Heartland

I am not a mother and I think I will never be one, but I can understand parents' "gut reactions" when someone convicted for paedophilia is released.
That said (Ok, language barrier here as well and not enough time on my hands so bear with me. If not, fair enough ), I tend to agree with boudicca when she says that is on the verge of the impossible that paedophilia has been categorized as completely uncurable or unreversible (choose the term you think is more appropriate ) still though, in my very little knowledge of the subject (which I should study in greater depth this very year, hopefully, if they don't manage to screw up the study programs and modules) paedophilia is one of the most difficult sexual "deviancy" to reverse. There have been many cases of paedophiles who were released from conviction who committed the very same crime in less than three days from being freed.
I think this happens because the roots of this "disease" (i know i know it isn't the right term, but I already explained, no English speaking creature here and not enough time! ) are very deep in the psyche of the offender and maybe the kind of therapies applied (if applied at all! which, I think, is the real problem. Sometimes there are no therapy carried out in the slightest...) until these days lack of something. Which hopefully will be acquired in the years. Or maybe not.
Personally, very personally, I think that everyone who committed any kind of sexual crime (thus not only paedophiles, althought I think it is the most disgusting, horrible crime a so called human being could carry out) should be locked up forever.
At the same time, though, markfiend pointed out something very true: the concept of paedophilia and the idea of it and even the "existance" of the concept itself, varies greatly from one culture to another and even from the time someone is living. Not many centuries ago, especially in royal families, it was normal that a girl would have been married to a man who could have been at least ten years older than she was.
But I think that this was because the concept of "child" came to light late in the western world history. In Medieval times, a child was seen just as a "smaller" adult and was treated accordingly.

Sorry for this endless and maybe impossible to understand rambling, but it is a very "interesting" subject and I'd love to be able to articulate my thoughts in a better and clearer way...
Still, as for these times there is no real/actual cure, I think that no paedophile should be released (am talking about those whose crime evidence was found out without any doubt at all).

Why don't 'they' send Paul Raven here:~

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 35,00.html

or here:~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence

- I'm sure someone will suggest a worse place for him? ...

He's served the time to which he was sentenced. Lynch-mob 'justice' is no justice at all.

markfiend wrote:He's served the time to which he was sentenced. Lynch-mob 'justice' is no justice at all.

Exactly Mark, well said

I wish they'd stop referring to him as Gary Glitter-Paul Gadd ya cnut!!

Didn't he legally change his name?

Calling him Gadd would wind him up

I iz mixing it

DerekR wrote:

markfiend wrote:He's served the time to which he was sentenced. Lynch-mob 'justice' is no justice at all.

Exactly Mark, well said

I do disagree with Lynch-mob tactics, but has he expressed any regret or even apologised to the families of the children that he abused though? I get the feeling he's merely trying to hide away from his current media exposure so he can make a new home for himself (and go "on the prowl" again? ).

markfiend wrote:He's served the time to which he was sentenced. Lynch-mob 'justice' is no justice at all.

He was given his chance. A slap on the wrist sentence (and don't forget, he escaped a more serious charge because the jury weren't told he was facing one on child porn), and he was freed.
He expressed no regret, he moved to a country chosen because he thought he could get away with his "tastes" there. He got caught again.
One more chance? I fail to see what he's done to deserve it.
If he ends up hounded to suicide, or found dead, I would be quite satisfied. One less stain on the planet.

I've drafted and deleted about 6 versions of this post.

I've said my piece, a lot of people disagree with me, so be it.

By all means say your piece Mark, it's generally pretty worthwhile IMHO

I can understand both sides really... in the past my reaction would have been similar to Weebs, boil the bastards in acid etc. But in recent times I've tried to temper my violent gut reaction on the matter with a bit more knowledge and understanding, for my own benefit apart from anything else, as I have always found the whole idea of child abuse so deeply disturbing... to the point where hearing of a case on the news would set me off into a period of "upset" (to put it mildly) that could last days, then weeks, and finally months. Ever since I first heard people did these things, as a teenager, I found the concept so alien, so totally incomprehensible, so horrific, that in my moments of not-being-entirely-mentally-well-shall-we-say I was often completely tortured (that sounds very melodramatic but the few poor bastards who saw me at my worst last year could testify) with thoughts that there was this kind of monumental evil lurking in the world, and it could be anywhere. I felt like the world was just crawling with these people, round every corner.

