PDA

View Full Version : Gary Glitter


jimgriff
20th Aug 2008, 13:48
He's got a release date!
.
.
.
.
.
.

She's only 8 but looks older with make up on!!:=

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
20th Aug 2008, 13:56
...as much make up as he wore?

G-CPTN
20th Aug 2008, 14:03
I'm genuinely puzzled as to why the British authorities are insisting that Paul Gadd is repatriated to Britain and then will expend great effort to stop him from travelling overseas again.
Surely he should be allowed to 'escape' and be of no further consequence to the UK?

Radar66
20th Aug 2008, 14:30
[1] I'm led to understand that he still has some 'sentence' to serve over here, the reason for his 'bolt' to thailand in the first instance?

[2] He's a British citizen (sadly) so 'our' problem

[3] No other country is likely to let him through customs are they?!


vile man. Hanging's too good for the likes of him IMHO :mad:

Strelnikov
20th Aug 2008, 14:41
What an awful, revolting, tasteless joke. I deserve the cat o' nine tales for laughing at it :}.

I'd much rather the offender was under lock and key in Blighty rather than running amok overseas - as his clearly his desire given his offence in Vietnam.

green granite
20th Aug 2008, 15:06
The news last night said "the police will invite him to sign the sex offenders register" What happens if he refuses to?

Standard Noise
20th Aug 2008, 15:31
As long as he doesn't come back down these here parts, it sounds as if the locals in Wedmore (where he used to live) are planning a lynching!

frostbite
20th Aug 2008, 15:34
I am no fan of his, either as a person or an entertainer, but I do feel all the media inspired hysteria is way OTT.

He has done time for an alleged natural act with person(s) who were not of a legal age in the country where it took place.

I could understand the level of bile and hatred if he had been a 'man of god' who had buggered some young boys.

Big Tudor
20th Aug 2008, 16:01
Sorry frostbite, but I am missing your point. Are you saying it is acceptable for a man in his 60s to molest two girls, one aged 11 and one aged 12? You obviously have a different perception to this than I because I can assure you that any man that touches an 11 year old girl inappropriately deserves every last ounce of my bile and hatred. He also deserves the slightly more feral treatments that may be delivered from assorted fists & feet. :mad:

Binoculars
20th Aug 2008, 16:07
I've ceased venting my general opinions here for various reasons, but of course I still read, and I confess I find frostbite's one of the most extraordinary posts I have ever read here.

lastgasp
20th Aug 2008, 16:27
Radio Five just reporting that the slimeball is en route to Hong Kong.

Parapunter
20th Aug 2008, 16:43
Say what you like about Gary Glitter, he's very generous with his sweets:}

Actually, I hope the scrote really does have a heart attack & a long, painful, fatal one at that.

NutLoose
20th Aug 2008, 16:56
Now I personally think that he should have been hung drawn and quartered, then feed to the sharks.... But what I could not understand was the attitude of the crew in allowing those press photographers to have a feeding frenzy and ramming cameras in his face on the flight during his deportation..... That was just wrong, and not just for him but for all the rest of the passengers in the locality that were forced to sit through it... surely taking pics as he boards and disembarks would suffice... I do not know why they even allowed them to carry them on as hand luggage in that situation, after all we could all guess what was going to happen in flight.

larssnowpharter
20th Aug 2008, 16:59
Mr Glitter only hits the headlines 'cos he's a celeb - albeit a very minor one. There are many European and N American (oh, sorry nearly forgot the Ozzies) men of a similar age in SE Asia doing much as Mr Glitter has done.

One lives in that part of the World.

One gets pissed at the forces (poverty, parents, govmints etc) that either allow or encourage it.

Overdrive
20th Aug 2008, 17:17
Talked to a Vietnamese friend in Ho Chi Minh on Skype at weekend. I mentioned Gary Glitter, and asked about local opinion of him. Apparently they are frightened of him!

dazdaz
20th Aug 2008, 17:24
BBC News24....Update...Garry is now en route to Hong Kong:eek: Is there some Olympic event there?:E

Daz

frostbite
20th Aug 2008, 17:52
To those that enquired.

No, I am not seeking to condone what he did. I don't think my post suggests that.

I am simply suggesting that there are worse sexual evils deserving of the highest level of vitriol and that a sense of proportion seems to be lacking.

BlueDiamond
20th Aug 2008, 18:02
I'm not too sure about that, frosty ... I wouldn't have thought there were too many items on the "sexual evils list" that could be considered worse than the sexual abuse of children.

Big Tudor
20th Aug 2008, 18:17
I am assuming that frostbite is taking the fact that Mr Gadd was convicted of molesting the girls, implying that no sexual intercourse had taken place, or if it had then it was unable to be proven. If so then I still don't agree with yr comments frosty. Child abuse is a heinous crime no matter what level of depravity one takes it down to.

Roger Sofarover
20th Aug 2008, 18:19
It is the power of the media again. First let me state that i got banned from here for calling some guy from Eastern Europe a sexual deviant for what he had posted concerning kids. However to move on. Apparently Mr Glitter got done when he handed his computer in to a PC repair shop and they found images of kids on his computer. I read in the press he was sentenced to two months and did his time in the UK. He also did his time in Vietnam. Now the fact is that in the law of both countries he has done his time. The fact that most of us here would like him to hang till dead by his gonads is neither here nor there, in fact if that is your thoughts then it becomes a choice of vote at the next election. The government are now using him as a scapegoat to push through 'hardline' reforms to show us how great they are at the next elections.

They have no extradition order, they can only invite him back. The law is an ass. Does he have more to answer for in the UK? I don't know, but it was a bit confident sending a copper to accompany him back when clearly he has no rights to do so, apart from this Glitter could probably prove the matter to be 'stalking'. therefore creating the undesirable situation of making his (Glitters) situation better. Leave him alone, let him find somewhere, then if there is a case to answer in law, put all diplomatic efforts into extraditing him, then bang him up.

StaceyF
20th Aug 2008, 18:49
I have no sympathy for the man but consider this: if Glitter had killed and maimed children in, say, something like the Omagh bombing he would be living in relative peace and anonymity now.

And that's a fact.

What a strange, topsy-turvy world we live in?

Roger Sofarover
20th Aug 2008, 18:53
:ouch: I feel that could stir it up!!!

2 sheds
20th Aug 2008, 18:54
"As long as he doesn't come back down these here parts, it sounds as if the locals in Wedmore (where he used to live) are planning a lynching!"

This is precisely the problem that is caused by this media feeding frenzy, that so many people just love to be so self-righteous and consider it acceptable to take the law into their own hands when it comes to child abuse - usually without any knowledge of the facts or concern for the law. There have actually been instances of homes or persons of a paediatrician being attacked - all because it had been heard by various of the monosyllabic underclass that he (in one case, she) was a "pedo".

Ozzy
20th Aug 2008, 19:18
Seems like the Chinese don't want the scrote (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7572477.stm)either!

Ozzy

2 sheds
20th Aug 2008, 19:38
In his favour, of course, he does lend himself to a very satisfactory Cockney slang!

Parapunter
20th Aug 2008, 19:43
The flaws in the argument Roger is that irrespective of whether he's done his time or not, he will re-offend at the earliest opportunity if he's a run of the mill kiddy fiddler.

It's what they do, they manipulate, justify & revert to their behaviour. There is no curing them short of removing the hormone production centres & we don't do that do we? I'm afraid once a paedophile, always a paedophile - not for nothing do they have to sign the register for life.

And life is what the victims get. They run an elevated risk of becoming abusers themselves & so the cycle continues. If there is one thing a child should be entitled to, it is a childhood & if the price of that is the eternal harrasment of Gary Glitter then it'a one I'll accept.

Abusing_the_sky
20th Aug 2008, 19:50
I'm not very sure of the laws here in the UK, hence why I'm asking.

Couldn't Thailand have just deport him and let the Brits deal with him?
Physically make him to get on a flight back to UK?



Not harsh enough but one would hang by the bllocks likes of him, one really would!:mad:

Rainboe
20th Aug 2008, 20:29
Why? He has no outstanding offences in the UK. He has been punished for his paedophile porn on his computer and he has served time for underage sex with oriental prostitutes. He has no outstanding offences!
I have just been told by a security man whose job is to escort deportees out of the UK about the African being deported who had raped a 3 year old girl in the UK (amongst multiple other nauseating offences). Now you are talking a real criminal there. We deported him which means.....he'll be back! Council house, benefits, the lot! We know what Glitter is, but he maintains he did not know the girls were underage and besides, it was a business transaction. A lot of people reading this have some extraordinary porn on their computers, so let's not be too harsh on him! He has served his time, he is one of ours (a UK citizen) who is being appallingly hounded. It will not deter another committing similar acts. This determination to make his life hell is distasteful! People- he served his time. There are a hundred thousand scrotes out there walking the streets who should be locked up instead! Some of you venting your spleen sound like the amateur vigilantes of a few years ago mentioned earlier.

Saintsman
20th Aug 2008, 20:33
The trouble with paedophiles is that are not paedophiles by choice. They suffer from a genetic problem so cannot help what they are nor will anything take away their urges. Its no different to the urges that straight or gay people feel. The big difference of course is that straight and gay people can practice their urges with a partner's consent.

The law quite rightly protects those who cannot consent or who are weaker. I don't like people who harm children and those who do, deserve no sympathy.
The trouble is though, the law does nothing to help those, who by an accident of birth, are paedophiles (and there are an awful lot of them). If treatment was readily available to help them reduce their urges then I'm sure lots of children can be saved from abuse.

