Gary Glitter
George Holmes
term.
Pam V.K.
>Gary Glitter is to released from prison after serving 2 months of a 4 month
>term.
So he's really a pedophile, as rumored? I really like his music, but if he
can't keep his hands off the kids, prison is where he should stay.
Gary Jackson
from pj...@iquest.net (Pam V.K.) contains these words:
> So he's really a pedophile, as rumored? I really like his music, but if he
> can't keep his hands off the kids, prison is where he should stay.
Just for the record, he was acquitted of actually misbehaving with a
kid, but he did/does have a penchant for child porn pictures by the
hundred! I wonder if we're now get the counselling, the contrite
interviews and then the comeback album and tour?
Gary
Brian Watson
Pam V.K. <pj...@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:Zsee4.67$b3....@news1.iquest.net...
> "George Holmes" <george...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Gary Glitter is to released from prison after serving 2 months of a 4
month
> >term.
>
He apparently had a huge number of *very* pervy pictures on his computer of
children being abused in cruel and sexual ways when he put his PC in for
repair to a branch of a national chain of computer shops.
> I really like his music, but if he
> can't keep his hands off the kids, prison is where he should stay.
He is released tomorrow (Tuesday) and will stay on the sexual offenders
register for (at least) seven years.
--
Brian
Brett A. Pasternack
> He is released tomorrow (Tuesday) and will stay on the sexual offenders
> register for (at least) seven years.
I'm listening to a radio station from London over the Net at the moment,
and the DJ made reference to there being a big scene when he was
released today.
The station is Classic Gold, BTW--they seem to play quite a lot of 70s
stuff, and I think I'll be checking them out quite a bit! They appear to
be commercial free to boot!
S.J.Carras
>"George Holmes" <george...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>Gary Glitter is to released from prison after serving 2 months of a 4 month
>>term.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I agree..kinda like the allegations against Michael Jackson. Both did make
great music..
poporc...@onelist.com
20s-to-50...@onelist.com/
buffy...@eskimo.com
For more visit www.onelist.com
[Hyperlink eliminated for the hyperlink-wise challenged.
Anyone using my name on an e-mailing list will be reported.
Tiny Dancer
>So he's really a pedophile, as rumored?
Not a rumor, he was found with literally thousands of child porn pics on
his computer. Took it in to be serviced and told the guy not to touch his
files. After it was fixed, the guy clicked on a file to see if the computer
was working properly .... The next call was to the cops. Two months may
not sound like much time but Gary's career is officially dead and buried,
I doubt more time in jail will make much difference to him.
Cheers,
TD
Webmistress of Tiny Dancer's X-Files Episode Guide
http://www.insanity.com.au/td/
The Sesame Street Lyrics and Sounds Archive
http://i.am/tinyd
Andrew Stewart
>"George Holmes" <george...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>Gary Glitter is to released from prison after serving 2 months of a 4 month
>>term.
>
>So he's really a pedophile, as rumored? I really like his music, but if he
>can't keep his hands off the kids, prison is where he should stay.
He was found guilty of possessing dirty pics of kids, not of actually
having intercourse with them. It's a pretty sad day when they start
locking people up for their unacted-upon fantasies or what's in their
heads. What next? Next time you feel like murdering your boss, you
should turn yourself into the local station for "thought crime"?
(np: David Bowie - Survive)
____________________________
"Where's the morning in my life?
Where's the sense in being right?
Who said 'Time is on my side'?
......
You're the great mistake I never made" - David Bowie (Survive)
To join 1300 fans receiving a free monthly BOWIE newsletter, send a message
to bowie...@hotmail.com with the subject "Subscribe"
For copies of back issues, check out http://www.angelfire.com/al/bowienews/
Andrew Stewart
wrote:
>And so the word went out from "George Holmes" <george...@btinternet.com>:
>
>>So he's really a pedophile, as rumored?
>
>Not a rumor, he was found with literally thousands of child porn pics on
>his computer.
So would that make a person with pictures of dead people on their
computer a murderer?
Tiny Dancer
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 01:24:31 GMT, ti...@idirect.com (Tiny Dancer)
>wrote:
>
>>And so the word went out from "George Holmes" <george...@btinternet.com>:
>>
>>>So he's really a pedophile, as rumored?
>>
>>Not a rumor, he was found with literally thousands of child porn pics on
>>his computer.
>
>So would that make a person with pictures of dead people on their
>computer a murderer?
Do you *really* want to go down this road, Andrew? No, pictures of
dead people don't make someone a murderer. And, no, pics of naked
children in sexual positions does not make them a pedophile so maybe
I should have clarified that term. From your other posting:
>He was found guilty of possessing dirty pics of kids, not of actually
>having intercourse with them. It's a pretty sad day when they start
>locking people up for their unacted-upon fantasies or what's in their
>heads. What next? Next time you feel like murdering your boss, you
>should turn yourself into the local station for "thought crime"?
IMHO, it's a pretty damn sad day when someone feels compelled
to make excuses for a man having *thousands* of "dirty pics of kids"
on his computer. I don't care if he never had sex with children, he
participated in their abuse by viewing and downloading these pictures.
These were not pictures of naked kids, these were pictures of major
sexual abuse perpetrated on children. You think this is a victim-less
crime? Ask the kids in about 10 years or so when the ones that haven't
committed suicide start having their own kids. The abuse cycle *will*
more than likely continue, studies have proven this to be a fact.
Owning these pictures is illegal, he broke the law, he went to jail.
Apologies for this now off-topic posting but this mother could not
let this pass her by.
Brett A. Pasternack
> IMHO, it's a pretty damn sad day when someone feels compelled
> to make excuses for a man having *thousands* of "dirty pics of kids"
> on his computer. I don't care if he never had sex with children, he
> participated in their abuse by viewing and downloading these pictures.
> These were not pictures of naked kids, these were pictures of major
> sexual abuse perpetrated on children. You think this is a victim-less
> crime? Ask the kids in about 10 years or so when the ones that haven't
> committed suicide start having their own kids. The abuse cycle *will*
> more than likely continue, studies have proven this to be a fact.
