free domain HQ
Gary Glitter - enforced repatriation ?
I can quite understand why GG might be resisting repatriation to the UK. He would be subject to tighter restrictions here than in many other jurisdictions. If he returned, I agree this would be in the best interests of potential victims. Does anyone see a bad side to enforced repatriation, though ? In this particular case it's easy to support the move but what of the general principle that the UK govt can require its citizens abroad to return to this country ? If we stand back from the scummy awfulness of the GG case, isn't this principle a tad disturbing ? Will G : I've followed the reference and accept the correction - thanks - but I am still concerned in principle that agents of the British govt are trying to persuade GG to return. Isn't this exceptional intervention in the affairs of a UK citizen overseas ? Whether another country will accept him is hardly the business of the British govt unless he seeks its help. He can remain in a Thai detention centre. I can see why the British govt wants to get him back, and I think this would be the best outcome for potential victims. The problem I have is that this is exceptional intervention for which I can see no legal basis. What legal entitlement does the Home Secretary have to pay British police officers to fly to Thailand to persuade GG to do what he has no legal obligation to do, namely return to this country ? Put the point like this : It's not the kind of thing I'm happy for the British govt to do as a rule, however much we may be inclined to make an exception in GG's case.
Public Comments
- Yes it is can they do that even if you did nothing wrong?
- It's not enfoced repatriation. UK government isn't requiring him to come back - he's merely being kicked out of Thailand. He could quite legally go anywhere in the world he wanted (except the place he's just been kicked out of, of course) From BBC - "Our correspondent said Glitter could theoretically travel to another country, but was unlikely to find one that would accept him given all the negative publicity he had received. "
- My understanding and I could have got this wrong is that once GG returns to Great Britain his passport will be taken and never reissued. I don't know if this law has been enacted in GB but in Australia upon his return he would be charged with child sex tourism offences. It is highly unlikely that another country will take him in given his predilections for small children. By default he will have to return to his country of origin who cannot refuse him entry. One back in GB he will be tracked for the rest of his life, where he lives, works, socialises etc. We have a similar system in place in Australia, its comforting to know that someone is watching them.