As I was writing this, I was struck by the thought that in these 'enlightened PC days' I'm surprised that someone like Cherie has not championed the paedophile cause. You know, making paedophilia a crime is against their human rights..... :suspect:

However, its an emotional subject and its not going to go away. The media frenzy placed upon Glitter is not really going to help. I mean what paedophile is going to come out and say what sort of person he (or she) really is if that is the sort of reaction they are going to elicit? All it does is keep it underground.

acmi48
20th Aug 2008, 20:50
rock and roll is a dodgy career..lots of established names have been less
than perfect with adoring fans..

Roger Sofarover
20th Aug 2008, 20:58
Parapunter

What you say may be completely correct. But what i have said, is simply stating the law. Do not blame me for the British law. As i said in my earlier post, if you do not like it, then vote with your feet when the time comes.The media is hounding one guy in ten thousand criminals, because he sang crap songs and the others did not. I don't like him, i have a 1 year old daughter, and the thought of his crimes offend me terribly, but so do the thought of vigilante squads. We vote the government in, the government have allowed him his 'flexibility', and now try to make ammends , to get votes, not save children! The government are reacting to public outrage that, had he not been a 70's singing hero, would not have been heard of. There are brits doing this in Asia and South America every bloody day. Gary Glitter is the tip of the iceberg. Wake up folks. By law he has done his time, your arguments concerning rehabilitation Parapunter, are futile. It was proven in a government study of prisoners 4 years ago that rehabilitation does not work...for any crime! Therefore the only way ahead is if you commit a crime, in order to stop you re-offending then you should all be locked up for life.

The way he has been handled is the law! I dont like it, you don't like it, but that is not my fault. I am 100% convinced he would win a case against the UK in the court of Human rights, if he brings it (and can afford to bring it).

The whole concept of sending a cop to accompany him home, when he would be 'invited' to sign the sex offenders registry is absobloodylutely ludicrous.

mustpost
20th Aug 2008, 21:09
You can't lighten a story like this up, given the scote's background, but viewing news coverage of Gadd's appearance (new to my talented artist friend) he commented "Oh look, it's Ming the Revolting.." :ok:

Rainboe
20th Aug 2008, 21:26
Let's not forget another pop star, half the surviving members of the Who, no less, was had up for having child porn on his computer, and strangely enough, a prosecution did not proceed (Police to question Townshend over child porn - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article811792.ece)). He has received almost no criticism. Gadd entered into a commercial transaction with an underage (in that country), freely consenting girl or girls, claiming he was unaware. Now there are thousands of Brits in the Far East doing just this, with the same girls probably, at this time. So why is this unfortunate man being hounded like this, with so much enjoyment? He has no outstanding warrants, yet he is going to be treated like a criminal and officially hounded by a stupid government. I am appalled.

VP959
20th Aug 2008, 21:36
I don't buy the "he can't help it" excuse, I'm afraid. What bothers me most about this chap is that he really doesn't seem to think he's done anything wrong at all, which means that he simply won't be able to fit into the moral framework that we, in this country, have set for ourselves.

To add balance, I suppose it's worth noting that we might be a bit at odds with much of the world in having such draconian laws about the age at which sexual intercourse ceases to be an offence (I'm not talking rape or abuse here, just the "unlawful sex" bit).

Until relatively recently even some supposedly advanced Western civilisations allowed marriage with girls in there very early teens - some advanced societies still do. Even today, girls as young as 13 can legally marry in at least one state in the USA (albeit only with parental permission) and several states in the US still allow marriage below the age of 16. It's commonplace for girls as young as 12 or 13 to be married in many civilisations around the world, so we should, perhaps, be careful as to how we apply our own moral judgement.

Doesn't change the fact that I think this chap's a slimeball, mind.

VP

Lon More
20th Aug 2008, 21:38
Maybe he could replace Jane Godalmighty in Bigg Brother?

Parapunter
20th Aug 2008, 21:46
He wasa convicted in Vietnam of lewd acts with an 11 and a 12 year old. He was originally arrested for raping a 10 & 11 year old & the vietnamese feds had six further alleged victims between 11 & 23 years old. Glitter has blamed the media & stated that he knows where the line is & insisted that he never believed any of his sexual partners were under 18.

I'm no anatomist, but I chinny reckon I can spot the key differences between an 11 & an 18 year old. The guy is a world famous musician & it turns out he has a predilection for itty bitty titty. He used press, radio & tv to build his fame & now blames the same for destroying it. You can't have it both ways Gary.

Personally, I think the hounding of Gary Glitter is entirely justified if it throws the spotlight on even just one more child botherer in South east Asia or anywhere for that matter.

Capt.KAOS
20th Aug 2008, 21:50
The advantage of the media attention is that Gadd cannot do his "gig" undiscovered. Children just don't have the choice and they should be shield from this predator, as any other. Most of the time these children are kept hostage in dorms after they've been sold by their parents. Especially in Cambodia this is rampant and not for nothing Gadd has been there. This so called age of content is only an excuse for these people.

I cannot understand any sympathy for this pervert. Gadd might have done his time, but peadophiles have it in their genes. As soon as they're out, they're looking for the next victim. Already in 1977 he had a "relation" with a 7 year old. Castration is the only cure. No mercy for these freaks of nature for the sake of their victims who surely are marked for the rest of their life.

G-CPTN
20th Aug 2008, 21:51
I do believe that when he returns to the UK, he faces further charges which will likely see him become a Category C inmate.
(From:- http://www.pprune.org/3229779-post7.html )

Capt.KAOS
20th Aug 2008, 21:53
The advantage of the media attention is that for Gadd it will be much more dificult do his "gig" with these children. They just don't have the choice and they should be shield from this predator, as any other. Most of the time these children are kept hostage in dorms after they've been sold by their parents. Especially in Cambodia this is rampant and not for nothing Gadd has been there. This so called age of content is only an excuse for these people.

I cannot understand any sympathy for this pervert. Gadd might have done his time, but peadophiles have it in their genes. As soon as they're out, they're looking for the next victim. Already in 1977 he had a "relation" with a 7 year old. Castration is the only cure. No mercy for these freaks of nature for the sake of their victims who surely are marked for the rest of their life.

Abusing_the_sky
20th Aug 2008, 21:59
Castration is the only cure. No mercy for these freaks of nature for the sake of their victims who surely are marked for the rest of their life.


Here here Mr. KAOS:D:D:D



Death penalty comes to mind. But then again, i'm a big softie...


Rgds,
ATS

Parapunter
20th Aug 2008, 22:00
We did a few meetings with the paedophile stoppers at Scotland Yard years back - work related project thing & it is all true that Paedos don't stop ever.

I don't know about recidivism in general, but paeodphiles are permanently guilty - they can't stop, they just can't. So they will manipulate social workers, jurys, coppers; anyone to create a view that they are reformed.

The worst of it is that if Glitter goes back to jail, he will be sectioned off with the other paedos for his own safety - turns out by law a two year sentence is not allowed to end after three days & a machete.

Thus the net effect is that by associationg with one another, they become better, more efficient paedophiles, more adept at not making mistakes as they learn from one another.

I'm not one of those who thinks there's a beast on every corner & I'm one of the least right wing ones on here, but I strongly favour swingeing state retribution on those who target children for sex on the basis that Leopards don't change their spots.

Roger Sofarover
20th Aug 2008, 22:46
Parapunter
I did a similar little 'exchange' with the boys at Vine Street and Scotland yard in 93. What i was shown was shocking beyond belief. However, you are still missing the point. The LAW is allowing this situation. The only reason he will face the police when he comes back is because of the press. When he comes through customs and immigration he has NO outstanding crimes. So as i said earlier, regardless of what we would all like to do to him, it is pointless spouting that s***e off. As regards the threat of charges of child rape, he was never charged. He paid off the mothers of both girls with about a thousand or so pounds each. Now what does that tell you? It maybe a lot of money here (i live in Asia), but lets take the equivealent in the UK, if someone raped your young daughter and said look here is a hundred grand to forget it, what would you do?????? Thought so!, you would hang the b*****d, and quite rightly so. So was rape a really involved? I don't know and i guess neither do you. These girls will be involved in a similar scam very soon, and i doubt it will be heard of. The pimps will be their mothers. There should have been more than Glitter went to jail in Vietnam.

By the way as for your comments concerning you could tell a young girl or not. Be careful if you come out to these parts. My niece who is 13 was in a large school dancing festival today, by the time she was made up in traditional costume and make up, i swear to god you would have reckoned she was a 25 year old goddess. And she wasn't, she was my little niece in a dancing competition, likewise, my sister in law who is 26, does not look a day over 14, But like the UK, there are good families and not so good families. In the UK the bad kids stab you and beat you up for your money, in other parts of the world they use sex. If you come out here, even to the bars, dont even speak to a girl until you have done an ID check, you could get a very nasty shock and find yourself on the end of a 5 year jail sentance a piece of p**s (or pay the compensation to the families who put them up to it in the first place of course!).

mustpost
20th Aug 2008, 22:48
Hi Mods
Could you please return this thread to where it belongs - a sensible area of the site (ie not Jet Blast) as it appears to be far too reasonable/grownup/non-confrontational to belong here - something like R & N, or Mil ?
Or - er maybe not, let's have our own non-egotistical, non self-serving discussion here -don't tell 'em.....

