ENGLAND'S GREEN UNPLEASANT LAND

Gary Glitter has a lot to answer for.  I am no apologist for his despicable past behavior, and if the Thai authorities threw his sorry ass in jail, it must have been well-deserved. 

The Thai people have a tolerant approach to relationships between couples of very different ages, but exploitation of children does not sit well; they have very strong family standards.  Yes, of course some spectacular vice exists in Bangkok, just as it does in most major cities of the world, but if child exploitation is uncovered it is punished, and punished severely.  Mr. Gadd paid for his sins in a Cambodian prison, and I bet that wasn't much fun.  Unfortunately, he was released and then, because other nations didn't want him, he had to return to the UK.  And thus it began. Our obsession with paedophilia is more dangerous than Gary Glitter's return.

Glam rock had some incredibly talented artists, but Gary wasn't one of them.  Just a pop poseur in a silver suit with a pedestrian voice and blah songs.  But the girls liked him, apparently.  No accounting for taste. 

By late 2008, Gary's return to the UK seems to have sparked the now out-of-control paedo conflagration.   The UK press actually commented on the syndrome at the time, expressing some concerns about a rising tide of reactionary behavior and citing incidents such as the arrest of a grandmother, who was guilty of nothing more that taking a photograph of a completely empty public swimming pool.  

Paedophilia Hysteria Makes Life in Britain a Misery. 

Jimmy Savile was still above ground at the time of these writings at the links.  He had been interviewed in 2007 under caution, by the police, after allegations made by someone at Duncroft, and sent on his way.  The Surrey police provided a letter to the complainant, simply stating that they had found no grounds to take matters further.  The complainant then forged this letter, to state that they declined to proceed because Savile was "old and infirm."  Legally, they can't do that.  Age is no defense to a criminal charge if warranted. Fake letter that cast doubt on Savile victim's claims

Savile's name does not appear in any press coverage of paedophiles, suspected or otherwise, until after his death, when he could apparently be accused of just about anything. 

The 'thousands' of accusers have dwindled down to less than 150, and none of their claims have seen the stern light of the law, just their say-so and a law firm that's doing what they have to do to make payroll.  I'm not even sure that they believe these stories any longer. 

Nowadays, as the Savile affair drags on - still not paying off for complainants or counsel - should you so much as disagree on-line with the likes of Liz Dux of Slater & Gordon, plaintiff counsel for the claimaints with unproven accusations, or with an unbalanced woman who is part and parcel of the Duncroft conspiracy, or with self-appointed 'child protection expert' Mark Williams-Thomas, [who seems to do nothing these days but stake out celebrity trials, tweeting endlessly and quite often inaccurately, about the various goings-on, as if his opinion is somehow sacrosanct], or  their flotilla of self-interested and usually misinformed supporters, then prepare for attacks of such juvenile spite it would make your head spin. 

However in 2009, Digital Spy hosted a discussion on paedophilia panic and the tone is, well, quite restrained, compare to today's screeching and slapping. 

There is a reference to a preoccupation with books such as the one Karin Ward wrote which included her mostly imaginary experiences at Duncroft and the BBC, as well as recollections of her abuse at the hands of family.

"Daddy's Little Girl," by Julia Latchem-Smith is particularly mentioned. It was published in  2007. 

Same year that someone from Duncroft went to the police and alleged that she saw something, and then the search on social media began. 

I am not in favor of the snobbish title of this thread, and the original poster is ticked off mildly, but it makes interesting reading. Why are working class people obsessed with paedophiles?

So, why is this still going on? Why was Ben Ibrahimi murdered for doing nothing more than taking photographs of some young yobbos trashing his hanging plants and being a person who wanted to keep himself to himself?

There is something sinister about the continued prurient interest.  I can understand a certain class of lawyers wishing to jump on the gravy train. But why has the press joined the pursuit, when in 2008 they had a clearer and more objective view of the impending storm? 

Now, they are as bad as the pitchforkers, and in fact do everything in their power to keep the hounds whipped up - using such words as "pervert," "shocking" and of course, that old chestnut, just bound to get the attention of the bottom-feeder, "Jimmy Savile."  As a former press agent, I'm tempted to note that the advertisers have a role in this sort of frantic hyperbole.  Circulation, or what we call hits/view these days, was/is all-important to the survival of the media outlet. 

