ALL THAT GLITTERS....
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 09:17AM 
So, former pop star Gary Glitter has refused to board a flight to the UK, saying he was having a heart attack! He was earlier deported from Vietnam after spending almost three years in jail for sexually abusing two girls. Glitter, 64, real name Paul Francis Gadd, had arrived at Bangkok in Thailand, where he was to change planes and fly back to the UK. But he refused to leave the airport, demanding to be allowed to stay in Thailand or another Asian country. Thai immigration has declared Glitter "persona non grata" and threatened to return him to Vietnam.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smithh as said on Tuesday it was her view that he should be given a Foreign Travel Order (FTO) banning him from overseas travel. "I want Gary Glitter to be controlled whilst he's here and I don't want him to be able to go anywhere else in the world in order to abuse children," Ms Smith has also announced plans to tighten controls on the movements of paedophiles. Proposed measures include increasing the length of time an FTO can apply from six months to up to five years and automatically confiscating the passport of anyone subject to an order.
Now I have a few things to say on this,
1. Paedophiles are scum and deserve to be put away for life. End of story. Castration might also be a good idea.
2. However rapists and murderers are also in this vile category and I see no effort being made to stop them from travelling where they want? If a paedophile is forced to stay in the UK because of his/her crime, why not a murderer?
3. Gary Glitter is a circus freak, I think we can all see that. I have no sympathy at all for him but this is a media frenzy at the moment focused on the fact he is a former pop star career. Every week other anonymous paedos walk free without any attention paid to them.
4. Do you think the State has the right to impose travel limitations of people who have been convicted and paid for their crimes? Or is it OK to single out certain groups for punishment in perpetuity?
Finally, if Glitter embraced Islam, could he then claim that all he was doing was folllowing the lifestyle chosen by the Mighty Mo?
Crime 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (40)
David -
Your third point has it. Gary Glitter is famous, the media is onto him on his release, hence an opportunity for empty politicians to strut, posture and make like they're being tough.
All this talk from the Home Secretary is simply to mask the fact that the state no longer believes in punishment and justice and is rapidly abolishing such notions.
Make a bogeyman out of Glitter, and the masses might not notice the murderers, rapists and paedophiles released from prison or never incarcerted on conviction.
Glitter was enjoying all the media attention yesterday. I wish we would stop glamourising this entitlement behaviour through our press.
The 'man' is even thinking about relaunching his goddamn career. One of the members of the rolling Stones is busy jerking around with a young woman barely above the legal age and the papers think it's all such a bleeding laugh.
But then if you flick on to basic porn sites they all heavily promote barely legal sites and teens for sex quite openly. It's in yer face and it's also normal and i would wager alarge portion of porn loving males out there all partake. But of course we are not allowed to say a word about that because it's their right to enjoy such content. Even if you cannot be 100% sure the girls are legal. Right? So what do you expect.
Naturally the government then has to come out and say something about it all and right that they should. Even if pointless.
The bottom line is that paedos and rapists can feel THAT relaxed because there is no sense of real punishment to send a set of shockwaves to their forever jingling balls. They should be castrated. And we should get a legal grip on the HUGE excess of porn that encourages this pretty low behaviour.
Sorry but when you have teen boys gang raping a girl, burning her bits with acid and then PUBLISHING it on youtube specifically as porn (both here and in Australia) you have a problen. A serious problem.
"And we should get a legal grip on the HUGE excess of porn that encourages this pretty low behaviour.
Sorry but when you have teen boys gang raping a girl, burning her bits with acid and then PUBLISHING it on youtube specifically as porn (both here and in Australia) you have a problen. A serious problem."
I have a problem with that. I may be a complete techie but I believe heavily in the Freedom of the Internet and as long as people aren't doing something that is illegal, like snuff videos or happy slap rapes, then the internet should be completely free from Big Brother. Even the barely legal sites are legal.
To compare looking at pictures of 18 year olds to looking at pictures of children is just stupid. I guess you will also want to ban the gymnastics at the Olympics incase people get too much of kink out of them.
"WELL DID YOU MISS ME (NO!)
WHEN
Seeing as you probably use those sites Seamus can you tell me how you know for sure the girls posted are legal and the mock rape scenes they shove up there are all for fun? I'm genuinely curious to know how a man justifies his porn entitlement and right to choose to watch such tosh is a okay despite the various trades in human life that surround this murky industry, whilst telling women who have abortions the rather more life changing threat to their choice is verboten.