Parapunter
20th Aug 2008, 23:13
BBC: If Glitter does return to the UK, he will be met at the airport by police and required to sign the register.

He will then be subject to monitoring and have to tell the police where he plans to live and if he planned to go abroad. He could also face an order prohibiting him from going near children or using the internet.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said on Tuesday it was her view that Glitter should be given a Foreign Travel Order (FTO) banning him from overseas travel.

The reason is not that the law allows the situation, but that it requires the situation. And so it should. As for the FTO, that can only be imposed if there is evidence of sexual offences within the last six months & in Glitters case he has been ion jail for the last three years, yet has a record going back to 1999 & that's just what we know about. I think for once the government is going down the right route - not spouting shite, just a concerend parent like you.

And I can spot the difference between an 11 year old & an eighteen year old thanks very much!

Bucket
21st Aug 2008, 00:55
My ex-wife was the subject of sexual abuse as a child and it haunts her to this day. It completely destroys any normal emphasis in adult relations later on.

This is a crime that the vast majority of us (parents, relatives and descent men) find just too distressing to think of.

:=

cargosales
21st Aug 2008, 01:24
My ex-wife was the subject of sexual abuse as a child and it haunts her to this day. It completely destroys any normal emphasis in adult relations later on.

This is a crime that the vast majority of us (parents, relatives and descent men) find just too distressing to think of.

:=


Bucket: Ouch. My sympathies .. I've got experience of that also and its a real toughie to deal with :{

Parapunter: No problems here either with distinguishing between 11 and 18 year olds. Just thank god we don't live somewhere like Thailand where it seems anything goes. 13 year olds being made up to look like they're 25? FFS, that sounds like a paedophiles's charter. No wonder it attracts all the dross from the UK.

parabellum
21st Aug 2008, 02:24
Strange though that Gadd wants to go to an Asian country rather than the UK as most of them still have the death penalty for serious sex offences against children. Maybe he has a death wish?:confused:

I doubt if the Hong Kong police will be as polite and easy going as the Thai police though, I fully expect to see Gadd forcibly escorted onto the next BA 747 to leave HKG for London, (and possibly escorted all the way back too).

Roger Sofarover
21st Aug 2008, 02:29
13 year olds being made up to look like they're 25?

I said it was a dancing competition. Nobody dressed her up to look 25, she
just did!


Just thank god we don't live somewhere like Thailand where it seems anything goes.

it certainly doesn't. The countries in question here were Cambodia and Vietnam


No wonder it attracts all the dross from the UK.

Thats a little broad brush isn't it?

Para.
Sorry i didn't write that too well, i wasn't saying you were spouting s***e, i was saying that the generic comments from everybody about what they would like to do with him were s***e, as they are mostly pointless.

BlueDiamond
21st Aug 2008, 02:38
Gadd entered into a commercial transaction with an underage (in that country), freely consenting girl or girls, ...
Just a comment on that ... where a child is underage, the question of consent does not exist. Consent can not be given by a child, and whether the person is a child or an adult is determined by the law of the individual country.

rubik101
21st Aug 2008, 09:20
I see he got the bum's rush from Hong Kong. He's back in Thailand. What a farce.

The inclusion of Thailand in the 'thank God we don't live there' brigade shows a lack of knowledge of the situation there now.

For many years the 'tourist industry', and the adult recreation portion in particular, has been strictly regulated and policed.

The assumption seems to be that all foreigners travelling to SE Asia are going there to have underage sex; this is simply not the case. A small and inceasingly dwindling minority will always be in pursuit of such behaivour but the governments of the affected countries have all put in place detterents to such actions.

Cambodia has recently signed up to a UN charter on protecting children's rights, particularly to prevent the sexual predators from having access to underage children.

There are many 'farangs' who live in Thailand because it is a beautiful place with welcoming and friendly people. Their money goes further and the weather is far better than here in UK. Much the same reasons that people move to Spain or Florida.

BlueWolf
21st Aug 2008, 11:19
The trouble with paedophiles is that are not paedophiles by choice. They suffer from a genetic problem so cannot help what they are nor will anything take away their urges.

Hmm, possibly so. By the same token, Hitler probably wasn't a genocidal psycopath by choice.

A lot of people carry out unacceptable behaviours, for reasons which are, or which may have been, beyond their control. That doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't just shoot them anyway.

Some people aren't able to be repaired. The buck has to stop somewhere.

ZFT
21st Aug 2008, 12:47
There are many 'farangs' who live in Thailand because it is a beautiful place with welcoming and friendly people. Their money goes further and the weather is far better than here in UK.


A voice of reason. Thailand, like any other civilised country abhors these type of tourists. Their police, whilst corrupt as anything are quite successful in imprisoning these creatures.

It does pi$$ me off that there is a general association between Thailand and under aged sex - This is rubbish. Underage sex here is a very serious crime as many tourists have found out. At least their imprisonment here is not a life of luxury.

Does Thailand have a sex industry? of course, but Orchard Towers (Singapore), Blok M (Jakarta), Soho (London), 'Beach' Road (KL), Pigalle (Paris), Amsterdam etc.. etc.. too have these industries.

parabellum
21st Aug 2008, 12:54
"Hmm, possibly so. By the same token, Hitler probably wasn't a genocidal psychopath by choice".

Huge difference, a paedophile is right up close to their victim, Hitler, on the other hand, after about 1934, probably never even spoke to any of his. Not the ideal comparison, I would say.

max_cont
21st Aug 2008, 12:57
I wouldn’t defend any paedophile.

The child sex industry is rife in Vietnam and Thailand and operates in the open…what do the respective governments/police do about it? (My own observation ZFT)

In Mexico a child can be legally married at 14yrs old.

In New Hampshire USA, I believe a child can still be legally married at 13yrs old.

Perhaps he chose the wrong country.

VFE
21st Aug 2008, 13:10
Whilst it's heart warming to see some here who can look beyond a persons crimes and see the human being underneath, one cannot understand why someone would wish to spare their time defending a person such as Paul Gadd when they could be spending their time lavishing pity on the poor young souls he violated. Doesn't really add up in my head but hey - it takes all sorts I suppose.

Regardless of what Gadd claims are 'mitigating circumstances' he is obviously a person with peadophile tendancies as evidenced by the plethora of photographic samples (to the tune of 4000 images) found on his computer of the worst catagory of juvenile sexual abuse. Stuff that would make you and I and any normal minded person puke their guts up. He has not changed and will not change. He is a peadophile. If all the media hounding of Gadd saves just one more child from experiencing his disgusting and vile mental affliction then it is worth it, and I'll be damned if I can find pity for the guy.

VFE.

blue monday
21st Aug 2008, 13:37
vpe959
Very good arguments, especially the comment re applying our own moral judgement, applying our own morlal judgement is part of the superiority complex we have in the west, ie becuse the morlas do not meet our morals it must be wrong. Why should other countries and cultured adopt morals or have them forced upon them especially if it conflicts with their culture - that then breeds hatred.

Infact even in Europe - Age of consent - Spain 15, Netherlands 14, so say a 21 year old man in Holand has a sexual relationship with a 14 yr old girl all is fine, in the UK a 21 year old man would be a pedaphile, and have to sign the sex offenders register and be branded for life in the uk for having a sexual relationship with a 14 year girl.

The Real Slim Shady
21st Aug 2008, 14:10
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b197/av8tor100/pdfcopy3je.gif

surely not
21st Aug 2008, 15:15
Crikey, good debate and no personal abuse............Jet Blast re-awakens!!

I do find the whole case very complex, and it is interesting reading the comments and then trying to guess the nationality and place of residence of the person making them (no, the location shown under the avatar is not always correct).

On the one hand those who say that Gadd has paid his debt according to the statute books are absolutely correct. The law makers decree the punishment and once that is served then the slate is clean legally..................even if others do not like that fact.

Then we come to the panels reactions to the victims. Interesting that you can easily spot those from the compensation culture, mental distress as a badge of honour, psychoanalyst for everything, economically developed countries, and those who are from, or who live in, countries that do not have all the fancy analysts or compensation lawyers or even basic jobs for their population.

Those from the developed countries do not comprehend that these girls are probably the families top wage earners and far from the family being ashamed of them, they are quite likely to push them to do more to get more money for the family. Someone like Mr Gadd is the Goose that laid the golden egg. Not only did he pay for his pleasure, he was also likely to be able to pay a lot more to keep his name clean.

Whilst the governments might sign up laws that are harsh against paedophiles, there are large sections of their population who need this trade to earn money to live and improve the fortunes of the next generation. The Middle East has many many girls from these asian countries who are of a proper age who are the breadwinners for their families by selling their bodies, funding sisters and brothers through school and university. Their families in most cases know exactly how the money is being earned. It isn't a moral problem for them in the way that I would have had a serious issue if my daughter had been abused.

Who is right? Should the populations of Vietnam, Cambodia etc have the same morals as those in England, Australia, USA? Then their Governments would have a massive welfare programme to take care of the people who cannot get jobs because there simply aren't any to be had, and the governments do not have the money. Thailand has cleaned its act up considerably and now seems to mainly supply the grown up market, with the under age market moving to neighbouring countries.

The really sad thing is that I have visited Southern Thailand and loved the place and the people. I didn't engage in sex with anyone, either in old age or under age, I was visiting Thai friends who live there. Yes there were some dodgy bars, yet they weren't as seedy as some I have seen in UK. Yet everyone I tell that I have been to Thailand gives me that knowing look.............