No one, I think, would question that the creators of the photos have
done something deeply wrong. But can you explain to me how Gary Glitter
(or whomever) downloading these photos--assuming he isn't paying for
them or taking any role in their creation--"participates" in the crime?
Brian Watson
news:3893EC...@erols.com...
> No one, I think, would question that the creators of the photos have
> done something deeply wrong. But can you explain to me how Gary Glitter
> (or whomever) downloading these photos--assuming he isn't paying for
> them or taking any role in their creation--"participates" in the crime?
No demand = no motive for their production.
If this topic is going to drag on, I suggest it's taken elsewhere.
--
Brian
asw...@hotmail.com
> No one, I think, would question that the creators of the photos have
> done something deeply wrong. But can you explain to me how Gary Glitter
> (or whomever) downloading these photos--assuming he isn't paying for
> them or taking any role in their creation--"participates" in the crime?
It would be a big assumption to make that he hadn't been paying for
them - few people are foolish enough to post kiddie porn up for
people to download at random, there's almost always trading and
payments going on, which perpetuates the abuse of children. If people
were let off simply for possessing pictures with no proof of their paying
for them or creating them, well, that's a loophole that would let the
practice flourish. So for that reason alone it should be illegal.
Obviously, if no one were interested in this sort of thing, it wouldn't
go on, so Glitter's morally guilty of feeding the demand for child
pornography.
But basically, he overtly participates in the crime by virtue of:
1) Possession of child pornography being illegal.
2) Glitter knowing that possession of child pornography is illegal.
Aswyth
Andrew Stewart
wrote:
>And so the word went out from and...@hotmail.com (Andrew Stewart):
>
>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 01:24:31 GMT, ti...@idirect.com (Tiny Dancer)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>And so the word went out from "George Holmes" <george...@btinternet.com>:
>>>
>>>>So he's really a pedophile, as rumored?
>>>
>>>Not a rumor, he was found with literally thousands of child porn pics on
>>>his computer.
>>
>>So would that make a person with pictures of dead people on their
>>computer a murderer?
>
>Do you *really* want to go down this road, Andrew? No, pictures of
>dead people don't make someone a murderer. And, no, pics of naked
>children in sexual positions does not make them a pedophile
OK, so you accept that he's not a (proven) pedophile.
>>He was found guilty of possessing dirty pics of kids, not of actually
>>having intercourse with them. It's a pretty sad day when they start
>>locking people up for their unacted-upon fantasies or what's in their
>>heads. What next? Next time you feel like murdering your boss, you
>>should turn yourself into the local station for "thought crime"?
>
>IMHO, it's a pretty damn sad day when someone feels compelled
>to make excuses for a man having *thousands* of "dirty pics of kids"
>on his computer.
Whose making excuses? Of course it's sick. Unfortunately, there are
many people out there with sick fantasies - there's not much we can do
about our fantasies, other than have the good sense not to act upon
them. I don't see what possible purpose it serves locking up someone
with such fantasies with real criminals at considerable expense to the
tax payer.
>Owning these pictures is illegal, he broke the law, he went to jail.
That's self-evident, but we could have said the same about anyone
caught drinking alcohol in Prohibition-era US. The more debatable
topic is "Should it be a crime?" Once we start legislating that people
can commit crimes on the basis of what they fantasise about or what
they think, we're really into Big Brother territory. Why is it a crime
to look at pictures of abused kids, but not to look at pictures or
films of tortured and murdered grown women, or men?
(np: Best Of Bowie 69/74)
sfdhdh
also charged at the same time for having sex with an under age girl dating
back to the 70's.There seemed to be no doubt that the offence had occurred
but because the girl involved had sold her story to a tabloid newspaper
years later and stood to get extra cash if he was jailed then the jury found
him not guilty.
You can't tell he gathered all those images but had never indulged in any
paedophilia???
EX GG Fan
Andrew Stewart
wrote:
>Sorry, But although he was jailed for the possesion of "Kiddie" pics he was
>also charged at the same time for having sex with an under age girl dating
>back to the 70's.
Correect. But he was acquited on that charge.
>There seemed to be no doubt that the offence had occurred
>but because the girl involved had sold her story to a tabloid newspaper
>years later and stood to get extra cash if he was jailed then the jury found
>him not guilty.
And how is it you gained such an insight into the workings of the
jury's minds?
(np: David Bowie - Survive)
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> > No one, I think, would question that the creators of the photos have
> > done something deeply wrong. But can you explain to me how Gary Glitter
> > (or whomever) downloading these photos--assuming he isn't paying for
> > them or taking any role in their creation--"participates" in the crime?
>
> It would be a big assumption to make that he hadn't been paying for
> them - few people are foolish enough to post kiddie porn up for
> people to download at random, there's almost always trading and
> payments going on, which perpetuates the abuse of children. If people
> were let off simply for possessing pictures with no proof of their paying
> for them or creating them, well, that's a loophole that would let the
> practice flourish. So for that reason alone it should be illegal.
So we're going to make possession of something illegal simply because
it's convenient to *assume* that anyone possessing it is guilty of
purchasing it? How lovely. Guilty even if proved innocent.
If people were let off simply for being in an area where drugs are
sometimes sold with no proof of their actually possessing or buying
them, well, that's a loophole that would let the practice flourish.
> Obviously, if no one were interested in this sort of thing, it wouldn't
> go on, so Glitter's morally guilty of feeding the demand for child
> pornography.
OTOH, if you're correct in assuming that people are creating child porn
in order to sell it, then posting the pics to newsgroups--which are
free--should be *undermining* the market for it. At any rate, I don't
see how he's feeding the demand if (and I realize this is a big if) he's
downloadind it from a newsgroup where the creators/posters have no way
of knowing he did.
> But basically, he overtly participates in the crime by virtue of:
>
> 1) Possession of child pornography being illegal.
>
> 2) Glitter knowing that possession of child pornography is illegal.
That's a rationale for why he should be prosecuted (which I don't
necessarily agree with, but I see the point), but I don't see how it in
any way establishes a causal relationship between the possession and the
original crime.
asw...@hotmail.com
> So we're going to make possession of something illegal simply because
> it's convenient to *assume* that anyone possessing it is guilty of
> purchasing it? How lovely. Guilty even if proved innocent.
