Gary Glitter ..

[I1L2T3]

I get it, I'm agreeing with you that as a society we treat some criminals differently, you don't need to keep repeating the same point. That doesn't mean that it can't be hypocritical. But now I'm repeating myself. So I'll stop.

 

Yes we do treat certain crimes differently. It's unavoidable. It's not hypocritical.

 

Just consider the special measures that prisons have to take to protect certain inmates from the rest of the prison population.

 

Are you arguing that the protections should be removed? You know it would be carnage. Prison is a microcosm of society as a whole. There's no hypocrisy or double standards. There's no correlation between sentencing and how society reacts to a crime.

[creepinjesus]

Do you know where in Sheffield he's from? I'm not asking for house number, just general area. Thanks.

 

Grenoside...Glitter once drove up Halifax road in his GG1 reg Rolls,waving to pupils of school that's been knocked down and built on, much to the annoyance of the teacher trying to control them.

 

Chaucer school I'm reliably informed.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Is there a law that facilitates that?

Well, not that I know- but victims can claim damages from the defendant.

Even a criminal court's decision can award compensation as the sentence (or part of it) on a newly-convicted defendant.

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2017 at 21:53 ----------

 

why anyone would want to listen to a dirty nonce is behond me,or watch one on the pitch for that matter.

Because the viewer or listener may distinguish between the crime/criminal and that person's ability in music or football.

[tinfoilhat]

Well, not that I know- but victims can claim damages from the defendant.

Even a criminal court's decision can award compensation as the sentence (or part of it) on a newly-convicted defendant.

 

But once they've been awarded compensation, that's that, glitter can earn more money and the victims don't get any.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

But once they've been awarded compensation, that's that, glitter can earn more money and the victims don't get any.

So would you be pleased that they've been compensated?

[tinfoilhat]

So would you be pleased that they've been compensated?

 

Is it going to be a rolling deal?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

No idea- if it's new legislation, Parliament would presumably decide.

[tinfoilhat]

No idea- if it's new legislation, Parliament would presumably decide.

 

Got to be a rolling deal then - all royalties go to the victims or at the very least a charity. Giving glitter money would be bankrolling his perversions.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

So I guess that you'd prefer taxpayers to fund him, what with you barring his receipt of income?

[tinfoilhat]

So I guess that you'd prefer taxpayers to fund him, what with you barring his receipt of income?

 

I'd prefer they didn't let him out, but if we are going to let someone with his sort of record out on streets, I'd very much like to see him with a bare minimum income so it restricts what he can do. Send his royalties to HMRC instead if you want. And given what governments pish away it's hardly big money is it - what is it £23m on a garden bridge that's not going to happen?