I would love to visit Vietnam, I have heard that it a wonderful place and exceptional value whose people are very welcoming, but the reputation it is getting means that more phnaar phnaar comments are likely.

By all means be disgusted by Paul Gadd and his liking for very young girls, I also cannot comprehend why they interest him, but until the law is changed people such as him will be released back into society once their legal sentence is completed.

Anyone who maims or kills him is guilty of murder, and many on here would hang murderers as well as paedophiles. I await people on here trying justify his murder and list reasons why the murderer shouldn't go to jail for life.

Parapunter
21st Aug 2008, 15:41
There are some sad truths in that last, surely; however, accepting that the skin trade is sometimes what keeps families together in parts of the world doesn't I suspect render it a matter of choice for those families all the same.

That is the tragedy & people like Gary Glitter exploit that, even if it is a willing two way trade. Plus I know it's reiterating a point, but I still feel strongly that there is a difference from a legal standpoint between say a drug addict who steals repeatedly to feed his habit & a paedophile who abuses children repeatedly to feed his.

The former can be helped off his dependency & the latter can't. That in my view rightly colours the way we approach these people in the criminal justice system and the law makes a compelling case for the slate never being wiped clean.

As an aside, the senior detective I met a few times who headed up the mets anti paedophile operations some years back had worked on the unit for twenty years. He had two kids of his own & had fostered 17!! children - all of them rescued victims of abuse. How about that for commitment?! An amazing guy.

larssnowpharter
21st Aug 2008, 15:44
I don't know about recidivism in general, but paeodphiles are permanently guilty

There IS a way to deal with the recidivism issue.....




Just shoot the barstewards

blue monday
21st Aug 2008, 16:04
All those who say kill pedophiles or lock themn up for life - define pedophile - Again i refer to my earlier comment

'in Europe - Age of consent - Spain 15, Netherlands 14, so say a 21 year old man in Holand has a sexual relationship with a 14 yr old girl all is fine, in the UK a 21 year old man would be a pedaphile, and have to sign the sex offenders register and be branded for life in the uk for having a sexual relationship with a 14 year girl' In some other countries as others have pointed out the age of consent is lower still, so when does a pedophile become a pedaphile. Many parts of South america the age of consent is 14 also, so rarther than jump on the band wagon and say ahng them all, lets have an intleigent debate (in jet blast!!!:eek: ) Again i give you the above scenario

Parapunter
21st Aug 2008, 17:54
Well, morals are relative as any social studies teacher will tell you - hence the variations in law across Europe, though of course that is also tied up in history, culture, education & myriad other factors like any sovereign state.

In the case of Glitter & the like, what is key is not morals but intent. Gary Glitter is not comparable with your example, because his intent is not to develop a meaningful relationship with someone who happens to be under age but to have sexual contact with them because they are under age. For him, that's the thrill & you can infer this from his history.

As distasteful as I might find a 21 year old getting together with a 14 year old, as a noticeable occurence it is prima facie a different thing from a superannuated pop star roaming around Asia doing it repeatedly until the police take notice & throw him in jail.

bardos
21st Aug 2008, 18:04
the english language contains the word "pervert". so do other languages. it's up to each culture to determine how they deal with folks like that.

Mallan
21st Aug 2008, 20:25
Well he lost his battle to stay away. He is on his way back to England now.

flash8
21st Aug 2008, 21:07
Much as I find Glitters life distatesful I'd be more concerned whether he would be safe in the UK and not ripped to shreds physically by the psychos that roam every street corner (the press will see to that metaphorically).

If so the press should be made to answer in whipping up hysteria. Anybody would think their child is not safe to roam the streets if/when Glitter returns.

I also find it ugly that the Home Sec. feels she needs to get her bit in for cheap political points - shouldn't politics be separated from the judiciary? - or has nu-labour merged them? So will she approve the Police funding for 24/7 protection that he will almost certainly need? Or let him be ripped to shreds if it means a few votes for her come election time?


Yes I find his crime sickening - but I find it equally disturbing the way the Press and Politicians are playing this up for their own ends.

ArthurR
21st Aug 2008, 21:07
I find this thread sad, simply because one thing has been ignored, this man went to Cambodia and Vietnam purley for the purpose of abussing young girls, purley for his own deviant pleasure. I am his age, and this is not something I would even consider. he went there for his own gratification, and nearly got what he deserved.

Parapunter
21st Aug 2008, 21:16
Thank you Arthur R. We're back on the topic & focusing on the nub of the matter.

Radar66
21st Aug 2008, 21:40
phew...

i thought that this thread was about to be closed due to yet another debate becoming 'personal'. :rolleyes:

The punishment must fit the crime.

As Arthur said, and as Bluey explained so dramatically, genetically programmed to do so or not, paedophilia is just simply WRONG on every level.

Surely, if an adult feels a sexual attraction to a child, he (or even she) must know that it is bibilically and criminally wrong, and therefore if he had a single shred of decency in him, he would do everything in his (or her) power to abstain - both from child porn and the physical action in all its manifestations itself?

By that summation, Gary Glitter/Paul Gadd, who used everything he had, his money, his fame, everything, to actively seek out his victims, is NOT a 'decent' human being, and therefore has no right to be treated decently I feel. He's lived the life of Riley on the wrong side of the law for far too long, and now he must pay for that. God only knows how many children has had their present lives and the rest of their lives ruined by this sub-standard specimen of so called humanity.

If he can't be hanged (slowly and painfully) for kerist sakes, please slam him up in Category A with no release date, EVER. And preferably with some fellow inmates who will have the same opinion of him as I do.... :E

NutLoose
21st Aug 2008, 21:45
Earlier I wrote

"Now I personally think that he should have been hung drawn and quartered, then feed to the sharks"....

but after reading the article in the todays Times by Carol Sarler on page 25 it got me thinking....her argument was they were either sick or not, if sick they should be sectioned and helped as would a Schizo.. If not sick once they have paid there penalty they would be free... she made a valid point that if they had abused a minor they would be released but then on the register for life and closely monitored.....IE never free.

If instead they had broken every bone in that minors body and possibly killed them they at the end of their sentence would walk free having paid the penalty........ and no restrictions as is fundamental with UK law you do your time for the crime then are released....

Another post on here made me wonder, a poster quoted the age of consent in Holland is 14 therefore would that person be liable for committing a crime in say the USA where the age of consent is 18 if they had deemed to view images of such on the internet?, and as the UK age of consent is 16 again would that person be arrestable if say they visited the USA for say viewing images of a 16 year old on the web, say on a US server even though in their country that would be deemed legal? It has got to be a legal minefield, I often wondered if the web would eventually level the playing field laws wise throughout the world on many an issue..

On the subject of the sex offenders register, personally I feel this is regulated to extremes and can be counter productive..... I remember a case in the Newspapers of I think he was a 13 year old boy looking on the web for naturally pictures of 13 year old girls......... the judge had no other recourse but to put him on the sexual offenders register and that will pretty much destroy his future life..... Adults yes, I have absolutely no argument with, though the times article seems to speak a lot of sense, but a 13 year old kid? I think the law has to have more flexibility in such cases........ Getting back to the Times article, the lady writing it says that most of the so called offenders are the likes of a couple of younger teens falling into the trap that was not really designed for them. I would have thought a limit at 16 but then say a time limit for ages differences as well should be added... that will still collect the detritus of man but if say the age difference for example on a 15 yr old was one year plus or minus, then they would not instantly be added to the register. Kids will and do experiment, but to tar them with the same brush as a say 40 year old is fundamentally wrong.

As for Glitter, well I would rather he was here personally being monitored rather that roaming the world on his sordid little adventures........

trickii
22nd Aug 2008, 00:51
I smell a witch hunt hear.To me he has been persued and maybe entrapted by political lobbyists in another country to get the political spotlight in the UK to pass radical legislation.I am not sure if he has been convicted in this country for anything ? and his sentence has been served overseas.Think politicians and activists just want to capture a celeb to justify their political point of view.Trial by press and condemnation means he can't get a fair trial in the UK ever again so he is a free man and the do gooders loose! I much prefer to keep our personal privicy than to condone spying by any knee jurk politicion on the excuse of popular politics.The taking over of the judiciary by the politicions is a sure sign of a corrupt society.Us Brits should stand up for our freedoms whatever the costs.For GG his life has been ruined by a bad reputation for ever.Think the politicions need to step down ASAP.I will draft a letter to the cremilin controllers to initiate this.

ZFT
22nd Aug 2008, 00:54
max_cont


The child sex industry is rife in Vietnam and Thailand and operates in the open…what do the respective governments/police do about it? (My own observation ZFT)


Over 9 years based here in Bangkok with frequent visits the previous 12 years or so, I can honestly state that I personally have never seen any evidence of a ‘child sex industry’. Of course it happens just like any other country but to infer that the authorities condone it or turn a blind eye to it is in my opinion grossly inaccurate.

In Thailand the age of consent is 18 so the definition of underage sex gets more complicated and yes, I’m sure there are working girls between 16 - 18 but if a punter is caught with them, he’s in deep dwang.

In the UK, relationships with 16 or 17 year olds are legal, here they are illegal, but child sex?

dazdaz
22nd Aug 2008, 01:04
As to the law Class B images (slightly diversifying) do any of you gents have copies of the Sun newspaper in the loft? Circa late70s? Sam Fox topless aged 16/17? Be aware if you have. You could be done in 2008 as to possessing Class B child images.

