Glitter arrested!

[HD Adam]

telecat said:

To be Honest where is the corroborating evidence? It sounds like he was convicted on reputation rather than evidence. His "Previous" convictions in the UK had solid evidence these do not seem to meet that criteria.

I agree with you.

I believe he almost certainly did it and deserves everything he gets but that should not be enough to secure a conviction under law.

Unfortunately in historical cases like this, there can never be proof, only hearsay.

[Justayellowbadge]

HD Adam said:

Unfortunately in historical cases like this, there can never be proof, only hearsay.

'You can't just point at something and convict it'?

[telecat]

Justayellowbadge said:

HD Adam said:

Unfortunately in historical cases like this, there can never be proof, only hearsay.

'You can't just point at something and convict it'?

Too many cases of hysterical witch hunts already litter the history books.

[MarshPhantom]

telecat said:

Justayellowbadge said:

HD Adam said:

Unfortunately in historical cases like this, there can never be proof, only hearsay.

'You can't just point at something and convict it'?

Too many cases of hysterical witch hunts already litter the history books.

Such as?

[eldar]

MarshPhantom said:

Such as?

for starters.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855074/Su...

http://jezebel.com/5525340/suspected-pedophile-mur...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brit-dad-a...

And an IS type attack where an innocent man was burned to death...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bijan-ebrahim...

[MarshPhantom]

eldar said:

MarshPhantom said:

Such as?

for starters.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855074/Su...

http://jezebel.com/5525340/suspected-pedophile-mur...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brit-dad-a...

And an IS type attack where an innocent man was burned to death...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bijan-ebrahim...

I don't think telecat was referring vigilante attacks by members of the public.

[Oakey]

telecat said:

To be Honest where is the corroborating evidence? It sounds like he was convicted on reputation rather than evidence. His "Previous" convictions in the UK had solid evidence these do not seem to meet that criteria.

No, he was convicted based on the testimony of the victims.

Really, we're defending Gary Glitter on here now?

[Pesty]

eldar said:

for starters.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855074/Su...

http://jezebel.com/5525340/suspected-pedophile-mur...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brit-dad-a...

And an IS type attack where an innocent man was burned to death...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bijan-ebrahim...

Second link does not deserve to be in with the others.

[Willy Nilly]

Oakey said:

telecat said:

To be Honest where is the corroborating evidence? It sounds like he was convicted on reputation rather than evidence. His "Previous" convictions in the UK had solid evidence these do not seem to meet that criteria.

No, he was convicted based on the testimony of the victims.

Really, we're defending Gary Glitter on here now?

I haven't heard any of the evidence, but he needs to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt or we start chucking people in jail we simply don't like not because they are criminals.

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

Oakey said:

telecat said:

To be Honest where is the corroborating evidence? It sounds like he was convicted on reputation rather than evidence. His "Previous" convictions in the UK had solid evidence these do not seem to meet that criteria.

No, he was convicted based on the testimony of the victims.

Really, we're defending Gary Glitter on here now?

I haven't heard any of the evidence, but he needs to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt or we start chucking people in jail we simply don't like not because they are criminals.

I am a bit lost - what do you mean by that?

[anonymous-user]

hora said:

I know but its Michael Ja'ackson!

He wouldn't do that, he's like a child inside!

Conversation with female wowork colleague

- so why did he pay off parents?
(He was badly advisedadvised)

Right.

I have no idea what to think of the Michael Jackson allegations.

For many years I thought he was probably innocent and was accused simply as an attempt to extort quite considerable money by Jordan Chandler's family.

He was an easy target really and I'm amazed it didn't happen more often that he would be accused of something involving children in order for people to score a few million off him.

Weird - yes.
Still wants to the a child himself - yes.
Lives in a fantasy world - yes.
Probably mentally ill in some ways - yes.
Paedophile - no.

But, when you actually read into it all, see all the many many documents from experts, doctors, lawyers, judges, police, psychiatrists etc, you become actively aware that yes, he probably did molest that boy and it didn't end well for anyone at all.

[h8tax]

GG is a serial, predatory child abuser who has shown no real remorse for any of the crimes of which he has been previously convicted. It would appear he is highly likely to re-offend if given the chance (either within the UK or abroad).

Therefore to give him a lengthy sentence based on the evidence presented to the judge at this trial would seem the best option, so that he either dies in prison or when released is too infirm to re-offend.

Although if it were up to me I'd just shoot the bd.

[eldar]

MarshPhantom said:

I don't think telecat was referring vigilante attacks by members of the public.

