I'm not sure what to think about Gary Glitter getting his come-uppance--16 years in the pokey--after all these years. Is it an excessive sentence, bearing in mind that with our way out of touch with reality judicial system, Jihadi John would probably get less if they catch him?
It seems odd to me that Glitter can get 16 years, and a typical life sentence in the UK is 12 years, less for good behaviour. In my neck of the woods recently, a woman was fined £50 for microwaving a cat, while a 75-year-old chap was fined £100 and given a suspended sentence for feeding pigeons.
While I'm not excusing him--my opinion is that with paedophiles, like homophobes and racists, the only good one is a dead one--Glitter's crimes were committed between 1975 and 1980, and I wouldn't doubt that nothing would have come of this had it not been for so many victims, real and invented, wanting to hop on to the Jimmy Savile bandwagon. I don't believe for one minute the trauma some of these victims claim they have gone through. If these men did these things, and if people knew that they were doing then--including it would appear Margaret Thatcher in Savile's case--then why have they all waited until now to come out of the woodwork? Money, perhaps?
Also, why aren't the authorities asking why these victims never came forward. The statute of limitation in the UK for social media crimes--malicious communication on Twitter, Facebook and via e-mail, etc--is twelve months, after which no one can do a thing, legally, to whomever has maliciously communicated. In some instances it's only six months. With some of these sex cases, the incidents go back as far as fifty years. Who can remember what happened that long ago, and in such minute detail? And isn't it odd that almost all of those who have been nabbed are now in their twilight years? Is there ever going to be any likelihood, for instance, of any A-lister currently riding the crest of a wave being collared? Somehow I doubt it.
Even so, the mind only boggles who will be next.