Biggest Gap In Income And Spending Since...
News2 mins ago
Gary Glitter, should he have consular support?
Why is the british govt wasting valuable time and money offering consular support to this man. He is a disgace to this country. They ought to throw away the key. The frightening part is that if he ever came back to this country his supporters (many of them women) would be greeting him at the airport in their thousands. What does this say about our land and its people?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Dom Tuk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Another trial by tabloid?
Do you know he is guilty? Are you aware that if convicted (and lets face it the chances of a fair trial in Vietnam are not hugely high) he faces the possibility of a firing squad?
But hey ho, lets noth bother about finding out if he's guilty or nor - Dom Tuk knows best - lets just shoot the man.
(And why would you suggest that lots of his fans would be meeting him at the airport? I don't recall lots of his fans standing outside the prison on the day of his release)
"convicted of paedophilia" - didn't know there was such an offense - I thought he was found guilty of possessing child pornography and sentanced accordingly.
Still, no smoke without fire and all that, you and Dom Tuk are convinced he's guilty so it must be true.
I nominate that Dom Tuk and Don1 are put in charge of our legal system - they can see if someone's guilty from the way they look and act. It's just so obvious!
How stupid can we get? What, assuming someone is guilty without knowing anything to do with the case? I don't know - probably you best tell me.
We can all think of better uses of tax money.
Innocent until proven guilty etc - its' been said before, but imagine if it was you and you had been set up to look as though you had the same hobby as Mr Glitter? Wouldn't you expect some kind of representation?
Saying that, I don't think it is controversial for me to say the man seems to have an unpleasant personal problem and could use some kind of therapeutic help to get over his harmful inclination. But yes, keeping him away from young children should be a priority if he is indeed, guilty.
Before you join the lynch mobs you might want to remember:
1. we don't know what kind of nasty things have happened to him in his (early) life to make him behave that way.
2. the tabloids love exploiting this subject to fire up its readers and to flog more copies - protecting the exploited children of the far east is a lower priority than circulation wars
Whatever the outcome of this, surely we have to accept that as a country we offer our time and money to someone accused of a crime abroad. the beauty of living in a country like ours is that we are innocent until proven guilty, and have the right to a fair trial. We can't start abandoning people in countries where the judicial system is slightly dubious based on headlines in the The Sun. Yes, if he's correctly found guilty you might sit back and shout about how the money could have been spent on cancer drugs, and school books, but that's not how the world works, and that's not how it should work. Our time and money may go to many things that some of us find unsavoury, but in this case we're allowing him a basic right, evil or not, guilty or not.
Perhap the authorities heard about his trial here and that he is a celebrity and cooked the whole thing up hoping to get a huge pay off?
perhaps the people accusing him think he's an easy target and a way out of poverty?
my point is we don't know the facts of his crime over there.
he was convicted over here for looking at pictures!
Repugnant though those pictures were, they don't carry the death penalty. - you can't have him shot for looking at pictures - i can think of much worse crimes committed for which the perpetrator is still alive.
castration and a good kicking should be enough!
I think the problem we have with him is that although he was convicted for lookin at pics, children were abused so he could get his kivks. I believe he was also convicted of making pornographic images of a minor as well, though i may be wrong there. Castration sound great, or if someone could invent some sort of implant for his brain that gives his balls an electric shock every time he thinks about kids....
I think he has alterior motives for being in that part of the world and i am sure i am not alone in second guessing this.
He makes me feel sick and i grew up in the village he lived in makes me shudder at the thought.
Am I getting this right. Someone is convicted for looking at kiddie porn on the internet (not making it). Somone makes an allegation against him, so he deserves to be shot / castrated. I
Are you really saying that it is irrelevant whether or not he actually commited the crime - just the fact that he has a siminlar (but a much lessor offense) is sufficeint to imply his guilt?
Dom Tuk asks in his original question "what does this say about our land and its people"(sic).
I guess it says that there is a percentage of our population who believe what they want to believe and won't let facts get in the way.
For all those leaning to the lynch mob I prescribe a heavy dose of Golding's Lord of the Flies.
and a trip down memory lane:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/82935.stm
Sun and Mirror "outed" a paedophile and in the resulting riots we had petrol bombs being thrown at the police.
Think carefully what you ask for - you might get it!
Without in anyway condoning anyone looking at kiddie porn, the legal definition of 'making' in this context does not mean ' get kid, take photos of kid', it means 'downloading picture from Internet, saving in different format, or cropping it and saving it etc'.
Not saying it's nice, or defensible, and of course somewhere someone has got a kid and taken photos, but nevertheless thought it worth the clarification.
Oneeyed viv...you mention trial by tabloids. It was mentioned by Jeremy Vine that in this case the tabloids have does a great service to the people by following/hounding Mr Gadd and revealing his whereabouts. He may have wished that his activities go unnoticed but the incessant publication of his whereabouts and sordid activities resulted in a official recognising his face and arresting him at the airport.
Now onto the next point...he was not only convicted of downloading porn, he was also accused by many of 2 british girls and their mother of indecent acts...dont know what happened to that. he was also removed from Cambodia by their government which is why he fled to Vietnam.
I have mentioned the reception that he will get from his female fans because it was the subject of a radio phonein a while ago and many fans rang in to say they will still go to his shows and receive him at ports if he ever came back to this country.
I do not see any grammatical mistake in the sentence... what does this say about our land and its people? kindly enlighten me.
Dom - one of the reason I hate tabloids is because of this high and mighty attitude they have. We can take the example of printing paedotricians names and address as well as people who have been accused but found to be innocent. We could also discuss the fact that they referred to a 13 year old as looking 'sultry' (the actress who played Hermoine Granger (sp?)in the Harry Potter films) or the countdown by one of the papers showing a 15 year old schoolgirl with the caption "3 weeks before we can show her t*ts". Should I also mention the tennis player Anna Kornikova (again sp?) and her pictures when she was 15? Moral highground indeed.
Yes he was accused but found innocent of molesting children - but hey, who cares what a jury think (who have sen the evidence) - he was accused, and no smoke without fire and all that.
With regard the females fans - you may be right - but then there are certain people who write to murderers in prison and want to marry them - somehow I can't see this number being in the thousands (and I can't see a radio talk show having thousands of women ringing in), so I am guessing that you are exagerating for effect.
Sorry - no gramatical error - getting myself mixed up with possessive plurals - d'oh
I'll go along with Bernardo on this one. If someone who has served time for their conviction is abroad they deserve the same rights as anyone else. Had he been convicted of beating a robber to death (something you may agree with) and then got into a bar fight in New York with a illegal immigrant (something you may agree with) would you question his right to consular support? The nature of his crime will always stir emotions, but there is no place for emotions in the Foreign Office, or have you forgotten your Yes (Prime) Minister.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.