>
> If people were let off simply for being in an area where drugs are
> sometimes sold with no proof of their actually possessing or buying
> them, well, that's a loophole that would let the practice flourish.
There's a big difference there. That is, in theory you could grow your
own marijuana / poppies / coca leaves or fabricate your own LSD or
whatever, consume the drugs and hurt only yourself. At the very
least, I'm sure you'll agree that many people harvest their own
marijuana for personal use and could more or less justify a claim
that the person growing / using the marijuana hurts no one but
him- or herself.
Unfortunately, the same is not true with child pornography. It
would be impossible for it to exist without harm being done to
children at some stage regardless of degrees of separation - it's not
an "insular crime". Hence laws condemning possession regardless
of mitigating factors. Glitter knew this, too, so I don't know why
you are defending him.
Some things are illegal to possess simply because a democracy has
decided that there is no justifiable reason a person should possess
them and plenty of reasons why they shouldn't. I'd say this is
simply one of those examples. If you were to construct an A-bomb
at home from materials you scavanged and collected or made
yourself, you'd also see government agents at your door regardless
of whether it was your intention to use it, simply because mere
possession of it indicated something abnormal with your psyche
and a potential danger to others.
> OTOH, if you're correct in assuming that people are creating child porn
> in order to sell it, then posting the pics to newsgroups--which are
> free--should be *undermining* the market for it. At any rate, I don't
> see how he's feeding the demand if (and I realize this is a big if) he's
> downloadind it from a newsgroup where the creators/posters have no way
> of knowing he did.
That would explain why even though I could download pornography
all day, for free, from the Internet that the most profitable business
on the Internet is still pornography for money (?) Free porn on the
Internet has not undermined those businesses which sell it at all,
in fact many believe it's expanded the market - and profits would
seem to back this up.
One could make an argument that all it would be doing would be
decriminalizing it to the point that people with such an interest
wouldn't keep themselves in check as much as they might do
now, when offered an opportunity to pay for it.
> That's a rationale for why he should be prosecuted (which I don't
> necessarily agree with, but I see the point), but I don't see how it in
> any way establishes a causal relationship between the possession and the
> original crime.
Maybe it doesn't. Personally, I'm liberally-minded, but I think
anyone who is a collector of child porn has a deeply disturbed
mind and should do something about it. I don't think they
should be given free reign to enjoy it and place a burden upon
society to determine how / when / where they obtained when or
if they are caught with it. Fact of the matter is, I can't think of a
single reason why anyone needs to have child pornography, and
plenty why the idea is intolerable. Most people would agree with
me, and that's why things are the way they are. I realize that
society at large has been hideously wrong before (instituionalized
slavery, Indian massacres, women not having the right to vote,
etc) - but I think only a fool would equate the possession of child
pornography to be some sort of inalienable human right - even
if one could prove they didn't "pay" for it.
Aswyth
Andrew Stewart
>Personally, I'm liberally-minded, but I think
>anyone who is a collector of child porn has a deeply disturbed
>mind and should do something about it. I don't think they
>should be given free reign to enjoy it and place a burden upon
>society to determine how / when / where they obtained when or
>if they are caught with it.
So instead they should be sent to prison at considerable expense to
the taxpayer? What purpose does that serve, precisely?
(np: Best Of Bowie 69/74)
____________________________
asw...@hotmail.com
> >Personally, I'm liberally-minded, but I think
> >anyone who is a collector of child porn has a deeply disturbed
> >mind and should do something about it. I don't think they
> >should be given free reign to enjoy it and place a burden upon
> >society to determine how / when / where they obtained when or
> >if they are caught with it.
>
> So instead they should be sent to prison at considerable expense to
> the taxpayer? What purpose does that serve, precisely?
1) Punishes stupidity.
2) Punishes sexual depravity.
3) Sends a clear message to other cowards whose own inadequecies
manifest themselves in the torture and manipulation of children
that this is not acceptable behavior and will result in grave
consequences if caught.
4) Makes the overwhelming number of citizens who oppose child
pornography exceedingly happy - aside from those who'd rather
that kiddie porn fans simply be shot on sight (see 6). And you,
apparently. And other kiddie porn fans.
5) Perpetuates the idea that society and government actually have
as a basis some modicum of morality.
6) Allows kiddie porn fans to not suffer the far more serious fate
that vigilantism would provide.
I don't see any real faction of the public lining up to complain
about the money wasted on this (except, again, those who'd rather
see these people killed and other kiddie porn fans). And I know I
never will.
Aswyth
treg
>
>
>> >Personally, I'm liberally-minded, but I think
>> >anyone who is a collector of child porn has a deeply disturbed
>> >mind and should do something about it. I don't think they
>> >should be given free reign to enjoy it and place a burden upon
>> >society to determine how / when / where they obtained when or
>> >if they are caught with it.
>>
>> So instead they should be sent to prison at considerable expense to
>> the taxpayer? What purpose does that serve, precisely?
>
>1) Punishes stupidity.
>
>2) Punishes sexual depravity.
>
>3) Sends a clear message to other cowards whose own inadequecies
>manifest themselves in the torture and manipulation of children
>that this is not acceptable behavior and will result in grave
>consequences if caught.
>
>4) Makes the overwhelming number of citizens who oppose child
>pornography exceedingly happy - aside from those who'd rather
>that kiddie porn fans simply be shot on sight (see 6). And you,
>apparently.
>
>5) Perpetuates the idea that society and government actually have
>as a basis some modicum of morality.
>
>6) Allows kiddie porn fans to not suffer the far more serious fate
>that vigilantism would provide.
>
>I don't see any real faction of the public lining up to complain
>about the money wasted on this (except, again, those who'd rather
>see these people killed and other kiddie porn fans). And I know I
>never will.
>
>Aswyth
How about ...
7. Chemical castration for the first offense, and,
8. The other kind for the second
Ray Arthur
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> In article <389516...@erols.com>, bret...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > So we're going to make possession of something illegal simply because
> > it's convenient to *assume* that anyone possessing it is guilty of
> > purchasing it? How lovely. Guilty even if proved innocent.
