Gary Glitter's coming home

Former Member

Dear Wendy wrote: »

I might be entirely wrong, but I think that the reason he hasn't expressed any regret or given any apology because he hasn't ever admitted to the crime? Hence why he wouldn't release an apology as that would be the same as an admittance?
Not sure though!

That's correct. He claims he was set up by the tabloids. Like I said previously, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand are obviously the first choice destinations for anyone trying to keep a low profile after being hounded by the press over accusations of child abuse. And naturally, you wouldn't see any issue with socialising with pre-teen girls while there either. :rolleyes: If the tabloids were trying to set him up, then he certainly made it easy for them. He also paid the girl he abused about $300 in compensation and she testified for him in court. Otherwise it could've been a charge of child rape and the firing squad.

Dear Wendy wrote: »

On another note, is Glitter his real surname?

No. Was that a sarcastic question by any chance?

Former Member

Maybe not sarcastic, but a 'surely not' type of question. But yeah, who the hell thought it would be cool to have the name gary glitter as a stage name?

Either way, (just did some wikipedia reading of my own) and the way he is trying to cover himself with the excuse that he was set up is frankly pathetic.
Though what rolly says is true - he will arrive, there will be a big deal surrounding him, and next thing you know the press will be covering a Hollywood starlet who innocently forgot her underwear and accidently exposed herself.

Former Member

clementine_the_tangerine wrote: »

I can understand people's frustrations but whilst maintaining how thoroughly disgusted and outraged you are at this man's actions then imagining and describing various torture methods Saw stylee does not elevate you as some sort of higher moral being.

not everyones doing that.
I just want him kept away from children

Former Member

his real name is paul gadd

Former Member

Dear Wendy wrote: »

Maybe not sarcastic, but a 'surely not' type of question. But yeah, who the hell thought it would be cool to have the name gary glitter as a stage name?

Ironically, before it first came to light he was a nonce, the name Gary Glitter was rhyming slang for anal sex.

I.e. "up the Gary Glitter" = "up the shitter".

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

not everyones doing that.
I just want him kept away from children

I know it wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular. I just dont get why people take the time to imagine situations where they can torture him and then be so vehemently against violent attacks on other people.

Former Member

He's a witch! BURN HIM.

Former Member

if someone did something like that to one of my children, and I had the opportunity to torture them for it, I KNOW id take great pleasure in it. That doesnt make me a violent person, because I know im not, but the rage that would be unleashed in instances like this is great and its the same for a hell of a lot of people. I think its quite a primitive group survival response. Not necessarily right and not necessarily civilised, but I still understand it.

For some people though I think it can be jumping on the bandwagon

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

if someone did something like that to one of my children, and I had the opportunity to torture them for it, I KNOW id take great pleasure in it. That doesnt make me a violent person, because I know im not, but the rage that would be unleashed in instances like this is great and its the same for a hell of a lot of people. I think its quite a primitive group survival response. Not necessarily right and not necessarily civilised, but I still understand it.

For some people though I think it can be jumping on the bandwagon

Yeah and then I would understand your stance completely. To me the whole 'let's do this and do that' before he's even arrived in the country does not automatically make you a decent person tho.

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

if someone did something like that to one of my children, and I had the opportunity to torture them for it, I KNOW id take great pleasure in it. That doesnt make me a violent person, because I know im not, but the rage that would be unleashed in instances like this is great and its the same for a hell of a lot of people. I think its quite a primitive group survival response. Not necessarily right and not necessarily civilised, but I still understand it.

For some people though I think it can be jumping on the bandwagon

I've experienced rightous rage and people have fallen.
Seriously.
The last time was a guy beating
my youngest daughter ...an adult daughter.
I went round and hurt him ...i'd have carried on hurting him for a while longer if my daughter
and then wife ...hadn't intervened.

All feelings are valid.
How we react to some of them
specialy those we haven't experienced before ....isn't a given.
Your running in overdrive
your running on emotion.
Pain and anger

The thinking process in the background
prevented me killing him.

Of course when it happens to children
it cuases such revultion asand anger ...
Yes more than in any other group of victims.

Former Member

'Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing'

Indrid Cold

Wasn't it Nietzsche who said, "People who battle monsters should take care not to become monsters themselves"?

Former Member

Indrid Cold wrote: »

Wasn't it Nietzsche who said, "People who battle monsters should take care not to become monsters themselves"?

That's a decent quote

Former Member

i think youre being naive if you think you wouldnt feel much the same once youve had your own children.

