Gary Glitter is to receive a GBP100,000 pay cheque

Hey folks lets not fall out over Mr Glitter hes not worth it.

Its interesting to note how slow the powers to be will or will not change laws on a number of issues such as this.

 

Its cool from my corner Richard , no arguments ..even if i was called an American loony : )

Right now im only interested in this "when is a paedophile not a paedophile idea"

 

The definition of 'Paedophile' has little or nothing to do with it, it's more a question of legal sanctions to a given crime.
To use an extreme extension of the 'logic' of emotive punishment, we sequestrate all of Gadd's assets, then try all of HP's directors for 'enabling an offender' or similar, then we turn retrospectively to all purchasers of HP products, and perhaps even Gadd's previous music (looking nervously at those Christmas compilations myself) as they also are assisting this 'outrage'.

Naturally that would be absurd, a punishment has limits, and in this case they were severe, and law doesn't/shouldn't allow them to be extended indefinitely.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

True Von Poop , the very title is a slap in the face to anyone who's been a victim of "assault" at a young age by this person and those like him.

I asked for a definition as when i call him what he is ..ie..a paedophile im told that he is not.
A person who sexually assauts a 9yr old im told is not a paedophile but merely guilty of assault.

Thats rubbish ..and since theres been no takers , lets have a look at the definition of the word.

The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.[1][2][3] According to the DSM, pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[4] The disorder is frequently a feature of persons who commit child sexual abuse;[5][6][7] however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.[8] In strictly behavioral contexts, the word "pedophilia" can also be applied to the act of child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior".[9][10][6][11][9][12]
In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent).[13] An example of this use can be seen for example in the name of the United Kingdom police agency, the Paedophile Unit and in various forensic trainings manuals. Some researchers have described this usage as improper and suggested it can confound two separate types of offenders.[13]
In common usage, the term refers to any adult who is sexually attracted to children or who sexually abuses a child.[14][12]
The causes of pedophilia are not known; research is ongoing.[15] Most pedophiles are men, though pedophilia occurs in women as well.[11][16][17] In forensic psychology and law enforcement, there have been a variety of typologies suggested to categorize pedophiles according to behavior and motivations.[18] No significant curative treatment for pedophilia has been found at this time. There are, however, certain therapies that can reduce the incidence of pedophilic behaviors that result in child sexual abuse.[19][6]


Sure sounds like Gary Glitter to me

 

Is this just an American law or is it found in other countries?

 

US variants:
Son of Sam law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was certainly being called for in the UK a while back:
Making_Sure_Crime_doesn't_pay_-_consultation_pdf.
but I must confess I don't recall if it ever got any further.

The concern is more about stopping profit springing from accounts of Criminal activities though, so would have no bearing on other money earnt legitimately.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Thanks for that. I do understand that drug dealers and the such can have their illegally made money confiscated in some countries though this perhaps isn't the same thing.

I was just making the point that American law and opinion isn't necessarily adopted outside that country.

In the case of that extensive definition of paedophilia quoted above, I feel the same applies. The DSM has been extensively criticised outside the USA as their definitions of mental disorders are not necessarily accepted elsewhere. This is why the same organisation is now extensively re-writing their code. For example to define paedophilia as a mental disorder is very dubious.

Not that I profess expertise in any of these areas.

 

"For example to define paedophilia as a mental disorder is very dubious."

Give us a ballpark idea of what you believe paedophlia is if not a mental disorder.

 

As I said, I'm not qualified or informed enough to say.

But consider this: what is meant by the term "mental disorder"?

But I do know that the same organisation once defined homosexuality as being a mental disorder and has since retracted this. And rightly so.

 

You felt qualified enough to say its dubious if it is a mental disorder , perhaps what you mean is your not able or "qualified" to back that up ?

Homosexuals ..hmm...im no expert there either so lets follow your comments.
You say it was defined as a mental illness prior to being retracted and in your words rightly so.
So its officially not a mental disorder , the article and probably every other article concerning paedophiles easily googled suggests it is a mental illness..yet you have doubts and liken it to homosexuality in the sense homosexuals were wrongly labled initially.

Your close to suggesting paedophilia is a normal human trait and nothing out of the ordinary.

 

"Your close to suggesting paedophilia is a normal human trait and nothing out of the ordinary." Don't be ridiculous and stop twisting my words to suit your own agenda. Of course I'm not.

It is mostly accepted today that homosexuality has a genetic origin. I'm sorry but I don't put much faith in articles on the net such as in Google.

 

No agenda , your words untwisted , google is a search engine old boy , it has nothing much to say other than guide you to official web sites.
To not trust google is like you dont trust the number 64 bus to take you to town.
Ive heard much in my years on the web..thats a cracker

 

You're quite right. I should have said net sites like Wiki and the such.

