Glitter arrested!

[anonymous-user]

telecat said:

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?

I am not thick - I know what "corroborating evidence" means.

I was referring to Willy Milly's post.

Although having said I am not thick I can't work out whether you are having a rhetorical debate with yourself about the nature of jury trials and the problems that a nonce has when put on trial, or whether you really are a nonce apologist.

[Oakey]

This place cracks me up.

When someone is arrested for a sex offense the nonce defenders are all "innocent until proven guilty!"

Then when the accused are proven guilty by a jury of their peers it's "where was the evidence? Convicted based on nothing but one word against another!"

Then on the rare occasions the accused is found not guilty they're all "the 'victims' just wanted compensation! they should be prosecuted for making false allegations!"

It's quite worrying really.

[HoHoHo]

telecat said:

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.

Now where's that parrot when you need one.........

Have you ever had any first hand experience of this type of offence?






No need to answer, I guessed not.

[eldar]

Oakey said:

This place cracks me up.

When someone is arrested for a sex offense the nonce defenders are all "innocent until proven guilty!"

Then when the accused are proven guilty by a jury of their peers it's "where was the evidence? Convicted based on nothing but one word against another!"

Then on the rare occasions the accused is found not guilty they're all "the 'victims' just wanted compensation! they should be prosecuted for making false allegations!"

It's quite worrying really.

It is worrying. The high profile cases seem to involve people who have some assets - direct or via their employer.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/26/jim...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320031/Th...

The possibility of a 'compensation culture'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27103873

Goes some way to devaluing the abuse victims genuine suffering by equating abuse with compensation rather than justice. Seems a little unhealthy.

[MartG]

MarshPhantom said:

I'm guessing he'd have preferred under 16 years - as usual.

I heard he asked the judge if he could do eight years, twice...

[Claudia Skies]

eldar said:

It is worrying. The high profile cases seem to involve people who have some assets - direct or via their employer.

Agreed. Given that "celebrities" make up a tiny proportion of the general population it seems extraordinary that so many of them have become targets for prosecution in relation to sexual practices which are presumably not a result of their occupation - although "opportunity" will have been increased.

My concern is that Cliff Richard appears to be being pursued by a witch-hunt in full chase. Meanwhile we hear constantly that likely terrorists can't be exposed because they haven't committed any offences.

As for Glitter - odious creature with a long history of offences and convictions.

[Derek Smith]

eldar said:

It is worrying. The high profile cases seem to involve people who have some assets - direct or via their employer.

Am I missing some irony here? Is there a parrot coming?

If not then I have to say I not surprised that high profile cases involve celebrities and these celebrities often have money.

There are any number of cases that go through courts where, because the offenders are not celebrities, are not reported with the same vigour.

It would appear that celebrities, such as MPs, entertainers and others, were protected in some way - by their celebrity or by the powers that be. As this has changed then I would assume that the numbers of celebrities being brought to book would increase.

Or have I missed the joke?

[Oakey]

I think he's insinuating these people have only been accused because they have money, nothing to do with the fact some of them are actually sexual predators.

[eldar]

Derek Smith said:

Am I missing some irony here? Is there a parrot coming?

If not then I have to say I not surprised that high profile cases involve celebrities and these celebrities often have money.

There are any number of cases that go through courts where, because the offenders are not celebrities, are not reported with the same vigour.

It would appear that celebrities, such as MPs, entertainers and others, were protected in some way - by their celebrity or by the powers that be. As this has changed then I would assume that the numbers of celebrities being brought to book would increase.

Or have I missed the joke?

Not really. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of abuse cases are committed by relatives/family friends. Next group, random abusers. Lastly 'celebrities'.

Most, sadly, don't get proper justice.

How many of the common cases are investigated with the presence of TV helicopters filming a property search, seemingly unlimited resource, letters to parliamentary committees and headlines for many months.

The police would do well for downgrade the hunt for celebrity victims, and concentrate on the cases where the most are abused - families, closed gangs, children in council care. But a fleet of cars searching a 2 up 2 down in Bolton isn't as glamorous as a nice pad in Sunningdale + media.

Of course the celebs are targets, but getting then sacrifices more vulnerable victims.

[anonymous-user]

eldar said:

Of course the celebs are targets, but getting then sacrifices more vulnerable victims.

