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.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
No. Was that a sarcastic question by any chance?
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.
I just want him kept away from children
I.e. "up the Gary Glitter" = "up the shitter".
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.
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.
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.
Signifying nothing'
That's a decent quote
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.
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).
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.
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
You not capable
of becoming a monster?
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.
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?
Who's trying to get rid of him at the moment?