Glitter

[Phalon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4769164.stm

3 years and fines totalling £360 for molesting two pre-teenage girls?

That truly is disgusting.

At least there's a chance he may be deported back here where he may receive a punishment more akin to what he deserves.

What would the sentence have been over here btw?

[_RATM_]

Considering he's a rock star, I am willing to bet if he was in the states he would have gotten away with nothing more than a best seller and the chance to appear in every morning television show there is.

edit : the 130 pounds that he has to pay equals to 360 USD I believe, which makes it even worse.

[pig]

Hes scum, I hope he comes to this country, at least he will be given "justice" inside the prison. Thats the one good thing HMP do to paedos and child killers.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by pig

Hes scum, I hope he comes to this country, at least he will be given "justice" inside the prison. Thats the one good thing HMP do to paedos and child killers.

rape is funny

[_RATM_]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Its interesting apparently something happened to Vietnam 40 years OK which has led to a real drop in the standard of living there.

French colonialism in Vietnam was way before 1966.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yes lets all have a good old 5 minutes hate shall we. Bluster bluster god its disgusting, how can people do this? Deaths to good for em, string em up, cut their balls off blah blah blah. You feel better now? I don't know where you get the energy from.

He is scum though, but to a certain extent im just as bad as him because im getting a certain pleasure talking about it.

[_RATM_]

The French daily here in Ottawa states that he was teaching english to the little girls and that an 11 year old was sleeping in the same bed as him because she was afraid of ghosts. The police confiscated his child porn infested laptop as he tried to leave Hô Chi Minh City.

Source : Le Droit

[_RATM_]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

You are quite right, but whilst colonial oppression and civil war is certainly not fun, it compare's well to carpet bombing, chemical warfare and everyone being rounded up and put into concentration camps.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I believe Vietnam's problems started with the 'invention' of French Indochina and got worst when the French finally decided they can't handle their colony anymore and let the US effectively blow shit up for no reason whatsoever.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Alot of people are scum sadly. Gary Glitter is definitely scum, but he is also kind of pathetic and has fortunately been removed from general circulation so I question the value of getting too upset about it.

True but it just annoys me when kids are involved, if he raped a woman i wouldnt really give as much of a toss as molesting kids, just something which inately annoys me. But the fact that I and many others eg the sun talk about it so much is perverse.

Your right though hes out of general population and at least out of harms way to a certain extent.

Im now going to tell a bad joke:

Gary Glitter gets 3 years in prison for fiddling children, its a bit unfair on Christopher Reeve who was put in a wheelchair for riding a horse.

[Alki]

he is my idol

[pig]

Do you want to be in his gang?

[acropolis]

i have to take gary's side on this one.

we have a guy who was entirely content with his child pornography. then it was taken away from him, and so he went to vietnam and found a consenting 11 and 12 year old (with consenting families).

i know the $315 doesn't sound like much, but that's like a jillion dollars over there.

really i'm surprised, given that so many people on here have seen nothing wrong with a significant lowering of the 'age of consent'

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

In terms of fines obviously there is a disparity between UK and Vietnamese earnings.

This is obviously true, but I'm never sure why fines don't always reflect the accused's wealth. Although these seems to be some sort of compensation payment, but still.

Having said that, it doesn't seem like he raped these girls, more "acted inappropriately" in the extreme. If he does have some sort of illness which the Judge seemed to say he did, I'm not sure what 3 years in prison is going to do.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

The use of fines (even graduated fines) seem to be regressive in any case. If you are Millionaire and have to pay a £200,000 fine, you ain't starving, where as if I had to pay a £4000 fine I would be screwed.

That seems fairly easy to overcome though ; a judge could simply ask to see your income / expenditure when judging the fine, or simply base it on your assets (i.e. none for us lots for someone with millions).

As I understand it in part of Scandanavia the already do properly adjusted fines (with no upper limit) - there was an incident where a CEO got a £21k speeding ticket or something like that.

[Ste]

Don't they do that in the US?
Base the compensation on "how much it will take to persuade them not to do it again" which is how McDonalds have to pay out massive amounts to women who burn themselves on coffee etc...

I have to say (on topic) I don't really care about Gary Glitter and I'm sure if he wasn't famous then noone else would either.

[JammyJim]

tbh if i was him id pray every single day and night that i was deported back to britain. gang rape in the showers here is going to be infinitly more pleasant than rotting away in a vietnamese jail for 3 years.

