On Sep 29, 7:29*pm, "mert1639" wrote:
"Webmanager_CritEst" wrote in message

...
On Sep 29, 6:52 pm, "mert1639" wrote:



"Webmanager_CritEst" wrote in message

....

Page last updated at 16:15 GMT, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:15 UK

Glitter banned from foreign trip

Gary Glitter has been banned from travelling abroad

Paedophile and former pop star Gary Glitter has been banned from
travelling to Spain via France.

Because Glitter - whose real name is Paul Gadd - is on the sex
offenders register, he had to tell authorities of his travel plans
seven days in advance.

Ashford magistrates granted an order requested by Kent Police last
Thursday stopping Glitter from travelling.

The 64-year-old has the right to appeal, and the ban applies only to
those two countries.

Glitter did not attend last Thursday's hearing but was represented by
London-based Corker Binning Solicitors.

A Kent Police spokeswoman said: "Kent Police will do everything
necessary to protect children in this country, or abroad."

But she added they would not discuss individual cases or the possible
whereabouts of Glitter.

Travel ban

A Foreign Travel Order stops someone from leaving the country.

To obtain one, police have to apply to the courts and prove an
individual is at risk of reoffending.

The order can last for up to six months but the person can keep their
passport during that time.

Glitter returned to the UK in August after spending 27 months in a
Vietnamese jail for abusing two girls.

He was denied entry to Hong Kong and to Thailand after he refused to
return to Britain following his deportation.

The Chinese authorities sent him back to Bangkok.

Any offender who has a long history of sexual abuse should be
considered a risk and all children wherever they live must be
protected

Dr Zoe Hilton
NSPCC policy advisor

Thai authorities then refused to let him stay despite Glitter pleading
for medical treatment, saying he was having a heart attack.

He eventually boarded a flight to the UK, returning last month.

He has informed police of the address at which he is living, but the
location has been kept secret.

Dr Zoe Hilton, a policy adviser to child protection charity NSPCC,
said "Kent Police should be congratulated for taking swift action to
prevent Gary Glitter from travelling abroad but we must ensure he
continues to be blocked from travelling in the future."

She said the government needs to ensure measures are in place which
would stop Glitter and other sex offenders from travelling abroad.

Dr Hilton said: "Any offender who has a long history of sexual abuse
should be considered a risk and all children wherever they live must
be protected."

Glitter was previously on the sex offenders register for seven years,
after he was jailed in the UK for four months in 1999 for possessing
images of child abuse.

He became famous as a glam rock star in the 1970s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7642234.stm

***

"She said the government needs to ensure measures are in place which
would stop Glitter and other sex offenders from travelling abroad."

And what's wrong with that?
Well, nearly everything that could be.

To you, someone who seems not to belive that children can be abused.

Of course minors can be treated improperly (so can adults) - they are
all the time.

What has that got to do with free adults travelling abroad?

WM

On Sep 29, 10:16*pm, Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:10*pm, Palindrome wrote:





Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
On Sep 29, 7:07 pm, "Ian" wrote:
"Webmanager_CritEst" wrote in message

.... Gary Glitter banned from travelling

Convicted paedophile Gary Glitter has been banned from travelling to
France and Spain under an order granted by magistrates.
Kent Police were granted the order at Ashford Magistrates' Court last
Thursday.
Shame the Police don't do that to all paedophiles.

I presume you mean someone who has carried out a sexual offence on a
minor.

Why would restricting them all help in any way?

I can see the argument for keeping them in the UK, where they cannot
harm a child in a land far across the sea.

I can see the argument for encouraging them to go to some land far
across the sea, where they cannot harm a child here in the UK.

Of course the British are famed for their love of a compromise, so many
may prefer somewhere between these two extremes.

--
Sue

[I can see the argument for keeping them in the UK, where they cannot
harm a child in a land far across the sea.]

To 'harm' one here?

What is the loss-gain analysis?

[I can see the argument for encouraging them to go to some land far
across the sea, where they cannot harm a child here in the UK.]

How Benthamic.

[Of course the British are famed for their love of a compromise, so
many
may prefer somewhere between these two extremes. ]

Ah, Jersey.

WM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The British Compromise......does not exist...having worked in British
secondary schools, those kids had never heard of 'compromise' or even
'censorship'..... Was a forgein notion to them.

What I find leaves a bad taste in the mouth, is that that the UK 'SOR'
just is a 'catch all'. 'SOR equals 'he picked a child up and sexual
abused him/her -that is what everyone thinks' (trying not to be
graphic).

So now for Christmas, I can't go on a package holiday to Tenerife?

As someone has said, the law is an ass...
TC

"Mad Cliffy's Legs Don't Work" wrote in
message
...
"A Foreign Travel Order stops someone from leaving the country.

To obtain one, police have to apply to the courts and prove an
individual is at risk of reoffending."

So the police managed to provide to the magistrates the required
proof, did they?


What does proof have to do with a magistrates' court?

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:30:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

The British Compromise......does not exist...having worked in British
secondary schools, those kids had never heard of 'compromise' or even
'censorship'..... Was a forgein notion to them.

What I find leaves a bad taste in the mouth, is that that the UK 'SOR'
just is a 'catch all'. 'SOR equals 'he picked a child up and sexual
abused him/her -that is what everyone thinks' (trying not to be
graphic).

So now for Christmas, I can't go on a package holiday to Tenerife?

Only if you are travelling with Gary Glitter.

--
Dissenter

Palindrome wrote:

I can see the argument for keeping them in the UK, where they cannot
harm a child in a land far across the sea.

I can see the argument for encouraging them to go to some land far
across the sea, where they cannot harm a child here in the UK.

Of course the British are famed for their love of a compromise, so many
may prefer somewhere between these two extremes.

Given that the "land across the sea" he apparently wants to go to is
France wouldn't the "compromise" be to stick him in the middle of the
English Channel. (In a boat if you are feeling charitable...)