 

It wouldnt matter Herakles , wouldnt matter one iota which web site i referenced, they are all going to say the same thing.
Child abuse and sexual assault of children is Paedophlia plain and simple , if its not a serious mental disorder then its what exactly ?

Offenders are jailed sometimes repeatedly yet they cant stop themselves reoffending.Most paedophiles interviewed on tv or in articles will tell you they cant help themselves.
Im not saying they should be excused for the crimes they commit , but its a mental illness and should be treated as such in a high security criminal asylum for the rest of thier lives.

Would it be a burden on taxpayers ? Not neccessarily , put them to work earning thier keep.

 

We're not falling out over Gary Glitter, we're falling out over your demands to alter the laws over money legally earned by criminals.

 

There is no proof that Homosexuality is a genetic disorder. There are a lot of theories on it, and I am of the mind that it is a mix of genetics and choice - nurture, if you will - since it is a lot more accepted in society today then say 20 years ago.

Mental Illness vs. Disease vs. Genetics debate can go on forever. Most sexual-fetishes etc can be seen as a mental illness, if you say Straight, Missionary-style sex is 'normal' - then everything else would be 'abnormal'. Pedophilia is a cultural thing. Because Humans have morals etc, and have created laws etc, it is seen as a major Taboo of society. But if you look at Human History, it wasn't all that long ago when 12 year olds were getting married etc.

At any rate, as far as this thread is concerned, he rightfully earned that money.

 

Am I the only one thinking that regardless of whether he deserves the money or not, for a big company to use a song called 'do you wanna touch me' by a convicted pedophile in its adverts is seriously inappropriate?

This is something that came up a while ago on a very different subject, just because something is abnormal in a human doesn't make it an 'illness.' This ridiculous desire to turn everything into some sort of 'syndrome' or 'illness' when some of them just aren't is infuriating!

 

I think you're far from alone in that Stefan, but we can't expect all ad executives to have a full knowledge of the twists and turns in all musicians careers. I'm sure they feel pretty silly now and pulling the song must have cost them a lot more than the £100k that's been suggested.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Theres been a lot of input and discussion Stefan , if its not a mental illness and its recoqnised as abnormal in society..what exactly is it? We cant just say its criminal behavior.
Its notable somebody mentioned not so long ago 12yr olds were getting married , that was then apparantly deemed acceptable.
A paedophile doesnt work that way , he or she doesnt want a lifelong commitment and doesnt neccessarily desire 12yr olds.
Mr Gadd for instance was convicted of abusing a 9yr old , others have been convicted of abusing much younger children, some even abuse babies.
If its not a serious malfunction or mental illness..then what ?


As a footnote to those who doubted Mr Gadd was a paedophile , here it is in black and white , thanks Von Poop for mentioning Mr Gadd will in fact receive nothing as far as the UK goes , America is reviewing the use of the song as is other countries..why drag the heels?
Surely its a corporate decison , if its withdrawn in the UK why not everywhere.

Hewlett Packard adverts featuring Gary Glitter song dropped

Hewlett Packard has withdrawn UK adverts for its new touch-screen television after "a mistake" led to convicted paedophile Gary Glitter benefiting from royalties

The computer firm used a cover version of Glitter's 1973 song Do You Wanna Touch Me to promote TouchSmart TV and he could have received up to £100,000 in royalties, reports said.
Glitter, whose real name is Paul Francis Gadd, was returned to the UK in August after spending 27 months in a Vietnam jail for abusing two young girls in 2006.
A spokeswoman for HP said: "This is a sensitive issue and HP takes the matter very seriously.
"To reassure you, all relevant advertising has been withdrawn in the UK and the issue is being urgently reviewed in other countries."
The advert features in a marketing campaign being screened across America.
US campaign group Child AbuseWatch.net called for the boycott of all HP products and a public apology.
"The goal was to encourage HP to revise or remove the ad from airplay due to the poor taste and judgment by HP that using the track reflects in the face of our national child sexual abuse crisis," a spokesman for the group said.
Although the song used in the advert was a 1982 cover version sung by Joan Jett, it was originally written by 64-year-old Glitter.
The lyrics include: "Do you wanna touch (yeah) / Do you wanna touch me there, where / There, yeah / Yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah.
"Every girl an' boy / Needs a little joy / All you do is sit an stare / Beggin' on my knees / Baby, won't you please / Run your fingers through my hair."

 

Whoa there, Jake. I've suffered from Manic Depression since I was a teenager. It's only by the Grace of God that I've never needed hospitalised-and I know you weren't suggesting I should be - but you need to be careful. I don't see Paedophilia as a mental illness, more a personality disorder.