[1-X]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

tbh if i was him id pray every single day and night that i was deported back to britain. gang rape in the showers here is going to be infinitly more pleasant than rotting away in a vietnamese jail for 3 years.

surely if he was imprisoned here, he'd be in a special wing with the other nonces away from the "normal" criminals?

also he's eligible for parole in 14 months (half the sentence minus the four months he's already spent inside)

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This is obviously true, but I'm never sure why fines don't always reflect the accused's wealth.

Should the length of prison terms reflect the accused's age? Obviously younger people can 'afford' to spend more time in prison.

And I thought you were in favor of rehabilitation, not punishment? Or maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

Originally Posted by Ste

Don't they do that in the US?
Base the compensation on "how much it will take to persuade them not to do it again" which is how McDonalds have to pay out massive amounts to women who burn themselves on coffee etc...

Those are civil not criminal cases, but even there the higher courts are starting to put limits on punitive damages.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by 1-X

surely if he was imprisoned here, he'd be in a special wing with the other nonces away from the "normal" criminals?

also he's eligible for parole in 14 months (half the sentence minus the four months he's already spent inside)

He could be out of jail before this x-mas already.

About fines ... well ... it depends where they go to. Glitter did already pay twice 2000$ through his lawyer to the two childs families. The 315$ fine is also going to the victims families.

The problem with making the fines depend on the wealth of the offender _AND_ having them go to the victims family is that <irony> it would probably result in people like a certain singer or a ex-rockstar beeing chased by crowds of naked children wherever they show up... </irony>

[1-X]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

He could be out of jail before this x-mas already.

yes, it seems they're now saying he's eligible for release after serving a third rather than a half (which was last night's news)

[milo]

He doesn't appear to be a particularly pleasant individual to children it is all relative though*, i doubt hes in anyway an exception in the circles that spout the most vitriol towards him. The tabloids need an iconic villan for every situation, even if its comic like at times be it abu hamza, gary glitter or whomever. Lock him up in broadmore if that is what the government thinks is best, but spare me the tabloid shit. Id rather just not know.





* In relation to acropolis's point about AoC (i think hes stated hes against it lower), it was illegal to do what he did in vietnam but its arguable about its moral wrongness, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent, maybe he should have gone to mexico or the phillipines?, in Tunisia for example if he'd done that with a 16 yr old he'd have been in trouble. Its a fuzzy area to have a debate, so i think i prefer to say i find the exploitation of the vulnerable (inclusive of the elderly and the poor by the wealthy) to be my overriding concern. Is it any more or less morally reprehensible to do what he did than have sex with an 18yr old eastern european girl who (for the sake of arguement) although not trafficed and in the UK legally is prostituting herself in misery to support her family back home?

What this basically comes down to is under what circumstances would an individual delude himself into believing that his 'partner' is 'happy and content' with his/her presence when that relationship is ultimately dependant on money.

Is there a fair trade organisation for sex workers the world over?

'this 13 yr old was rescued from earning 12p a day making your nikes but now earns £100 a blowjob'

Theres so many factors involved in what is considered morally acceptable i just can't accept the overriding and seemingly myopic focus on boxing everything around age.

[Yahwe]

3 years seems to be what he would have recieved in britain ... possibly a bit steep.

We also never fine a criminal if we imprison him.

Can piglet please shut the **** up? You're scum piglet but we all except living in a world with you, some of us (including me) actually like you. But your literary diet of the sun and the news of the screws (which we know you only buy for the pictures) does notqualify you to pass judgement upon another mortal life.

[Rids]

I'd be interested to know if he is going to a 'real' vitnamese jail, or some picnic club?

If it is 3 years in a 'real' jail, I get the feeling the old kiddie fiddler might just croak before he makes it out, call it a hunch.

[Yahwe]

I adore the way that the tabloid readers are all apparently happy to damn one crime while remaining happy to condone murder ...

[Rids]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I adore the way that the tabloid readers are all apparently happy to damn one crime while remaining happy to condone murder ...

As somebody who avoids tabloids like the plague, which particular murder are we condoning this week?

[Yahwe]

intentionally killing a man, whether he is a criminal or not, is murder.

[Rids]

Oh, you mean calling for him to be executed? I have no opinion on that one.

[Yahwe]

brilliant (genuinely). forgive me I miss-read your post. for what it's worth - I was wrong.

that just leaves piglet and phalon.

goodness we're actually damn good as a forum aren't we. only two loonies!! See this is what I mean when I say how proud I am of GD and how much I believe GD isworth fighting for.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This is obviously true, but I'm never sure why fines don't always reflect the accused's wealth. Although these seems to be some sort of compensation payment, but still.

well your perception israther scewed by your personal political hatred of the rich.

