Gary Glitter wants off the sex offenders list

[izzix]

Take me off Sex Offender Registry, says Gary Glitter... and taxpayers will fund his appeal

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:13 PM on 21st November 2008

Paedophile: Gary Glitter is to appeal against a court order requiring him to notify police if he intends to travel abroad

Paedophile: Gary Glitter is to appeal against a court order requiring him to tell police if he intends to travel abroad

Taxpayers face a five-figure bill for an appeal by Gary Glitter against the decision to place him on the Sex Offender Register.

At a two-day court hearing, Glitter's lawyers will attempt to overturn an order for him to notify police of his whereabouts.

The former pop star - real name Paul Gadd - was served with the order in August after returning to the UK from Vietnam where he served almost three years in prison for sex crimes involving two young girls.

Glitter, currently in hiding in Kent, was not present yesterday at Harrow Crown Court, in North-West London, where an appeal date was set for February 19 to 20. Court and legal costs for the hearing are expected to total more than £10,000.

At an earlier hearing on August 22 at nearby Uxbridge Magistrates' Court, Glitter was required to register as a sex offender.

Under the court order, he must supply police with his name, address, date of birth and National Insurance number. If he spends seven days or more away from home, he must tell them where.

He must also tell police if he intends to go abroad for more than three days, give at least 24 hours' notice and provide an itinerary.

Glitter - who served two months in jail in 1999 for possessing child pornography - believes he should not be subject to the restrictions and could claim they are a breach of his human rights.

[izzix]

A few months ago we ran a blog asking if it was OK to listen to Gary Glitter? Owen Adams made the case that songs can often be bigger than the singer, and that judging music on an artist's moral standing would always lead to confusion and hypocrisy.

It's worth bringing up again after news today that the Cavern Club in Liverpool had agreed to chip off Gary Glitter's name from the wall of fame.

Club owner Bill Heckle believes removing Glitter's name is akin to Stalinist revisionism, and he may have a point.

The wall is simply a record of bands who've played at the Cavern – to remove Glitter from the equation denies history while serving no useful purpose.

We can all agree that child abuse is wrong, but does that mean that the perpetrators should be written out of history? Does such behaviour really render their artistic achievements invalid? Would other memorials be treated in this way?

Rock'n'roll is a particularly murky area, with so much bad behaviour that you'd be hard-pressed to build a wall at all if you started bringing character into the equation. After all, the wonderful (if inconsistent) artist whose name has now replaced Glitter is Pete Wylie – himself found guilty in the past of stalking an ex-girlfriend with aggressive phone calls. Obviously, this a very different crime, but it does at least pose the question "Where do you draw the line?" Should Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis also be removed from the history books? My feeling is that rather than weighing up a list of crimes, we should separate the art from the artist.

But what do you think – is it right that the Cavern Club has removed Glitter's name from the wall?

[beer monkey]

Saucy git...he wants me to cough up some cash for the appeal..

[Bandung_Dero]

Pricks like these are very short on reality:-

Glitter - who served two months in jail in 1999 for possessing child pornography - believes he should not be subject to the restrictions and could claim they are a breach of his human rights.

What about the rights of the kids he molests? Him. If he or anyone like him were to touch any of mine I would make it my life's work to castrate the bactard!

[jackspratt]

A few months ago we ran a blog asking if it was OK to listen to Gary Glitter? Owen Adams made the case that songs can often be bigger than the singer, and that judging music on an artist's moral standing would always lead to confusion and hypocrisy.

It's worth bringing up again after news today that the Cavern Club in Liverpool had agreed to chip off Gary Glitter's name from the wall of fame.

Club owner Bill Heckle believes removing Glitter's name is akin to Stalinist revisionism, and he may have a point.

The wall is simply a record of bands who've played at the Cavern – to remove Glitter from the equation denies history while serving no useful purpose.

We can all agree that child abuse is wrong, but does that mean that the perpetrators should be written out of history? Does such behaviour really render their artistic achievements invalid? Would other memorials be treated in this way?

