Gary Glitter goes into hiding as police assess vigilante risk

[moonwalker5885]

24 August 2008


Police began a risk assessment yesterday after Gary Glitter claimed that he feared being attacked. Officers stressed yesterday that the former glam rocker and convicted paedophile, released last week after nearly three years in a Vietnamese jail for sexual assaults on young girls, would receive no special treatment.


A police spokesman said: "He is not being treated any differently to any other person in these circumstances." The response follows claims that protecting Glitter would be hugely expensive; estimates have varied wildly from £50,000 to £250,000 for a round-the-clock defence from vigilante attacks. He has not so far been put up in a police safe house, a move which is reserved for cases where the danger is proven.


Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, went into hiding yesterday after a media scrum at Heathrow on his return to Britain. Only a handful of officers are thought to have been told of his location, although the 64-year-old is thought to have headed to Cornwall.


The 1970s pop star appeared desperate to keep a low profile yesterday. But last night his legal team suggested that his disappearance will not last for long, and months of court action could be in the pipeline. Glitter has recruited David Corker – the lawyer who represented Michael Barrymore – to help him prevent his name being added to the sex offenders register indefinitely.


Glitter spent seven years on the register after being convicted of storing child pornography on his computer in 1999. He was given a four-month jail sentence.


He claimed yesterday, through his lawyer, that his conviction in Vietnam for abusing two girls, aged 10 and 11, was a "charade" and a show trial during which he didn't get the chance to defend himself. "He never got a fair trial and in due course that will be expanded upon," said Mr Corker.


Further legal appeals could be triggered if the government tries to stop him leaving the country. While he has handed his passport to the police by agreement, it has not been confiscated and in theory Glitter could still leave the country – regardless of Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith's wish that he is "controlled in the UK".


Legal experts warned yesterday that Ms Smith would need to take radical steps to stop him travelling overseas, and risked getting tangled up in a legal test case. Philip Barth, immigration solicitor for City firm Penningtons, said: "Glitter's case raises the issue of whether we as citizens have a legal entitlement to a passport. That [taking it away] is really under the royal prerogative."


The former singer resisted returning to the UK for three days, shuttling between Vietnam, Hong Kong and Thailand before flying to the UK on Friday, apparently keen to leave again as soon as possible.
He has extensive knowledge of Cuba, where a former girlfriend says her seven-year-old son, Gary Junior, is Glitter's child. Yudenia Sosa Martinez told the Daily Mail in Havana: "I heard he was out but I haven't heard from him and I don't expect to. When he lived with me, he was a lovely man. But I have moved on."


Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the probation union Napo, said that, ultimately, there was little that the police could do to protect him: "Here we have someone in the public eye and, in terms of a new identity, you can't really give him one. I would have thought that the police will conclude that the measures they have to put in place will be minimal."

 

[laurenjayne]

he shouldnt have been let out

 

[Datsymay]

I'm more interested to hear what the actualk case was against him. I have a feeling he was set up by the british media.

 

[mjtributepage]

I'm more interested to hear what the actualk case was against him. I have a feeling he was set up by the british media.

he also had childporn in his pc ndidnt he???/but then again there are lot of pple set up these days so i doubt if anyone but glitter will ever know the complete storie

 

[Datsymay]

he also had childporn in his pc ndidnt he???/but then again there are lot of pple set up these days so i doubt if anyone but glitter will ever know the complete storie

Yes, he had child porn on his computer, but I still feel that he was set up.
The philipines and much of south east asia was a den for professionals to have underage sex during their holiday period.
The govts used to turn a blind eye to this child sex trade until there were a spell of attacks on british kids.
Lawyers doctors and judges have travelled quite legally to indulge in child sex and if the truth be known many of them who sit in judgement are guilty.
I do not jknow why Giltter went over there but he would have to have been pretty stupid to have done that when he knew that the british press were after him. That is why I feel that he was set up.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

he was convicted in the Uk of having child porn in his comp. he was accused of something else as well but i think he was aquited not sure if he was convicted or of another allegation though as its years ago the case in veitnam is debatable because of their system.