Did you miss me, Yeah, while I was away, did you hang my picture on your wall
Did you kiss me, Yeah, every single day, although you couldn't kiss me at all.
And did you love me, Yeah, like a good little girl,
Did you tell that naughty boy not to call, did you love me, Yeah, in your little world,
Although you couldn't see me at all, although you couldn't see me at all!
Hello, Hello, it's is good to be back, it's good to be back,
Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello, I'm back again, I'm back, I'm on the right track,
Hello, tell all your friends I'm back, as a matter of fact, as a matter of fact I'm BACK!
-----
Have a look at the pic on the site I found these lyrics on!
Because, Aileen, a personal choice to watch pornography on a site does not kill someone. A personal choice to have an Abortion, does kill someone. That is the big fundamental difference there.
I believe these sites need to be investigated thoroughly, and if they are illegal, then they need to be either fined or closed down. But you advocate closing down the legal ones.
Seamus - Nowhere do I advocate that. I asked you how you know what you jerk off to is legal? A personal choice in watching those particular sites ensures a ready market. Around those possibly legal sites are a myriad of illegal ones which spring up to compete. And ones which you cannot 100% assure use girls who are legally above age and fully consenting. Since you cannot be sure, you are at least a willing abetter in the vast traffic of human beings in the sex trade. Did you not notice how the paedo arrested the other day in Britain cleverly masked his site with barely legal images? You think he is unqiue? How much police resources should be dedicated to unmasking all these sites so a pathetic little Billy No Mates can have an orgasm he could just as well achieve with a bit of imagination?
Seamus,
>>A personal choice to have an Abortion, does kill someone.<<
What's the difference between looking at pictures of 18 year olds and looking at pictures of 17 year olds?
The difference is that what makes your above sentence nonsensical. Abortion (in a place like Britain) is not "killing someone".
"Abortion (in a place like Britain) is not "killing someone"."
No, Noel, it is still killing someone. Just because the State makes it okay does not mean that these women and their doctors are not killing people.
"What's the difference between looking at pictures of 18 year olds and looking at pictures of 17 year olds?"
One is legal and one isn't. That is probably the only difference.
"And ones which you cannot 100% assure use girls who are legally above age and fully consenting."
Nor is it my job to. There are people out there whose job is to find out whether all whether the models are legal or not.
Also, most sites will carry a disclaimer "All models, that appear were over the age of eighteen years at the time." Or words to that effect. It is the sites responsibility to make sure they are legal, not the consumer. In the same way it is not the consumer's reponsbibilty when they are buying clothes to make sure that it was created using Child Labour. It is the companies responsibility.
Welcome back Noel. It's pretty that song.
What was the pic?
Sigh. All went straight over your head Seamus. The one on your shoulders.
Alison and I are not interchangable people!!!
Re the topic, I have a very uncomfortable feeling that Glitter will be enjoying the attention.
Sorry, the old dyslexia kicked in a wee bit there.
Ohhh the Japanese geisha cartoon chick next to the sugary Gary Glitter song? Yeah I see. Uggggh.
The Vietnamese would have been well within their rights to keep this guy in prison for another ten years.
When I was in Vietnam not long ago, we had a dark game "spot the sex tourist". When we'd see an older westerner with a very young Vietnamese "partner", we had one.
Fortunately, we saw few that met the profile.
The Vietnamese commies at least do try to stop this...the Thais for most of the past decades anyway were just fine with sexual tourism, including exploitation of the very young.. Bring your dollars and euros and yen and you can do whatever the hell you want.
"Nor is it my job to. There are people out there whose job is to find out whether all whether the models are legal or not."
On a similar (but different!) note...
A friend of mine made the point that if he went to a nightclub and met a girl who looked 18/19 and told him she was 18/19 and he slept with her...but she turned out to be only 16, he would be done for statutory rape in the Republic.
However, could he not then sue the nightclub for allowing that girl into the nightclub and thus giving him the legitimate expectation that she was an adult?
(Just to point out that said mate has a girlfriend and this was just a hypothetical point!)
Click on the link now. A very young and sexily dressed girl in an ad for something, beside the lyrics of a GG hit!! The pics are rotated.
>>No, Noel, it is still killing someone. Just because the State makes it okay does not mean that these women and their doctors are not killing people.<<
>>"What's the difference between looking at pictures of 18 year olds and looking at pictures of 17 year olds?"