Fines in britain do reflect the accused's wealth. They are always tailored if the person being fined is poor. I've known people fined literally a few quid (usually proceeded by the judge saying "well do you have any money on you now?).

If the criminal had been wealthy he would have been fined thousands.

I can see good reason in tailoring fines to, while still punishing, protect the poor from excessive debt. I can't see how logically a wealthy person ought to have to pay more for the same crime (see tacitus' rather good comment).

A crime is a crime is a crime. Whether committed by the duke of norfolk or by the very poor. There are (i believe, i doubt gordon agrees) good reasons to limit punishment where the criminal is particularly vulnerable - poor (fines) or elderly (prison terms).

I do not share your desire to hurt the rich.

[furball]

Perhaps someone with archives/actual access to SA can find this for me.

I lurk on there, and some time ago there was a linked article on prison rape in either GBS or D&D. I used to be one of those people who thought that it might be funny, but that article really brought it home: what male rape does to people in prisons.

Anyone who wishes that on someone is scum.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by furball

Perhaps someone with archives/actual access to SA can find this for me.

I lurk on there, and some time ago there was a linked article on prison rape in either GBS or D&D. I used to be one of those people who thought that it might be funny, but that article really brought it home: what male rape does to people in prisons.

Anyone who wishes that on someone is scum.

If it is any comfort prison rape doesn't really happen and where it does rapists are of course prosecuted.

It merely suits the ruling classes to allow the illusion to perpetuate they believe (in my opinion incorrectly) that such rumours and lies are effective in deterring people from crime.

Personally i can not see the morality in allowing people to go on believing in a lie merely because there might be some value in that lie.

EDIT: of course such lies also serve to 'sate the bloodlust' of vicious people like piglet by making them believe that what prison is is closer to thier desire to cause pain to people they consider 'wrong'. Small minded people who can not concieve of the true horror that prison really is and so must create myths to explain their ignorance.

[furball]

The article is an American article, so we cannot be certain that the American prison system is as effective at preventing rape as the British one.

Certainly from what I remember of the article, the guards were often complicit or turned a blind eye.

[Yahwe]

journalism is what journalism is.

the truth is often far less exciting.

(though i confess i have no interest in their system. my interest lies with those I can protect. small minded? defeatist? perhaps. practical realism always is ...)

[furball]

You are indeed correct regarding sensationalistic journalism. However, what I remember of the article was that it was a credible investigation, not the sort of thing that we find in our red tops. Besides, they have as much 'blood-lust' as anyone/thing else.

[Yahwe]

let them die I said.

was the truth of my opinion so horrofic that you refused to hear it?

[Dace]

yeah yeah yeah what a terrible thing Glitter did *shrug*

[KoeN]

oh shit this thread isn't about a mariah carey movie.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

let them die I said.

was the truth of my opinion so horrofic that you refused to hear it?

I'm not entirely sure where you said this, care to point it out?

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

As I understand it in part of Scandanavia the already do properly adjusted fines (with no upper limit) - there was an incident where a CEO got a £21k speeding ticket or something like that.

It might be Norway. Here you can be fined x months pay for instance.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by furball

I'm not entirely sure where you said this, care to point it out?

no.

for the truth of it is my shame. mine to bear.

only a coward attempts to avoid his punishment.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Should the length of prison terms reflect the accused's age? Obviously younger people can 'afford' to spend more time in prison.

In many instances I'd imagine they do. So yeah. If you're 90 I doubt there's much point giving you a life sentence if you're only going to have to release someone from prison on grounds of ill-health soon anyway. But I don't really support prison as an idea, so I don't accept that comparison.

And I thought you were in favor of rehabilitation, not punishment? Or maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

As I've said many times on this forum, I support capital punishment in theory. So yeah, it was probably someone else who was going on about rehabilitation. It entirely depends on the offence of course. Speaking in a very general sense I believe human beings are conditioned by incentive (among other things) and punishment can form part of that (negative feedback, etc).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

well your perception israther scewed by your personal political hatred of the rich.

I have no such hatred but you can imagine I do if it makes you feel better. If we wish to simply hurt people out of malice then there are far more effective means than simply adjusting how fines are levied.

I can see good reason in tailoring fines to, while still punishing, protect the poor from excessive debt. I can't see how logically a wealthy person ought to have to pay more for the same crime (see tacitus' rather good comment).