Daz

CityofFlight
22nd Aug 2008, 03:12
The fact is, this man didn't just engage in acts within a country that may or may not condone it, he brokered these images all over the world through the internet, correct?

The loss of childhood innocence is sad enough in a third world country. Add sexual exploitation and these poor souls have little chance of normalcy. The loss of a child's twinkling eyes is the saddest travesty of this industry. They look like their souls have vanished. :{

notmyC150v2
22nd Aug 2008, 05:14
Agree with all of the posts condemning this predator and all of his ilk.

Unlike murderers, rapists or theives, peodophiles are evangelical in their recruitment of new colleagues and in spreading the word that what they do is natural and an "expression of love". They honestly believe that children (even infants) are capable of making decisions on sexual relationships as an adult could.

You cannot "cure" that view. It is like trying to convince an immam or rabbi that there is no God, good luck.

The best thing that could occur is that they are all locked up together and never released. They should certainly never be allowed to interact with children in any context once they have been convicted of one of these crimes.

I wish that these scumbags could be convinced of the error of their ways but this is just not possible.

As for Gadd, he has been busted a number of times now of intefering with little girls, he should be banged up for life or be given a special ring that goes around his old feller that gives him electric shocks everytime it is released from his pants...

Re-entry
22nd Aug 2008, 06:21
I am his age, and this is not something I would even consider. he went there for his own gratification, and nearly got what he deserved.

Yeah, you're only as young as the woman you feel:uhoh:



Runs for cover

Radar66
22nd Aug 2008, 06:36
Trickii - I'm afraid that Gadd HAS had 'previous history' here in the UK. Have a look at this Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter)....

In November 1997 Glitter was arrested after child pornography images were discovered on the hard drive of a Toshiba laptop that he had taken to the Bristol Cribbs Causeway branch of PC World for repair.

....


The following years held further trouble for the singer. Glitter was convicted of possession of child pornography on 12 November 1999 and formally classified as a sex offender, serving two months of a four-month sentence in Horfield Prison in Bristol.

He was also charged with having sex with an underage girl, Alison Brown, around 20 years earlier, when she was 14 years old. Glitter was acquitted of this charge after it emerged that Brown had sold her story to the News of the World and stood to earn more money from the newspaper on Glitter's conviction.

Re-entry
22nd Aug 2008, 06:48
and stood to earn more money from the newspaper on Glitter's conviction.

So maybe just maybe the conviction in Vietnam had a teeny bit to do with money (they got 5m dong out of him).

Their idea to gang (sorry) up on him was quite fruitful.:=

Parapunter
22nd Aug 2008, 07:41
Trickii, You are kidding right? Radar points you in the right direction, your axe grinding against the government is wholly ignorant of the facts.

Us Brits should stand up for our freedoms whatever the costs

In your case, that is clearly an education.

Whiskey Oscar Golf
22nd Aug 2008, 07:56
I think there are several interesting aspects to this case, the first being Mr. Gadd was CONVICTED of an offense in Britain. Yes, he served his time, but then went to another country and reoffended. This suggests he did not rehabilitate or learn from his time in jail. The escalation of the new offenses suggests the exact opposite. He had fantasies via pictures, then went to a place he felt he would be able to act them out. This is a worrying trend from Mr. Gadd regardless of how he painted the picture.

I don't know about Britain but the reoffending rate of Sexual Offenders in Australia is about 85%. This is a concerning number and goes some way in perpetuating the cycle of abuse. It is difficult in the fact one may be branded with the kiddy fiddler tag and that may colour their future. That doesn't excuse this sort of behaviour and whatever help they can be given in the early stages of offending may help solve an escalation, but at what point do we say enough is enough and throw away the key? How many lives need to be destroyed before we act?

As for Mr. Gadd, please don't do what you used to and send him here on a boat. We don't need or want his like around our way.

ShyTorque
22nd Aug 2008, 08:52
Yeh, the filthy swine should stick to sheep, like the rest of us.

acmi48
22nd Aug 2008, 08:54
on a side note

during the mens volley ball final this morning the background music was 'leader of the gang' -clearly the chinese don't care about GG's reputation


also i wonder if any members of the glitter band would ever come forward to verify paul gadd's activities at the hieght of their fame 72-74

rock and roll is a big cover up..like the movie industry.

Rollingthunder
22nd Aug 2008, 09:01
The convicted child abuser was escorted off his Thai Airways flight at Heathrow ahead of other passengers and led through immigration.

Wearing a blue cap, white T-shirt and checked scarf, Glitter was taken through border control and into a side room.

"He was smiling and he looked happy and relaxed" as he left the plane, said a witness.

He will have to sign the sex offenders' register and police will apply for a sexual offenders prevention order from a magistrates' court to restrict his movements in Britain and ban him from approaching children.

Now he has demanded round-the-clock police protection over fears he could be murdered, which would cost the taxpayer £250,000 a year.

He has told his solicitor, David Corker, who represented Michael Barrymore in the Stuart Lubbock case, that he fears "a nutter will step out of the crowd with a big knife for him".

telegraph


One can only hope.

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Aug 2008, 09:03
How many lives need to be destroyed before we act?

As for Mr. Gadd, please don't do what you used to and send him here on a boat. We don't need or want his like around our way.

That's ironic with what happened earlier this year from our Australian 'friends'


http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/319020-re-exporting-convicts.html


Regards


SHJ

Re-entry
22nd Aug 2008, 09:07
So the torygraph can join sky news and the other scum media in inciting violence, which is a crime, I believe.

Evidently most posters here have certainly been whipped into a lynch mob frenzy by the ceaseless 'reporting' of the man.

Whiskey Oscar Golf
22nd Aug 2008, 09:11
Mr. Springheeledjack, no offense but didn't we just send him back to where he came from?

Capt.KAOS
22nd Aug 2008, 09:31
So the torygraph can join sky news and the other scum media in inciting violence, which is a crime, I believe.

Evidently most posters here have certainly been whipped into a lynch mob frenzy by the ceaseless 'reporting' of the man.You're absolutely right. The man served his time, so let him continue with his life as he wants, far away East protected from these bad media and bloodthirsty scum. I'm sure other countries will receive him with open arms.

tony draper
22nd Aug 2008, 09:39
He should feel quite comfortable being surrounded by a swarm of the only creatures walking the Earth lower on the evolutionary scale than kiddy fiddlers,Journalists.
:cool:
One uses the term Journalist in its loosest sense

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Aug 2008, 10:17
Mr. Springheeledjack, no offense but didn't we just send him back to where he came from?

Yes you did (on a technical point) Whiskey, but as he'd spent 95% of his life and ALL his adult offending life in Oz it was an underhand move by your govt. It could even have been argued that this miscreant was moulded by what he had experienced in Oz and nothing to do with Pomgolia....:hmm:

Anyhow, enough diversion (albeit on subject). Mr Gadd should be left alone, as within the law he is free and has paid his debt to society(ies), as of this point. He IS unreformed and will, statistically re-offend again. Let him live in obscurity, but be monitored in a way that has maximum oversight and minimum cost to the taxpayer.

That he or whomever bought his back catalogue of music still profit from his artistic talents is nothing to do with his miscreant tendencies and should be his business alone and separate. It (the music) should stand alone, or not as the case may be. No one stopped using the Autobahns in Germany that were one of the very positive benefits of a national socialist govt because of the larger negatives of same govt.

Humans, even miscreants need other human contact to survive, however I imagine his life will be pretty lonely from now on.


Regards


SHJ

chuks
22nd Aug 2008, 10:25
Hitler (a documented child-molesting, vegetarian animal-lover) did NOT originate anything, including building the Autobahns. Much of the construction took place under the Nazi regime, yes, but the planning was already in place and much had already been built before Hitler took power.

Jeez! Jet Blast must be moving into middle age! No hot sulphuric acid enemas, public stonings, brandings for child molesters? Where are all the readers of the "Sun" in this?

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Aug 2008, 11:01
Hitler (a documented child-molesting, vegetarian animal-lover) did NOT originate anything, including building the Autobahns. Much of the construction took place under the Nazi regime, yes, but the planning was already in place and much had already been built before Hitler took power.

Well Chucks, you are correct, but Adenauer only had the first one opened in the summer of 1932 (strangely enough between two neighbouring cities where he was mayor of one!). The NS government spread the construction of the Autobahns throughout the land. They were part constructed by slave-labour, but the benefits have been great for the last 76 years. No one speaks of the the 'German Autobahns' in negative terms, except for those stuck in a stau somewhere :} ....and I never mentioned Mr Hitler btw, just the government that implemented the construction := Same for Glitter's music, some of it rather catchy and therefore will be used/played/bought.


Regards


SHJ

AMF
22nd Aug 2008, 12:28
max_cont
In Mexico a child can be legally married at 14yrs old.

In New Hampshire USA, I believe a child can still be legally married at 13yrs old.

VP959 quote; Until relatively recently even some supposedly advanced Western civilisations allowed marriage with girls in there very early teens - some advanced societies still do. Even today, girls as young as 13 can legally marry in at least one state in the USA (albeit only with parental permission) and several states in the US still allow marriage below the age of 16.

This needs some clarification, because in U.S. States the Age of Consent to marry and the Age of Consent to have sex are 2 different things...

The legal age for a Minor being able to marry with permission from their parents notwithstanding, the Age of Consent to have sex in individual U.S. states determines where the boundary for Statuatory Rape exists. You'll find that in States that have determined the Age of Consent to be lower than 18, there are still limits to the age difference between the consenting (usually about 3 years) for it not to be considered a crime.

