Supposedly according to our fave paper the SUN - the reason why GLITTER was not allowed into mainland Europe was that he was targetting 13 year olds in France and Spain because the age of consent is 13 over there.

I find it strange that the EU does not have a standardised age of consent ( after all we follow EU law on everything else )

So should we be following the lead of the EU and is the JAB just given to schoolgirls admission that we are about to change our laws in the next few years ? This would make sense why NEW LABOUR have introduced it and made schools deliver it.

I think personally that 16 years old is about right and would not like to see it go down any further than 15 years old. I do realise that the stats prove that 60% of under 16s are taking part in sexual activity - but it is like saying because 60% of people break the speed limited we should raise it.

Finally surely there should be debate on these issues because we are locking up people for having sex with 14 and 15 year olds - whereas if they got a ferry to the Continent this would be allowed. It does not make sense when we are supposedly "part of Europe" and our laws have been standardised in most areas ( we are always being told this when we complain about another silly law )

I'm quite frankly astounded that the age of consent is 13. That doesn't bode well with me.

Different countries have different ages - as I list in Vile Pervert; The Movie - there is no other country in Europe (apart from Ireland) where I could have been prosecuted for my alleged "crimes".

Check the global ages of consent; in many (Muslim) countries homosexuality is banned, indeed in some (Iran for example) it gets the death penalty.

Sexuality and morality have never been properly analyzed. I happen to believe, if we sorted those hangups out, many of the other problems would disappear.

I had to look it up. The age of consent in Spain is 13, but in France is 15. Both under our age of consent. In Italy and Germany it is 14, but I note he isn't banned from travelling to those countries.

How do they know he was targetting under age girls? Or was that just an assumption on the part of British authorities?

It worries me that Britain has now officially (albeit indirectly) recognised the legal system of Vietnam as being fair and just. They hold a five minute hearing with no opportunity to present a defence. Not surprisingly most people are found guilty. There is no trial, just an announcement of sentence. Maybe it's because our own system is so flawed that we feel we can no longer criticise others.

Age of consent web site.
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

JK2006 wrote:

Sexuality and morality have never been properly analyzed. I happen to believe, if we sorted those hangups out, many of the other problems would disappear.

I agree. Politics and Religion have dictated for centuries what is supposedly "right" or "wrong" about sexuality and created many barriers that in this day and age badly need to be redefined. If we were all allowed to be who we really are sexually, there would be less hang ups and more time to deal with more important matters.

who are we to tell Europeans how to live ?

Under what law can authorities prevent GG from travelling ?

he isn't on parole..he's a free man. If he did travel to one of these countries and engaged in activity he would be within the law, So whats' the problem ?.

The Sun needs to be reigned in..but don't worry..my prediction is News Ltd is due to collapse like a pack of cards.

INteresting comments - but if the EU has laws which differ from ours then it could mean that citizens in the UK could challenge any ruling made by a UK court under European law.

Therefore GLITTER should appeal and point out that until EU states adopt a common age of consent - then it is totally unfair to "criminalise" him in one country whereas he would be innocent in another country. Although I find it distasteful a 60 year old with a 14 year old etc. It is within the laws of these countries.

An example today is when GORDON BROWN has asked the EU to examine the IRELAND GOV decision to offer compensation for ALL deposits in banks. According to BROWN this breaks the EU Competition laws. Therefore any law which encourages more TOURISM ( which surely these age of consent laws do ) is unfair competition against our TOURIST INDUSTRY. And because of that GLITTER should appeal to the EU that his Human Rights as a free person to travel within the EU are being breached.

Our freedoms are being eroded - we should ALL stand up for GLITTER ( not his crimes I might add ) because this is how it starts. One person is stopped travelling - and before you know it we all need permission to go anywhere with check points and goosestepping Police.

We are on a slippery slope in the UK to totalitarianism - but they will have to FIGHT THE PEOPLE EVERY STEP of the way. We must not give up our freedoms.

I believe that the UK past a law saying that it's citizens are bound by UK law even when travelling abroad. Of course they cannot be arrested until they return, and I believe that such a law is rather dodgy, but that seems to be the way things are. I'm no expert on the conditions of the sex offenders register but I think the UK authorities can only inform the nation which the person is travelling to and leave it to them whether they allow entry or not. There are no passport controls for people visiting France from the UK, so I'm sure this is why a Magistrate banned Gary Glitter from travelling. I'd guess they applied the same rules used to ban football hooligans.

There seems nothing to stop Glitter from travelling to Belgium and then crossing into France, so the ruling is rather pointless.

I think at present the UK cant interfere in the laws of other lands.

So what you are saying is that if we go to Saudi Arabia where alcohol is banned by law - as UK citizens their laws do not apply to us - the law in the UK applies to us so we can get out the beers and put two fingers up to their laws ?

It would also mean Glitter could be put on trial over here for his alleged offences in Vietnam.

We are in danger of being a PRISON ISLAND if our Government decides that we are only let off this Island on "collective bail" and we are ALL guilty now of offences.

GLITTER cant go ANYWHERE - he has to apply to the local Magistrates court if he even wants to move house. He is effectively under HOUSE ARREST.

I find that in the UK we used to be FREE unless locked up in Prison and convicted or if we are on BAIL on conditions.

That has now been extended to anyone who the UK Gov does not like.

I dont see MURDERERS being treated like this at present ? Why are they allowed to go abroad and not GLITTER ? Who would you say is more dangerous ? The murderer of course because no one knows who they are and they are more likely to kill again ( Stats prove this )

We are ALL guilty of not standing up for GLITTER - I dont approve at all of his porn habits - but I do believe that unless they put him in Prison and convict him he SHOULD BE FREE TO LIVE and GO To WHERE HE WANTS as a free citizen of the UK.

I am shocked that anyone could even suggest that UK law comes above the sovereign laws of other countries.