 

[Datsymay]

he was convicted in the Uk of having child porn in his comp. he was accused of something else as well but i think he was aquited not sure if he was convicted or of another allegation though as its years ago the case in veitnam is debatable because of their system.

I know about the porn on the puter, but the case in vietnam is very suspect to me. I believe he may have been set up by the british media.

 

[Soso Deaf]

THAT MAN IS A PERVERT AND HE DESERVES TO BE MISERABLE FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.

honestly, defending that thing on this forum won't go over well so i suggest that if your ASSumptions are valid, then provide proof instead of just saying it's a set up...u sound like a broken record.

disgusting

 

[Chris Davo]

Datsymay i think its quite sick you are defending this poor excuse of a human being. Of all the places he could go to why go to vietnam? We all know why he went there.

 

[Datsymay]

Datsymay i think its quite sick you are defending this poor excuse of a human being. Of all the places he could go to why go to vietnam? We all know why he went there.

I have a right to my opnion. Incidently, the same argument that you are using is similar to the argument Diane diamond and other haters used when MJ was first charged, even without knowing all the facts. They did not want MJ to have a defence cause he was guilty as sin, even without hearing the facts.

Well, I read many similar argument spewed out from haters about MJ. It does make me think about what the media is capable of.
I said that I believe he may have been set up with the case in Vietnam. I would like to hear more evidence. I am not defending him, I am having an open mind. Yes, being an MJ fan has allowed me to be caucious when condeming someone for acts that the media has a vested interest in.

Lots of cebrities and academics used to travel to that part of the world to have underage sex. It was an open secret. Many of those in the profession,. including lawyers, doctors and politicians were guilty of such activities. It was pressure groups that campaigned for it to stop after that little girl was abducted and raped about 5 years ago.

The british govt stepped in and asked for these foreign govts to curb such child abuse in their countries. The british govt also extended the law so that they can prosecute their own subjects if they are found guilty of such activities abroad.

It is under this new understanding that Glitter was prosecuted. What I would like to know and I am suspicious of is whether the media had anything to do with the allegations. Did they pay the girls to set him up. I really want to know. I find it difficult to believe that he went there with the intend to solicit underage sex, knowing full well that the law had changed here in britain and he could be prosecuted for such.

 

[Datsymay]

omg so b/c someone u admire was accused of something untoward to a child means that U HAVE TO GIVE TH EBENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO EVERYONE? THAT MAN IS A PERVERT AND HE DESERVES TO BE MISERABLE FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.

honestly, defending that thing on this forum won't go over well so i suggest that if your ASSumptions are valid, then provide proof instead of just saying it's a set up...u sound like a broken record.

disgusting

You really need to deal with your personal issues with me in pm and stop using your power as mod to attack me in every post I make. You do this all the time and I am going to make a complaint about you if you don't stop. Every respose you make to me is with total disrespect.

 

[arXter]

I have a right to my opnion. Incidently, the same argument that you are using is similar to the argument Diane diamond and other haters used when MJ was first charged, even without knowing all the facts. They did not want MJ to have a defence cause he was guilty as sin, even without hearing the facts.

except Paul Gadd is legally classified as a sex offender and served time in jail for it.

 

[Datsymay]

except Paul Gadd is legally classified as a sex offender and served time in jail for it.

Yes, If you read my post I have acknowledged that. He was found guilty of downloading child porn and he spent timme in jail for it.

Shortly after that the media frenzy started and it was around the time when MJ was going through his trial too. I am not saying that he isn't guilty of the crime, what I am saying is that I am suspicious because the media was too involved and I would like to look at the evidence first.

Don't forget that the media has approached people in the past to make accusation.

I will never forget the story I read about the media approaching a father of a boy that was friendly with MJ, offering the father money to make accusation against MJ, you remember that one. The father declined because he said that he knew his son wasn't abused and he could never do that to anyone.