> >
> > If people were let off simply for being in an area where drugs are
> > sometimes sold with no proof of their actually possessing or buying
> > them, well, that's a loophole that would let the practice flourish.
>
> There's a big difference there. That is, in theory you could grow your
> own marijuana / poppies / coca leaves or fabricate your own LSD or
> whatever, consume the drugs and hurt only yourself. At the very
> least, I'm sure you'll agree that many people harvest their own
> marijuana for personal use and could more or less justify a claim
> that the person growing / using the marijuana hurts no one but
> him- or herself.
My point had nothing to do with the nature of a drug offense per se; my
point was that if you are going to outlaw possession of child
pornography simply to make it easier to catch those people who do
contribute to the making of it, there are a great deal more steps that
one should take. Here's a different example: how about we just convict
everyone with a gun of murder? It would sure prevent a lot of murderers
from getting away with it....
> Unfortunately, the same is not true with child pornography. It
> would be impossible for it to exist without harm being done to
> children at some stage regardless of degrees of separation - it's not
> an "insular crime". Hence laws condemning possession regardless
> of mitigating factors. Glitter knew this, too, so I don't know why
> you are defending him.
I'm defending him because I think society has gotten rather hysterical
about this issue, and it scares me. People have served jail time for
owning straightforward "in-the-bathtub"-type pictures of children, and
that means virtually every family with a photo album is vulnerable. Do
you know that under current federal law a *computer-generated* image not
actually modeled on a specific child can actually be considered illegal?
That right there can undermine some of your arguments (not that that
probably applies to this case).
> Some things are illegal to possess simply because a democracy has
> decided that there is no justifiable reason a person should possess
> them and plenty of reasons why they shouldn't. I'd say this is
> simply one of those examples. If you were to construct an A-bomb
> at home from materials you scavanged and collected or made
> yourself, you'd also see government agents at your door regardless
> of whether it was your intention to use it, simply because mere
> possession of it indicated something abnormal with your psyche
> and a potential danger to others.
But the same could be said about a Ku Klux Klan publication. The
difference is that one is a form of expression, however objectionable,
and one is not. I would argue that a photograph is closer in nature to a
writing than a bomb.
> > OTOH, if you're correct in assuming that people are creating child porn
> > in order to sell it, then posting the pics to newsgroups--which are
> > free--should be *undermining* the market for it. At any rate, I don't
> > see how he's feeding the demand if (and I realize this is a big if) he's
> > downloadind it from a newsgroup where the creators/posters have no way
> > of knowing he did.
>
> That would explain why even though I could download pornography
> all day, for free, from the Internet that the most profitable business
> on the Internet is still pornography for money (?) Free porn on the
> Internet has not undermined those businesses which sell it at all,
> in fact many believe it's expanded the market - and profits would
> seem to back this up.
That always makes me wonder, although that's a whole 'nother topic. It
would be interesting to know what portion of the money being spent is
spent by people who are active readers of newsgroups.
> One could make an argument that all it would be doing would be
> decriminalizing it to the point that people with such an interest
> wouldn't keep themselves in check as much as they might do
> now, when offered an opportunity to pay for it.
Perhaps, but, again, as long as they are only downloading it, this
doesn't particularly bother me and I don't beleive it's the government's
business.
> > That's a rationale for why he should be prosecuted (which I don't
> > necessarily agree with, but I see the point), but I don't see how it in
> > any way establishes a causal relationship between the possession and the
> > original crime.
>
> Maybe it doesn't. Personally, I'm liberally-minded, but I think
> anyone who is a collector of child porn has a deeply disturbed
> mind and should do something about it.
Your opinion. Did you know that studies have shown that most men react
with arousal to suggestive pictures of young children, down to the age
of 6 or so?
> I don't think they
> should be given free reign to enjoy it and place a burden upon
> society to determine how / when / where they obtained when or
> if they are caught with it.
The shole idea behind America is that you aren't "given" your rights,
they are naturally yours. If this doesn't include the right to read/view
what you wish in the privacy of your home, what exactly does it cover?
> Fact of the matter is, I can't think of a
> single reason why anyone needs to have child pornography, and
> plenty why the idea is intolerable. Most people would agree with
> me, and that's why things are the way they are. I realize that
> society at large has been hideously wrong before (instituionalized
> slavery, Indian massacres, women not having the right to vote,
> etc) - but I think only a fool would equate the possession of child
> pornography to be some sort of inalienable human right - even
> if one could prove they didn't "pay" for it.
Again, possesion of reading material is the inalienable right--if we
make one exception, how do we know we won't make others?
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> > >Personally, I'm liberally-minded, but I think
> > >anyone who is a collector of child porn has a deeply disturbed
> > >should be given free reign to enjoy it and place a burden upon
> > >society to determine how / when / where they obtained when or
> > >if they are caught with it.
> >
> > the taxpayer? What purpose does that serve, precisely?
>
> 1) Punishes stupidity.
If we did that, they'd have to build a lot more prisons...
> 2) Punishes sexual depravity.
Exactly what I'm afraid of. We're talking about punishing people not for
actions but for *thoughts*, for the feelings and desires they have. This
should scare the crap out of everyone. If you don't speak up when they
come for the people who fantasize about having sex with children (as
distinct from people who actually do, of course), who'll speak up when
they come for your bad thoughts?
> 3) Sends a clear message to other cowards whose own inadequecies
> manifest themselves in the torture and manipulation of children
> that this is not acceptable behavior and will result in grave
> consequences if caught.
In my opinion, it sends a clear message that society is making no
distinction between desiring something and taking it--and this is the
very distinction we should very much want these people to be making.
I honestly believe that the hysteria about these things has made the
problem worse. We've basically told people that they are bad if they
can't stop *thinking* about certain things. Controlling your thoughts is
much more difficult than controlling your actions, so inevitably we are
teaching them to think of themselves as bad, and therefore leading them
not to control their actions either. I'll admit I can't really prove
this, but what if I'm correct?
