Gary Glitter travel ban

source

Should this beast be stopped from foreign travel to countries where implementation of child protection laws are not as stringent as here. Is it our duty to protect childrens civil liberties more than that of convicted pedophiles. Gary Glitter has served his time he is now a free innocent man. Until he commits another crime he is innocent until proven guilty. Do we have the right to stop anyone from living their lives incase they reoffend. If so all criminals could have ban put on them from say entering a bank, for bank robbers
or owning a printer in the case of forgers or a computer in the case of illegal downloaders or file sharers. Is this the same i.e. a travel ban just the same as for example removing someones licence for motoring offenses..




This post has been edited by bigbaldybloke: Aug 18 2008, 01:36 PM

At the risk of sounding right wing -I think, as a persistent offender, he should be confined to four walls, all day every day. So in this situation I thin he should consider himself very lucky to only be banned from travel.

(Truth be told, I think he should be put in a burlap sack and thrown into the North Sea but I didn't put that because I didn't want to turn this thread in the same old Death Penalty debate )

I admire your sentiment and agree that for persistent offenders the sentence should be harsher and burlap sacks with added lead may be a way forward..However the point is that he has served his sentence according to the law for crimes not committed in this country.. Do the police really need more powers and where would it end, lifetime bans on computer ownership for persistent file sharing....

I think that the laws in this country need a total revision and more clarity, less leniency for violent crime or repeat offenders. Also there needs to be more help for drug related offenders to rehabilitate where the crimes are a direct result of an addiction, and indeed support for criminals in the early part of their career to re educate.

I agree but how many sentences must this fella serve before we realise that he's a permanent threat. Also, paedophiles have gone on the record stating that they feel they have a physical compulsion to offend, some resort to suicide. If that's the case then, for the sake of the world (and themselves in certain situations) they need to be locked away from the possibility of offending again?

I'd say banning him from computer is good start, but there are ways and means. A person might be addicted to online porn, but when faced with a ban from using it they might resort to prostitutes etc. Do you reckon that escalation is a given when someone has a perverse predatory nature?

I also agree that the laws in this country need to be looked at and where necessary, strengthened.

Do you think that his sentence was sufficient for the nature of his crime?

This post has been edited by m15hun: Aug 18 2008, 01:59 PM

If it was me I'd revoke his UK passport and not allow him back in the country, when you consider we have hundreds of Ghurkas who could have died "defending" this nation who wouldn't be allowed back into the UK if they left it seems really annoying to think this nonce can stroll in and out as he pleases.

Not even close. However the point is that this was his sentence as granted by a judge according to the law of that country. The laws here are inadequate at best and continually support the criminal over the right of the victim. But they are the LAW.... The precedence for removal of travel rights would be another reduction of civil liberties. This ban would not stop him re offending here in fact it ensures it if he is a repeat offender.... Removal of travel rights for football thugs doesn't stop them from being thugs.



If someone has a perverse predatory nature then that will always escalate IMO unless they are given professional help....

This post has been edited by bigbaldybloke: Aug 18 2008, 02:17 PM

Couldn't agree more.



Yeah, I know what you mean. Owing to this, I think the prison cell would be the fairest place to put him. That way we don't have to worry about him travelling and hurting vulnerable people in foreign countries, he'll be where we can keep an eye on him.

Gadd is a scumbag, of that there is little doubt, but there are wider issues at stake here... As BBB mentioned, this man has served his custodial sentences and paid for his crimes in the way that the courts ordered. At present, he is not guilty of of any further offences. As such the government has no justification to deny him, or anyone else, the right to leave our shores (why the fuck would we want to keep the pervy twat here anyway?).

The same applied to the organised football hooligans of the 80's and 90's who were prevented from travelling abroad during overseas football matches... this was wrong too.