How can we trust the media when they have a vested interest in this case?

 

[arXter]

good, then i don't know why you compared it to MJ because this guy actually has a solid link to child abuse (child porn needs to be taken more seriously) and contributing to the cause of little girls and boys being fondled and pictured for the world to see should have been enough to keep him in jail for longer.

 

[Datsymay]

good, then i don't know why you compared it to MJ because this guy actually has a solid link to child abuse (child porn needs to be taken more seriously) and contributing to the cause of little girls and boys being fondled and pictured for the world to see should have been enough to keep him in jail for longer.

I was dealing with the case against him in Vietnam, not the case found on his computer. They are 2 different cases. I said that he may have been set up in vietnam. That doesn't excuse the crime he served time for in Britain.
Also, I did not compare the cases, I compared the media behaviour when they are looking for their next victim, I said they will pay people to set them up, so I need to see or hear the evidence for myself.

 

[arXter]

and again, there's no logic in comparing it to Michael because Gadd has a solid link to child abuse.

 

[Datsymay]

and again, there's no logic in comparing it to Michael because Gadd has a solid link to child abuse.

Please tell me what exact\ly are you accusing me of. Where am I comparing Glitter to Michael?
Let me make it clear. I do not know anything about gary glitter, except that he is a popstar of the 70's. I am not a fan of his.
I said I would rather to hear the evidence for myself before I go condemning him.
If there is any comparison with MJ, it is that I stopped to listen to the evidence before I condemned him. I would like to hear the evidence with this man too. That is my opnion. No I will not judge or condemn anyone without eveidence. Evidence on his computer in britain is not evidence that he raped 2 girls in Vietnam.

 

[arXter]

Please tell me what exact\ly are you accusing me of. Where am I comparing Glitter to Michael?

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1603400&postcount=10

I have a right to my opnion. Incidently, the same argument that you are using is similar to the argument Diane diamond and other haters used when MJ was first charged, even without knowing all the facts. They did not want MJ to have a defence cause he was guilty as sin, even without hearing the facts.

Well, I read many similar argument spewed out from haters about MJ. It does make me think about what the media is capable of.

Yes, being an MJ fan has allowed me to be caucious when condeming someone for acts that the media has a vested interest in.

... like somehow his child sex offender conviction is of no point of significance towards Gadd's multiple allegations?

that is where your comparison seems to dissociate from this disturbing fact that he should've already been condemned and punished further for. instead, they let these child abusers loose.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

but the case in vietnam is very suspect to me. I believe he may have been set up by the british media.

the judicial stsyem in vietnam is very dodgy.that on its own makes the case questionable. theres no reason or evidence to sugggest that some uk media outlet went to vietnam and set him up with a family. its a daft conspiracy theory that has no evidecne to back it up and takes away from other balanced comments you may make.the family wouldnt need the uk media to help them if they wanted to falsley accuse

 

[Datsymay]

the judicial stsyem in vietnam is very dodgy.that on its own makes the case questionable. theres no reason or evidence to sugggest that some uk media outlet went to vietnam and set him up with a family. its a daft conspiracy theory that has no evidecne to back it up and takes away from other balanced comments you may make.the family wouldnt need the uk media to help them if they wanted to falsley accuse

Well, stranger things have happened with the media. They do get around. I said I would like to look at the evidence first. That Is my choice. I am not even going off at anyone here, so I don't know why my opnion should be a problem to others.
I did not say the man is innocdent. I said I would like to hear the evidence. That is my choice.

It is because the judicial system there is corrupt and because the media has a vested interest in this case why I choose to hear the evidence.
I remember when Jill Dandoes accuser was convicted, and my gut feeling was that something was wrong with the case. Years later he is now been released on appeal. There are numerous cases like this where my gut feeling tells me somethinbg smells fishy. I have decided to listen to the evidence in this case before I pass judgement.