It depends. If a fine is simply meant as some sort of restorative measure (e.g. you broke a fence, it cost £80, therefore your fine is £80 + admin costs) then obviously the fine should be the same. If however we are fining people as a punishment then obviously the effect such a fine will have obviously has to be taken into account. As a child, there was no point my mother grounding me if I misbehaved because when I was young I rarely went out and much preferred to sit at home reading or playing a computer game. Therefore alternative punishments needed to be devised.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I have no such hatred but you can imagine I do if it makes you feel better. If we wish to simply hurt people out of malice then there are far more effective means than simply adjusting how fines are levied.

'we'?
I think not. I think that you desire to hurt, to put it in a language you might understand: i suggest that you desire ill towards those gamblers more successful than you have been.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It depends. If a fine is simply meant as some sort of restorative measure (e.g. you broke a fence, it cost £80, therefore your fine is £80 + admin costs) then obviously the fine should be the same. If however we are fining people as a punishment then obviously the effect such a fine will have obviously has to be taken into account. As a child, there was no point my mother grounding me if I misbehaved because when I was young I rarely went out and much preferred to sit at home reading or playing a computer game. Therefore alternative punishments needed to be devised.

a fine is never meant as a restorative measure.

a fine is to justify criminality. it is punishment.

You argue that £5,000 is no punishment to a rich man. my answer? You do not know the rich.

Fines are only used to punish those people who's crimes do not warrant prison. We never fine someone who goes to prison (i repeat)

A ay in prison hurts a rich man beyond mere money. They would pay amounts that you can only imagine in order to avoid it. We do not let them.

your desire for apportionate fines is silly.

I will support protecting the weak from unnecessary harm. Do not expect me to support hurting the strong just because we could .

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

'we'?
I think not. I think that you desire to hurt, to put it in a language you might understand: i suggest that you desire ill towards those gamblers more successful than you have been.

I disagree with this, although I'm not sure how I am to respond. I desire a fairer more just society. This might mean that people at the moment might not do as well once certain changes have taken place (e.g. after copyright is abolished or land issues are tackled). You would probably interpret this as a "desire to hurt". But this really is a side-issue on this thread. You can go on believing this is all driven by malice if you wish, it doesn't make much difference to the argument.

a fine is never meant as a restorative measure.

OK. Although the payment we were originally discussing in this thread seems to have been a restorative / compensatory payment (to the victims family). I confess this is certainly not a "fine" in any real sense of the word. My point was that certain payments it makes sense for them to be standardised, but not if they are punishments.

You argue that £5,000 is no punishment to a rich man.

I don't think I did argue this, or even imply it. My point was that a fine is going to have differing effects, depending on the wealth of the person receiving it. This seems a relatively uncontroversial statement.

Let us imaigne there are four persons before us, all who have committed the same offence - say not paying their TV licence or something like that where prison is not a likely outcome.

a) Who is on income support and has no savings to speak of.
b) Who is a young teacher just starting out earning £23k with perhaps a few hundreds pounds saved, but little else.
c) A consultant at a hospital who earns £75k a year and has various monies saved.
d) A billionaire whose wealth increases by millions of pounds a year.

Let us imagine that the maximum fine is £1000. We have already said that (a) will not be fined a £1000 because it would submit them to excessive debt and they would not be able to pay it in any reasonable timescale anyway. So they might be fined £3 per week for a year, or something like that.

I have no idea what (b) would be fined but possibly not the full amount. We'll say £300 for the sake of argument (correct me if this is wildly unlikely). (c) & (d) might both pay the full fine. Now what I am saying is that if we wish fines to be a punishment, it seems ludicrous that someone with literally billions of pounds only pays 3.33 times as much as someone on £23k or the same amount as someone who "only" earns £75k.

A £1000 fine is still a punishment, regardless of how much money you have. The affect this punishment will have, is going to vary wildly, I would say. Now, if fines exist primarily for other reasons (e.g. revenue raising) then we do not need to be concerned that they are have an unequal effect.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Can piglet please shut the **** up? You're scum piglet but we all except living in a world with you, some of us (including me) actually like you. But your literary diet of the sun and the news of the screws (which we know you only buy for the pictures) does notqualify you to pass judgement upon another mortal life.

woah woah woah woah woah

The thing is as I said I dont care calling him scum thats what I think about him.

Its screwed up logic in my mind but ill give you an example of the way I think.

A man mugs a man = Bad but it doesnt really bother me that much

A man mugs a woman = Very Bad

A man mugs a granny = Disgusting

Now its not because I read the sun nor is it because I read the independent that is why I think like this (yes I buy the sun and news of the world - why? for the sports section I dont think ive ever read pages 1-48 apart from as yahwe rightly pointed out look at the pictures)

I think like that because even though we could sit there and go yes piglet but a man mugging a man is the same crime as a man mugging a granny. Im not thick. I realise this, still doesnt mean I can judge it as the same.