Just to help me ensure I understand:.

Glitter - are we OK with this conviction or was he a target?

[Fantic SuperT]

There was an interesting contrast between all the sympathetic analysis of what turned popular schoolboy immigrant Mohammed Emwazi into a Muslim terrorist, and the "Glitter's off to prison again" story. Perhaps CAGE would like to step up and claim "if only the police hadn't bothered Gary when PC World found those indecent images of children on his computer, he may never have gone on to be a peado quite so much" etc.

[anonymous-user]

Fantic SuperT said:

There was an interesting contrast between all the sympathetic analysis of what turned popular schoolboy immigrant Mohammed Emwazi into a Muslim terrorist, and the "Glitter's off to prison again" story. Perhaps CAGE would like to step up and claim "if only the police hadn't bothered Gary when PC World found those indecent images of children on his computer, he may never have gone on to be a peado quite so much" etc.

Can you explain why this contrast is interesting? I can see no relationship between the two cases, and the way they have been reported seems unrelated as well.

I don't see any sympathetic analysis of JJ, I just see a load of people who can't really compute what has happened to a bloke they once knew.

[jakesmith]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Shows just what rubbish this whole fiasco is if that's the best they can come up with. Imagine you're Glitter's lawyer,

• Savile has been tried, found guilty and executed by the the press
• Glitter has already served time for child sex offences

and now compile Glitter's defence.

Well actually you don't need to bother. The judge will surely dismiss any charges with the chance of a "fair trial" at zero.

How are you getting on with that?

[greygoose]

Oakey said:

I think he's insinuating these people have only been accused because they have money, nothing to do with the fact some of them are actually sexual predators.

Sadly it seems to be a frequently aired view by some that the problem is cash chasing victims rather than sexual offenders.

[Derek Smith]

eldar said:

The police would do well for downgrade the hunt for celebrity victims, and concentrate on the cases where the most are abused - families, closed gangs, children in council care. But a fleet of cars searching a 2 up 2 down in Bolton isn't as glamorous as a nice pad in Sunningdale + media.

Of course the celebs are targets, but getting then sacrifices more vulnerable victims.

I think that the most shocking aspect of historic child sex abuse is the reluctance of the police to deal with celebrities. There were accusations at the time but these were ignored for various reasons. We now find that Saville was one of the most prolific of sexual offenders, targeting those you suggest the police should deal with, those in care. But for reasons that are obscure, nothing was done. We have Cyril Smith. That's not to mention those who attended the places where abuse took place on a massive scale. Some of these people are still alive and famous.

Your suggestion is either/or and that is wrong. The systems established to combat abuse at home are multi-agency an continue - as far as the funding allows - on a daily basis. The Rotherham scandal is made all the worse in that those tasked with protecting these kids seemed - and we can't say more than that - to ignore processes. Squads are expensive and wasteful of resources, but I would assume there are few, if any, forces that have made proportionate cuts to child support services.

You suggest that the police enjoy media coverage. It was one of the major criticisms by the press that the police were secretive. Things changed in the 90s and there was more of a free flow of information. The criticisms coming from all directions after the Richard raid will have come as no surprise to the OIC,, nor the risk to his/her career that this meant. From the disclosures, it would seem that the press coverage was not generated by the police.

If we take an invented celebrity, one with friends in high places, who hob nobs with the great and the good, who has awards both from the industry they are in and from the government, then in the past they have been untouchable. No one willing to chance their arm. This has become apparent from the revelations of historical abuse. In the 80s Cyril Smith and friend had notched up over 140 complaints of abuse of children. Yet we had to wait until he was dead before anything was admitted other than occasional references in the press.

Celebrities should be treated the same way as anyone else. If there was evidence of serial abuse against anyone else, then the police would, at least now, do something about it.

I don't know any police officer, or social services bod, who would not relish the idea of being able to convict a resident of a two up/two down council flat for abuse.

[eldar]

desolate said:

Just to help me ensure I understand:.

Glitter - are we OK with this conviction or was he a target?

Conviction is fine. He is a serial abuser.

My worry is that some 'celebrity' investigations are carried out with massive publicity and resources. Possibly with the cost of non-celebrity abuse being less investigated.