One is legal and one isn't. That is probably the only difference.<<
So, I hope you see the absurdity of your position now. You claimed the right to watch nude pictures of 18 year olds simply because the law allowed it. Well, the law also says that an early pregnancy is not a person that can be killed, contrary to your other claim.
You can't have it both ways.
I think the worse thing is that he was spared a longer sentance because he was allowed to pay his victim not to testify. Really, they should have hacked his sac off and then put him in jail for life.
"So, I hope you see the absurdity of your position now. You claimed the right to watch nude pictures of 18 year olds simply because the law allowed it."
Personally, I would find it creepy if someone who is in their thirties or fourties was watching them. For me, well, I am within two years of all of the models, so it is less creepy. In reality though, they aren't harming anyone, so why is there a problem with it?
"Well, the law also says that an early pregnancy is not a person that can be killed, contrary to your other claim"
Convenient that it wasn't above David Steel's pay grade.
"A friend of mine made the point that if he went to a nightclub and met a girl who looked 18/19 and told him she was 18/19 and he slept with her...but she turned out to be only 16, he would be done for statutory rape in the Republic."
I agree Reg. I think that if I go to a Nightclub then I should be safe in asuming that all people in that Nightclub are about the age of consent. I pay good money to go into these establishments and they have staff on the door to ensure that all people entering are over the age of 18.
"In reality though, they aren't harming anyone, so why is there a problem with it?"
That's very naive. In reality they are. Not all the sites use legal girls, or legal images and you are of course assuming consent in ALL situations. Any internet site can set up at any time and put any old disclaimer on their site.
Though more to the point these days 'youporn' etc don't really care. Even youtube ran rape videos until it was pointed out to them they were in fact actual rape and withdrawn. By then millions had enjoyed watching a girl being brutally raped. I suspect a few of them even thought it was play acting.
So are we all happy with that status quo? I think we need to give it some thought and yes I think some controls are needed via ISPs. It looks like that will happen one day now as the movie and record industry works hard to cover its losses and protects its copyright. Eventually we will wind up with a controlled internet. I hope porn is the area that gets hit first.
Meanwhile:
How do you feel about that paedo using *legal* images to cover up his non legal ones?
How much police resources should be dedicated in order to protect your right to full unrestricted viewing of porn?
All sorts of people make damn sure they exploit the full openness of the internet - thus children men and women to the extreme in a decidedly creepy and horrifying underworld. You can hardly say it "harms noone".
For all those who shrug their shoulders and say "oh well we must keep the internet free" i think some deeper reflection is called for.
On a more sarcastic note maybe Nadine Dorries could put foward a change in the law whereby all young men have to consider the outcomes of their actions before viewing porn.
"On a more sarcastic note maybe Nadine Dorries could put foward a change in the law whereby all young men have to consider the outcomes of their actions before viewing porn."
Because Alison, when a woman has an abortion, they are killing their child. When a man or woman for that matter, is watching Porn, they are killing no one.
"That's very naive. In reality they are. Not all the sites use legal girls, or legal images and you are of course assuming consent in ALL situations. Any internet site can set up at any time and put any old disclaimer on their site."
And so the law needs to protect men and women in those situations. But in most cases they are legal sites with consenting models and you want to deny people the freedom to view them.
"How do you feel about that paedo using *legal* images to cover up his non legal ones?"
Same way I do about a paedophile not using legal images to cover up his or her non legal ones. They should be prosecuted.
"How much police resources should be dedicated in order to protect your right to full unrestricted viewing of porn?"
As much as neccessary to protect innocent people from harm without punishing people for something that they haven't done. Don't criminalise the majority because of the actions of a very small minority.
"Though more to the point these days 'youporn' etc don't really care. Even youtube ran rape videos until it was pointed out to them they were in fact actual rape and withdrawn. By then millions had enjoyed watching a girl being brutally raped. I suspect a few of them even thought it was play acting."
Actually, the majority of Fetish Rape videos are staged and are no more harmful than the rape scenes in films. For those that aren't staged then they should be removed from the internet and those responsible for the rape need to be prosecuted.
"So are we all happy with that status quo? I think we need to give it some thought and yes I think some controls are needed via ISPs. It looks like that will happen one day now as the movie and record industry works hard to cover its losses and protects its copyright. Eventually we will wind up with a controlled internet. I hope porn is the area that gets hit first."
