIM old adage Leopard never changes spots re. that guy!!! :rolleyes:
 
And at the same time, let's kill all the murderers and batter all the violent people, eh?
 
I'm sorry hun but I tend to think along the same lines as Euronymous on this one. Very few paedos rehabilitate - why should they be allowed the freedom to hunt down more unsuspecting children after they've been let out from a paltrey sentence? As responsible adults, we should want to do everything within our power to protect our children.
 
As with the death penalty, such measures are rather permanent whilst the possibility of a wrongful conviction remains.
 
Ffs - instead of being so feeble, airy-fairy & tolerant, why don't we make something of these arseholes who prey on children? If we took a harder line, maybe Ian Huntley would have been unable to murder those poor, innocent girls. It's time our soceity took a stand against intrinsic evil.
 
Where does wanting to see people be executed or have their bodies mutilated come on the "intrinsically evil" front?
 
I'm sorry Gareth, but where kids are involved, I don't know what is best. We should do out utmost to protect them from these perverts. Locking them up for life seems preferable to me - once a pervert, always a pervert. I really find it hard to understand the leniency when dealing with these sickos.
 
Originally posted by Merlin the Magician@Nov 17 2005, 06:35 PM
:o DIM are you sure its not GEAROID in disguise??????? :P :D :D he likes um young!!! 16 or over of course??? :P

...................................................................................................................

DIM old adage Leopard never changes spots re. that guy!!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Child abuse isn't a funny topic Merlin . I know you don't mean to offend but that isn't appropriate
 
Paedofiles cannot be rehabilitated as far as I'm concerned . They will always have the urge to offend because their brains are programmed to .It would be great to say otherwise but if you cross that line once then it's hard to come back . If someone who offends has been a victim of abuse themselves I can sympathise but I don't think it makes them any less guilty when they offend and I don't think you can stop it happening . I don't agree with the american way which is basically a frontal lobotomy but I would certainly agree with institutionalising offenders without parole. I don't think that you can take the risk of allowing supposedly reformed offenders back into circulation because as part of the illness it is normal for them to conceal their true feelings and display a degree of subterfuge .
 
I suppose I ought to note who makes outbursts about castration/mutilation/death over various offences, and who then huffs about how barbaric Shari'ah Law is when it hands down similar sentences.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Nov 18 2005, 07:43 PM
And at the same time, let's kill all the murderers and batter all the violent people, eh?
Click to expand...
No, i am against the death penalty because innocent people would be executed if it was ever brought back. I feel peadophiles are different in that repeat offenders are banged to rights so to speak, there is no doubt about there guilt.
 
Unpalatable, barbaric...yes. BUT, it would in the long run mean scores,hundreds, maybe thousands of children would escape abuse.
 
So what would be the next step from there? Don't kid yourself that those who want this would be happy to stop there. next would be to get rid of murderers, rapists, muggers and befoe you know it we are on to the disabled and Hitler looms on the horizon. The road to Hell is paved wih good intentions, Euronymous.
 
I'd like someone to explain how all the medieval punishments being proposed would have prevented Ian Huntley's crime, as is suggested. Although it is virtually certain that Huntley had had consensual sex with a number of fifteen year old girls he was never prosecuted for any such crime. Or are we suggesting that we cut off the bollocks of anyone who we think may have offended?
 
That's the spirit, Brian!! While we are at it, let's cut off the bollocks of anyone who may offend in the future too...
 
Back
Top