 

[Datsymay]

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1603400&postcount=10

​

... like somehow his child sex offender conviction is of no point of significance towards Gadd's multiple allegations?

that is where your comparison seems to dissociate from this disturbing fact that he should've already been condemned and punished further for. instead, they let these child abusers loose.

If you read what I said in context you will see that I was referring to the attitude of people who were willing to judge and condemn MJ BEFORE they evenb looked at the evidence. That was what I was referring to. Diane Dimond hoped that the jury would condemn MJ on soundbites and MJ's appearance not on the evidence. Thank god the fans and the jury looked at the evidence,. I am referring to the case in Vietnam, not the case on the computer for which he has already served his time.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

i know what you mean dats i understand that but there is no evidence interms of a media set up. from what i remember the trial in vietnam lasted a day and was judged by a single judge and a member of the public. of course thats not a normal system so yes i wont judge him on that case because who knows if he did it or not.who knows if the family were awre of who he was and decided to see what they could make out of it. the ruling of that court is hardly credible and after all in all abuse cases its ones word against another alot of the time. but hes been done for child porn in the past and there were previous accusations which i cant remember what came of them. so theres no debate there interms of what he is.maybe only debate over vietnam because of their system but not because the media set him up because theres no evidence of that only evidence of a poorly run legal system

 

[SuperLee]

and again, there's no logic in comparing it to Michael because Gadd has a solid link to child abuse.

There is no logic at all like you have stated!
Gadd was proven to have Images on his PC in here in Britain
Anyone who says he was set up by the Pess are wrong in my eyes.
He was one of the ring leaders in a circle or pedophiles and was paying the childs mothers, aunties etc to abuse their children. Yes something me or you would'nt EVER do but people like Gadd go to areas where they are deprived because they are easier targets and are in need of money etc.....
I suppose Gadd has surved his sentence that the vietnamese court had ruled, but he should of done far more time if not life considering his past convictions.

 

[Datsymay]

i know what you mean dats i understand that but there is no evidence interms of a media set up. from what i remember the trial in vietnam lasted a day and was judged by a single judge and a member of the public. of course thats not a normal system so yes i wont judge him on that case because who knows if he did it or not.who knows if the family were awre of who he was and decided to see what they could make out of it. the ruling of that court is hardly credible and after all in all abuse cases its ones word against another alot of the time. but hes been done for child porn in the past and there were previous accusations which i cant remember what came of them. so theres no debate there interms of what he is.maybe only debate over vietnam because of their system but not because the media set him up because theres no evidence of that only evidence of a poorly run legal system

Yes, absolutely. The man is a douche bag. There are many like him around though, in politics and in high powered jobs and in the entertainment industry. He just got caught.
I can never understand why child porn is still on the internet. Any child could go and download any of those stuff. maybe they need to find these people and lock them up for good.

I once taught a little 9 year old boy who was downloading adult porn. I found out when he told me that he was giving it up for lent. I called his mother in. She was a born again christian and had no idea that that stuff was on the net.
The people who are abusing the children and putting them on the web needs to be caught and severly punished. Anyway, I agree with that the legal system is faulty, but i would never put anything pass the media.,I am not saying that they set him up. I am saying that i just do not know and I just do not trust them.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Yes, absolutely. The man is a douche bag. There are many like him around though, in politics and in high powered jobs and in the entertainment industry. He just got caught.
I can never understand why child porn is still on the internet. Any child could go and download any of those stuff. maybe they need to find these people and lock them up for good.

of course theres been enough case of judges and high up ppl getting done for it. on my local news a vicar has just been sent down for having child porn.

 

[Datsymay]

of course theres been enough case of judges and high up ppl getting done for it. on my local news a vicar has just been sent down for having child porn.

Yes, and for each one they catch there are 100 more that goes through the net, including those who are doing the catching. Rather like them tv evangelists getting caught with their trousers down.