Firstly, the Entertainment Industries haven't had any "losses" because of Internet freedom. And there is also the Data Protection Act. ISPs aren't allowed to look at what I am surfing without my permission.
"I hope porn is the area that gets hit first."
Your Misandrist attitude towards ponography is starting to show as well.
Seamus before we continue with the lengthy repostes a small fyi: if you want to protect kids you would do well to consider the topic more broadly. Or do you suppose the human traffic of kids for sex is not harmful to them and not associated in any way with this whole industry? Mind you, you support the IRA so i dont suppose the sanctity of life means all that much to you. I must try to remember how pointless such a debate with you is.
Where do I state I want to deny people the freedom to view ALL porn Seamus? I see limits to it yes.
So the legal images you endorse being used to cover up dodgy sites does't hint at a larger issue for you? Okay. I didn't think so.
I think your porn should be taxed accordingly then to ensure we have those enormous resources available.
Re the Feitsh. What does that have to do with my point? I don't care but thanks for the fyi. With respect to your second point:- You mean you want the internet monitored for dodgy content uploaded? So how is your view different to mine?
Seamus - re ISPs they are.
How do you think paedo rings are busted.
In that same way the music and film industry is making strides to protect its copyright by working out agreements with ISPs. In future you will be contacted by your ISP for abusing copyright if you excessively download. This is something which is going through all sorts of legal hoops now. Successfully. It will be extended to other areas of course. That's progress for you.
I don't care for mass marketed porn and it's now huge in ya face presence culturally. No. Brings me back to the point i raised in the post. Gary Glitters of this world think they have a right to do what the fuck they like to whom and whenever. Not only are there no laws in place to really deter them. But the internet indulges their sense of entitlement at every single turn, sometimes illegally other times borderline. And you know it. The wording on porn sites makes that clear **"barely legal"**. Something you feel is A okay. I don't.
Of course that makes me a misandrist. Though I wonder how that extends to my more than cynical view of the women who freely participate in and market the stuff.
In my view they are slightly worse than the socially inadequate Billy No Mates who need virtual sex to get a hard-on. Men can't help themselves, they are that pathetic when it comes to looking after their johnsons. But not so long ago they didn't need so much open and available stimuli. Apparently nowadays they MUST have it. It's a human right y'know.
"Mind you, you support the IRA so i dont suppose the sanctity of life means all that much to you. I must try to remember how pointless such a debate with you is."
You must have trouble reading. I have never stated that I support the IRA. I just don't see the IRA killing someone as being different from the British Army killing someone. It is you who view them as different and thus have a problem with the sanctity of life.
"Or do you suppose the human traffic of kids for sex is not harmful to them and not associated in any way with this whole industry?"
I feel that banning or censoring porn just to protect kids from being used for it is like walking about naked and not wearing clothes to protect them from being used in the making of said clothes.
"I think your porn should be taxed accordingly then to ensure we have those enormous resources available."
Considering most sites aren't operated inside the UK or Ireland, but within Foreign States, I don't believe that the State have to ability to Tax me for it, beyong the fact that they are already taxing me for the purchase of the Computer, VAT on the Internet connection etc etc.
"In that same way the music and film industry is making strides to protect its copyright by working out agreements with ISPs. In future you will be contacted by your ISP for abusing copyright if you excessively download. This is something which is going through all sorts of legal hoops now. Successfully. It will be extended to other areas of course. That's progress for you."
And will once again hit snags as the Internet Community are always four or five steps ahead of the Internet Police. Downloads will always happen. The fact that the Entertainment Industry charge extortionate rates for their media only encourages it. They don't suffer any losses. If I can't download music, or games, or software, or films, do you think I'm going to go out and buy it? No, I'm not, so me downloading it isn't costing them a penny.
"And you know it. The wording on porn sites makes that clear **"barely legal"**. Something you feel is A okay. I don't."
Barely legal is still legal. If I were to have sex with a 17 year old in Northern Ireland, or a 16 year old in England, it would be Barely legal, but still legal. And with the 17 year olds, not actually unsavory for people like myself.
"Of course that makes me a misandrist ... Men can't help themselves, they are that pathetic when it comes to looking after their johnsons."
No Alison. It is viewpoints like that that make you a Misandrist. As long as what they are looking at isn't illegal, it is not the business of the State, even if it is Barely Legal.
For all those based in the good old Emerald Isle, I'm I the only one who thinks that if you shave Gary Glitter, he looks like Eamonn McCann?
