Gary Glitter

Sorry Kri, but I can't really agree. Ok, so he may not walk, but considering that a couple of weeks ago he was cannon fodder it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see him grease a few more palms & walk. I can't see that a light sentence & paying the families off equates to justice - what about those poor, poor children? Personally I hope that he comes back to the UK & gets jumped in an alley, it'd be no more than the filthy bastard deserves.
 
Kri's post strikes a note with me. It may even be the case that the girls were more sexually experienced than Glitter himself was and their parents might well be their pimps. I'm not saying that's the case or that it would excuse his actions, I'm just saying that the press will paint it as black as they possibly can.
 
I'm not sure what it is you're not agreeing with, Shadz. As I said, if the court case was brought by the parents, he would be doing just that - paying 'friends' to say what a fine, upstanding, kindly chap he was, only helping the girls with their education, blah, blah. The parents wouldn't stand a chance, so it's easier to take the dosh.

As HT is also sort of saying, this could be a Michael Jackson type of scenario: the parents would be aware of his track record (after all, Kampuchea is only next door) and might think, hmmm... let's have the kids go and sleep over and then let's say he's molested them. All donations gratefully received, etc. I'm not for a moment saying that that IS the case, but all too sadly many, many children ARE appallingly exploited by their parents. When you see the deliberately-maimed little ones begging in Mumbai, for example, you know how low some people will go.
 
A Michael Jackson scenario hadn't really occured to me Kri. I've never been to places like Thailand or Vietnam but, the impression I have of them is of there being certain areas where tourists would be besieged by under-age girls done up to the nines and offering sex. If GG wasn't being tailed by British reporters then what happened would've probably went unnoticed as an everyday event. Then again, maybe I've just picked up a wrong impression from the media of such places. It's sad that you basically can't trust anything the media feed you.
 
Maybe I'm not sure what you're saying then Kri - it seemed as though you were saying that it was fair enough that the parents accepted payoffs and that it isn't that bad that he may get off with a light sentence as he'll still get some form of punishment & the families will be better off with the cash, anyway.

I fully appreciate that in these countries child prostitution is rife & a big business but I still think that the book should be thrown at the dirty paedo bastard. He has already done time for being a sick, filthy old man & since his release has often said how repentant he is, blah, blah - when it is palpably clear he just wanted to nick off somewhere he could satisfy his dirty, filthy lusts with the minimum risk of being caught.

Things like this make me sick - it's a shame that he can't be extradited back home & locked away for repeat offences and for being a major threat to children. Preferably in general population where everyone knows exactly what he's in there for...
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Dec 29 2005, 01:36 PM
It seemed as though you were saying that it was fair enough that the parents accepted payoffs and that it isn't that bad that he may get off with a light sentence as he'll still get some form of punishment & the families will be better off with the cash, anyway.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what she was saying at all
 
Ok, maybe not that it was fair enough but that it wasn't necessarily as bad a thing as other people were making out. As far as I'm concerned, whether he paid them over a year's wages or not, he should still face the full punishment as before.
 
Sigh... thanks, Brian! Can I join your Exasperated Posters Club, please? Shadow, regardless of your feelings, my feelings, or half the world's feelings, what can happen IN LAW - in Viet Nam as much as in Auchtermuchty - is driven by what's admissible and whether there's a case to prosecute. If the girls' families don't want anything more to do with the case, then the prosecutor can't bash on as if they did.

HT: you probably don't have to visit the places, Tomster. There's enough information out there via Google or even good old-fashioned newspapers and international magazines to inform anyone who's slightly concerned about such things. In many countries you will be offered the child of your choice, gender of your choice, and negotiate a price depending on the child's, er, 'freshness' or whether you want one more experienced. I know of both male and female English friends who've returned from visiting beautiful, exotic, palm-fringed islands in a state of fury, rather than the calm they'd been hoping for, because of the non-stop pestering by children or their teenage pimping brothers to enjoy 'massage', blow jobs or 'full sex'. When they've expressed their horror, the kids just giggle and then offer them cocaine or heroin instead.

I'd only been in India about two hours, on business, when a street hustler all of nine offered me a 'nice clean boy', followed by my decline of the kind offer with 'you want marijuana?' 'No, I don't smoke, sonny.' (Bemused expression - what? A foreigner who doesn't instantly want dope?) Next try: "Okay, okay, lady. No problem. You want cocaine? I get you cocaine, no problem." (Laughing refusal by me, trying to continue a pleasant evening walk.)