I know that sounds patronising, but once you actually have real experience of the vulnerability and the natural feeling of the huge amound responsibility and overwhelming desire to protect the next generation, something inside changes*

*normally

Former Member

Yes, and there's a very good reason why we don't base laws on these sorts of emotions, and rely on rationality instead. Well, most of the time anyway.

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

i think youre being naive if you think you wouldnt feel much the same once youve had your own children.

I know that sounds patronising, but once you actually have real experience of the vulnerability and the natural feeling of the huge amound responsibility and overwhelming desire to protect the next generation, something inside changes*

*normally

That's probably true and if anyone harmed mine I'd take great pleasure in castrating them with a rusty knife. But I don't think blood feuds are the best way to run a society.

Former Member

clementine_the_tangerine wrote: »

I can understand people's frustrations but whilst maintaining how thoroughly disgusted and outraged you are at this man's actions then imagining and describing various torture methods Saw stylee does not elevate you as some sort of higher moral being.

Word Rachael. This is supposed to be a serious soapbox-type forum, so down with the torture ideas, and in with practical solutions please. If the Thai and British police deemed Glitter to continue to be a danger to the public, then he would have been imprisoned for longer. Perhaps tagging him would be a start. Obviously you can't have a tag to raise an alarm when in proximity of children because it would mean having to tag the children too, but it wouldn't be impossible to tag a building, so to make Glitter's tag go off should he approach its perimeter fence. (I'm thinking of schools here).

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Yes, and there's a very good reason why we don't base laws on these sorts of emotions, and rely on rationality instead. Well, most of the time anyway.

what sort of rationality is it that sets dangerous people free then?

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

what sort of rationality is it that sets dangerous people free then?

Define dangerous person. Anyone is potentially dangerous. The whole point of prison and rehabilitation is to get someone to a stage where they no longer pose any more of a threat than any other member of the population. Now we can debate how to achieve that, or how effective it is, but the point is to do it on a rational basis. None of this "you don't have a child, you can't possibly understand" crap. Sorry, but we all know what it's like to have something shit happen to someone we love, and we'd all be more than happy to get revenge in the moment, and I'm sure we've all thought about what we'd like to do to such people. But that's no way to run a criminal justice system, because in the end, it doesn't reduce the likelihood of other people becoming victims of crime.

Former Member

ok dangerous person in this case. Guy who is known to have raped several children, shown no remorse, just does it again. Dangerous enough?

I am actually shocked here.

Oh maybe its because im staying on topic here and youre going off on a tangent about OTHER crimes.

Not everything leads to a slippery slope.
There IS such a thing as laws being specific

Former Member

Indrid Cold wrote: »

Wasn't it Nietzsche who said, "People who battle monsters should take care not to become monsters themselves"?

You not capable
of becoming a monster?

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

ok dangerous person in this case. Guy who is known to have raped several children, shown no remorse, just does it again. Dangerous enough?

Who are we talking about here? If you claim that people deserve a chance to be rehabilitated, then you have to accept it for Gary Glitter. He has only ever been convicted of sex with a minor (not child rape, or he'd be dead by now) on one occassion. Nothing else has ever been proven in a court of law. And while I have no doubt he's had sex with other underage girls, if you want to have a fair legal system, then you can only base these sorts of decisions on things that have been proven. And we'll see what happens when he comes back, because he's had one conviction of possessing child porn, which may be justification for him to be charged again (which I believe he should be).

Indrid Cold

morrocan roll wrote: »

You not capable
of becoming a monster?

Huh?
Not sure if I understood what you're asking well, but in case I did:
I think it means that especially the people who battle monsters are in danger of becoming monsters.

Former Member

Indrid Cold wrote: »

I think it means that especially the people who battle monsters are in danger of becoming monsters.

It's a nifty quote but does it really mean anything in reality? Who did Nietzsche have in mind when he came out with it?

Indrid Cold

The way I interpret it is that you have to make sure you don't become as ruthless etc as your enemies, because then there won't really be a difference beetween you and them other than viewpoints.

Former Member

Ohh! Ok. I understand now. Thanks.

Former Member

Jesus Christ he's going to Hong Kong now. Anyone else caring slightly less about China's human rights record for the next day or so?

Former Member

The Chinese won't take him lol.

Former Member

The title of the thread looks less and less accurate

Former Member

I've just read Gary Glitter's profile on the BBC website. GG has been fiddling with kids for fooking ages by the sounds of things! I didn't realise that he's already served time in jail in the UK for possessing child pornography, and was subsequently chucked out of Cambodia over 'unspecified allegations'' - just to be later thrown out Vietnam.

Who's trying to get rid of him at the moment?