www.entertainmentdailyuk.com/tv/gary-gli...cancel-subscription/

I remember the BBC did show when some journos went to Asia to look for Glitter. They came to a dead end, Glitter returned to the UK not long after the documentary was aired.

Will the Netflix special be anything new? The ITV documentary was copy and paste job from Youtube clips.

It should be called harassing Gary Glitter rather than hunting Gary Glitter. He wasn't on the run from the law, so there should be no reason to hunt him.

Glitter threw away a nice career.

I can see why he fucked up his chances on purpose to be released. A lot of prisoners are safer inside, when he was in the hostel/halfway house the public and media doxxed it all.

I wonder if he money stashed away in an escrow account overseas?

Is the flat letted out or been transferred over?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sick-paedo...itter-could-33485708

How can a groupie who had consensual sex with her idol when she was 12 be entitled to £500,000 in compensation when Andrew Malkinson gets zero for being put in prison for 17 years for something he didn't do. Why couldn't she work for decades? Unless she was severely disabled there must have been something she can do? I'm not saying that it wasn't a crime but the proportions are ridiculous. A lot of teens would have been with pop stars back in the 70s, most would have just moved on with their lives. I remember one girl at school who boasted about been kissed by Nick Rhodes from Duran Duran. She requested the kiss and it was just a kiss, but I'm sure many would have gone further Nick's interest in young women I suspect would be minimal

Well said Robbie. Judging the past by morality (and law) of the present is not only wrong and dangerous but unfair.

robbiex wrote:
How can a groupie who had consensual sex with her idol when she was 12 be entitled to £500,000 in compensation when Andrew Malkinson gets zero for being put in prison for 17 years for something he didn't do. Why couldn't she work for decades? Unless she was severely disabled there must have been something she can do? I'm not saying that it wasn't a crime but the proportions are ridiculous. A lot of teens would have been with pop stars back in the 70s, most would have just moved on with their lives. I remember one girl at school who boasted about been kissed by Nick Rhodes from Duran Duran. She requested the kiss and it was just a kiss, but I'm sure many would have gone further Nick's interest in young women I suspect would be minimal

Look at Led Zep, they were bunch of sweaty perverts like Iggy Pop. Yet, they are still worshipped like Gods and icons. People wouldn't do a Glitter tribute act but they would do Led Zep act or Rolling Stones.

A friend of mine did get a non-consensual kiss from Ronnie Spector at a record fair around 1987.

It's like Pete Townshend I dread to think what he did on his computer, he was giving 24 hours before the police took his I.T tech. The police at the station must of been those kids who played air guitar and wanted to strum like Townshend, in their bedrooms.

It reminds me of the old pub gag. What is the difference between Gary Glitter and Pete Townshend? Pete, can play the guitar.

robbiex wrote:
How can a groupie who had consensual sex with her idol when she was 12 be entitled to £500,000 in compensation when Andrew Malkinson gets zero for being put in prison for 17 years for something he didn't do. Why couldn't she work for decades? Unless she was severely disabled there must have been something she can do? I'm not saying that it wasn't a crime but the proportions are ridiculous. A lot of teens would have been with pop stars back in the 70s, most would have just moved on with their lives. I remember one girl at school who boasted about been kissed by Nick Rhodes from Duran Duran. She requested the kiss and it was just a kiss, but I'm sure many would have gone further Nick's interest in young women I suspect would be minimal

There is no such thing as consensual sex with a twelve year old, because they are twelve.
The law is there to protect them from themselves as well as from others.

Honey wrote:
robbiex wrote:
How can a groupie who had consensual sex with her idol when she was 12 be entitled to £500,000 in compensation when Andrew Malkinson gets zero for being put in prison for 17 years for something he didn't do. Why couldn't she work for decades? Unless she was severely disabled there must have been something she can do? I'm not saying that it wasn't a crime but the proportions are ridiculous. A lot of teens would have been with pop stars back in the 70s, most would have just moved on with their lives. I remember one girl at school who boasted about been kissed by Nick Rhodes from Duran Duran. She requested the kiss and it was just a kiss, but I'm sure many would have gone further Nick's interest in young women I suspect would be minimal

There is no such thing as consensual sex with a twelve year old, because they are twelve.
The law is there to protect them from themselves as well as from others.

Thank you Honey, I do worry about Robbie at times.

Glitter is like those female teachers who shag little boys. Not forgetting this nutcase (one of many) in Hampshire. If it was a male, there would be media coverage. Would you are reaction be Honey, if you're sons were young and seduced by 30 year old female nonce?

www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/paedophi...-boys-jailed-4747147

Honey wrote:
[quote]robbiex wrote:


There is no such thing as consensual sex with a twelve year old, because they are twelve.
The law is there to protect them from themselves as well as from others.

Also Glitter is not being judged now hypocritically against different legal or moral standards than when he had sex with this child.

Sex with a 12 year old was illegal then and considered highly immoral by the majority; as it rightly is now.

I have sympathy for hypocritical, homophobic legal age distinctions. Not this.