Not sure about this at all

So Gary Glitter can\’t go on his hols:

But the court heard he had not attended any of the treatment programs recommended to help him curb his behaviour and a psychiatrist said he may reoffend again in the future.

District Judge Timothy Workman said: \”Whilst his desire to leave the UK may have reduced in the last year he has made it clear it was his intention to leave the UK permanently.

\”If he were to do so, not having had any treatment, there would be a substantial risk that he would avoid sexual monitoring regimes and could move easily and without detection around the EU.

\”Visiting France near the Spanish border, away from the monitoring regime and possibly the intrusive press interest, could prove a very powerful incentive not to return.

\”Whilst I do not exclude the possibility of such holidays in years to come I\’m satisfied that at the present time Mr Gadd\’s behaviour, exhibited in his desire to live abroad and not to undertake any treatment, is such that I consider it necessary to make an order for the purpose of protecting children from serious sexual harm.

\”In the absence of any treatment the risks to children would be enhanced.\”

He said the order would ban Glitter from travelling to any country in the EU for the next six months.

Not quite sure what the opposite of \”exile\” is, but he seems to have been sentenced to it on no more than the say so of a psychiatrist.

Yes, I know he\’s done jail time in Vietnam and so on, but sentence to a punishment on the possibility that you might do something (even if as here with a trial) is a little discomfitting, no?

7 comments on “Not sure about this at all

  1. possibly, though if the release from jail was conditional on the attendance at a course of – no doubt kafka-esque – treatment programmes and he has failed to meet those conditions, it perhaps less of an issues.

    Do we know either way?

  2. I don’t understand the Glitter thing at all. The government’s main job is to protect British citizens; what could be a better way of protecting British citizens from him than by letting him bugger off to Cambodia forever?

  3. I seem to remember that child sex abusers have a very high recidivist rate, especially if they refuse any ‘treatment’.

    Taking on board points about punishment for possible future behavior, if this future behavior is highly probable then …?

    I suspect that we are talking about a mental perversion – not a mental illness – so do if he goes abroad and abuses again, then are our hands clean? Sorry little boy/girl, but you have to understand that legal principles made many years ago… well, they are more important than you.

    If it is important to allow these mental incompetents a foreign ‘holiday’ then surely we can devote a few million pounds to develop a tracking system and a Europe wide monitoring system. – or even worldwide. Lots of jobs for the boys too.

    Or else we can just pull their passports and tell them to eff off. They are lucky they haven’t been lynched.

  4. “The government’s main job is to protect British citizens; what could be a better way of protecting British citizens from him than by letting him bugger off to Cambodia forever?”

    The same basic policy we use for most of our toxic waste.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.