Rock'n'roll is a particularly murky area, with so much bad behaviour that you'd be hard-pressed to build a wall at all if you started bringing character into the equation. After all, the wonderful (if inconsistent) artist whose name has now replaced Glitter is Pete Wylie – himself found guilty in the past of stalking an ex-girlfriend with aggressive phone calls. Obviously, this a very different crime, but it does at least pose the question "Where do you draw the line?" Should Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis also be removed from the history books? My feeling is that rather than weighing up a list of crimes, we should separate the art from the artist.

But what do you think – is it right that the Cavern Club has removed Glitter's name from the wall?

C'mon izzy - be a good lad now.

You know how to put articles in quotes, and you are also aware of the requirement to attribute when you post on the forum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicbl ... ry-glitter

[Aardvark]

At the end of his name just add " PAEDOPHILE " a part of HIS history

[laphanphon]

my life's work to castrate the bactard

just for starters.............

add " PAEDOPHILE " a part of HIS hi

now there's a good idea, and no matter what the cost, keep him on the list, guess he is getting a bit horny, no kids lately.............good, one less life ruined. they could pass a law, if appeal is lost, he has to pay cost of legal fees.

[bigwavedave]

Pricks like these are very short on reality:-

Glitter - who served two months in jail in 1999 for possessing child pornography - believes he should not be subject to the restrictions and could claim they are a breach of his human rights.

What about the rights of the kids he molests? Him. If he or anyone like him were to touch any of mine I would make it my life's work to castrate the bactard!

Sorry to have to say but hes going to get off this very easily!!! I know its a very bad thing, but this recent saga has been driven by emotions, and the people who rushed to get him on the register to get all that good publicity and be the "good guys" here have not done any child any good here..... Thay have (as usual) just improved their own characters....

He has not been found guilty of molesting children BD !!! You know and I know what he is but in law and this is where it matters he has been found guilty of having child porn photo's on his computer!!! Thats it!!! he served his punishment.. if law really would allow retrospective punishment then bill wyman elvis jerry lee lewis to name probably a minute percentage would all be on the child sex offenders register!!! Is a child of 8 a child the same as a child of 15??? As the law of the land see it that is??

Recently hes been all the rage with the people who want to show how much they want to protect children etc etc.. And i appplaud their motives but there are some very serious questions here that should have been asked before making this situation where we the taxpayer will be paying hand over fist to defend these decisions recently made!!

Does his offence and subsequently serving his punishment 10 years ago qualify him to be on the child sex register, im pretty sure it doesnt but i may be wrong.. i think the register is recent and to go on it you have to commit an offence after its inception?? I hope im wrong..

Is the law in vietnam/cambodia recognised in Uk as a proper , fair , un-corrupt justice system?? I suspect not, and does his crime there though pretty "cloudy" and dubious (the result that is, we all know he did it) actually have any bearing on the register in uk??? he can easily get off if this is the case... the child and her parents say hes innocent!!!! we all know why but thats heresay!!! He can simply say he had a mis trial in a country that is not seen as a very just place!!! And heres the Affidavit's from the familly and the child to prove i never did it... Think about this for a minute, Michael jackson has done exactly the same thing and enjoys his freedom, he paid them off!!!

So i hope im wrong and the fekker gets what he deserves but i suspect money will talk here and a lot of egg on a lot of faces... e.g. the home secretary saying she is tough on child sex offenders etc etc in reallity she never thought this out before juping on the superhero status bandwaggon did she??

[Bandung_Dero]

Ah!

He has not been found guilty of molesting children BD !!! -----------

Vietnam releases Gary Glitter from prison
British glam rocker Gary Glitter was refused entry into Thailand, officials said Wednesday, a day after the convicted child molester was freed by Vietnam following nearly three years in prison.

Just one of ---- loads of hits after a quick google search! He was found guilty and surly any smart thinking jury would see through a family 'forced' to alter their testemony for one reason or another. Anyway if it were me on the jury he wouldn't have the desire to wink again let alone visit this region again.

[Gozzo]

Taxpayers face a five-figure bill for an appeal by Gary Glitter against the decision to place him on the Sex Offender Register.

Why do taxpayers have to pay for his appeal?

Surely he still has some of his fortune left. Probably receiving proceeds from record sales to this day !!