Last desperate try to score: "Okay, okay, okay - you want heroin? No problem! I get you good heroin. Maybe ten minutes, okay?" At that point, I said pleasantly but firmly I did not want a boy, clean or otherwise. I did not want any drugs, not even cigarettes. I just wanted him to go away and leave me alone. For good measure I bunged the waif 100 rupees and told him to get a meal. He looked at the money and shrugged. "Okay," he said, and wandered off. A few moments later, there was a tug at my arm. "I get you ice cream," he grinned, and gave me a cornet which I only hoped was not a hash special.
 
Ok Kri - so sorry to have exasperated you! I wasn't for one second questioning the law, just the fact that no matter what THE LAW is, it is still WRONG for such a filthy paedo to be able to get off so lightly.

You may get "exasperated" with me for saying I disagree with you, but to me comments like

The payments simply mean he MAY receive a lighter sentence (than 12 years) IF the case goes to court. Only if the case does not reach court, does he walk.
Click to expand...

and

Griffin, I'm not trying to sound like a schoolmarm here, but we are a world made up of many differences - we all know about our religious differences, class systems, and so on. What some folks don't realize is that it wasn't until relatively recently that we began to view our own children AS children, and not tiny versions of adults who could be worked all day, any day, for pennies; live in filth and squalor, be beaten, starved, injured or killed during their hard work, and even sentenced to jail or death for relatively petty crimes.
Click to expand...

and

When you see the figures - a sum that BrianH lights his Havanas with on a good day at the track - equalling a whole year's hard work for a poor Vietnamese family with probably many children to support, it makes sense to say 'yes', since the families would have little chance in court up against a rich man's lawyers, doctors, and paid 'friends' to speak well of him.
Click to expand...

seem to say to me "these things happen in other countries" (which I know it does but still doesn't make it right) and "these people wouldn't have had much chance against GG in court so they may have well accepted the money". I think that it is disgusting that Glitter can buy his way out, no longer appears to be cannon fodder & will probably get off lightly - do you agree?
 
I'm not so sure that he'll get off lightly. Child prostitution is nowhere near as widespread in Vietnam as it is in Thailand and Cambodia, although things are deteriorating. Vietnam's opening up to capitalism and the influx of tourists have severely warped the economy and led to widespread corruption. Local police officials are easily bribed, and it is not too hard for paedophile gangs, flushed out from adjacent Thailand and Cambodia, to shift base to Vietnam. But there is a strong movement against sex tourism and it is to be hoped that the Vietnamese will be able (and willing) to combat it. A severe sentence for Gary Glitter wuld help them to make their case. I suppose it's a question of who is on top - those who want to protect the children and young people or the corrupt police and officials.
 
I hope you're right Brian. He really deserves to have the book chucked at him this time. People like him should be denied the freedom to live in society unrestricted.
 
Rape of an under 13 attracts the possible death penalty in Vietnam which might explain why even an innocent person would seek to pay off those charges.

Paying off is arguably an attempt to pervert the course of justice as it is a bribe . It may well be different in a country where the legal system encourages financial payments as a sentence reduction measure . What is worrying is that the evidence does tend to suggest that the rape charges were dropped after the payment.

It is not correct to say tht it is whether the parents decide to prosecute as a general rule even if that is the case in Vietnam , once the matter is in the hands of the police it is a matter for the State where the victim is under age . For example , if parents wished to stop charges where a child was alleging abuse e.g by a relatve in this country then subject to the question of whether the evidence was good enough , the parents wishes would be irrelevant . The authorities will seek to prosecute for the protection of the instant child and others .

I agree entirely with K , HT and Brian however that we cannot presume he is guilty simply due to his UK computer offences. Despite the recent changes in UK law it is much better to convict on the evidence than on a criminal record .

It is not impossible that he has been targeted for blackmail.
 
Sorry Ardross, but how can anyone say he may not be guilty? He is a convicted paedo, for Christ's sake and his lawyer has admitted that he has paid the victims' families so that "when this case goes to court, maybe Mr Gary will receive a lighter penalty". I didn't think that Krizon, Brian & HT were saying he may not be guilty? I didn't think they were.
 
1 He was convicted of computer offences of having images of child porn on his computer not of offences of actual abuse . That doesn't make those offences any less serious as were there not a market for this material many children would avoid being abused . Possession of such images does not mean that an individual carries out sexual assaults . Recent police research suggests that the vast majority of those convicted of the former do not commit the latter .

2 Considering his record and the potential death penalty - if his lawyers told him he could avoid those charges / death by payments then a man innocent of these charges might well do the same .