Using my example there is something disgusting about mugging not only a female but an old woman. It makes my blood boil. As simple as that.

Am I the only one who can actually pass judgment against this? I know it doesnt make me any better to a certain extent than the man who mugs the granny when I say I want to twat the bastard but I honestly couldnt give two flying ****s.

In Glitters case im still outraged. I still think its disgusting and if he ever did anything like that to someone I knew I would want to kill him.

Now if you have read above in my other posts in this thread you would note that I acknowledged Im just as perverse talking about how id like to kill him as he is for fiddling kids.I believe it takes more than the avg sun reader to figure that out - (or as one neg repper put "Daily Mail reader")

I understand im just being as twisted in my logic.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Phalon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4769164.stm

3 years and fines totalling £360 for molesting two pre-teenage girls?

That truly is disgusting.

At least there's a chance he may be deported back here where he may receive a punishment more akin to what he deserves.

What would the sentence have been over here btw?

Actually , thats pretty reasonable justice.

I for one, for no amount of money, would spend 1 week in a South East asian jail, let alone 3 years. Thats possibly the worst thing that any man in the wester world could imagine.

[milo]

other than the Isle of Man.

[ceres]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I disagree with this, although I'm not sure how I am to respond. I desire a fairer more just society. This might mean that people at the moment might not do as well once certain changes have taken place (e.g. after copyright is abolished or land issues are tackled). You would probably interpret this as a "desire to hurt". But this really is a side-issue on this thread. You can go on believing this is all driven by malice if you wish, it doesn't make much difference to the argument.

OK. Although the payment we were originally discussing in this thread seems to have been a restorative / compensatory payment (to the victims family). I confess this is certainly not a "fine" in any real sense of the word. My point was that certain payments it makes sense for them to be standardised, but not if they are punishments.

I don't think I did argue this, or even imply it. My point was that a fine is going to have differing effects, depending on the wealth of the person receiving it. This seems a relatively uncontroversial statement.

Let us imaigne there are four persons before us, all who have committed the same offence - say not paying their TV licence or something like that where prison is not a likely outcome.

a) Who is on income support and has no savings to speak of.
b) Who is a young teacher just starting out earning ?23k with perhaps a few hundreds pounds saved, but little else.
c) A consultant at a hospital who earns ?75k a year and has various monies saved.
d) A billionaire whose wealth increases by millions of pounds a year.

Let us imagine that the maximum fine is ?1000. We have already said that (a) will not be fined a ?1000 because it would submit them to excessive debt and they would not be able to pay it in any reasonable timescale anyway. So they might be fined ?3 per week for a year, or something like that.

I have no idea what (b) would be fined but possibly not the full amount. We'll say ?300 for the sake of argument (correct me if this is wildly unlikely). (c) & (d) might both pay the full fine. Now what I am saying is that if we wish fines to be a punishment, it seems ludicrous that someone with literally billions of pounds only pays 3.33 times as much as someone on ?23k or the same amount as someone who "only" earns ?75k.

A ?1000 fine is still a punishment, regardless of how much money you have. The affect this punishment will have, is going to vary wildly, I would say. Now, if fines exist primarily for other reasons (e.g. revenue raising) then we do not need to be concerned that they are have an unequal effect.

The crime of the richer is no greater than that committed by the poorer individual, however taking your example of the TV licence, i can see the logic behind making it a more managable amount to those who really are struggling. Increasing the fine just because someone is rich just isnt on but alas their are more bitter jelous people in the world than level minded individuals.
________
Wellbutrin pregnancy

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by ceres

The crime of the richer is no greater than that committed by the poorer individual,

I'd say it depends. The poorer person may be able to excuse their behaviour on circumstances - a rich person may not. I'd certainly be more forgiving to someone who robbed because they were desperate compared to someone who did out of whim, for instance.

Increasing the fine just because someone is rich just isnt on

It's not really about "increasing the fine" - that implies there's some platonic ideal the fine should sit at anyway. It's about setting the fine at an appropriate level for it to be a suitable punishment for certain activities.

but alas their are more bitter jelous people in the world

Yeah, it's all je(a)lously! It's definitely jealousy that I think I should pay a larger fine (if caught for certain offences) than someone with a lower income than myself. Jealousy of, erm, myself.

[Yahwe]

Justice is supposed to be blind dante.

She may be required to squint now and then in order to help out the very poor, but i see no reason why she should open her eyes to everyone's bank accounts.