Why don't all these self-righteous "do-gooders" realize that the decimation of the Savile Trusts would leave deserving charities and the complainants with nothing if the lawyers had their way, and their considerable pound of flesh?  I speculate that Justice Sales felt that way, when he ruled that the charities were to remain involved in the distribution of the Trust monies.  I haven't read his opinion, if indeed he's published it yet, but that would be equitable to my way of thinking. 

Just what is everyone getting out of this, besides a chance to indulge their ongoing obsession, i.e. fingerpointing, blaming, excoriating, accusing - who appointed them judge and jury? Do they seriously think that all that foaming at the mouth does anything to change the status quo? Money doesn't fix anything in the long run, and at this rate it looks like the payout will be in favor of the lawyers, unless they drastically cut their fees in favor of the claimants. Let's not hold our breath on that one.

Most importantly, what does all this do to protect children from paedophiles who are not celebrities or staff of care homes?  Or what we call here in the States "deep pockets."  

Far as I can tell, sweet bugger all.  Just the continued rattle of empty vessels at work in their own interest.

 

Comments

[eric hardcastle]

I've spent time in Cambodia but have always been very wary while I have been there unlike Vietnam or Thailand.

There are numerous Western so-called 'child protection' charities run by dubious people (and dozens of non-registered 'orphanages' run by Westerners).
It's not a country I would choose to live in as opposed to say Thailand.
The fact Glitter avoided more serious charges by paying the family of his accusers- quite legally- says much about the legal system. Corruption is so ingrained I always felt very uncomfortable there.

Whilst I have no idea of the validity of the Glitter convictions it's worried me that no other allegations have ever been leveled at him apart from the failed NoTW fiasco. He seems like an ultimate fall guy, not a entirely likeable persona. The way in which the British media hounded him from country to country after his initial porn conviction really was a disgrace, as indeed they have hounded him for no good reason on his return to the UK.
If the Cambodian convictions were valid then the UK media must share blame in them. It was they who have made it almost impossible for GG to live anywhere including Cuba & Vietnam.

[Moor Larkin]

[q] I am not in favor of the snobbish title of this thread, and the original poster is ticked off mildly, but it makes interesting reading. Why are working class people obsessed with paedophiles? [/q]

It's possibly worth noting that this paedo-panic is actually an obsession that journalists themselves have created, and it is the middle-brow press that is at the root of it. Nick Davies of The Guardian (lately the hero of the UK "Murdoch Hacking Scandal") was banging on about paedo-rings and there being millions of paedo-victims back as long ago as 1998.

http://www.nickdavies.net/1998/04/01/the-sheer-scale-of-child-sexual-abuse-in-britain/

[Moor Larkin]

Gary Glitter was actually found not guilty in a British court on the charge of activity with a 14 year-old. He became pilloried largely at the behest of Max Clifford, who boasts about this in his own biography. Max is now the biter bit of course, in another British court-room just now. From a blogpost mostly about Gary.

"He was also charged with having sex with an underage girl, Alison Brown, around 20 years earlier, when she was 14 years old. She had had a relationship with Glitter for some years. Glitter was acquitted of this charge. It was later revealed that Brown had sold her story to the News of the World and stood to earn more money from the newspaper should Glitter be convicted.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/exposition-conclusion.html

[Sally Stevens]

At this point in time, I'd put nothing past the British press.

He was jailed in Cambodia, right? I've corrected the post accordingly.

All these guys were brought into contact with under-age girls. They didn't have to go looking, there they were, in hordes. I'm sure that nobody was asking for proof of age, and I'm sure they still don't.

Maybe it should be a requirement that all girl babies born from here on out should have their date of birth tattoo'ed on them. That way, guys would know they were in Big Trouble!!

Kidding.

[SpectrumIsGreen]

Gary Glitter spent time in jail in Vietnam, not Thailand and there is something of a question mark over whether those charges were brought about by British journalists bribing officials and paying a young girl to make a complaint.

I don't consider myself to be any kind of apologist for Glitter, but find it interesting that apart from the photos on his PC and the questionable accusation relating to Savile and Clunk Click there have never been any other charges or accusations against him in the UK to warrant his arch-paedophile status. Despite his fame in the 1970s that would have brought him into contact with many under-age girls.