If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Gary Glitter's coming home
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
He'll be deported to Britain on Tuesday: http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSHAN21294020080814?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews
Cue the inevitable demands that 'something be done about him'.
For what's worth I doubt he'll stay in Britain for long- he'd need bodyguards and bullet proof vests- and he'll likely piss off to another country where he can indulge in his little innocent hobby of raping kids. But unless the law was changed, I don't think he can be charged with anything here, can he?
Cue the inevitable demands that 'something be done about him'.
For what's worth I doubt he'll stay in Britain for long- he'd need bodyguards and bullet proof vests- and he'll likely piss off to another country where he can indulge in his little innocent hobby of raping kids. But unless the law was changed, I don't think he can be charged with anything here, can he?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I don't know what can currently be done, but I think the law should allow the authorities to remove the passport of anyone who, as Gary Glitter clearly has, travelling to another country with the intention of committing a crime.
He will probably get 24 hour police protection and a house with blacked out windows facing a primary school.
The thing that really annoys me about Gary Glitter is he has never showed any remorse at all and has not even said he wont do it again
I think he is already bald.
Yes. That is almost certainly what will happen.
Okay: raping children, I'm sure we can agree, is A Bad Thing. But the people who get so screamy and preachy about it are often so ridiculous, and in their own way A Bad Thing themselves, that the situation becomes...well, weird. Why do they feel the need to express, as loudly, as violently, and as often as possible, their desire for the violent humiliation, torture, death of these people? It's an issue for the law, but if anyone really thinks that doing these things will help in the long (or the short) run, besides the pleasure you get from imagining the bloody deeds, I say go and take matters into your own hands; tar, feather, use yer pitchforks, shoot yer guns, make the world a 'better place' with your rage. God knows the world needs a little rage right now.
And yeah i agree with the whole thing about the 'line em up and shoot em!!' brigade, maybe putting them on a boat and sailing them out to sea would be a good non violent solution? ^^
(((sharks)))
A remix of wanna be in my gang?
The reality is ...he'll be back here.
The media will harass him for a few days then he'll be forgotten.
he might or he might not. Fortunately or unfortunately British law says you can only be done for a crime you have committed, not those you may do in the future. He's served his sentence, so we can't then go and jail him indefinetly when he returns to these shores.
Its public safety!
what about Islamic extremists, serial muggers, convicted fraudsters?
Where do you stop?
Give the government power to lock up people it thinks are dangerous indefinitely? You're obviously a lot more trusting than I am.
do you REALLY think people like gary glitter should have freedom?
To be fair you only have to look at the way governments tend to use extreme laws - start by locking up a couple of child abusers up indefinately and end by locking up 1000's of trade unionists or anti-war protestors or people of a certain ethnic origin.
For all the mistakes and problems a liberal system of law creates the dangers from the other side are far more terrible.
There is undoubtably a valid discussion about whether repeated serial sex abuse should possibily carry a life sentence without the possibility of release. But that person would need to actually commit the crime here for that to take effect.
He's a cunt, it's natural to be angry and to vent but I wouldn't want law based on anger or rage - in fact I'd want the opposite.
And we have that right now, except they have to be convicted of something first.
Obviously I wouldn't shed a tear if Glitter fell in front of a bus, but I think a government who can lock people up who they think are dangerous is a lot more unsafe than allowing him freedom.
Oh come on, thats a HUGE jump.Thats like saying
start by putting some people in prison for raping and killing old ladies - the next thing you know we'll all be lined up and shot for not paying our Tv licence.
The government still needs to have powers to lock dangerous people up. Im not saying THOUGHT crimes. Im saying people who ARE serial offenders for crimes against people - extra vulnerable people.
Im not even saying dont give people a second chance. Im saying dont give them chance after chance after chance, or what the fucks the point in a justice system anyway? Surely its there to keep people safe as well as to punish, and its not as if the guy has ever shown any signs of being rehabilitated
After all its just a series of small steps - you start with child sex offenders, then all rapists, then anyone convicted of flashing, then muggers, then burgulars, then grafitti artists, then fox hunt supporters, etc, etc.
And that's exactly what happens, which is why the government brought in the indefinite detention.
But, there is a massive difference between convicting someone and putting them away for a very long time, and internment which is what you are suggesting.
Unfortunatley your probably right.
I don't intend to become a mugger or burgular, so I don't care if they're locked up forever. I think the most important responsibility of a society is to keep its vunerable people safe, I can't think of another reason for society's existence.
I think people do have the right to earn a second and possibly third chance, but there has to be a point where we accept that they're not going to change, especially when children are having their lives destroyed.
Not sure though!
On another note, is Glitter his real surname?