King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Wyot wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]'M' wrote:[/b]
[quote]Scenario. 
Glitter was setup

He has committed no crime he may of breached lincense conditions of handling a smart phone.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Not a crime, no. But no one has suggested he has committed a crime. He is still a serving prisoner (halfway point) and was in the community on condition he adhere to licence conditions.

I assume the licence conditions (which would gave strict controls on internet access in his case) were explained to him.  Perhaps he was encouraged by other residents, who knows. Perhaps media enticed, who knows.

But neither of these, if indeed in play, means that he did not ALSO breach his licence conditions.

If he is not prepared to stick to those then he should in my view be returned to prison.

Why should the risk of us "getting him wrong" sit with children in the community? What difference would it make to them if another resident made a buck by encouraging him to access paedophile webs and children or he was seeking this of his own volition?

Glitter does not have learning needs, so far as I know; let's not treat him like a child.

He has capacity, and agency. He exercised it and the authorities acted to protect children rather than him.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: So how much did they get.. Glitter
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Green Man	JK2006 wrote: You could have said that about me when I was released GM. Indeed many tabloids DID and pushed the usual "keep him inside forever" bollocks. Media madness. Nobody tried to harm me. I smiled and waved at the Paps. The News of the World tried to set me up "ogling young boys in the park". I proved their story fantasy and shortly afterwards the rag was closed for good. Good point, however you were lucky it happened before smartphone generation. Also you had a good legal team and battle in recent years. GG wouldn't have a chance.
JK2006	You could have said that about me when I was released GM. Indeed many tabloids DID and pushed the usual "keep him inside forever" bollocks. Media madness. Nobody tried to harm me. I smiled and waved at the Paps. The News of the World tried to set me up "ogling young boys in the park". I proved their story fantasy and shortly afterwards the rag was closed for good.
Green Man	I had a conversation in a Dorset pub this morning. The bloke at the bar made a good point. He said that 'Glitter is now institutionalized and blew his final chance to be released on purpose.' Glitter probably didn't want to be released for his own safety and maybe other people's safety. There a lot of nutters about the paparazzi will stalk Glitter even he is buying a pint of milk.
Green Man	This article makes little sense. www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/gary...again-after-29609616 DuckDucKGO is not a dark web browser you need Tor. I have never been on the dark web. However is there any evidence that Glitter, used YouTube to look at girls? It reads like a Guardian hit piece. Like there's a vendetta. Like JK said its like prisoner's and hostel staff set him up for a "Gotcha" moment. I do want to the video where Glitter is told to use the Onion, not a still photograph.
Green Man	Wyot wrote: 'M' wrote: Scenario. Glitter was setup He has committed no crime he may of breached lincense conditions of handling a smart phone. Thoughts? Not a crime, no. But no one has suggested he has committed a crime. He is still a serving prisoner (halfway point) and was in the community on condition he adhere to licence conditions. I assume the licence conditions (which would gave strict controls on internet access in his case) were explained to him. Perhaps he was encouraged by other residents, who knows. Perhaps media enticed, who knows. But neither of these, if indeed in play, means that he did not ALSO breach his licence conditions. If he is not prepared to stick to those then he should in my view be returned to prison. Why should the risk of us "getting him wrong" sit with children in the community? What difference would it make to them if another resident made a buck by encouraging him to access paedophile webs and children or he was seeking this of his own volition? Glitter does not have learning needs, so far as I know; let's not treat him like a child. He has capacity, and agency. He exercised it and the authorities acted to protect children rather than him. Ditto, he would of been giving a lecture of the do's and dont's at the hostel. He would of been out off there in a few more weeks. He might have ADHD which can affect the impulsive behaviour. Doing things without thinking about consequences. My partner is a former copper, she has said that a lot of sexual predators can't control their behaviour it's in their DNA or learned behaviour. Therapy can help but it's not a cure, they will work with them to focus other things. A lot of them know what they are doing is wrong but a lot don't.