he got 4 months which indicates to me that despite the hoo ha-they were not 'worst' category.

And as he has done his sentence he should be allowed to peacefully get on with his life. End of story.

I know you said he was informed of his 'hanging' but what does that mean ?..they gave him a choice ?

he's being endlessly punished for the same crime.

veritas wrote:
he got 4 months which indicates to me that despite the hoo ha-they were not 'worst' category.

And as he has done his sentence he should be allowed to peacefully get on with his life. End of story.

Not the worst? Well thats ok then. FFS!

I don't see your problem here.

GG has served his sentence on both crimes (although I discount the Vietnam charge as it along with Thailand is ridden with corruption).

Do you think his life should be open to ridicule and hounding for the rest of his days ?

My "problem" is that you refer to his crime as only "looking at pictures" and that they were not "worst category". Does that make it ok then Veritas? It would seem so.

Angel wrote:
My "problem" is that you refer to his crime as only "looking at pictures" and that they were not "worst category". Does that make it ok then Veritas? It would seem so.

Any pictures of this type are not nice.

What you have to remember is how the police and CPS contrive to make it sound worse than it is.Many images classed as child porn are in fact not pornographic.They could range from simple 'nudist beach',to 'family bath time'...to even fully clothed,but listed as 'suggestive'.
I fail to see what looking at a picture I could witness on my nudist holiday as being in the same category as say the horror of a young girl being actually raped.
Because of the above I have to agree with the thrust of Veritas' argument.I really have no clue what pics Gary was guilty of,but can easily imagine the police exaggerated the contents well beyond their actual reality.

Send people to jail for gazing at pictures of the holocaust, I say.
Then let's get rid of Agatha Christie fans.

I've never been convinced about the argument of viewing pictures.I would assume if you make something illegal then you simply encourage people to use underground ways to find it.

Julia Somerville was given a police caution for owning indecent images of a child. Today her caution would be a jail sentence. The subject of her photos? - her own baby sitting in the bath. Many parents through the generations have taken such photos, to help recall bygone days once the family is older. Julia's police caution should have sent shock waves through every parent and warned us all of what was to come.

She did not just look at the photos; she also took them and had personal contact with the "victim". Kinda puts Gary Glitter's conviction, for merely looking, into perspective.

I have never seen his photos. Has anyone on this forum? I read a few of the media reports, but none gave any detail other than to say they were "indecent" or "very unpleasant" or "upsetting". That could mean anything. A colleague of mine was questioned for having a photo of himself with his arm around a boy in swim trunks on the beach. One police officer described it as sinister. No actual charges were brought and the photo was returned to him, once they'd accepted that the child was a family member and it was all quite harmless. But if they had proceeded, and we'd all just been told that he'd been charged with possession of indecent images of children, we could be groomed into thinking any number of nasty thoughts about him.

Meanwhile, people who have committed acts of real violence against others, including murder, are permitted to put their crimes behind them and lead normal lives.

If Gary Glitter had not been a "celebrity", would any of us have even noticed his conviction? Would more of us have questioned the credibility of the trial of a British citizen in a Vietnamese court?

no-the 'only ' bit was in reference to the post before.

But there are categories and varying degrees of crime and if he only got 4 moths it indicates to me he wasn't in the worst category.

But I still have doubts that 'looking' can really be a crime..although it's the downloading and possession that gets people busted.

It's a question I've asked many and I've yet to get a reply-if looking is repeating the crime each time as claimed...then what happens when judges, policemen, juries and court officials look at pics ?. Is the crime temporarily suspended?

And could it be claimed that when the media published or broadcast images of the beheadings of captives in Iraq were they assisting the crime and was the public doing the crime by viewing?

I don't know the answer and I reckon I'll never get one.
***********************
Although there is a bit of an answer...a few years ago police in Oz sent out photographs of an abused girl to hundreds of school teachers around NSW state in an effort to identify her.

But instead of censoring the photo they sent the full pic..body and all. Did they abuse the girl again by doing so and did all the teachers by looking at it ?(and who knows if some didn't keep the pic and pass it on )

The police weren't reprimanded and the teachers were simply asked to delete the pic..and the authorities were back claiming that viewing was a crime within weeks. When the law is full of conundrums it gets a bit sticky!

I would like to see this taken to its logical conclusion.

ANY PORN IMAGE should carry a jail sentence. Otherwise the JUSTICE system is giving a mixed message. If they are saying vieiwing a photo is "abuse" then it is the same for an adult as a child. Both are being violated in my view. PORN is selfish and lowers the self esteem of both adults and children.

At the moment we have "Paedohysteria" which means magically at 18 years old it is suddenly OK to abuse and violate other human beings ? How can that be right ? How can ANY porn be justified ?

Just because it is "culturally acceptable" to the elite classes who get their jollies from porn ( and lots of money ) does not mean it is right.

It is crazy that people can be arrested for homophobia or racist comments - yet we have a massive LEGAL PORN industry which is abusing thousands of women and some men. Lets be honest - pornstars are almost always very low IQ and in it for money. They are being abused as much as any children - because there is the double whammy that they are being PAID - almost like sex slaves for the pleasure of the elite.

Our Government and Country is very sick. It needs real healing - not the fake Snake Oil of David Cameron who has not got the guts to improve society for the poorest because his rich friends will stop him by drying up donations for his party.

This whole idea seems in very poor taste. It is simply a cheap ratings grabber & any valid issues it may raise are simply excuses to justify sensationalism. Next it will be footage of real hangings etc

Up until 1984 it was legal to post nude pictures of 16 year old girls in Newspapers like the Sun,and glamor magazines like Mayfair/playboy etc.
The law was changed,primarily as a way of increasing convictions.So would the nude photos of Sam Fox shown regularly in the Sun at age 16 make Murdoch and co a criminal? The very same man who's paper has led a media campaign against presumed pedos were peddlers of child porn pics up to 1984.
Can we possibly backtrack a prosecution against Murdoch? Give him a taste of his own medicine.If anyone has a legal mind could they comment on this idea? I do believe there is no statue of limitations,and I do remember a documentary years ago where 15 yo models were photographed by the Sun,to make up a portfolio for when they hit 16.

that's a good point but laws are never retrospective although there has been attempts by lowlife politicians to introduce retrospective penalties but usually the legal community comes out in force against it.

The Sun Page 3 girls are an interesting case-if a person still had them in the possession they would be charged and I bet News ltd has deleted and destroyed all their images (?).

However one fact still remains-millions of people viewed them so do we now call them pedos or offendors ?