OK so that was me losing it, this was merely something my disintegrating mind tended to latch on to, and it's taken a hell of a lot more than a little understanding of that particular crime to take me out of where I was. But having come back to some semblance of sanity I find that knowledge helps me. It's like shining a light on the dark shadowy things that frighten you most. It's in the dark, in the absence of knowledge, that the real monsters live. I don't believe Pure Evil exists - only in our imaginations. It seems to me that no reality can ever match the horrors human beings can conceive of in their minds.

Lil Missy

I wish I could express my thoughts like you and so many on here do

Sorry Claire for what I'm about to type and I'll keep it short and sweet and that will be it for me in this thread....

I'm with weebies and Norman Hunter as maybe because we are parents and the thought of our children being touched leads to drastic measures. If fact my husband and I have an agreement that if anything like what happened to those poor little girls had to happen to my kids, we will off the person. Dead on. The consequences of our actions we will take or at least one of us as we need one to be innocent to look after them afterwards.

You see I for one know that Pure Evil is out there. It's the common person on the street that seems fine but when it's evil mind makes it's body do the evil actions...trust me babes...from being an abused child myself that pure evil is f**king real and it's a very very cruel world out there when you really know what happens in the depths of the night.

This piece of crap was famous and now gets away with it, shame a slight time in prison. That innocence of those children is gone forever and they have been in a hell as to what happened to them...and it's not their fault.

James Blast wrote:I wish I could express my thoughts like you and so many on here do

I hope you won't try. Blaast is Blaast, hence unique and it should stay that way, down to yer own special way of communicating...

No need to apologise Debs... like I said, I do understand the feeling it gives you. Even without kids I think it is more than possible to comprehend. And in spite of what else I say, I think I would probably react the same way if anyone was to harm a child of mine. And I doubt I'd feel any guilt.

Perhaps I didn't express myself very well - my meaning by the phrase "Pure Evil" is perhaps different to yours. In one sense of course these things are pure evil... however I was meaning that phrase in a more enormous, almost infinite way than that. Something beyond humanity or reality, even at its most revolting extremes.

I'm sorry if that comment sounded a bit... well, not how I intended it to. I'm coming at the whole thing from a very different place.

MadameButterfly wrote:Sorry Claire for what I'm about to type and I'll keep it short and sweet and that will be it for me in this thread....

I'm with weebies and Norman Hunter as maybe because we are parents and the thought of our children being touched leads to drastic measures. If fact my husband and I have an agreement that if anything like what happened to those poor little girls had to happen to my kids, we will off the person. Dead on. The consequences of our actions we will take or at least one of us as we need one to be innocent to look after them afterwards.

You see I for one know that Pure Evil is out there. It's the common person on the street that seems fine but when it's evil mind makes it's body do the evil actions...trust me babes...from being an abused child myself that pure evil is f**king real and it's a very very cruel world out there when you really know what happens in the depths of the night.

This piece of crap was famous and now gets away with it, shame a slight time in prison. That innocence of those children is gone forever and they have been in a hell as to what happened to them...and it's not their fault.

There is a difference between having your children fall victim to sexual abuse and forming a lynching mob out of fear and - understandable - rage for the things a sexual predator does. Mind you, in my world, that includes ALL sexual predators (rapists, wife beaters, child molesters etc...). A paedophile is not necessarily a child molester or will always intend to do so, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, but he can be a sexual predator just like anyone else out there with no inclination towards children. There are laws to deal with this kind of thing, although I have to admit that I would not shed a tear if the parents of a victim of child abuse would take the matter into their own hands. If I were in a jury, I'd not convict them. The mob mentality, however, is something I strongly oppose, because it is the way of the weak. Think of it : no matter how much instant satisfaction is accomplished by beating a person into a pulp, or even to death, by ganging up on said person with a multitude of people does not display a whole lot of courage, especially when you have no other reason to take your disgust/hatred out on this person than your personal outrage for what he/she (let's not forget women can be sexual predators as well) has done. The courage, in my opinion, lies in restraint and letting the law deal with this person. If you're not a victim of sexual molestation or immediate family thereof, in my opinion, you have no right whatsoever to physically assault a sexual predator. You'd do better to direct your energies towards supporting their victims in a more constructive manner than blind physical aggression...