You support the IRA and make an equivalence between them and the British army. Between people who deliberately target civilians as their modus operandi.
You are an IRA apologist. Your view of the sanctity of life means jack shit.
Your paragraph re kids and the sex trade is nonsensical.
So we cannot tax your leisure pursuits but you want to see a huge attack on the criminality behind it. How the fuck do you propose we fund the increased resources in this ever ballooning nasty global trade?
"Barely Legal" gives the Garys of this world their kicks. I don't think even you are so naive as to pretend that it is a non point. So you see no compromise whatsoever. I didnt think so. Even though it is a recent modern phenomenon men lived without. And even though coincidentally paedos are on the rise?
You did explain you see a need for control earlier but don't seem to be able to expand that point other than to pretend I am unique for holding that view. But in conclusion you couldn't give a shit.
Re misandry...
Perhaps you would like to explain to me how run of the mill porn texts such as
"This bitch likes to have her holes drilled...abused...bla bla bla" (check any porn site from the mainstream onwards)
"This virgin slut gets abused for the first time by two men" etc etc
isn't mysoginy?
The whole of mainstream porn seeks to portray all and any women having sex as sluts, bitches and whores to whom acts are done TO. So don't give me all that misandry over porn bullshit. It's beyond hypocritical since you indulge.
"it is not the business of the State, even if it is Barely Legal."
well it is since the police have to establish the legality of the content, borderline etc and whether or not you are as a consequence a paedo. Even if you are what, 20? Seamus and they are your peers? if your interest is in underage girls or boys you are by definition either a paedo or possibly paedo. Otherwise if its barely legal and you slip.. its definitely illegal. You are supposed to be the responsible adult you see.
"You support the IRA and make an equivalence between them and the British army. Between people who deliberately target civilians as their modus operandi.
You are an IRA apologist. Your view of the sanctity of life means jack shit."
Actually, the British Army do attack civilians, do target civilians and do kill a lot of civilians, so I see them as being no different to the IRA. Your view on the sancitiy of life means jack shit as you view the IRA killing a Civilian as bad but see the British Army killing a civilian as perfectly acceptable.
"So we cannot tax your leisure pursuits but you want to see a huge attack on the criminality behind it. How the fuck do you propose we fund the increased resources in this ever ballooning nasty global trade?"
I don't know, cut funding for Abortion. Two birds for one stone there.
""Barely Legal" gives the Garys of this world their kicks. I don't think even you are so naive as to pretend that it is a non point. So you see no compromise whatsoever. I didnt think so. Even though it is a recent modern phenomenon men lived without. And even though coincidentally paedos are on the rise?"
Actually no, considering that in by gone days it was perfectly acceptable to have sex with people at younger ages. For example, the one I love getting Northern Ireland Unionists with is the fact that King Billy married his wife at 15. Paedophilia is more talked about now and there is more convictions. It isn't more widespread.
"The whole of mainstream porn seeks to portray all and any women having sex as sluts, bitches and whores to whom acts are done TO. So don't give me all that misandry over porn bullshit. It's beyond hypocritical since you indulge."
If people get their kicks out of it, then people get their kicks out it. You have no right to tell people what they should be doing in their bedroom.
"well it is since the police have to establish the legality of the content, borderline etc and whether or not you are as a consequence a paedo."
Yes, but if it is Barely Legal, they are still over the age of 18 and thus legal. Barely legal just means that they are 18. I still go out with girls who are 17 so I don't see the issue on Porn having 18 year olds in it.
We don't stomach sex with children quite so readily. Is that wrong because some lusty King had to poke a 15 year old virgin 500 years ago? What on earth is your point?
You now seem unsure if it's good or bad. On the one hand you think Glitter should be castrated and then you think men who like to walk the border on this are okay. What if the law switched tomorrow and made it legal to have sex with anyone from 12 onwards. You like? And is Glitter just a horny dude then?
So mysoginy as a pastime is perfectly acceptable. In which case why bring up misandry as an issue.
My point on Barely Legal was twofold
Re paedos. It encourages the borderline issue, it almost *relishes* it in fact.. and the promotion of very very young girls for sex as both normal and acceptable.
Second. In response to your bizarre assertion that the state has no business monitoring what you do. Which of course it does in case you slip into the illegal. And since you want greater scrutiny and vigilence and arrests of illegals you are tying yourself up in enormous knots here over how we deal the issue of the illegal successfully and robustly whilst indulging your very important need for AV to to jerk off.
