Gary Glitter at it again ....... 2023 update - he’s been released.....and locked up again.

It's so pathetic it makes me think of all the people who get punished more severely because they're lacking the ability to avoid the elephant trap.

So the sieve traps and keeps the less capable criminals in jail but the best never see it.
 
G-MAN2004 said:
Paedophiles should get the rope. Not freedom.
Click to expand...

It's very difficult to actually prove someone is a paedophile. Most offenders are not charged with being a paedophile, they are just charged with sexual assault charges of one form or another.
Most offenders are not paedophiles (although I'm sure Glitter is), they are opportunists, predators, low-lifes who don't care who their target is or what age they are. Arguably that's worse but it's also correctable. Being a paedophile probably isn't. To my mind, one serious offence and they should be tagged for life.
 
SpellowHouse said:
Good lesson here. No one is beyond the reach of a government when it comes to the internet.
Click to expand...
Or, as in this case, beyond the reach of someone videoing you breaking your licence conditions by using a mobile phone, and submitting it to the press... Also, contrary to media (and some replies on this thread) assertions, Tor is not simply - and certainly not automatically - for nefarious purposes, any more than the clear web is.

something daft already!! said:
Surely you mean Pederasts? Paedophiles do not necessarily act on it.
Click to expand...
A spurious distinction, I'd suggest. Not to mention, not all paedophiles prey on boys.
 
Last edited:
SpellowHouse said:
It's very difficult to actually prove someone is a paedophile. Most offenders are not charged with being a paedophile, they are just charged with sexual assault charges of one form or another.
Most offenders are not paedophiles (although I'm sure Glitter is), they are opportunists, predators, low-lifes who don't care who their target is or what age they are. Arguably that's worse but it's also correctable. Being a paedophile probably isn't. To my mind, one serious offence and they should be tagged for life.
Click to expand...
Seriously, I've read this 3 times and every time just thought WTF
 
There a very interesting article here, the jist is that while he was only tried a few years ago because some of the crimes happened in the 70s they are governed by the maximum sentences in place back then.

It goes on to state that if he committed the same crime today who receive a much longer sentence and more stringent parol conditions.
thesecretbarrister.com

We need to talk about Gary Glitter

Yesterday, as newspapers reported that convicted sex offender Paul Gadd – formerly known as Gary Glitter – had been recalled to prison having apparently breached the conditions of his l…
thesecretbarrister.com thesecretbarrister.com
 
bris said:
Seriously, I've read this 3 times and every time just thought WTF
Click to expand...

Care to expand? I am interested in what you are wtf'ing about!

You can't actually prove in a court that someone is attracted to children. You can prove they have assaulted a child but that's not the same thing. A point of law I suppose, but one that is very important, not least because, as I said, abusers might respond to prison time and change their ways, but real paedophiles probably won't.

Not that I am saying that either should ever be given a second chance, just I am making the distinction between abusers, who are the majority of people found guilty of these crimes, and the real paedophiles who represent the real long-term threat to children. The press lump them all under one term - paedophile - but they are actually wrong to do so.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom