U.K. Bodyguard Firms Refuse to Protect Child Molester Gary Glitter

G

Global Security News

Longterm Registered User
Gary Glitter, the convicted child molester and music has-been has been rebuffed in his efforts to find a bodyguard firm in the United Kingdom willing to protect him. Glitter, who was convicted of a variety of sexual offenses against underage girls in Vietnam, was deported to the U.K. despite several attempts on his part [...]

More...
 
Whilst what this man has been convicted off disgusts me, my question is, at what point do you change from being a professional to being judgemental?

Would you refuse to protect a politician because you didn't like his politics, a musician because you didnt like his music, a senior military official because he has previously sent people to war to die, a FCO official who is working with 'the other side' in an attempt to co-ordinate peace, but you dont like/agree/accept the other side??? yada yada yada...

I'm not being antagonistic, nor judgemental, nor do any of you actually have to answer this, it's just seeing this article raised the question in my mind.

I guess it is all relative, as you have to be there in the position to be able to answer the question.
 
I for one would look after him it is the job we get paid to do that simple
Do not get me wrong just like the next person i am not to happy about what he did but we get paid to look after folk does not matter about life style or politics it is our trade

Max
 
Glitter

Read in the 'paper he was being looked after by a Russian outfit here in London. Wonder who they are and whether they are all fully SIA compliant......
 
blondie07 said:
Whilst what this man has been convicted off disgusts me, my question is, at what point do you change from being a professional to being judgemental?

Would you refuse to protect a politician because you didn't like his politics, a musician because you didnt like his music, a senior military official because he has previously sent people to war to die, a FCO official who is working with 'the other side' in an attempt to co-ordinate peace, but you dont like/agree/accept the other side??? yada yada yada...

I'm not being antagonistic, nor judgemental, nor do any of you actually have to answer this, it's just seeing this article raised the question in my mind.

I guess it is all relative, as you have to be there in the position to be able to answer the question.
Click to expand...

This is a good question.

I for one do not condone Gliter's actions; maybe there is (I'm sure on the surface there is) an argument that you can not compare a politician or musician with a convicted pedophile; but like you say at what point does judgment take over?

I for one have nothing but hatered and anger for Tony Blair for reasons I will not go into, but yes, I would take money to provide him with a protective service. Would I do likewise fot Glitter? No, probably not.

Why? (and this is probably the reason the UK firms have turned him down) because of what he has been convicted of doing, the level of public hatered of him and people like him would have nothing but an adverse effect on the business.

Hypothetically, The likes of Control Risks or ArmorGroup might be huge strong reputable firms, but can you imagine the the bad publicity if they took such a contract? A conviction such as this makes everyone by association percieved to be equally bad.

Personnaly I say Well done all those companies who turned him down, it goes to enforce public opinion of him and the fact we don't want him here.

As for the Russian company; thats their choice; but I would be interested to see as said if they are complying with the Security Act!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top