3 The lawyers reference might well be to a belief that he will be tried on his record and not the evidence . It is not necessarily consistent with guilt .

He may well be guilty , he might not be . I would prefer to hear what a court makes of the evidence
 
My thoughts exactly Shadow, I could not have said it better, not without being abusive in any event.
 
If you ever get called up for jury service God help whoever you try as the first principle you have to learn is innocent until proven guilty and you seem to struggle with this nearly as much as Merlin .
 
I'm sorry if you feel I struggle with the principle of innocent until proven guilty but as far as I'm concerned the guy has already been caught & pleaded guilty to child paedophilia and being a dirty, filthy man. Jesus, this man is clearly a filthy bastard; he should not be allowed freedom around children. If you feel that I'm out of orer then I'd hate to live in the world you'd like to live in.
 
No I don't believe that I disagree with you for one moment about whether GG should be around children . I think he should not be allowed anywhere near them on the basis of his earlier offending .

What I do believe in is that he should be given a fair trial for these Vietnam offences and receive the appropriate punishment if he is found guilty .

He can be all the things you say about him yet not guilty of these offences .
 
Hmm, maybe - yet I highly doubt it! People like him don't window-shop without trying the goods if they are freely enough available.
 
I'm not making any presumption about this man, or any man, who downloads images of children being photographed nude or in pornographic films or poses, IN REGARD TO THIS CASE, Shadow/Ardross. I never mentioned his 'priors', either.

The article quoted has already stated that in Viet Nam, making a 'restitution' or 'compensation' towards the family financially, who will now not press the case further, may help to reduce the maximum sentence that can be passed on Glitter IF HE IS FOUND GUILTY. Those are the rules in Viet Nam, it would appear, not Neasden.

Different countries have different rules, we all know that. No matter how nastily you despatched someone in, say, Saudi Arabia, if the family of the murdered person wants to spare your life, they have the right to do so. They have the right to 'blood money' or 'compensation', which they can claim in lieu of letting you be beheaded. If they accept this money, they cannot then go back and ask for you to be executed as well. It's either an eye for an eye, or money in compensation.

That proved to be the case when a female work colleague of mine (in Saudi Arabia) was assaulted by the taxi driver taking her to the airport for her leave. He stopped and jumped on her in the back of the car, making a feeble attempt at rape, and then running off once he realized what he was trying to do. The judge took the view that he deserved six months in jail with several lashes every week, but also offered her the chance to be compensated financially. She decided not to take the money, but also didn't want him to be jailed, as that would ruin his own family. The court actually INSISTED she take the money, otherwise the man would have to be jailed - those were the legal options. There's just been a case out there where a man, having served 16 years in jail up to the date of his execution for murder, was pardoned on the very morning he was taken out to be beheaded - the family of the dead man having decided further 'justice' was irrelevant. My point to this is that different countries don't adhere to the same set of laws as we have in the UK - not even the French, or the Italian, or the German courts act exactly as we do, so why should we expect the Viet?

It's no good arguing what the Viet authorities should or shouldn't do to Gary Glitter. They have their own laws, and no doubt they'll deal with him as best they can. As far as not having paedos around kids, Britain should adopt the 'Megan Law' as per the USA, where people (who have to meet the criteria for viewing such info) can access databases revealing where CONVICTED paedophiles live. Gary Glitter is, as yet, not convicted as a paedophile.
 
I disagree totally about Megan's Law it will encourage mob behaviour such as we were unfortunate enough to witness after the disgusting News of the World campaign where wholly innocent people were attacked and a paediatrician's house daubed with graffiti .

The likely result is sex offenders disappearing from view and not co-operating with probation and the police .

AS for the record keeping of the state - how long before some poor individual gets attacked and it is found out that the paedophile was the former resident and it was never updated .

I am all in favour of the strongest possible measures to protect children - Megan's Law however is counter productive and misguided .
 
If you take a look at the sites which employ Megan's Law, Ardross, you will not be able to access them unless and until you fill in a vast amount of personal data, one of which is that you have to be a US citizen in order to view the lists. On what basis do you condemn Megan's Law? Where has it led to lynchings in the US? What evidence have you gained on which to base such a response?

You're always comparing apples to oranges - the law seems to work fine in the US, yet you have to mention UK cases to rail against it, where the law is NOT implemented. You're a very confusing person at times: we don't have the law here, and we've had one noted case of 'mistaken identity'. They have the law in the US, where there's no mistaking the identity. And you think our way protects the innocent man better? :brows:
 
Back
Top