Not directly, but they are a side effect of the media witch hunt. So valid.

Gadd is a convicted abuser and rapist, no question he deserves punishing severely. I suspect his sentence would have been no more severe had he raped and then killed his victim(s). I'm a little concerned that his sentence sends a confused message in the name of public opinion. Purely punishent, no element of rehabilitation.

Hard to remain detached, though.

[Martin4x4]

Radio 4 PM said:

He could die in Prison

I bloody well hope so!

[Mike22233]

NinjaPower said:

I have no idea what to think of the Michael Jackson allegations.

For many years I thought he was probably innocent and was accused simply as an attempt to extort quite considerable money by Jordan Chandler's family.

He was an easy target really and I'm amazed it didn't happen more often that he would be accused of something involving children in order for people to score a few million off him.

Weird - yes.
Still wants to the a child himself - yes.
Lives in a fantasy world - yes.
Probably mentally ill in some ways - yes.
Paedophile - no.

But, when you actually read into it all, see all the many many documents from experts, doctors, lawyers, judges, police, psychiatrists etc, you become actively aware that yes, he probably did molest that boy and it didn't end well for anyone at all.

Not a paedophile?!

[MarshPhantom]

eldar said:

MarshPhantom said:

I don't think telecat was referring vigilante attacks by members of the public.

Not directly, but they are a side effect of the media witch hunt. So valid.

Gadd is a convicted abuser and rapist, no question he deserves punishing severely. I suspect his sentence would have been no more severe had he raped and then killed his victim(s). I'm a little concerned that his sentence sends a confused message in the name of public opinion. Purely punishent, no element of rehabilitation.

Hard to remain detached, though.

I thought it was a severe sentence myself, given the leniency shown to Stuart Hall for example. He's already done time for this kind of thing too.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 27th February 18:54

[telecat]

desolate said:

Willy Nilly said:

Oakey said:

telecat said:

To be Honest where is the corroborating evidence? It sounds like he was convicted on reputation rather than evidence. His "Previous" convictions in the UK had solid evidence these do not seem to meet that criteria.

No, he was convicted based on the testimony of the victims.

Really, we're defending Gary Glitter on here now?

I haven't heard any of the evidence, but he needs to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt or we start chucking people in jail we simply don't like not because they are criminals.

I am a bit lost - what do you mean by that?

Obviously you have no idea what "corroborating evidence" is. We know Glitter's location. That would be easy especially for the "victims". However what about the victims. Do we have evidence from that time that they were there? Are we relying on "friends" being told then or years later after his first convictions? Are there any photos that prove that they were even in the area? etc.

Basically if you did not know the people involved would you pass the same verdict?

[Derek Smith]

HD Adam said:

I agree with you.

I believe he almost certainly did it and deserves everything he gets but that should not be enough to secure a conviction under law.

Unfortunately in historical cases like this, there can never be proof, only hearsay.

I'm not sure you understand the nature of hearsay.

Further, if it is a case of one person's word against another, then there must be corroboration before the CPS will even consider it.

It would indeed be unfortunate if time alone between prosecution and offence for serious matters was a complete defence.

I haven't read what the evidence was but I think I can guess what one thrust of the defence would be and the CPS would have to ensure that there was sufficient robustness in the case to overcome it.

Some years ago Sussex prosecuted an historical rape case against an Italian who had fled the country some years previously. There was a 20+ year gap I seem to remember. The victim's life had not been 'ruined' had had been modified significantly. She said that she felt she could put the past behind her and get on with the rest of her life. Job done.

I would assume that the victims in this case feel the same way to a greater or lesser degree.

Job done.

[HoHoHo]

telecat said:

Obviously you have no idea what "corroborating evidence" is. We know Glitter's location. That would be easy especially for the "victims". However what about the victims. Do we have evidence from that time that they were there? Are we relying on "friends" being told then or years later after his first convictions? Are there any photos that prove that they were even in the area? etc.

Basically if you did not know the people involved would you pass the same verdict?

Are you a defence lawyer by chance?

[telecat]

HoHoHo said:

telecat said:

Obviously you have no idea what "corroborating evidence" is. We know Glitter's location. That would be easy especially for the "victims". However what about the victims. Do we have evidence from that time that they were there? Are we relying on "friends" being told then or years later after his first convictions? Are there any photos that prove that they were even in the area? etc.

Basically if you did not know the people involved would you pass the same verdict?

Are you a defence lawyer by chance?

Nowhere close. But I don't like being taken for a fool and it seems everybody is out to try.