One to test the liberal resolve of OTFers.

The 'he's done his time' doesn't appear to carry much weight with his crimes hence most country's refusal to have him. However, the tabloid circus in the UK I can see why he would like to avoid that


you are the ref
___________

The disgraced glam rock star Gary Glitter last night appeared to have dodged deportation to the UK after refusing to get on a connecting flight from Bangkok and asking Thai officials to allow him to enter Thailand. After a series of confrontations involving flustered British embassy officials, police and Thai immigration officers, Glitter whose real name is Paul Gadd, collapsed in an airport hotel room complaining of a heart ailment.

Glitter had earlier been released from a Vietnamese prison where he had served two-and-a-half years for sexually abusing children, and was expected to arrive at Heathrow shortly after 7am today, having been released from Thu Duc prison, north of Ho Chi Minh City. He was jailed in November 2005 after being convicted of repeated sexual assaults on two girls, aged 10 and 11.

His return was thrown into confusion last night, however, when he reportedly collapsed in room 6000 of the Louis Tavern, a hotel sited at the airport but which is in a "no man's land" between disembarkation and immigration, so not officially in Thailand.

In the early hours of this morning he was attended to by a doctor on call at the airport and paid for his treatment in cash. He has demanded to be taken to hospital today. If he is allowed he will have to pass Thai immigration.

Sudarat Sereewat, secretary of Thailand's Fight Against Child Exploitation group, who was present said: "At first he asked to be allowed to enter Thailand. But he was refused. He said he had not committed any offence here, but he was told he was not wanted here."

Unable to enter Thailand Glitter then demanded to fly on to Singapore but was advised that there was no flight until much later in the morning. He then demanded that he be treated as a first class passenger. "I am not getting back on the plane with all the press there," he said. "And I'm not going to the first class lounge to be hassled by them. And I'm not going to London. You can't make me. I have done my time, I am a free man."

After complaining of fatigue and dizziness he was escorted by two Thai immigration policemen to Louis Tavern, a VIP area with small bedrooms in which transit passengers can lie down. Rooms are usually rented by the hour with three hours costing the equivalent of £50. Glitter rented a room for eight hours for £100.

A British police officer from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre who had been sent to escort Gadd back to the UK was asked to persuade him to get on the flight, but was unsuccessful. He told Thai officials that Gadd should return to London.

Two Thai Immigration police who were sent to collect him to put him back on the flight to London refused to use force to take him back on the flight.

And when the British police officer was asked if he had any paperwork, he admitted he had none except an order to bring Gadd home. He also admitted he had not legal jurisdiction, and he returned to the departure gate to wait.

As Glitter was due to fly home the Home Office announced a series of measures that would make it easier to monitor sex offenders and prevent them committing further crimes in Britain or overseas.

They include removing the need for recent evidence when police are seeking to bar offenders from areas frequented by children, for instance, requiring registered offenders to notify police earlier if they want to travel abroad, and allowing the authorities to remove an offender's passport if he has been banned from travel.

Foreign travel orders, which prevent abusers travelling to specific countries or leaving the UK altogether, will be extended from their current limit of six months.

"I want to see anyone who poses a threat to our children dealt with as firmly as possible," the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said. "I've spoken to child protection experts and the police and they have told me that these changes will further restrict the ability of child sex offenders to harm children both here and overseas."

Glitter, who also served a short sentence in the UK in 1999 for possession of more than 4,000 images of child pornography, had been expected to be met on arrival by Metropolitan police officers, and will be required to sign the sex offenders' register and remain under supervision for the rest of his life.

Under Mappa, the multi-agency public protection arrangements by which sex offenders are monitored, it is understood he will be considered a level 1 risk, requiring the lowest level of monitoring by police and probation officers.

This means he must register an address with police and notify them if he moves or stays away for more than a few days. Reports that the former star would go to a hostel in the West Country were unconfirmed.

He retains his British passport, however, and, visas permitting, will be free to travel overseas unless a specific order bans him from doing so.

Paedophile or not, I'm pleased he was able to fuck up the media opportunity the Home Office had set up for the increasingly ridiculous Jacqui Smith. Noo Labour under Blair used to make up policy on the hoof, under Brown it appears they need a sleb to be involved as well, preferably a disgraced one.

rick, what is it here that's testing our liberal resolve? Not being smartarse, I'm just not sure what you're asking.

I don't think it is about liberal resolve. We are entitled to protect people, particularly children, from abusers. Not because children are cute, but because they are vulnerable and need adult protection. To my mind that's a basic tenet of civilised society.

People like Gary Glitter need to go through a serious course of behaviour management (Ican't think of a better term) to come to terms with the impact of their abuse, understand how dangerous it is and be given the structures and support (and threats if necessary) to change his behaviour. Once he has done this, he should be given support and supervision to re-integrate. At which point giving him a chance to behave responsibly would be fair and acceptable.

