Stop the planet, I want to get off.

[SC7]

International supernonce, Gary fking Glitter, has opened a Twitter account (which now has over 15,000 followers) and is planning a comeback tour.

What the fk? How is he even allowed near social media?

[johnxjsc1985]

I think you thread title probably sums up how a lot of us feel right now about a lot of things.

[MonkeyHanger]

SC7 said:

What the fk? How is he even allowed near social media?

i think the same question could be asked about the 15,000 people who "follow" him.

[davepoth]

MonkeyHanger said:

i think the same question could be asked about the 15,000 people who "follow" him.

Many will only be following to see if he gives any indication of where he is, so they can go and throw stuff at him.

[anonymous-user]

omg he could be looking at children's tweets!

wtf do you mean how is he even allowed near social media?

[SC7]

Use Psychology said:

omg he could be looking at children's tweets!

wtf do you mean how is he even allowed near social media?

Well, given that it provides quite a handy platform on which to contact children, I'd say it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect him to be banned from using social networking sites.

fk me, I'm not a Daily Wail-er, but that's just common fking sense for paedos.

[davepoth]

Minimum age for twitter is 13, if a parent allows their child on there and is paying so little attention that they allow their child to be in contact with the most well known kiddy fiddler in the country, who is using his own name, I have to say they are a teeny, tiny bit to blame.

[SC7]

davepoth said:

Minimum age for twitter is 13, if a parent allows their child on there and is paying so little attention that they allow their child to be in contact with the most well known kiddy fiddler in the country, who is using his own name, I have to say they are a teeny, tiny bit to blame.

So where do you draw the line? Is it OK for known paedos to have access to kids as long as they're over 13?

What about if he picks one up in the street? Are the parents a teeny, tiny bit to blame then, too?

Surely it's all about minimising risk?

[Jim the Sunderer]

He's not going to nonce up any kids in under 120 characters or fewer less.

[davepoth]

SC7 said:

So where do you draw the line? Is it OK for known paedos to have access to kids as long as they're over 13?

What about if he picks one up in the street? Are the parents a teeny, tiny bit to blame then, too?

Surely it's all about minimising risk?

Yes, it's about minimising risk; part of the reason the lower limit is 13 is that paedos are not really interested in girls and boys of that age because they look fairly adult in comparison. But the abdication of responsibility by parents is the real issue - you know as well as I do what can be found on the internet if you go looking (and sometimes by accident), how could anybody allow a small child to look at the internet without supervision when that's available?

[SC7]

OK, a straight, simple question:

Should convicted paedophiles be allowed to use Facebook/Twitter?

[Bibbs]

I think people should stop giving him grief. He just wants to forget his past, settle down and have kids.

[aizvara]

SC7 said:

OK, a straight, simple question:

Should convicted paedophiles be allowed to use Facebook/Twitter?

Don't know. Should Facebook/twitter and other corporations be obliged to check if users are convicted of said crimes? In all countries?

[Zaxxon]

SC7 said:

OK, a straight, simple question:

Should convicted paedophiles be allowed to Live?

Fixed that for you.

Oh, the answer is NO, just incase anyone was pondering that one.

[MartyPubes]

SC7 said:

OK, a straight, simple question:

Should convicted paedophiles be allowed to use Facebook/Twitter?

Yes. You sound ridiculous suggesting otherwise.

[SC7]

MartyPubes said:

Yes. You sound ridiculous suggesting otherwise.

Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up.

Is that a fact or your own ridiculous opinion?

[EDLT]

MonkeyHanger said:

i think the same question could be asked about the 15,000 people who "follow" him.

At least 14,000 of them are probably desperate journos/private detectives.

[TheEnd]

If they were banned, they'd find ways round it.
Of those 15,000, most will be rubber neckers, watching for a slip up, or gathering a list of people he mentions for a news article.
I can't imagine a tour going well.
Who's hire out their venue to him?

[Astronut]

Gary Glitter? The well-known rhyming slang for lavatory or rectum? A comeback tour? Which telephone kiosk will be the venue for this momentous event?

[Eric Mc]

TheEnd said:

If they were banned, they'd find ways round it.
Of those 15,000, most will be rubber neckers, watching for a slip up, or gathering a list of people he mentions for a news article.
I can't imagine a tour going well.
Who's hire out their venue to him?

Maybe he should change his name again. He's already had three.