> 4) Makes the overwhelming number of citizens who oppose child
> pornography exceedingly happy - aside from those who'd rather
> that kiddie porn fans simply be shot on sight (see 6). And you,
> apparently. And other kiddie porn fans.
Again, we could make the people who (rather justifiably) hate John
Rocker exceedingly happy by throwing him in jail, but that's not right.
> 5) Perpetuates the idea that society and government actually have
> as a basis some modicum of morality.
I don't think punishing people for their thoughts is moral--quite the
opposite.
> 6) Allows kiddie porn fans to not suffer the far more serious fate
> that vigilantism would provide.
Vigilantism over downloaded pictures? Even with all I've said about
hysteria, I think that's a little extreme.
Desoto Joe
Andrew Stewart <and...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3894ab1b...@news.iol.ie...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:15:24 -0000, "sfdhdh" <sfhxff...@heheh.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Sorry, But although he was jailed for the possesion of "Kiddie" pics he
was
> >also charged at the same time for having sex with an under age girl
dating
> >back to the 70's.
>
> Correect. But he was acquited on that charge.
>
> >There seemed to be no doubt that the offence had occurred
> >but because the girl involved had sold her story to a tabloid newspaper
> >years later and stood to get extra cash if he was jailed then the jury
found
> >him not guilty.
>
> And how is it you gained such an insight into the workings of the
> jury's minds?
>
He admitted guilt to 54 offences of making indecent photographs of children
under 16.
As for the pictures, they were graphic molestation's of children, not mere
nude photos of kids. Gary was moved in prison to solitary confinement due to
death threats from fellow inmates. Anyone who thinks he is innocent of
committing a crime is wrong.
Glitter will go on the sex offenders register and will have to notify the
police of his address under provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 for
seven years.
He got a very light sentence & justice received a black eye in my opinion. I
followed this story pretty close, because I wanted to see just what the
outcome would be. I think if all the facts came out about Mr. Glimmer, he
would be in jail a long time.
As far as him being a pedophile?
I think he knows what he is, & so do most people.
--
Desoto Joe/The Record Man
Cyril
wrote:
>
>>Sorry, But although he was jailed for the possesion of "Kiddie" pics he was
>>also charged at the same time for having sex with an under age girl dating
>>back to the 70's.
>
>Correect. But he was acquited on that charge.
>
>>There seemed to be no doubt that the offence had occurred
>>but because the girl involved had sold her story to a tabloid newspaper
>>years later and stood to get extra cash if he was jailed then the jury found
>>him not guilty.
>
>And how is it you gained such an insight into the workings of the
>jury's minds?
>
judge felt that there was a financial incentive for the alleged victim
to go to any lengths to ensure his conviction - there would be a
possibility that she would be tempted to exaggerate what happened or
whatever.
So I don't think it got as far as a jury vote. It was a case of bad
management by the prosecution. They should never have sold the story
in advance to the newspaper, or at least they should have kept it
quiet until after the verdict.
There seemed little doubt that her allegations were true but I guess
the judge had no choice in the circumstances - the law has to be seen
to be above any kind of corruption or potential corruption, so once it
came out the case had to be abandoned.
Cyril
Cyril
<bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>No one, I think, would question that the creators of the photos have
>done something deeply wrong. But can you explain to me how Gary Glitter
>(or whomever) downloading these photos--assuming he isn't paying for
>them or taking any role in their creation--"participates" in the crime?
real relevance.
I guess some people would say it seems unfair to be penalised just for
downloading images, since by doing so you're not actually committing
any obvious crime yourself. It would certainly be considered unfair by
many people if someone were to be punished by law for downloading
'normal' adult pornography where there is no involvement by children.
But child porn is different because it can only exist by abusing
children, so on those grounds anyone accessing it is encouraging its
existence and deserves punishment - that's they way most people woule
view it. So I don't think that the rights of a 'user' like Glitter can
be considered in the same way as they would be for say, 'regular' porn
(whatever that is!).
Of course you can't stop people having any kind of fantasy, however
perverted. But you can discourage the proudction of child pornography,
where the children are the victims of the crime, by making it illegal
to access it, own it, etc. Any 'user' of child porn is seen to be
participating in the crime of its existence. Without perverts like
Glitter, there would be no market for child porn and therefore it
wouldn't need to exploit its victims.
Cyril
asw...@hotmail.com
> My point had nothing to do with the nature of a drug offense per se; my
> point was that if you are going to outlaw possession of child
> pornography simply to make it easier to catch those people who do
> contribute to the making of it, there are a great deal more steps that
> one should take. Here's a different example: how about we just convict
> everyone with a gun of murder? It would sure prevent a lot of murderers
> from getting away with it....
There's a big difference. Guns can harm people - they haven't
necessarily already done. With child pornography harm has
already been done. I'm not supporting guns, but ultimately they
are an object by which harm can be done, not an object which
already encapsulates and propogates harm done to children.
The vast majority of people who own guns do so for other
reasons than to kill people. The vast majority of people who go
to the trouble to own child pornography, although it is an illegal
and punishable offence, have a vested interest in the active
psychological and often physical torture of children. It is in
fact the basis of their interest.
> I'm defending him because I think society has gotten rather hysterical
> about this issue, and it scares me. People have served jail time for
> owning straightforward "in-the-bathtub"-type pictures of children, and
> that means virtually every family with a photo album is vulnerable. Do
> you know that under current federal law a *computer-generated* image not
> actually modeled on a specific child can actually be considered illegal?
> That right there can undermine some of your arguments (not that that
> probably applies to this case).
That's a good point and I agree with you - exceptions should be made
in those cases. However, you're talking about something which has
happened only in exceedingly rare and unusual cases. Probably
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of "in-the-bathtub" pictures
are developed for any one that has caused problems. I do believe
you're very strange for thinking that society's reaction to kiddie porn
pervs is scarier than kiddie porn pervs themselves, but then again,
it takes all kinds to make a democracy.
> But the same could be said about a Ku Klux Klan publication. The
> difference is that one is a form of expression, however objectionable,
> and one is not. I would argue that a photograph is closer in nature to a
> writing than a bomb.