If a man threatened and bullied his wife, it is not illiberal to ban him from the family home and her workplace. Similarly a different type of abuser, like GG, needs to be restrained from places where he can continue his abuse until he has come to terms with it.

It's interesting that some people seek to exclude child abusers like Glitter from their country, while we seem keen to get him here and make sure he stays. I'd be a lot happier with that approach if I was confident we could keep tabs on his movements, or that he was going to change his behaviour.

The obvious difference being that he's a UK citizen.

QUOTE:
eople like Gary Glitter need to go through a serious course of behaviour management (Ican't think of a better term) to come to terms with the impact of their abuse, understand how dangerous it is and be given the structures and support (and threats if necessary) to change his behaviour.

I doubt that Glitter or any other serial abusers of children over decades are going to gain any new insight into the effects of their actions at this late stage of proceedings.

Is there any evidence that paedophiles are ever really cured ? Perhaps the ones who undergo chemical castration might be though that will never happen in this country - it would be a populist policy all the same.

My understanding was that even with all the counselling under the sun, few paedophiles ever regret their actions or want to change their direction in life. The only real option seems to be control, making it as hard as possible for them to exercise their deviance.

Prisoners of all sorts tend to reoffend. I don't know whether sex offenders are all that more likely to.

What do you mean by cured? That they never abuse again or that they lose all desire to abuse?

QUOTE:
If a man threatened and bullied his wife, it is not illiberal to ban him from the family home and her workplace.

What happens is that he will banned from there with the threat of prison hanging over him. If he finishes a prison sentence I don't think he can be banned from there, can he?

QUOTE:
Once he has done this, he should be given support and supervision to re-integrate.

But what if a paedophile finishes prison and hasn't completed the course satisfactorilly? You just have to release them unless they have a life sentence. They go on the sex offender register but I presume they can't be kept inside any longer.

I really do think this is a difficult issue.

QUOTE:
rick, what is it here that's testing our liberal resolve? Not being smartarse, I'm just not sure what you're asking.

wyatt, just seen this

er..its tricky one. listening to radio 5 yesterday 'are we tough enough on pedophiles?'

er... its all the media go on about

part of the problem, 3 years inside 'you are cured mate. bye'

or should it be 'go and live on an island somewhere, just don't go near any kids'

if he had done an 8 stretch for armed robbery we would be saying 'done his time' but others have said, its not that easy

like a lot on here, I am a father, like some I am also a teacher. I really don't know how to call this. Rogin was right about the media scrum and new labour point scoring

they were talking on the radio about liberal scandavian counties having optional Castration treatment which massively reduces re offending. If GG did that he should be allowed to go and live in HK, singapore or Leeds

There isn't a serious debate to be had about the rehabilitation of peadophiles to had in the context of the Gary Glitter case.

It is the sort of one-off case that the media will jump upon and there is no satisfactory way to resolve it unfortunately.

There are probably a lot of root and branch changes that could be made as far as the sentencing and rehabitation of peadophiles are concerned but these would have to address the fact that, statistically, these people are more likely to related to the children than predatory opportunist peadophiles and that story just isn't "sexy" in a media or political sense

We can have a discussion on here about it though, can't we?

You're right about the profile of paedophiles. But similar questions come up with every sort of them (and indeed with all serious crime). How long is the sentence? How do you reform? Can you take measures against them when their sentences have finished?

Jesus, people, this is very easily taken care of. I mean, I know E10 will call me a Statist or something, and Wyatt will probably think it's my tendency to let government intrude too much on people's lives, but this is a serious issue we're talking about. Kids need serious, no-nonsense protection, and I've got a serious, no-nonsense solution.

Ban the sale of sweets to over-16s.

Gary Glitter is like a human version of one of those nuclear waste ships that's treated as a metallic leper (wow, check out how I antianthropomorphised and anthropomorphised in the same sentence) and nobody will let it dock, except that Britain wants him to come here and stay. Did I say 'except'? That actually makes him just like a ship full of nuclear waste. Bit of politics there.

I would actually go and see him in concert, in theory. Although in reality such a thing could never happen because there would be Hammer Horror-style processions of angry villagers with pitchforks and flaming torches, and the audience would need police protection, never mind the artist.

Murder is worse than kiddy-fiddling, and he's done his time, and not many people kicked up a fuss about a murderer being on EastEnders.

Leslie Grantham did a life sentence which means that he had to be assessed as low risk to reoffend before he's released. Glitter (like most paedophiles) hasn't done that.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

QUOTE:
Leslie Grantham did a life sentence which means that he had to be assessed as low risk to reoffend before he's released. Glitter (like most paedophiles) hasn't done that.

Do you honestly believe that the hysteria around Glitter is fuelled by the rational and considered fear that he might reoffend, as opposed to "Urgh, he's a fucking pervert, let's get him"?