The freedom of movement is an essential civil liberty that should be protected and guaranteed for all citizens not currently serving under a criminal sentence. The right to exit a jurisdiction freely is a particularly important element of that liberty. At the end of the day, if a certain country doesn't want to admit an individual, it has every right to deny them an entry visa. It is not for the individual's home state to say who can or can't leave.... FFS this is England 2008, not East Berlin circa 1962.

As for; are paedophiles treated too leniently... yes, but that's a different argument.

If his ability to travel isn't to be curtailed surely we should introduce some sort of monitoring scheme with other constabularies and Interpol, also perhaps only a ban on visiting lawless or vulnerable countries?

By reading that report he is to be added to the Sex Offenders register with all that that requires and also will be monitored by some inter-agency international sort of system as well.

As far as I'm aware he has never apologised for his actions nor has he ever said that he won't re offend... It, IMO, is almost certain that he will re offend but the removal of his travel rights would not change that...
He will just re offend here.... A change in the law is required so that punishment fits the crime not the removal of civil liberties..... The fact that authorities here cannot place restrictions on him from approaching children here is very worrying especially for children who will come into contact with him.. This is why there need to be a drastic change in the law to protect children.... But those laws that allow him to approach who ever he wants are the same laws that state that we are innocent until proven guilty and allow us a fair trial irrespective of previous offences....

This post has been edited by bigbaldybloke: Aug 18 2008, 04:24 PM

Initially this doesn't sound a bad idea... however, I get very uncomfortable with the idea of paedophilia being used as a way to increase police powers or to curtail certain rights.

We only have to see how the oft' trawled-out "paedophiles, organised crime and terrorists" arguments are misused to soften the introduction of increasingly intrusive and establishment-centric Internet legislation.

We now have a situation in the UK where some local authorities are putting residents under surveillance (including access to private email logs and surfing habits etc) for petty things such as stopping parents registering their kids for schools outside the catchment area. This is all down to legislation that was used to help prevent (you guessed it) paedophiles, organised crime and terrorists.

Frankly, we don't need more or tougher laws... we need to be using the ones we already have more effectively.


Whilst I agree that the ViSOR is a good thing in principle, I wonder if you are aware of how weak it really is in dealing with overseas agencies? Did you know, for example that in many EU countries, it is illegal? Germany and France for example have criticised the UK for using it, claiming that it breaches both the European Human Rights Act, and the EU elements of the Data Protection act. The latter expressly forbids the transmission of personally identifiable data to any organisation that is outside the data protection zone.

Any sex offender can quite lawfully move to an EU member state such as Germany where the register is illegal and never be bothered by ViSOR again. He/she would simply have to wait a few years, claim German residency, and and that's the end of that... free to move anywhere in the EU (including back to the UK) free from registration.

What this proves, at least to me, is that rather than discussing more police powers, increasing surveillance powers and travel bans, (which will invariable be extended to include law abiding citizens and/or very minor offences) to bolster an already easy to evade system, we should be talking about using existing powers far more effectively... such as making sure that paedophile related convictions don't result in cautions or light custodial sentences in the first place.



Absolutely

In fact the only thing that will change, is the fact that another chip has been hammered away from our societies basic liberties.

I for one don't think that scumbags like this are worth that loss.


Actually, police can apply for a community protection order for any person on the ViSOR, which lasts for a minimum of five years and can (amongst other things) bar a sex offender from even approaching areas frequented by children such as parks, playgrounds, beaches, school areas etc.

This post has been edited by yourmercifulgod: Aug 18 2008, 05:48 PM

The community protection order would be a great step if it were strictly policed, but these things often seem to be left almost to the honour system, or to the public to report them.

It's quite a quandary; on the one hand we need certain powers introduced to protect our families but on the other we can't trust the people in power not to abuse it and use it to intrusively monitor the innocent. Having taken all this on board I can't help but keep coming back to my burlap sack idea..

It would only be extended to filesharers... after all, we're in league with the kiddie touchers and the mafia.

For YMG