Paedophile Imperialism

"The British government is exploiting the odious Gary Glitter to smash freedom of movement and hector governments in the Third World."

www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5600/
**********************************
For the past 3/4 years my mantra has been-make the most of the internet while it's still free.

I'm too old-been around to long-met to many lying politicians-met too many hypocritical journalists to believe any of them give a flying toss about GG or in fact,for the welfare of children.

Remember, while these phonies rant and rave-they couldn't give a flying fig for the thousands of Iraqi children snuffed out in our name. They don't give a moments thought for the tens of thousands of permanently mentally and physically damaged children we have created with our adventure in Iraq.

Personally-I still have the ocassional nightmare about Ali-the boy who lost both arms in the first bombing of Baghdad-even though Ali is now a young man living in the UK with prosphetic limbs due to the kindness of some souls.
************************************
And big business cannot allow the internet to stay where it is-in the hands of the people. As advertising revenue plummets and on-line adverts increase, Michael Powell ( son of the lying Colin Powell) is currently creating conditions for "gateways" on the net-where you pay more for your current fast access, and allowing media barons like Murdoch to consolidate the US media even further.
*********************************
And I have absolutely not the slightest doubt that the terrorism, "pedo panic" and child porn scares will increase to justify this.

Very well thought out Spiked article.

I can't post her reply-but an email to me from Deborah Orr from the Independant-after I protested her take on GG is most amusing.

Amongst other things she severley reprimands me for claiming the NoTW promised GG's original accuser 100,000 pounds after a guilty verdict.

It was only 25K and part of a "contract".
So that's OK then!(despite the alarming capacity of such "rewards" to completely pervert the course of justice).
She then goes onto to imply I am obviously a fellow traveller of GG.

And now you know a witch-hunt is in full swing and should one dare say-"no..she isn't a witch, just an old lady with a black cat"..you will end up as the faggots lighting the bonfire ( as those who did likewise during the historical Salem witch hunts found themselves)

I can't believe these people get such good money to write complete tosh ( and so much ill-informed stuff as well ).
She doesn't touch my point that Chief Constable Terry Grange of Dyfed-Powys, the child protection spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, has stated these "pedo panic" campaigns are the most dangerous thing and make the job of the police just that much harder.

Sensibly she steers clear of even the slightest criticism of another newspaper, describing the Indie as "quality press" as opposed to those who indulge in "cheque book journalism" ( whilst never implying that is bad).

Her oddest bit though is a claim that GG will receive the help he needs in the UK-but won't accept it ! ( is she Mystic Meg as well ?)

The poor dear wrote a reply to me 3 times as long as her original piece. I'm sure she's still sitting at the computer steaming.

Never bag the opposition-who knows when one will get the boot ?.

I'm going to HMV later today and will ask (in a very low voice) what Glitter records they have. What is the point of a trial (and sentence) if the media - who brought 16 year old girls' tits to the breakfast table, remember - can conduct a witch-hunt (for life ?)

In The Know wrote:
I'm going to HMV later today and will ask (in a very low voice) what Glitter records they have. What is the point of a trial (and sentence) if the media - who brought 16 year old girls' tits to the breakfast table, remember - can conduct a witch-hunt (for life ?)

It's an interesting fact that, should the 16 year olds in question had been on a computer rather than a newspaper they would render the owner liable to prospecution for the possession {and distribution?} of indecent images of children. I don't think I'm wrong in identifying Nathalie Banus, aged only 15, appearing topless, with the words "She'll be 16 in two days's time, then we'll show you her nipples"...or words to that effect. One can only marvel at the literal- though sadly only imaginary- media circus as the newspapers {as far as I recall it was the Star who were the chief purveyors of the 15/16 year olds} chase each other's tails screaming "pedo scum"....

Oh that law was changed retrospectively in light of paedo-propaganda! Officially, anyone with pictures of 16 yr old Sam Fox (or any of the others) are possessing 'indecent images of children', this of course is 'to protect children' but it would apply to 25 yr old photos that were published legally at the time in a multi-million selling daily newspaper of someone who is now in her 40's... You couldn't make it up.
So yes, guys you can go and f**k a 16 yr old girl quite legally - but take photo's of her and you're guilty of possessing indecent images of a 'child' and would become a criminal for the pictures yet legal for the sex.

I'm afraid this country has crossed the point of no return.

Locked Out wrote:
[quote]In The Know wrote:
I'm going to HMV later today and will ask (in a very low voice) what Glitter records they have. What is the point of a trial (and sentence) if the media - who brought 16 year old girls' tits to the breakfast table, remember - can conduct a witch-hunt (for life ?)

I don't think I'm wrong in identifying Nathalie Banus, aged only 15, appearing topless, with the words "She'll be 16 in two days's time, then we'll show you her nipples"...or words to that effect. [quote]

I wonder if this falls within the act:

The law on child pornography
Under section 1(1) of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person to:

(d) publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.'

And I predict a journalist with initiative (and a little cash) will track down the now teenage girls in the Glitter case and get an amazing interview where they admit they made it all up and were paid by someone acting on behalf of a British tabloid - said person unable to be prosecuted (out of the country) of course...

Oh, it's all a GREAT STORY!