A photograph of a flower maybe. But you're actually comparing a
photograph that causes physical/mental harm to a victimless form
of expression. In this case, a bomb is a more apt comparison than
a diary.
> > One could make an argument that all it would be doing would be
> > decriminalizing it to the point that people with such an interest
> > wouldn't keep themselves in check as much as they might do
> > now, when offered an opportunity to pay for it.
>
> Perhaps, but, again, as long as they are only downloading it, this
> doesn't particularly bother me and I don't beleive it's the government's
> business.
Yours is a minority opinion and one that no government on earth
(liberally democratic or brutally repressive) agrees with - not to
mention the vast majority of people on earth. I'd also add that the
countries which do tend to turn a blind eye towards the victimisation
of children through pornography also have the biggest problems with
the victimisation of children. In essence, it's the duty of a government
to protect citizens from undue harm. This is weighed against
benefits. Most governments and people see no benefit in kiddie
porn.
> Your opinion. Did you know that studies have shown that most men react
> with arousal to suggestive pictures of young children, down to the age
> of 6 or so?
Even so, why do so few people then engage in kiddie porn collecting?
Perhaps because they think it's wrong and know what it does to
children. I'd like to have sex with Winona Ryder. Should I rape
her? No, largely because I know it's wrong and it doesn't take into
account her rights and wishes. Kiddie porn does not take into
account the rights of children. You apparently believe the right to
exploit is greater than the right to one's own person. Congrats.
> The shole idea behind America is that you aren't "given" your rights,
> they are naturally yours. If this doesn't include the right to read/view
> what you wish in the privacy of your home, what exactly does it cover?
It does cover that. It does not cover the right to scream "fire" in a
crowded theater. Why? It causes more harm than good, everyone
agrees. This is a simple concept, although beyond the grasp of
many, it seems.
> Again, possesion of reading material is the inalienable right--if we
> make one exception, how do we know we won't make others?
It's not an exception. Wake up.
Reading material = no victims.
Kiddie porn = victims.
I quote the might Cyril:
> Of course you can't stop people having any kind of fantasy, however
> perverted. But you can discourage the proudction of child pornography,
> where the children are the victims of the crime, by making it illegal
> to access it, own it, etc. Any 'user' of child porn is seen to be
> participating in the crime of its existence. Without perverts like
> Glitter, there would be no market for child porn and therefore it
> wouldn't need to exploit its victims.
Aswyth
asw...@hotmail.com
> > 2) Punishes sexual depravity.
>
> Exactly what I'm afraid of. We're talking about punishing people not for
> actions but for *thoughts*, for the feelings and desires they have. This
> should scare the crap out of everyone. If you don't speak up when they
> come for the people who fantasize about having sex with children (as
> distinct from people who actually do, of course), who'll speak up when
> they come for your bad thoughts?
No one's being punished for thoughts. Everyone has strange thoughts,
which if acted upon would lead to trouble. Kiddie porn collectors are
acting on an impulse which only propogates harm to others. There is
no law against "thinking" about kiddie porn, only "possessing" it.
> I honestly believe that the hysteria about these things has made the
> problem worse. We've basically told people that they are bad if they
> can't stop *thinking* about certain things. Controlling your thoughts is
> much more difficult than controlling your actions, so inevitably we are
> teaching them to think of themselves as bad, and therefore leading them
> not to control their actions either. I'll admit I can't really prove
> this, but what if I'm correct?
The whole idea of morality is based on thought. If you want to create
some sort of Utopia, good luck, but Gary Glitter was put in jail for
possessing contraband, not thinking about it. I don't see a big problem
in thinking of someone obsessed with kiddie porn as "bad" - it would
be more correct to think of them as "sick", but whatever. Your logic
leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a bad thought,
which is kind of stupid, if you ask me. (I mean, your whole pro-
possession of kiddie porn argument is based on the fact that those
arguing with you are having bad = incorrect thoughts, so are you a
hypocrite, or what?)
> Again, we could make the people who (rather justifiably) hate John
> Rocker exceedingly happy by throwing him in jail, but that's not right.
Mostly because he broke no laws and hurt only himself. Most "queers
with AIDS" and "welfare moms" or whoever else he offended only
cheered that a small-minded idiot exposed his shortcomings to the
world and lost money, acclaim and reputation due to his stupidity.
The victim there was John Rocker. No so with Gary Glitter. The
victims there are the kids scarred for life because of what they had
to go through to satisfy some old pervert, and knowing that they will
have to relive this everytime another pervert gets arrested and they
have to wonder if the old documents of their abuse are still making
the rounds.
> > 5) Perpetuates the idea that society and government actually have
> > as a basis some modicum of morality.
>
> I don't think punishing people for their thoughts is moral--quite the
> opposite.
Again, and I can't stress this enough: Glitter was persecuted due to his
part in the perpetuation of the torture and abuse of children. No one
gives a fuck what he thinks. Please cite the case of someone being
arrested solely for "thinking" about kiddie porn.
> Vigilantism over downloaded pictures? Even with all I've said about
> hysteria, I think that's a little extreme.
Downloaded pictures to you - proof of the hateful hurt, abuse and
torture of children to others; made all the worse by the fact that
someone given everything in life chose to take pleasure in the
torture of society's most defenseless members. I don't think you'll
see Gary Glitter out in public much even if he gets out of jail
tomorrow.
Aswyth
Robbie Baldock (real email address at foot of message)
>I don't think you'll see Gary Glitter out in public much even if he gets out
>of jail tomorrow.
He's already out...
Robbie
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Baldock
r c b AT e a s y n e t DOT c o DOT u k (you know what to do!)
http://www.rcb.easynet.co.uk/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> In article <3896AC...@erols.com>, bret...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > My point had nothing to do with the nature of a drug offense per se; my
> > point was that if you are going to outlaw possession of child
> > pornography simply to make it easier to catch those people who do
> > contribute to the making of it, there are a great deal more steps that
> > one should take. Here's a different example: how about we just convict
> > everyone with a gun of murder? It would sure prevent a lot of murderers
> > from getting away with it....