I think those sites are vile. Whilst you cannot ban them you sure as shit can stop pretending they are okay. I see no difference between the men who indulge themselves with those and Gary Glitter.
Abortion choice is already limited by laws. Let's instead see some laws limiting porn eh? No? You have no right to be telling people how they live with the consequences of their actions in the bedroom. You also have no right to lecture people on the sanctity of life when you verbally fellate terrorists.
"Abortion choice is already limited by laws. Let's instead see some laws limiting porn eh? No? You have no right to be telling people how they live with the consequences of their actions in the bedroom. You also have no right to lecture people on the sanctity of life when you verbally fellate terrorists."
It is more than a consequence of their actions in the bedroom. It is killing innocent life and I will not endorese, support or shut up about it. I have a right to oppose murder when I see it.
And you have no right to talk about the sanctity of life when you "verbally fellate" Soldiers.
Back to Glitter
If he'd been convicted of this crime in the UK, I would guess that they could make it a part of his punishment - or parole- that he not travel overseas
But as he was convicted in a foreign state, I might guess that the UK should not be able to restrict his travel. What UK law has he broken?
This is a devil's advocate argument of course.
Phantom -
He didn't break any laws here. Legislation was introduced a few years ago allowing for sex tourists to be prosecuted here when not prosecuted where the alleged crime happened, which is all a legal nonsense of course since that implies that the Crown's writ runs runs beyond the UK.
The Home Secretary holds seperate powers allowing for travel bans or even for passports to be revoked in the case of naturalised Britons. This is also a legal nonsense since mere politicians shouldn't hold such power over individuals. The courts ought to strike that one out or at least allow for judicial review in each case.
"To compare looking at pictures of 18 year olds to looking at pictures of children is just stupid. I guess you will also want to ban the gymnastics at the Olympics incase people get too much of kink out of them."
Excellent point Seamus, after all Alison has repeatedly told us nasty pro-lifers that we are *just like* the Islamists because *they* don't like abortion either, therefore Alison, you are just like an Islamist because you hate porn!
Absurdity abounds...I'm agreeing with Seamus. Damn you woman.
"I think those sites are vile. Whilst you cannot ban them you sure as shit can stop pretending they are okay."
I think abortions are vile. Whilst I don't wish to ban them I sure as shit wish you'd stop pretending they are OK. I guess maybe all morality really is relative...
"I see no difference between the men who indulge themselves with those and Gary Glitter"
So men looking at 18 year olds are like paedophiles to you. That pretty much covers your utterly beyond parody levels of man-hatred in a nutball.
Incidentally, when my wife and I met I was 33 and she was 19. Does that make me a paedophile as well, you loon?
Of course you agree with Seamus DSD. He is "pro life". Just like you.
Nope men who like looking at sites called *Barely Legal* are like Gary Glitter. Unless they promote them as *barely* legal for a particular reason that seems to remarkably elude you DSD.
All these lewd sites help to promote the killing, kidnapping of women and children..it's all done with one purpose in mind to promote sex and to make sure women know their place. I would personally ban all those stupid newspapers who carry pictures of nude women on their front page. Abortion is a woman's right. Porn and hard core porn especially involving children is vile and should be punished by castration of those involved. Gary Glitter should be gently shoved out of the plane over the sea he's a pervert but as that involves little girls it doesn't matter does it. I feel sorry for men who watch the Olympics merely to get a kick out of how little the women are wearing, they are sad, sad people.
"All these lewd sites help to promote the killing, kidnapping of women and children."
No, some of the less mainstream ones do.
"I would personally ban all those stupid newspapers who carry pictures of nude women on their front page."
You believe in a woman's right to kill her child but not in a person's right to buy a newpaper with a Page 3 girl?
"Abortion is a woman's right."
No, Abortion is society's shame. Mass Genocide should never be a right.
"Porn and hard core porn especially involving children is vile and should be punished by castration of those involved."
I agree with porn involving children but what about the Porn not involving children?
The post was on Glitter. Not abortion. Your moral choice is your own.
On that note...
You cannot justify sites with names like Barely Legal in one breath and condemn Glitter in another. You shouldn't even try, 'you loon' (?).
Gary Glitter was bedding all sorts of teenagers. Did you want a gold medal for deliberately misrepresenting Alison's points DSD? Or for successfully bedding and then wedding a teenager in your mid 30s?