For instance, in a State where the age of consent might be 16, a 17 year-old (or even 18 year-old adult in some States) can't be prosecuted for Statuatory Rape for having consensual sex with a 16 year-old girl, even though she's legally still an under-18 Minor because their ages fall within the age-difference stipulation. On the other hand, a 23 or 40 year old would find themselves charged with Statuatory Rape or having sex with a Minor for acts with the same 16 year-old girl, whether she consented to it or not.

It would be a HUGE mistake for those not understanding this to think that just because the Age of Consent for sex is lower than 18 years old in some States, a non-peergroup age adult is free to engage in sexual acts with a minor (under 18 years old), or that the Age of Consent for teens marrying-with-permission of their parents is it's equivalent.

Perhaps he chose the wrong country.

If he had committed the crimes he did with 11 and 12 year old girls in the U.S., you wouldn't have to worry about seeing him back in the UK for a couple decades. If GG were a U.S. citizen, he could and most likely would be prosecuted again for his crimes abroad upon his return under our own Criminal Code regarding Sex Tourism.

VP959 quote;
To add balance, I suppose it's worth noting that we might be a bit at odds with much of the world in having such draconian laws about the age at which sexual intercourse ceases to be an offence (I'm not talking rape or abuse here, just the "unlawful sex" bit).

More to the point of this thread; In the effort to combat sex tourism, for an adult U.S. citizen it's a Federal Crime to have sex with a minor (under 18 years old) while abroad regardless of that other countries' Age of Consent. Committing the crime in another country is no protection.

Furthermore, it's also a Federal Crime to attempt travel abroad for that purpose. In other words, if there's evidence to suggest a U.S. citizen is leaving the country for that purpose, they can be (and have been) arrested and prosecuted BEFORE they leave the country, prior to the crime against a child is commited. They can be convicted and sent to prison for intent alone.

Personally, I think it's a very good thing the U.S. considers sex tourism to be a serious crime, holds U.S. citizens accountable under Federal Law outside our own borders, and allow for Federal prosecution of those pedophile freaks BEFORE it happens.

One wonders why GG won't be prosecuted again when he returns back to the UK. Can't he be? I'd like to see how many Western/Euro countries hold their own citizens accountable for these acts with minors outside their own borders and actively prosecute them to the fullest extent.

VP quote; It's commonplace for girls as young as 12 or 13 to be married in many civilisations around the world, so we should, perhaps, be careful as to how we apply our own moral judgement.

After careful consideration, my judgement is if an adult U.S. citizen wants to marry a 12 or 13 year old girl in another civilization that thinks it's Ok, they are free to renounce their U.S. citizenship, move to that country, and never allowed to re-enter the U.S. again upon threat of prosecution.

But as long as they are a U.S. citizen, or if they are found here again, my opinion is that same predatory pedophile scum should be castrated, broken on the wheel, and tossed into a rattlesnake pit.

Capt.KAOS
22nd Aug 2008, 12:59
Sorry for OT, but wasn't the AVUS (Berlin) the first Autobahn?

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Aug 2008, 13:48
Sorry for OT, but wasn't the AVUS (Berlin) the first Autobahn?

To my knowledge the AVUS was a testing and racing track that was used as a 'bypass' when not in use. Whatever, it was the type of road that would be the future that we know and love today.....:}


Regards


SHJ

Standard Noise
22nd Aug 2008, 14:13
I've often thought how ludicrous this country can be. All this posturing from our slackers in Whitehall about having Glitter back and having him (and other nonces) 'sign' the sex offenders' register as if this makes it alright.
Makes it sound almost gentlemanly - 'oh I say old chap, would you mind signing at the bottom of this little list thingy, I know it's all a bit much, but it would help us placate the masses enormously, thanks awfully old bean.'

Chemical castration, that's the way forward. Yep, dipping their danglies in some nasty chemicals, sounds about right.

Bushfiva
22nd Aug 2008, 14:58
Whatever the heinousness of GG's crimes, we have a system that was in place ahead of these crimes: "if you do this or that, and are caught, this is what we do to you". If you don't think GG has been punished enough, then it's the original laws that need to be changed. Having near-mob rule come up with ways of punishing someone again and again is a bit scary: the concept of civilization is that we're supposed to be more civilized than the people we punish. The intent is not to provide the perfect punishment for the individual, the intent is to maximize the deterrent for the majority. If GG is a recidivist, he'll get done again. Tabloid-led justice is the wrong path, because tabloids have needs that don't mesh with law and order.

Ozzy
22nd Aug 2008, 15:01
clearly the chinese don't care about GG's reputation
Not true, they refused him entry to Hong Kong. Blame the Olympic Committee for selecting the kiddy fiddler's music.

Ozzy

ZFT
22nd Aug 2008, 15:18
As an aside - what (legal) age difference is acceptable in relationships?

It appears (to me) that 'high profile' individuals can get away with 20, 30 or even 40+ years, whereas us mere mortals would be savaged for being involved with a much younger wife/girl friend.

AMF
22nd Aug 2008, 15:34
Bushfiva Whatever the heinousness of GG's crimes, we have a system that was in place ahead of these crimes: "if you do this or that, and are caught, this is what we do to you". If you don't think GG has been punished enough, then it's the original laws that need to be changed. Having near-mob rule come up with ways of punishing someone again and again is a bit scary: the concept of civilization is that we're supposed to be more civilized than the people we punish. The intent is not to provide the perfect punishment for the individual, the intent is to maximize the deterrent for the majority.

Doesn't the UK have laws against UK citizens traveling abroad, or attempting to travel abroad, with the intent of having sex with what it considers to be children?

Doesn't the UK have laws that can be used to prosecute UK citizens who actually have sex with children when the crime occurs outside the UK, and regardless of the "social norms" where it occured?

Do any Brits here know what their own laws are regarding sex tourism involving chidren?

Re-entry
22nd Aug 2008, 15:36
All the fat ugly dykes (feminists) who can't get a shag started all this propaganda about 'sex tourism'.

Their potential suitors found these gorgeous asian/south american girls and obviously wouldn't go back to the bad-breathed smelly lardasses.

I bet they go to Ghana to get some.:eek:

AMF
22nd Aug 2008, 16:06
Re-entry All the fat ugly dykes (feminists) who can't get a shag started all this propaganda about 'sex tourism'.


My particular question doesn't pertain to anything other than Sex Tourism that involves children. "Children" being the operative word, it's hardly propoganda. Nobody cares if, and the U.S. Criminal Code doesn't prosecute, U.S. citizens for having, paying for, or traveling abroad with the intent to have sex with adults.

I'm wondering if the British goverment actively prosecutes child molesters and pedophiles if ther crimes are committed outside UK soil against non-UK chidren? Or does the UK Law only work to protect children within it's own boundaries, thus giving these pedo-freaks the idea that if they can escape the authorities in the country they're traveling to, safe harbor from punishment can be found back at home which is only a mere airline ticket away.

trickii
22nd Aug 2008, 16:15
Para punter (http://www.pprune.org/members/21868-parapunter) you are right I have an insight into government corruption that I do not wish to think about or wish to pass on in this forum. Needless to say I am now partially sighted, paralysed and can never work again due to my experiences. My argument was based on the privileged information I hold about the workings of the government and the unique experiences I have had. My arguments are put forward as a template for society not as revengeful persecution of an individual however hard it is to understand the concept of equity and freedom from individual cases. I do not condone GG behaviour but I like many, watch our personal freedoms ebb away under this government and wish to defend what we have left. Democracy has a price and freedom has the highest price of all. Britain has been too tolerant in the past of attacks on our democracy.

dazdaz
22nd Aug 2008, 19:19
Did not Bill Wyman (then 47) of the Rolling Stones, date a Miss Mandy Smith aged 13?
My, how times have changed. Mods, this was covered in national newspapers at the time. So no probs of litigation.

Daz

PS. Without prejudice, makes one wonder how the law has changed in the past 20+ years.

VFE
22nd Aug 2008, 19:35
Something to do with the quality of music between The Stones and Glitter? :}

Seriously tho, dazdaz makes a good point although still illegal he fails to mention the word 'consent'... and the fact Mandy Smith looked about 40 at the time. :}

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/57366591.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=8D1A55FA4F4B48DBF4656F426F3B0527284831B75F48EF45

VFE.

B Fraser
22nd Aug 2008, 20:44
So the story goes that Keef Richard asked "Hey man, wot key is this in ?" Mick Jagger shouted out "We're in A minor" ....... whereupon Bill Wyman's eyes lit up.

blue monday
22nd Aug 2008, 21:01
Did not Bill Wyman (then 47) of the Rolling Stones, date a Miss Mandy Smith aged 13?
My, how times have changed. Mods, this was covered in national newspapers at the time. So no probs of litigation.

Daz

PS. Without prejudice, makes one wonder how the law has changed in the past 20+ years.Yep that is 100% fact, they married when she was 18, i do believe todays laws have changed to allow prosecution for grooming a child for sex and so think that would cover Wyman

VP959
22nd Aug 2008, 21:05
I'm wondering if the British government actively prosecutes child molesters and pedophiles if ther crimes are committed outside UK soil against non-UK chidren? Or does the UK Law only work to protect children within it's own boundaries, thus giving these pedo-freaks the idea that if they can escape the authorities in the country they're traveling to, safe harbor from punishment can be found back at home which is only a mere airline ticket away.

