Mr G Glitter

[Sunday Driver]

I thought he had.......

 

[AnOther]

Had - past tense ?

Surely the present tense 'is' would be more appropriate. You cannot be advocating he be give a clean sheet ?

I might be pursuaded to modify my opinion if he just admitted what he was and showed some contrition but, as I observed earlier, he doesn't acknowledge it and seems to be revelling in his notoriety.

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

I thought he had.......

 

[/quote]

I expect he will find what thousands have before him, serving the sentence does not mean the end of paying for crime. What irks me is that he is a grown man who knew what he was doing, yet now it looks as if he at least, thinks that the UK taxpayer should pay for the police to protect him.......

[Sunday Driver]

Much as we may not like it, the law sets down the punishment applicable to a particular crime and under the principle of rehabilitation of offenders, once that punishment has been fulfilled, the offender does have a clean sheet.  The same applies to any lawful sanction - even your humble driving ban is lifted after you've 'done the time'.....

If anyone's feels that the punishment he's served for this particular offence is not sufficient 'payment', then they should lobby their MP for a change in the law.

 

[Clair]

[quote user="ErnieY"]Had - past tense ?

Surely the present tense 'is' would be more appropriate. You cannot be advocating he be give a clean sheet ?[/quote]

If he had caused a fatal accident or maimed a child whilst driving under the influence and had served his time, would you take the same view?

[Tony F Dordogne]

[quote user="ErnieY"]Had - past tense ?

Surely the present tense 'is' would be more appropriate. You cannot be advocating he be give a clean sheet ?

I might be pursuaded to modify my opinion if he just admitted what he was and showed some contrition but, as I observed earlier, he doesn't acknowledge it and seems to be revealing in his notoriety.

[/quote]

He seems to be blaming the British newspapers and the girls rather than take responsibility himself.  J & I have done a huge amount of work in the UK with the victims of child abuse of all sorts and this is a very common approach, the problem for this paedophile is that he is famous/infamous and as Ernie said, seems to be revelling in the limelight again.

As for him having done his time, the sex offender's register is, to me, like a prisoner being out on licence.

In the UK certain 'sex crimes' do carry a tariff which includes signing a register and being subject to what may be a life-long regime of monitoring - and he knew that and that he would be liable to that sanction if he was convicted of committing those crimes abroad.

He's an adult male and had to make judgements - by no stretch of the imagination was it the girl's fault, he should have been able to recognise he was committing the offences with the young girls and it was his responsibility to know the age of consent in Vietnam before he went there.  He was gently ejected from Cuba because of his activities and like many other international paedophiles, he went to SE Asia.

He should have known that the law had been changed, rightly, to net UK citizens who commit child abuse offences abroad, if he didn't that's nobody's problem but his own.

The best thing that could happen to Gadd is that he looses his appeal at the High Court and is then left alone by the media, rather than to keep giving him the 'oxygen of publicity'.

Where he eventually lives will soon be known and local parents can then warn their children about this devious and evil man tho hopefully he will NOT be attacked, again, that's just more publicity for this creep.

[valB]

The bottom line is that he is a grown man and should never be thinking of children in any other way than ....just children. I appreciate the fact he has served his sentence but the sex register is to prevent that sort of thing happening again, hopefully.  If that is his preference it may be difficult for any urges to diminish purely because he has been in prison. I am not an advocate of anyone taking the law into their own hands and I certainly do not feel that the tax payer should cover the cost of protection, a million pound a year was quoted on the radio by a police chief.  I have nothing but contempt for anyone who takes advantage of minors and I know he is among hundreds even in UK who do this but as far as I am concerned Asia seems an easy target for this sort of thing and the publics reaction would be the same if it was " joe bloggs " who was being sent back and in the media.  

[AnOther]

revealing....oops [:$]

It scares me that my basic spelling is as rubbish as it is sometimes [:'(]