Obviously someone got a good payday on the glitter story.
I believe this was a complete set up in the hostel.
I do hope the interrogation of Gadds phone proves so.
His crime here is naivety I believe he cannot be that stupid surely?

He would of probably only been allowed a phone phone. No Internet or camera facilities.

I wish there was a video leak of that day. If he handed a smartphone he should of said "Thanks but no thanks" and treat everyone with contempt. He could of have been out that hostel in a few more weeks.

If he mentioned the dark web even if it was a joke that shows even more naivety. When lags get on they do gossip and will share hints and tips.

I have no idea if he has to serve the the rest of sentence in prison from now on, or will he be out under licence again with stricter conditions?

They all should of had burner phones with some top-up. That goes for the staff also it could of been a 'Gotcha' moment. He should of focused keeping his nose clean and done any course he was offered inside.

I hate all this digital stuff in today's world.

If Netflix,ITV and Amazon are making documentaries will they all be saying the same thing with the same interviewees? Unless they interview the band Girlschool who he toured with briefly in 80's I believe. However they wouldn't of known about him either. I did read he was extremely careful whom he took backstage because he pretty much bald even in the 1970's.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/streaming-ser...umentaries-zrfx5fjnr


www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176804...ontent.html#comments

Scenario.
Glitter was setup
Inmate or in mates in the hostel would of been of mixed crimes.
They see a way of making big buck and told glitter that the onion was something he never understood (never heard of it is it a drug dealer thing ? )
Heidi was looking for the onion whatever they told him.it was?
Like firefox mentioned.

He has committed no crime he may of breached lincense conditions of handling a smart phone.

Thoughts?

'M' wrote:
Obviously someone got a good payday on the glitter story.
I believe this was a complete set up in the hostel.
I do hope the interrogation of Gadds phone proves so.
His crime here is naivety I believe he cannot be that stupid surely?

He would of probably only been allowed a phone phone. No Internet or camera facilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was sting operation however if he was grassed up by a lag what was in it for him besides money.

He shouldn't of touched any device or even ask about search engines if he did. That was how he got done the first time with a dodgy laptop.

Every now and I do go on Pistonheads forum and there always good stuff especially about repairing older cars. However there is threads about everything and anything on there.

Yes, tech guys are nosey.

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=476445

These days online access is vital, not a luxury. I reckon Glitter was naive. As usual it is the more cunning people wanting to make money by using the law to break the law.

I don't know the circumstances but surely he should of waited to use the Internet after he got out properly or taken workshops where he would be monitored.

If he was stitched up then then needs to be an investigation and if the papers lied then there is a libel case.

Maybe Glitter is just an idiot, he was very lucky to have stardom based on style and a lot of theatrics.

He was just OK vocally but did have some fun songs but also a lot of dirges.

The scary thing is thousands of people do live near a sex offender without knowing they do or bump in to them in supermarkets. They don't wear badges.

The editors of the Red Tops probably have some as employees without knowing. I remember there was one living near as a kid he groomed one of my sisters, he was a regular in my parents pub. My sister gave out a blood curdling scream in his garden and neighbour heard her. Long story short: She ran home but the creepy neighbour was beaten to a pulp but survived only just. I don't think he knew who my parents were connected to.

'M' wrote:
Scenario.
Glitter was setup

He has committed no crime he may of breached lincense conditions of handling a smart phone.

Thoughts?

Not a crime, no. But no one has suggested he has committed a crime. He is still a serving prisoner (halfway point) and was in the community on condition he adhere to licence conditions.

I assume the licence conditions (which would gave strict controls on internet access in his case) were explained to him. Perhaps he was encouraged by other residents, who knows. Perhaps media enticed, who knows.

But neither of these, if indeed in play, means that he did not ALSO breach his licence conditions.

If he is not prepared to stick to those then he should in my view be returned to prison.

Why should the risk of us "getting him wrong" sit with children in the community? What difference would it make to them if another resident made a buck by encouraging him to access paedophile webs and children or he was seeking this of his own volition?

Glitter does not have learning needs, so far as I know; let's not treat him like a child.

He has capacity, and agency. He exercised it and the authorities acted to protect children rather than him.

Wyot wrote:
'M' wrote:
Scenario.
Glitter was setup

He has committed no crime he may of breached lincense conditions of handling a smart phone.

Thoughts?

Not a crime, no. But no one has suggested he has committed a crime. He is still a serving prisoner (halfway point) and was in the community on condition he adhere to licence conditions.

I assume the licence conditions (which would gave strict controls on internet access in his case) were explained to him. Perhaps he was encouraged by other residents, who knows. Perhaps media enticed, who knows.

But neither of these, if indeed in play, means that he did not ALSO breach his licence conditions.

If he is not prepared to stick to those then he should in my view be returned to prison.

Why should the risk of us "getting him wrong" sit with children in the community? What difference would it make to them if another resident made a buck by encouraging him to access paedophile webs and children or he was seeking this of his own volition?

Glitter does not have learning needs, so far as I know; let's not treat him like a child.

He has capacity, and agency. He exercised it and the authorities acted to protect children rather than him.

Ditto, he would of been giving a lecture of the do's and dont's at the hostel. He would of been out off there in a few more weeks. He might have ADHD which can affect the impulsive behaviour. Doing things without thinking about consequences.

My partner is a former copper, she has said that a lot of sexual predators can't control their behaviour it's in their DNA or learned behaviour. Therapy can help but it's not a cure, they will work with them to focus other things. A lot of them know what they are doing is wrong but a lot don't.

This article makes little sense.

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/gary...again-after-29609616

DuckDucKGO is not a dark web browser you need Tor. I have never been on the dark web. However is there any evidence that Glitter, used YouTube to look at girls? It reads like a Guardian hit piece. Like there's a vendetta.

Like JK said its like prisoner's and hostel staff set him up for a "Gotcha" moment. I do want to the video where Glitter is told to use the Onion, not a still photograph.

I had a conversation in a Dorset pub this morning. The bloke at the bar made a good point. He said that 'Glitter is now institutionalized and blew his final chance to be released on purpose.' Glitter probably didn't want to be released for his own safety and maybe other people's safety.

There a lot of nutters about the paparazzi will stalk Glitter even he is buying a pint of milk.

You could have said that about me when I was released GM. Indeed many tabloids DID and pushed the usual "keep him inside forever" bollocks. Media madness. Nobody tried to harm me. I smiled and waved at the Paps. The News of the World tried to set me up "ogling young boys in the park". I proved their story fantasy and shortly afterwards the rag was closed for good.

JK2006 wrote:
You could have said that about me when I was released GM. Indeed many tabloids DID and pushed the usual "keep him inside forever" bollocks. Media madness. Nobody tried to harm me. I smiled and waved at the Paps. The News of the World tried to set me up "ogling young boys in the park". I proved their story fantasy and shortly afterwards the rag was closed for good.

Good point, however you were lucky it happened before smartphone generation. Also you had a good legal team and battle in recent years. GG wouldn't have a chance.