Unlike some other countries who seem to have the misguided view that their laws can be applied anywhere on the surface of the planet, the UK (along with many other countries) takes the view that its' laws can only be enforced within its' own sovereign territory.

We can no more apply the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (or Scots Law, for that matter) in a non-UK sovereign state than can the United States of America legally apply its laws outside it's own borders.

We can certainly help to enforce recognised International Law outside our territory, but that's a different issue.

In this case, Paul Gadd has been convicted of an offence under Vietnamese law and paid the appropriate penalty. He is not guilty of any offence under any British law, as far as I am aware. He has been convicted of offences here in the past, associated with child pornography, and paid the penalty for those offences.

We do have a law here called the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Its purpose was to allow individuals who had paid their debt to society to be rehabilitated back into it, with elements of their criminal record effectively expunged and no longer required to be declared.

Despite what we might feel about Gadd, he has now paid the required penalty and has an entitlement to be treated like any other British subject. Of course he won't be so treated, because the press will ensure that the lynch mob mentality of the intellectually-challenged members of our society is well and truly stirred into action against him.

Whilst we must do what we can to protect the vulnerable members of our society, we must balance that against the restrictions that it may unwittingly place on the freedom of other individuals. I think it was an American, Benjamin Franklin, who coined the phrase: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security".

Whilst I abhor the acts that Gadd has allegedly indulged in, I would defend his right to be treated fairly under our law, like any other subject of the United Kingdom, to the hilt.

VP

dazdaz
22nd Aug 2008, 21:13
B Fraser; Re; 'Biffin Bridge.'
Sir, I am most delight that another member is 'aware' of this bodily reference. Most of may pals have no sexual reference as to heaven or in the Sh^t about 2" ho ho.

Nite nite all

Daz

Parapunter
22nd Aug 2008, 21:18
The rehabilitation of offenders act is a subject of debate in judicial & political circles, it's effectiveness is questionable, although it's promulgation and aims are as noble as the law has ever achieved.

I too would seek only that Gary Glitter is treated fairly under the law, but paedophiles are imho criminals apart. I believe that the state is right to monitor,control and intervene where necessary in their lives.

I don't believe they can be cured, rehabilitated or otherwise put on the straight and narrow. I'm 38 & ever since I was about 13, I've wanted to drag ladies back to my lair & do naughty things to them & I've been quite good at it too, if I may say so...:O

I don't doubt that Gary Glitter suffers from the same affliction as me, however, in my case it's all about long legged brown haired honeys around my age and in his it's little girls between 10 & 20 by all accounts.

I'm not going to change & neither I believe, will he.

dazdaz
22nd Aug 2008, 21:21
Blue monday.............
"Yep that is 100% fact, they married when she was 18," ...........

So, do you honestly think they held hands and 'smooched' when Mandy was 13? prior to the marriage? FOUR YEARS LATER?

Without prejudices....Daz

Steak&Kidney_Pie
22nd Aug 2008, 21:32
Dazdaz, are you trying to discretely justify paedophilia??? :E:}:ouch:

Re-entry
22nd Aug 2008, 22:37
It is so obvious the old man was set up for this. (The sluts profited 5m viet dong from one day court appearance with appropriate timely waterworks and scripted lies).

OK, the comp stuff was a 'bust' but check your comp.

I have all the same disdain for kiddie fiddlers but I certainly don't think he is on the list.

VP959
22nd Aug 2008, 22:38
whilst I can understand the feeling of abhorrence that Gadds actions engender, why should his particular flavour of miscreant behaviour be singled out for special attention? Is it so much worse than many other crimes against the individual that it deserves treatment that is beyond the law? Where do we stop? Do we take it upon ourselves to lock up all those who are mentally disturbed, for fear of things they may do to others?

I'm always puzzled by the desire we have to single out a particular type of crime as being "beyond the law". We did it to the Moors Murderers, and applied a penalty that was far harsher than that applied to, arguably, some far more heinous crimes. I have no great sympathy for them, but in the case of Hindley there was a credible argument to be made that she was a young woman who was led on by Brady, "under his spell", if you like. Having supported a close friend (female) who was being beaten up by her partner for years, yet was still besotted with him and wouldn't walk away, I can understand to some extent how influential some relationships can be on behaviour, even if it might seem very bizarre to someone looking in from outside.

If we truly believe that our laws are wrong, then why do we not lobby for them to be changed, rather than try to stir society into going beyond the law (as I am sure will happen in this case)?

VP

Parapunter
22nd Aug 2008, 23:18
Re Entry, all of your posts on this thread are beneath contempt & your latest is just a peach.

VP, that is thoughtful & sad. It's hard to read that & not nod your head at the same time. So I did. The law is a microcosm of society & is expressed through governments which is the same I guess. Hence, enormous public outrage resounds far louder than the judges gavel down the years.

People do lobby I think, but are drowned out by the mainstream. You just have to look at the Guildford four, the Birmingham six, Barry George, Blair Peach, the Omagh bombing. Modern history is littered with judicial injustices. By and large, seems to me the public sin in haste & repent at leisure when it comes to criminal justice. I just love that we have the CCRB which is one thing I applaud new labour for & the truth that time heals.

Re-entry
22nd Aug 2008, 23:29
parapunter you have been drinking alcohol again.

parabellum
23rd Aug 2008, 02:23
Australia has such laws. If a person goes to, say, Thailand and has illicit sex with a minor they can be prosecuted for it on their return to Australia, several cases pending.

G-CPTN
23rd Aug 2008, 02:30
A truly 'fair' trial (with appropriate levels of proof as required in a Crown Court) might be difficult to guarantee.

ZFT
23rd Aug 2008, 03:57
Australia has such laws. If a person goes to, say, Thailand and has illicit sex with a minor they can be prosecuted for it on their return to Australia, several cases pending.


parabellum,

If I understand Australian age of consent laws correctly, a minor is either 16 or 17 dependant upon which states law applies.

Thailand age of consent is 18 so which age applies to these laws you refer to?

blue monday
23rd Aug 2008, 08:39
Blue monday.............
"Yep that is 100% fact, they married when she was 18," ...........

So, do you honestly think they held hands and 'smooched' when Mandy was 13? prior to the marriage? FOUR YEARS LATER?

Without prejudices....Daz

In all probability he was more than likely banging her when she was still in her school uniform.

M.Mouse
23rd Aug 2008, 10:58
Is anybody seriously comparing Bill Wyman's involvement with a young girl very much older than her years and certainly giving the impression of being very streetwise with that of Gary Glitter molesting a 10 and 11 year old?

The age of consent is designed to protect children. Like all blanket restrictions it cannot be perfect. I have seen girls of 14 or 15 years old who are sexually mature and sexually alluring and I have litle doubt are sexually experienced. I am sure that, given the opportunity, many men would be physically tempted. The thought of the consequences and the immorality of it would make me run a mile.

But the above is totally different from the case of men who are sexually aroused by pre-pubescent young girls and what I find depressing is that, on current evidence, no matter what the punishment and lifelong consequences, those individuals will always be a threat to innocent children.

I too am appalled by the hounding of the unsavoury Gary Glitter. He can rot in prison for all I care but the lynch mob mentality shows what a thin veneer civilisation really is.

Wangja
23rd Aug 2008, 11:53
He did pick up his duty-free ....

http://i36.tinypic.com/35bf888.jpg



















(The plastic bag is from a Korean suoermaket)

blue monday
23rd Aug 2008, 12:43
The age of consent is designed to protect children. Like all blanket restrictions it cannot be perfect. I have seen girls of 14 or 15 years old who are sexually mature and sexually alluring and I have litle doubt are sexually experienced. I am sure that, given the opportunity, many men would be physically tempted. The thought of the consequences and the immorality of it would make me run a mile.

That is a good point and i expect many have though that but not made that comment. I for one was out a few years ago in North Allerton (28 at the time) got talking to a real hottie, looked to be early 20's, had a kiss and fondle at the end of the night, swapped numbers and dirty text messages, i saw her a few days later as i was leaving work, she was going to cadets, i didn't take it any further because as M.Mouse said the thoughts of the morality and consequences, but am sure others have.

Moral of the story ask for ID before your on the glide path.

Sailor Vee
23rd Aug 2008, 13:39
fears he could be murdered, which would cost the taxpayer £250,000You can hire a hit-man for less than that!! But if it was that expensive the cost 'per capita' still ain't bad.

parabellum
23rd Aug 2008, 14:32
Cannot answer that one, just that if one commits an offence against children overseas then you will be prosecuted for it when you get back to Australia.

Am I right in thinking that Gadd has never been accused of touching a juvenile in the the UK/Europe, only of possession of some very sick porn?

Those of us who have lived in the Far east will know that at the lower levels of society a girl is regarded as useless and as soon as she reaches puberty her only asset can now be sold, usually by her parents. It may be illegal but in such places the law can be bought. Only when a 'celebrity' is involved do the upper echelons get involved as now there is a real chance of some real money.

I am not offering any mitigation for Gadd, I think he is evil, but, he has, as far as I know, so far confined his evil practises to places where it is a recognised business, unlike Europe he is unlikely to be accused of ruining the children's lives, to interfere with an innocent child is not the same as availing oneself of an available commercial opportunity, sadly those children offered as prostitutes have had their lives ruined already. This is not offered as an excuse but he has probably fallen foul of his own 'celebrity' status.