>
> There's a big difference. Guns can harm people - they haven't
> necessarily already done. With child pornography harm has
> already been done. I'm not supporting guns, but ultimately they
> are an object by which harm can be done, not an object which
> already encapsulates and propogates harm done to children.
Oh, no, the great crime of "encapsulating". Last time I checked, every
newspaper in America devoted at least some of its space to encapsulating
and propogating information about people being harmed in various ways.
What a slippery slope you've set out on.
> The vast majority of people who own guns do so for other
> reasons than to kill people. The vast majority of people who go
> to the trouble to own child pornography, although it is an illegal
> and punishable offence, have a vested interest in the active
> psychological and often physical torture of children. It is in
> fact the basis of their interest.
I don't know that I buy that, but at any rate it continues to miss the
point. You raised the argument that you supported arresting people for
mere possession because, even if we agreed that mere possession was
harmless, letting possession go would allow people who had committed
greater offenses to go free. My point here--please understand this--is
specifically that one should not criminalize innocuous activity in order
to arrest people who may have committed, but can not be proven to have
committed, harmful acts. Please respond to that particular point (or
withdraw that argument).
> > I'm defending him because I think society has gotten rather hysterical
> > about this issue, and it scares me. People have served jail time for
> > owning straightforward "in-the-bathtub"-type pictures of children, and
> > that means virtually every family with a photo album is vulnerable. Do
> > you know that under current federal law a *computer-generated* image not
> > actually modeled on a specific child can actually be considered illegal?
> > That right there can undermine some of your arguments (not that that
> > probably applies to this case).
>
> That's a good point and I agree with you - exceptions should be made
> in those cases. However, you're talking about something which has
> happened only in exceedingly rare and unusual cases. Probably
> hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of "in-the-bathtub" pictures
> are developed for any one that has caused problems. I do believe
> you're very strange for thinking that society's reaction to kiddie porn
> pervs is scarier than kiddie porn pervs themselves, but then again,
> it takes all kinds to make a democracy.
I never said that. But I make no apologies for taking freedom of
expression seriously.
A friend of mine in college went to do volunteer work for a
civil-liberties group one summer, and he wrote a fascinating piece about
the experience afterwards for a school publication. Basically, he had
gotten into the job thinking he'd be defending Huck Finn and The Diary
Of Anne Frank from right-wing nuts, and he was shocked to fine that most
of what he was defending made him sick to his stomach. But he realized
in the end that for freedom of expression to work, it has to be an
unyielding principle, not something we give only when we want to.
> > But the same could be said about a Ku Klux Klan publication. The
> > difference is that one is a form of expression, however objectionable,
> > and one is not. I would argue that a photograph is closer in nature to a
> > writing than a bomb.
>
> A photograph of a flower maybe. But you're actually comparing a
> photograph that causes physical/mental harm to a victimless form
> of expression. In this case, a bomb is a more apt comparison than
> a diary.
Can't a diary or a political tract cause mental harm? And how does a
photograph cause physical harm? That's absurd. (Certainly what is
depicted in the photograph caused harm, but that's a whole different
story.)
>
> > > One could make an argument that all it would be doing would be
> > > decriminalizing it to the point that people with such an interest
> > > wouldn't keep themselves in check as much as they might do
> > > now, when offered an opportunity to pay for it.
> >
> > Perhaps, but, again, as long as they are only downloading it, this
> > doesn't particularly bother me and I don't beleive it's the government's
> > business.
>
> Yours is a minority opinion and one that no government on earth
> (liberally democratic or brutally repressive) agrees with - not to
> mention the vast majority of people on earth.
What are you basing that on? I'm not up to date on the law in every
country, but I do know that the idea that possesion of any reading
material, including photographs, could not possibly be a crime in and of
itself was a cornerstone of American law until about 10 years ago--I
can't imagine that every other democracy has dumped it. (Although,
granted, only a small percentage of the world's nations have a basic
commitment to freedom of expression anyway...)
>I'd also add that the
> countries which do tend to turn a blind eye towards the victimisation
> of children through pornography also have the biggest problems with
> the victimisation of children. In essence, it's the duty of a government
> to protect citizens from undue harm. This is weighed against
> benefits. Most governments and people see no benefit in kiddie
> porn.
I've also seen no connection between prosecuting people for possession
of child pornography and actually protecting any children. (Especially
given that most child-porn arrests in the last couple decades came as a
result of governments soliciting purchases for the purpose of making the
arrests...)
> > Your opinion. Did you know that studies have shown that most men react
> > with arousal to suggestive pictures of young children, down to the age
> > of 6 or so?
>
> Even so, why do so few people then engage in kiddie porn collecting?
> Perhaps because they think it's wrong and know what it does to
> children. I'd like to have sex with Winona Ryder. Should I rape
> her? No, largely because I know it's wrong and it doesn't take into
> account her rights and wishes.
However, if someone snaps a nude picture of her, and posts it on the
Net, you have every right to download it and possess it. Now, it may be
that this picture was snapped by a papparazzo without her permission;
this may be a violation of her rights, and the photographer and
distributors of this picture may be liable for criminal and/or civil
penalties for violating her said rights. That doesn't make you a party
to it; you can enjoy the photo in peace in your home, because the damage
was done before you even knew about it.
What you're doing is exactly what I find so scary about the kiddie-porn
hysteria: you assume that anyone who defends someone's civil liberties
in this matter is a rapist! Look at what you're saying!
> > The shole idea behind America is that you aren't "given" your rights,
> > they are naturally yours. If this doesn't include the right to read/view
> > what you wish in the privacy of your home, what exactly does it cover?
>
> It does cover that.
Fine. Let Gary Glitter view child porn in the privacy of his own home.
Now that we're agreed on that, what were we arguing about?
> It does not cover the right to scream "fire" in a
> crowded theater. Why? It causes more harm than good, everyone
> agrees. This is a simple concept, although beyond the grasp of
> many, it seems.
A very simple concept, which we agree on. And which certainly does not
pertain to Gary Glitter downloading a picture file in the privacy of his
home.