How can a sick puppy like that qualify for public funding??

There is something wrong with the world if this is happening.

[bigwavedave]

He has millions left!! He is taking the british system to court he will be paying but we (the taxpayer) have to defend it..if he wins then i think the taxpayer pays everything. We have to pay to defend this case he pays to pursue it...

[jackspratt]

Ah!

He has not been found guilty of molesting children BD !!! -----------

Vietnam releases Gary Glitter from prison
British glam rocker Gary Glitter was refused entry into Thailand, officials said Wednesday, a day after the convicted child molester was freed by Vietnam following nearly three years in prison.

Just one of ---- loads of hits after a quick google search! He was found guilty and surly any smart thinking jury would see through a family 'forced' to alter their testemony for one reason or another. Anyway if it were me on the jury he wouldn't have the desire to wink again let alone visit this region again.

BD I am not sure (in fact I would be very surprised) if Vietnam has a jury system for criminal trials.

That being the case, such trials in Vietnam (along with Thailand and many other countries) would be subject to "local influences" - be they positive or negative.

[aznyron]

castration sounds like a alternative way this way he can continue playing his music

[Bandung_Dero]

------------------

BD I am not sure (in fact I would be very surprised) if Vietnam has a jury system for criminal trials.

That being the case, such trials in Vietnam (along with Thailand and many other countries) would be subject to "local influences" - be they positive or negative.

I wasn't refering to the Vietnam justice system. As far as I'm concerned that's done and dusted. ---- GUILTY AS CHARGED ----

My statement refers to the British system where if his appeal gets to jury trial and he tries to use the "The Vietnam family has withdrawn their accusations" testimony any smart juror should smell a rat!

[bigwavedave]

There were smart jurers in the OJ trial, guilty as charged!!! thats the problem with all of this, the man is a danger to children, he needs effing castrating but the system seems to me unable to stop him.... He cannot get a fair trial by jury, think about it, he is world famous his crimes are world famous... if his crime in vietnam is inadmissable then he will get off a jury trial, its that simple... his "alleged" shall we say crime in vietnam has no bearing on the uk sex register, so what has he done to be put on it??

i tell you now a good lawyer will run circles around any cheap charlie lawyer the british government can afford or is willing to pay for!!!! it sucks!!!

[BobHelm]

On the positive side, what country is actually going to grant him a visa to allow him to visit them. No country even has to give a reason for the non granting of a visa. I think (hope) his activities will be severely curtailed because of all the publicity whether he is on the register or not...

[wazza]

Mnay countries now have legislation that allows offences committed overseas to be included in their domestic portfolio , thus the Uk sex offenders listing.

Australia, has the same, in fact a paedophile can leave aust for ..... , the immigration allow him to fly out, On arrival @ ..... he is rejected by the local authorities ( for warned by Oz immigration ) and turned around in immigration and back on the same plane.

in GG case, a new passport would assist a bit i imagine, but once on the immigration lists as a convicted child molester or whatever , makes it harder.

Sure once he is a poorer country, money talks, but he has to get out of UK, ( easy , as they dont check ur passports and swipe them on departure )

[izzix]

i have to correct you on this ,in departures at Heathrow you now see police going round checking mens passports ,this is done by him phoning his mate at the PNC and checking to see if the person has restricted travel.its all a bit haphazard at the moment but no doubt they are working on a database for everybody , as the UK slides into a police state .

[wazza]

Just went through Heathrow 2 weeks ago and no scanning / swiping of passports done, check that that ur boarding pass is valid for that day and normal security checks on baggage.

The immigration desk that u pass thru , only views ur passport, not records it. They look at ur picture only.

As far as the UK immigration is concerned, im still in the UK, on my 3 months entry visa on arrival.

[westerby]

Just went through Heathrow 2 weeks ago and no scanning / swiping of passports done, check that that ur boarding pass is valid for that day and normal security checks on baggage.
The immigration desk that u pass thru , only views ur passport, not records it. They look at ur picture only.

Same for me a couple of nights ago.

As far as the UK immigration is concerned, im still in the UK, on my 3 months entry visa on arrival.

Doh - that's another Asylum Seeker the Border Agency have mislaid!