And I will say it once again, before I get slated, I do not approve of any form of sexual activity that involves children, anywhere, what I am saying is, that on the evidence presented by the media, he is an evil child molester who has yet to be accused of corruption of a minor.

chuks
23rd Aug 2008, 15:17
...and we must change with them.

Not very long ago you could buy sex with a child on the streets of London, as anyone reading of the doings of the rakes of the mid-1800s will know. So there has been a shift in public opinion that has driven the pederasts abroad for the most part.

From what I read in the papers it sounds as if Mr Gadd was not exactly looking forward to his return to good old Blighty. Might it be that he's going to find it hard to get back abroad again, plus being monitored while he's home?

It must be pretty tough to have lots of money and not be allowed to spend it as you please, buying sex with children, say. Then there should be the constant worry about vigilante justice, too. Or, worse yet, some of his victims shall probably have already been contacted by U.S.-style "no win, no fee" lawyers who plan to take him for large sums as compensation for his misdeeds. One could almost feel sorry for him.

Aside from posting on fora, what does Re-entry do for fun? I was just wondering...

Al Fakhem
23rd Aug 2008, 18:06
Looks like Australia is keen to attract the world's trash.

Visa ban lifted on gangsta rapper Snoop Dogg | Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24230925-661,00.html)

If Gary Glitter had only held out a few more nights at some Asian airport.......

AMF
24th Aug 2008, 00:27
VP959 Quote:

Unlike some other countries who seem to have the misguided view that their laws can be applied anywhere on the surface of the planet, the UK (along with many other countries) takes the view that its' laws can only be enforced within its' own sovereign territory.

We can no more apply the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (or Scots Law, for that matter) in a non-UK sovereign state than can the United States of America legally apply its laws outside it's own borders.

We can certainly help to enforce recognised International Law outside our territory, but that's a different issue.

The UK could certainly apply UK Law to UK citizens, it's hardly miguided, and you seem to not recognize or pretend to not see the difference between imposing one's own laws outside it's own borders on another State (which this U.S. Law does not) vs. applying a law to one's own citizens and their conduct while in a foreign country (which it does). You can relax, because If you're not a U.S. citizen but rather a Brit, German, Belgian, etc. etc., it doesn't apply to you.

But if you are correct regarding UK law, I find it extremely troubling that the UK government doesn't care if British citizens sexually abuse what it itself determines to be minors just because the British citizen doing the abusing buys an airline ticket and perpetrates it off UK soil.

Of course there is UK precedent for this conveniently border-blind viewpoint. In 2007 Tony Blair made all kinds of self-congratulatory Public Relations noise celebrating the UK's 200th aniversary abolishing slave trading. What they failed to mention during this self-aggrandizing spectacle was that the law abolishing slavery within the British Empire wasn't passed until 1833, 26 years later.

That said however, contrary to your belief about such restrictions, it was an example of where UK Law applied to UK citizens outside it's own soil and/or native/local acceptance of custom since it banned the "capture and transport" of slaves by British subjects anywhere. It's a matter of history the slaves toiling away on British plantations in the West Indies weren't captured in York, but rather on a continent where skin hue is much darker, and British captains hauling slaves on the open seas were still subject to penalty if caught. That's why they threw slaves overboard if they saw the Royal Navy approaching.

So on the Empire Where the Sun Never Set... in UK colonies, protectorates, anywhere they had planted the Union Jack abroad and where slaves were performing the plantation work (much like in the American South) for their home country investors.....this slave trading ban didn't matter a whit for another generation.

But in the case of British India, well thought-out technicalities used by the East India Company (acting in theory as agent for the Mogol Emporer), allowed slavery to continue unimpeded until 1860....23 years after supposedly being abolished.

So for decades after accepting that slavery went againt "the principles of humanity" and adopting law in 1907 to reflect that, the Royal Governors and plantation overseers charged with turning a profit using slave labor probably breathed the same sigh of relief as a current-day UK pedophile can knowing that if their actions don't occur on UK soil, no worries. They enjoy the same type of legal loophole. I bring up the slavery issue because the International consensus is that child sexual exploitation rates up there with slavery and crimes against humanity.

The U.S. takes the view that if you are a U.S. Citizen, while abroad you are still bound by the U.S. Criminal Code with regards to sexually exploiting minors/children. An American pedophile kiddie fiddling abroad can't find safe haven back in the U.S and claim it wasn't against the law or was the local "sociatal norm" where they engaged in the abuse.

The same thing applies if they are convicted and pay the penalty in another country. They can still be brought to trial and sentenced more harshly under the U.S. Code upon return because double-jeapordy doesn't apply with a foreign conviction.

For your peace of mind, the law was enacted because of a broad-based UN/International push and recommendation to criminalize such behavior in an effort to deter and curb this child-exploitation aspect of sex tourism much like global efforts criminalizing child pornography. In other words, the warm fuzzy Global Village approves.

The U.S. code also criminalizes the intent, much like a conspiracy charge for murder etc. criminalizes intent, so with enough evidence a U.S. citizen can still be charged prior to traveling abroad in order to help prevent the crime from occuring or possibly act as a deterrent.

Like abolishing slave-capturing and trading in 1907, you'd think it would be a no-brainer for the UK goverment to pass laws criminalizing child sex-abuse for it's own citizens no matter where they are or what the locals deem acceptable or criminal because it's the same type of reprehensible exploitation. For some things the Arm of the Law should be long.

BlueWolf
24th Aug 2008, 01:02
Out of curiosity; if an Australian from a State where the age of consent is seventeen, or an Americam from a State where the age of consent is eighteen, were to come to New Zealand and have consensual sex with a sixteen-year-old, should that person be prosecuted by their own Government, either from afar or on their return home, given that the age of consent is sixteen here?

And what if that person - or indeed a New Zealander or a Brit - were to go to Uruguay and shag a 15-year-old? No crime under Uruguayan law, ditto Costa Rica and Honduras; or to Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador, Columbia, Chile, or Brazil, where their "willing partner" could be 14 without anyone breaking the law? How about Bolivia, where the age of consent is defined as being "at puberty"? In Japan, Argentina, and Spain it's 13, some States of Mexico 12, China, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia and Bosnia 14, Denmark, France, Sweden, Iceland, Poland, Thailand, and the Czech Republic 15, and there are plenty of States in the US where consent may be given from as young an age as 13, so long as the age difference isn't more than a certain margin, usually four or five years.

All the above from Wiki. And before anyone asks, I don't have a current passport. ;)

fleigle
24th Aug 2008, 03:30
You may not have a currant passport but you are raisin a few good points:E

sorry, its been a long day, I'll get my coat.



But at least its better than fish puns !!!

RiscOS
24th Aug 2008, 06:48
But at least its better than fish puns !!!

That's just sour grapes. Can't you find something better to vine (or wine) about ? :)

flash8
25th Aug 2008, 20:28
Out of curiosity; if an Australian from a State where the age of consent is seventeen, or an Americam from a State where the age of consent is eighteen, were to come to New Zealand and have consensual sex with a sixteen-year-old, should that person be prosecuted by their own Government, either from afar or on their return home, given that the age of consent is sixteen here?


A good point. I'd assume it would almost impossible to prosecute them back home, after all, in the country of temporary residence, no law was broken.

Or Dual Nationality where the age of consent is say 13 in one country of the holder and 16 in another (i.e. UK) - what do you do then? Now that would be difficult!

G-CPTN
25th Aug 2008, 21:01
There was something of an outcry in England when Jerry Lee Lewis arrived in 1958 having recently married his 13 year old cousin. (I saw him perform at the Club a Gogo in Newcastle.)
The scandal followed Lewis home to America, and as a result, he was blacklisted from radio and almost vanished from the music scene.
Even though Jerry Lee Lewis was still under contract with Sun Records, he stopped recording. He had gone from $10,000 a night concerts to $100 a night spots in beer joints and small clubs.

Captivep
26th Aug 2008, 10:08
The law has recently changed. I can't remember which Act it is but UK citizens can now be prosecuted in the UK for having sex with someone under the UK age of consent, even if it took place in a country where it would have been legal.

Have now found out the relevant legislation - Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - effective 14 July.

blue monday
26th Aug 2008, 16:09
The law has recently changed. I can't remember which Act it is but UK citizens can now be prosecuted in the UK for having sex with someone under the UK age of consent, even if it took place in a country where it would have been legal.

Have now found out the relevant legislation - Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - effective 14 July.

Purely from a legal point of view it would be interesting to see if that law stood if someone convicted appealed on the grounds UK law can't be applied to a citizen who when in another country is governed by that countries laws and did not act ileagally in occordance with that countries laws! Any qualified ppruners (ie a real barrister not a barrack room barrister) wish to add to the debate.

UniFoxOs
26th Aug 2008, 16:15
Yes, that's the thin end of what could be a very nasty wedge eventually - we could be getting speeding tickets in the UK for doing a legal 90 mph in, say, Germany, when we have all got obligatory tachographs in our cars.

UFO

Captivep
26th Aug 2008, 16:57
Making no point other than a strictly legal one I agree with the previous two posts - it strikes me that it could even be challenged under human rights legislation!

G-CPTN
26th Aug 2008, 17:47
Assuming that there was a prosecution in the 'foreign' country (and, presumably, a penalty or sentence was served), then doesn't this come under double jeopardy, Shirley?
If there was no prosecution overseas (and even if there was), exactly what evidence would be available for a legitimate court of law?
If conviction elsewhere is accepted as proof of guilt, then, as stated, it is merely a matter of time before motoring convictions are used to disqualify drivers . . .