Should Glitter be allowed to Twitter?

[sandyRoe]

http://uk.omg.yahoo.c...nds-151019609.html?nc

[hc4361]

Yes.

[B00]

Yes

[ummmm]

Yes.

What ever we feel about him...he's served his sentence.

[Jayne-123]

No he shouldn't and the people who twitter him must be paedophiles too.

[ummmm]

Strange way of thinking Jayne!

[237SJ]

He`s got a right of free speech just as everyone else has. There are probably plenty of other paedophiles using Twitter - the only difference being they haven`t been convicted.

[rowanwitch]

I think he might find the vitriol he will recieve will be a deterrent

[LoftyLottie]

yes

[mccfluff]

yes - you have the right to ignore him

[rowanwitch]

Of course it is illegal for his online activity to be monitored by a third party but I suspect someone somewhere will be watching... one slip ....

[hc4361]

Everyone should be treated the same on the internet. As it is not possible to ban other convicted paedophiles, famous ones shouldn't be banned either.

[sandyRoe]

He may not be the sharpest knife in the box. Didn't he bring a broken computer loaded with paedophile material into a shop to be repaired?

[mccfluff]

how can you enforce that?

[andy-hughes]

The account is yet to be verified.

It is interesting that with the passage of time - eons in pop music terms, only people of a certain age will even know, or care, who Gary Glitter is.

In answer to the question - yes he should be allowed. our justice system provides trial and punishment, Glitter has had both. There is nothing in law about access to freedom of expression being based on the past actions of any individual.

I predict there will be no serious interest in this man as a performer, and his past will continue to haunt him for the rest of his life. Whether or not that is a good thing is another debate entirely.

[maggiebee]

Don't twitter myself so I don't care one way or another! My son loved GG when he was young but times change. Son works in childcare and was disappointed and angry when this all came out.