Bottom line is..some people feel it would be acceptable to beat the sh1t out of a kiddie fiddler. Some don't. Live with it and listen to Phil.

I will have a go at articulating my thoughts into words, forgive, I'm new at this

I do not like mob rule but I can understand 'knee jerk' reaction. If anything happened to my nearest and dearest - Molly - well, I reckon I wouldn't be responsible for my actions.
There are some weird fucks out there who terrorise, torture, rape, mutilate and murder 80 year old women. If that happened to Molly and I could get my hands on 'it', well...
Joining in mob, for the sake of being one of the crew (because we all like to flock together), to commit an extreme act, such as the harming of a wrong doer is not on my radar.
The law is the law and it is an ass, but it is the way a civilised society behaves. We have nothing better.
Let Paul Gadd be hounded from country to country, supervise his every move or lock him up.
Don't start burning paediatricians because you are part of a mob, a mob is a very ugly thing.
Mark made a two very good points:
1. the way societies view what is right and wrong
2. the re-writing of history to omit him
Our society views it this way and if you think I am making a defence about what the erstwhile Gary Glitter has done, let me make it clear I am not.

You shouldn't be so reluctant to speak your mind (in this respect ) Unkle Ja-mes

took me half an hour Claire

markfiend wrote:I've drafted and deleted about 6 versions of this post.

I've said my piece, a lot of people disagree with me, so be it.

Sorry Mark, was just looking at why Weebs and Normie (who are also parents) feel very strongly about this issue.

My bad

I've refrained from commenting up to now cos I normally end up putting both feet in, but here we go - be gentle.

Does True Evil exist? I honestly don't know either way, but what I do know is that there are some genuinely nasty people out there (thankfully in the minority). People who would cheerfully go to the grave fully convinced that what they did was right and justified. Speaking from personal experience, one can totally get one's mental and emotional well-being in an unholy mess trying to work out a logical explanation for the behaviour (or the consequences thereof) of such folks; I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor and the simplest explanation here is genuinely nasty people.

Can Mr Glitter be rehabilated? Has justice been served and should he now be let be? Would him having his face shoved in be of some benefit to society? Dunno. I'm nowhere near enough of an expert to give a comment that's anything other than personal opinion, and another thing I believe in is second chances, so any comment I might give would have to be seen in the light of that. However, there are edge cases and exceptions to every rule, and perhaps this is one of them?

I'm not a parent and honestly don't feel any inclination that way, so while I can never know, I certainly do understand where folks who are parents are coming from.

So ultimately, put me on the "Glitter is a nasty piece of dirt, full stop" side, but also put me on the side of veering between both reactions.

Nuff said.

mh wrote:I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor and the simplest explanation here is genuinely nasty people.

I'm a big believer in it as well... but for me, just "nasty people" is not a remotely simple explanation, nor a satisfactory one. Are we saying people are born nasty, born with the potential to turn into these kind of people (well, I would argue we are all born with the potential, equal potential, and that is our human nature - but I am very hostile to the idea that any tiny baby arrives screaming into this world with a greater predisposition to "evil" than any other one).

If we are not saying these little Damiens are being born, then the question that next presents itself to me is, how do they get from there to the point where they're committing such unspeakable crimes? Is it as simple as, we are all faced with two choices at some point in our lives, and rather than choosing the road of not-being-a-sadistic-child-molestor like most of us do, they say hell no, I'll go for the evil route thanks. I'm not saying there is no element of choice and self-control in how people behave and even think... but I just think life is so full of subtle and complex influences, from an individual's formative years onwards.

Having said all that, I wouldn't dispute that the upshot of all this is that we are left with a very nasty human being. Nasty isn't the word
But I do wonder if there but for the grace of G... of random chance go the lot of us...

..and news just in...He is on the plane home. Due in at 0700.

urges, irresistible urges, so yes a child is born that way

do we lock up alcoholics?
well, we do when they inflict their mentalness on others, but... well... it's a really big subject

this is why I stay outta these kinda things, I dunno WTF I'm talking about and I can't say what I mean in type