GRcade

I'd never realised that he still protested his innocence until the other day, and he and his solicitor are adamant he wasn't allowed to put up a defence when on trial in Vietnam, which wouldn't be the first time there'd been a miscarriage of justice in a Vietnam court?

I know he was found guilty for the kiddy pics over here, but it almost seems as though the police can find child porn on anyone's PC these days if they're looking hard enough.

I obviously don't know if he's guilty or not, but if he was set-up like he claims then it really is terrible, the guy's spent three years in jail only to come back here, where he'll no doubt be victim to vigilantism for the next few years.

What d'you reckon guilty as charged?

Well given the kiddy pics, and then the fact that he fled the country to the peado capital of the world, I reckon he probably did it.

Yeah he's probably guilty.

Shadow wrote:I'd never realised that he still protested his innocence until the other day, and he and his solicitor are adamant he wasn't allowed to put up a defence when on trial in Vietnam, which wouldn't be the first time there'd been a miscarriage of justice in a Vietnam court?

I know he was found guilty for the kiddy pics over here, but it almost seems as though the police can find child porn on anyone's PC these days if they're looking hard enough.

I obviously don't know if he's guilty or not, but if he was set-up like he claims then it really is terrible, the guy's spent three years in jail only to come back here, where he'll no doubt be victim to vigilantism for the next few years.

What d'you reckon guilty as charged?

really?

Im sure he admitted to sharing his bed with 13 year olds, i know this itself isnt an offence, but come on, added to everything else he was accused of, it paints a larger picture!

Didnt he say they were "scared" so he let them sleep with him? sounds a bit jacko to me.

FatDaz wrote:Im sure he admitted to sharing his bed with 13 year olds, i know this itself isnt an offence, but come on, added to everything else he was accused of, it paints a larger picture!

Didnt he say they were "scared" so he let them sleep with him? sounds a bit jacko to me.

Who is innocent.

Protest Singer wrote:

FatDaz wrote:Im sure he admitted to sharing his bed with 13 year olds, i know this itself isnt an offence, but come on, added to everything else he was accused of, it paints a larger picture!

Didnt he say they were "scared" so he let them sleep with him? sounds a bit jacko to me.

Who is innocent.

straight after the trial several members of the jury admitted he probably was guilty. He may have been found innocent, but that was more down the accuser being from a scum bag family and shooting himself in the foot by being after the money.

I always find it amusing that OJ was found not guilty in criminal court yet guilty in civil court (burden of proof is slightly less, but shows how close he was to being found guilty) similar with jacko i imagine.

Good thread.

I can't wait for "What if Hitler didn't commit mass genocide?".

FatDaz wrote:

Protest Singer wrote:

FatDaz wrote:Im sure he admitted to sharing his bed with 13 year olds, i know this itself isnt an offence, but come on, added to everything else he was accused of, it paints a larger picture!

Didnt he say they were "scared" so he let them sleep with him? sounds a bit jacko to me.

Who is innocent.

straight after the trial several members of the jury admitted he probably was guilty. He may have been found innocent, but that was more down the accuser being from a scum bag family and shooting himself in the foot by being after the money.

I always find it amusing that OJ was found not guilty in criminal court yet guilty in civil court (burden of proof is slightly less, but shows how close he was to being found guilty) similar with jacko i imagine.

Yeah, I think it is accepted that many members of the Jackson jury felt that he was actually gulity of various inappropriate acts with youngsters but where powerless to convict as the wrong charges has actually been put before them by the prosecution.

Yeah, I am probably as convinced as the next man of Jackson's guilt BUT the fact remains that in the eyes of the law he was/is innocent. Yep, probably a miscarriage of justice so who is to say that this is not the case with Glitter?

Shadow wrote:I'd never realised that he still protested his innocence until the other day, and he and his solicitor are adamant he wasn't allowed to put up a defence when on trial in Vietnam, which wouldn't be the first time there'd been a miscarriage of justice in a Vietnam court?

I know he was found guilty for the kiddy pics over here, but it almost seems as though the police can find child porn on anyone's PC these days if they're looking hard enough.

I obviously don't know if he's guilty or not, but if he was set-up like he claims then it really is terrible, the guy's spent three years in jail only to come back here, where he'll no doubt be victim to vigilantism for the next few years.

What d'you reckon guilty as charged?

Well he pleaded guilty:

Pop star Gary Glitter has been jailed for four months after admitting to a collection of 4,000 hardcore photographs of children being abused.

The admission comes just hours after the rock idol was cleared of eight counts of sexually assaulting a teenage fan nearly 20 years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/517604.stm

The teenage fan was 14.

The man loves young girls. End of.

Fatal Exception wrote:

Shadow wrote:I'd never realised that he still protested his innocence until the other day, and he and his solicitor are adamant he wasn't allowed to put up a defence when on trial in Vietnam, which wouldn't be the first time there'd been a miscarriage of justice in a Vietnam court?

I know he was found guilty for the kiddy pics over here, but it almost seems as though the police can find child porn on anyone's PC these days if they're looking hard enough.

I obviously don't know if he's guilty or not, but if he was set-up like he claims then it really is terrible, the guy's spent three years in jail only to come back here, where he'll no doubt be victim to vigilantism for the next few years.

What d'you reckon guilty as charged?

Well he pleaded guilty:

Pop star Gary Glitter has been jailed for four months after admitting to a collection of 4,000 hardcore photographs of children being abused.

The admission comes just hours after the rock idol was cleared of eight counts of sexually assaulting a teenage fan nearly 20 years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/517604.stm

The teenage fan was 14.

The man loves young girls. End of.

Somehow it doesn't sound so bad when you put it like that.

While I'll admit the media make paedo's out to be more monstrous than they actually are, I wont go out of my way to defend them. Young girls may sometimes be willing but it's still abuse of power and wrong.

If you want to see how scary real paedos are, look at anontalk:

http://www.anontalk.com/topic/10506

Seriously. WTF.

I really don't see that it matters. His career is ruined and we've got plenty more paedophiles in the UK, so why are we giving this guy loads of attention?

facepalm if I could

FishFingers wrote:I really don't see that it matters. His career is ruined and we've got plenty more paedophiles in the UK, so why are we giving this guy loads of attention?

Fixed...get with it FF

Even if he is innocent, he's still very creepy. So people are always going to argue.

I do wonder this though - had he been convicted in a court in the United Kingdom then would this topic have even been started?

FishFingers wrote:I do wonder this though - had he been convicted in a court in the United Kingdom then would this topic have even been started?

Hmmm, well it is a quiet night so I would say yes.

FishFingers wrote:I do wonder this though - had he been convicted in a court in the United Kingdom then would this topic have even been started?

No, but in UK court the accused are allowed to put forward some sort of defence, in Vietnam Glitter was denied such privileges. So essentially he was doomed to jail as soon has he was accused.

I know it's highly likely he is guilty, but then we only hear what the media wants us to hear. It's a lot more interesting for us to hear about someone who we know likes kiddy porn has been off on the other side of the world touching kids, as opposed to the other side of the story which is that someone we know likes kiddy porn is on the other side of the world getting an unfair trial. One of them will sell papers, the other will not.

I'm not saying he didn't do it, but everyone deserves a fair trial, if he didn't get one, then it just poses the question I asked in the OP - What if he is innocent?

Wanna be in my gang?












Again.

Don't you mean:






You wanna be in my gang-bang?