>
> > Again, possesion of reading material is the inalienable right--if we
> > make one exception, how do we know we won't make others?
>
> It's not an exception. Wake up.
>
> Reading material = no victims.
> Kiddie porn = victims.
Racist literature doesn't have victims? Get real!! Even libel, which
*clearly* has victims, isn't something you can get in trouble for
*possessing*. Creating it, yes, but no one's arguing that you should be
legally able to *create* sexually explicit pictures involving
children....
>
> I quote the might Cyril:
>
> > Of course you can't stop people having any kind of fantasy, however
> > perverted. But you can discourage the proudction of child pornography,
> > where the children are the victims of the crime, by making it illegal
> > to access it, own it, etc. Any 'user' of child porn is seen to be
> > participating in the crime of its existence. Without perverts like
> > Glitter, there would be no market for child porn and therefore it
> > wouldn't need to exploit its victims.
And we come right back to the original point: if he isn't paying for it,
then he isn't contributing to the market for it.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> In article <3896AF...@erols.com>, bret...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > > 2) Punishes sexual depravity.
> >
> > Exactly what I'm afraid of. We're talking about punishing people not for
> > actions but for *thoughts*, for the feelings and desires they have. This
> > should scare the crap out of everyone. If you don't speak up when they
> > come for the people who fantasize about having sex with children (as
> > distinct from people who actually do, of course), who'll speak up when
> > they come for your bad thoughts?
>
> No one's being punished for thoughts. Everyone has strange thoughts,
> which if acted upon would lead to trouble. Kiddie porn collectors are
> acting on an impulse which only propogates harm to others. There is
> no law against "thinking" about kiddie porn, only "possessing" it.
You said above you were punishing him for "depravity". Maybe I've
misunderstood you, but it sounds like that's what you meant.
> > I honestly believe that the hysteria about these things has made the
> > problem worse. We've basically told people that they are bad if they
> > can't stop *thinking* about certain things. Controlling your thoughts is
> > much more difficult than controlling your actions, so inevitably we are
> > teaching them to think of themselves as bad, and therefore leading them
> > not to control their actions either. I'll admit I can't really prove
> > this, but what if I'm correct?
>
> The whole idea of morality is based on thought. If you want to create
> some sort of Utopia, good luck, but Gary Glitter was put in jail for
> possessing contraband, not thinking about it. I don't see a big problem
> in thinking of someone obsessed with kiddie porn as "bad" - it would
> be more correct to think of them as "sick", but whatever. Your logic
> leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a bad thought,
> which is kind of stupid, if you ask me. (I mean, your whole pro-
> possession of kiddie porn argument is based on the fact that those
> arguing with you are having bad = incorrect thoughts, so are you a
> hypocrite, or what?)
I certainly don't think you have had any evil thoughts here, but I do
think you have taken incorrect positions. I hope it is clear what the
difference is. At any rate, no one's questioning your right to express
those thoughts.
I don't think you've addressed the substance of this point, though. What
if making possession illegal encourages people to think of themselves as
criminals, and therefore perpetuates abuse?
> > Again, we could make the people who (rather justifiably) hate John
> > Rocker exceedingly happy by throwing him in jail, but that's not right.
>
> Mostly because he broke no laws and hurt only himself.
Gary Glitter, assuming he only possessed porn, hurt only himself. Yes,
he broke a lwa, but that's circular reasoning--the whole question here
is whether that law should exist or not.
> Most "queers
> with AIDS" and "welfare moms" or whoever else he offended only
> cheered that a small-minded idiot exposed his shortcomings to the
> world and lost money, acclaim and reputation due to his stupidity.
> The victim there was John Rocker. No so with Gary Glitter. The
> victims there are the kids scarred for life because of what they had
> to go through to satisfy some old pervert, and knowing that they will
> have to relive this everytime another pervert gets arrested and they
> have to wonder if the old documents of their abuse are still making
> the rounds.
You mean--the victims were harmed by news of his arrest? Gee, there's a
simple solution for *that*--don't arrest him!!
Don't think of that as a joke, either. What I'm talking about is only
protection for people who *don't* spend money for the material and only
possess it *in the privacy of their homes*. This *precisely* addresses
the arguments you are making. And you may think of emmploying sophistry
here, but if you beleive your own argument, and I think you do, then
perhaps you can see why arresting Glitter may be doing more harm than
good.
> > > 5) Perpetuates the idea that society and government actually have
> > > as a basis some modicum of morality.
> >
> > I don't think punishing people for their thoughts is moral--quite the
> > opposite.
>
> Again, and I can't stress this enough: Glitter was persecuted due to his
> part in the perpetuation of the torture and abuse of children.
You still haven't shown that he played a part in such.
> > Vigilantism over downloaded pictures? Even with all I've said about
> > hysteria, I think that's a little extreme.
>
> Downloaded pictures to you - proof of the hateful hurt, abuse and
> torture of children to others; made all the worse by the fact that
> someone given everything in life chose to take pleasure in the
> torture of society's most defenseless members. I don't think you'll
> see Gary Glitter out in public much even if he gets out of jail
> tomorrow.
More melodramatic rhetoric. Doesn't address the point at all.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 02:48:11 -0500, "Brett A. Pasternack"
> <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >No one, I think, would question that the creators of the photos have
> >done something deeply wrong. But can you explain to me how Gary Glitter
> >(or whomever) downloading these photos--assuming he isn't paying for
> >them or taking any role in their creation--"participates" in the crime?
> I don't see how whether Glitter paid for the images or not has any
> real relevance.
Simply this: your argument is that consumers of child porn are creating
a market for it, and thereby encouraging its existence. Now, if someone
were to solicit the making of a picture, there's a pretty obvious causal
connection, and I'd agree that the consumer in that case has become an
accessory to the crime and therefore subject to prosecution. If the
consumer purchases the image after the fact, it's a bit more of a grey
area, but I can see your argument; the consumer is contributing to the
market for the images, and thereby encouraging the production of more.
But if the consumer is going to a newsgroup and downloading a file, no
one is receiving any money from him, and, in fact, no one knows that
he's even done it. So I can't understand how *that* is creating a market
for anything.