 

[Soso Deaf]

Let me make it clear. I do not know anything about gary glitter, except that he is a popstar of the 70's. I am not a fan of his.
.

y r u defending him w/o knowing the whole story? it's simple, u don't defend and state that u need all the info befor emaking a decision....U STATE THAT UR NEUTRAL UNTIL SOMETHING MAKES U SWING EITHER WAY.

THERE WILL BE NO MORE MENTION OF MICHAEL JACKSON IN THIS THREAD OR IT WILL BE CLOSED AND CLEANED OUT.

You really need to deal with your personal issues with me in pm and stop using your power as mod to attack me in every post I make. You do this all the time and I am going to make a complaint about you if you don't stop. Every respose you make to me is with total disrespect.

there is NO personal issue with the POSTER...it's w/ what is being POSTED. sorry but my 'power' as a mod means absolutely nothing b/c i have no power. i can't just come in and randomly edit and delete and get away with it. everythign done here is done for a reason. if u don't think that, then go elsewhere. we don't rule this board w/ reckless abandon.

posts like this are dangerous. blanket love or or defense of thing su don't understand or mis-type can show a lot about the person. and from what i gather, this is something that's been posted by u a lot. defense of a celebrity and giving them excuses to the lamest or the most dangerous of thigns. this ranks up there with the most dangerous and reprehensible....

I'M NOT TARGETING YOU....TRUST ME ON THAT. no animosity at all...just people need to be responsible for what they post and this is truly mind boggling. that's like defending gacy or dahmer.


it's mind boggling how this man can be innocent of all that he's been accused of. he flees to asian countries b/c some are known for their child sex operations but ironically, in those same countries, peophiles are banned. so they'll provide the service but once u get caught, ur'e no longer a welcome customer.

 

[Bee.]

THAT MAN IS A PERVERT AND HE DESERVES TO BE MISERABLE FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.

honestly, defending that thing on this forum won't go over well so i suggest that if your ASSumptions are valid, then provide proof instead of just saying it's a set up...u sound like a broken record.

disgusting

*Clapping hard* I was stunned that Dats would saying something like that. Then again, I read a lot of things by the poster that gave me the creeps.

I have a feeling he was set up by the british media.

How the eff can they set him up if he had child porn on his computer? They just put it on there for him to look at? If they did, they would be convicted of child porn as well. Just because someone was accused of abuse or any crime for that matter, does not always mean that they were set up. The man was looking at child porn. That shows that the man is a pedophile and is disgusting. It shows that the man is a sicko and should have stayed in jail longer. The media is full of crap, duh, but at times, people, whether they are famous or not, do crimes and should be punished for it. The media heard about it and reported the news. This man was not hated in the media like MJ was and the media had no agenda to destroy him. So, the logic of the media setting him up is laughable. And since when it was ok to defend child abusers and sickos that shouldn't be anywhere near children?

 

[Bee.]

How can we trust the media when they have a vested interest in this case?

This is not about trusting the media. This is about the fact that this guy has issues with children. The man was convicted for possessing child porn. That is a FEDERAL CRIME. The media reported that. That is all they did. The man was accused and convicted of molesting two children. He spent time in jail. That means that he has a criminal record and is a convicted felon and when he was released, I believed that he was registered as a sex offender. The media just reported the news. On a sidenote: just because MJ was falsely accused of child abuse, does not mean that every celebrity that is accused of a crime, from rape, to molestation to murder was/is falsely accused. So, let's take MJ out of this. You tried to do this nonsense over at the R. Kelly thread and forgetting the parts that Kels had child porn in his house, married an underage girl and had a three some with two underage girls.

 

[Soso Deaf]

^5

sorry datsy, but how is glitter a target? he put himself in harm's way by being a pedophile and getting caught.....MULTIPLE TIMES.

either laws r too hard on pedophiles or too easy...sorry but i prefer the former than the latter....

and on another note, d....if u had an issue w/ me, u should've taken ur own advice and addressed it in a pm....so from now on, i'd appreciate u doing that instead of putting it on blast