One is that he had a heart attack recently and is in hospital. I wish him well, as a fellow human being.

Two is that I discovered among my vinyl 45s a single of his called 'What your Mama don't see your Mama don't know'. Actually the B side is better. I'd totally forgoten about that one. Did anyone else buy a copy of this most obscure GG release?

And a third thing, since you bring the topic up Cat - what terrific music he and Mike Leander made.

Whatever you think of him (and I always found him a perfectly decent person and I believe a great deal of the negative emanates from dear old Wapping) his music deserves both praise and exposure.

Good old Wapping, such an easy target when a rant comes on about a convicted sex offender. GG has behaved deplorably and no amount of "interesting" music migitates his crimes.

Not got much to say about his music - he was a bit before my time.

In terms of Gadd the man... Well, to some people, he may well be, a decent person.

But unfortunately, society tends to frown upon middle aged men having sex with children. So I think many on here will disagree with your generous character assessment.

I would also like to point out that a great deal of the negative emanates not from Wapping, but from the man's own weaknesses. His many trips to Cambodia and Vietnam have resulted in all kinds of accusations. Certainly, in Vietnam, the man himself paid money to the families of his 'victims' in order to buy clemency.

Not the actions of an innocent man, in my opinion (see Jacko and the Chandler Millions)

Well Pete and Walter, I bow to your superior knowledge.
I only know what I've read in the media and I've come to distrust the accuracy of that source.
But you both obviously have better information.

JK, as I've told you before, just because something is in 'the media' doesn't make it a lie.

This repulsive excuse for a man's behaviour and antics are well documented, and not just in the redtops. They have been recorded as FACTS in various courts of law.

Yes, there may be some elements of the tabloid press who delight in printing the details but are you seriously suggesting that he isn't a paedophile?

It seems to me that you are unwilling to accept the guilt of any celebrity child molesters - regardless of the evidence. Why is this?

Glitter is a monster. He, like others, consistently demonstrates the same old paedophile mentality. "I've done nothing wrong, my underage friends love me, it's a media witchhunt, blah, blah, etc, blah..."

And Walter is bang on the money. it doesn't matter what he's done in music. Nothing can excuse or mitigate this kind of behaviour. Nothing.

Nothing can mitigate bad behaviour.

Great music.

Nothing can change that either.

A Vietnamese trial without the rights of defence which we in Britain take for granted, where no free media is permitted to witness the proceedings, in a country which we readily criticise for the way it treats it's own people, plus high payments from certain British media to the accusers for their stories.

These things considered, the conviction of child abuse is hardly rock solid or indisputable. I have no personal knowledge of whether Gary Glitter was guilty or not, and I dare say that nobody else on these forums has either. Many simply see red when they hear the words child sex abuse, and every accusation is considered to be fact unless proven otherwise. That's not very intelligent, and I'm sure they wouldn't like the same form of judgement used against them.

Glitter admitted to posession of indecent photographs, and he served a short jail sentence for that offence. Since then he has been followed around the globe by tabloid predators in search of a juicy story which would make them money. I believe that Glitter was unwise to allow young girls to live in his house, especially when there were 'journalists' who could offer them a better deal than he could.

I do find it odd that Mein Kamf, the book written by Hitler, is hailed as a classic work, yet Glitter's music is banned from society. Hitler was responsible for enslaving and killing millions of men, women and children. Gary Glitter posessed a collection of images of children, and has had a conviction for sex abuse based on uncorroborated allegation without the balance of a fair trial.

It is established fact that many people convicted of child abuse have later been found to be Not Guilty.

Pete, I'd be interested in what you mean by "various courts of law". To my knowledge only one British law court has convicted Glitter of an offence. British authorities has often questioned the fairness and reliability of the Vietnamese legal system, so it is possible that a British Court would not support the later conviction of child abuse.

It is also established historical fact that many of the people hung for witchcraft in the 17th Century insisted that they were innocent, and that the majority of convictions were based on children's fantasies. Different century; different allegation, but the same scenario, the same lack of reason, the same scale of mass hysteria. Mankind never seems to learn from past mistakes.

Hi Al,

I take what you say onboard - and I too would doubt the integrity of a Vietnamese trial under the circumstances you describe.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4769164.stm

However, my personal opinion is that he is a paedophile. This is not based solely on what I've read, but also the man's behaviour and where he has chosen to holiday.

Why, oh why, would someone like Gadd - convicted of kiddy porn offences in the UK - choose to leave the UK and go and live in Vietnam or Cambodia..? It's probably for the same reasons as most of the other 'sex tourists' who have taken up residence in these countries. They can abuse children with impunity, and if they get caught, chances are they can buy themselves clemency for no more than a few hundred US dollars.

And, if he was innocent, why did he give money to the alleged victims' families?????

Personally, I'd never pay compensation to anyone for a crime I did not commit. Would you?

Well Pete I was offered the opportunity to "buy off" my false accusers and chose not to. Was I wrong to believe in the integrity of the British legal system?

I have no idea JK as I am unaware of the details of your case.

But, if true, I think it means that you could have brought some kind of case of someone attempting to pervert the course of justice. Or blackmail?

Isn't this what Amy Crackhouse's scabby husband is currently banged up for?

Oh corruption is far more subtle than that, Pete, just hints, nods and winks... but the basic question remains - is it wiser to rely on systems that can let you down (as it did me - 7 years - unless the ECCHR decide having a cast iron alibi I was on a different continent is a valid reason to quash convictions)?

Or to accept the ways out? And I suspect the "payment to relatives" convention is considerably more acceptable in some cultures than it is in Britain.

You may not accept it (see my song Plead Guilty) but many innocent men and women in the UK are advised to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit in order to get shorter sentences.

Justice is not as simple as you seem to believe. I hope to God it never happens to you.

Been thinking about this... Given your ordeal, do you now regret your decision not to stump up the cash?

Might have made for an easier life...

Nope I don't regret it; I hated the idea of paying off a lying blackmailer and I still hope (though not with too much) that I may have my wrongful convictions overturned.

I can live with myself knowing my innocence. Can they live with the inner knowledge of their deceit?

I would think such a deep sickness would provoke mental turmoil and even physical problems like strokes, heart attacks, cancer...

Having battery acid inside you must be very damaging to your body and soul.

I tend to agree JK.

And that's why I find it very difficult to accept the innocence of those who, instead of compelling the courts to prove one's guilt, are prepared to pay (sometimes) enormous sums of money in order to avoid prosecution.

As I said earlier, I do not know the details of your case. But, if you are truly innocent then you have been the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justic and I am truly sorry for that.

However, as you say, at least you can live with yourself in the knowledge that you haven't caved in to blackmail, and are an innocent man.

Out of interest, and knowing what you know now, what do you make of Jackson's decision to pay the Chandler family a reputed $20M to keep schtumm...?

One of the key stones of my morality is not to tell others how to act in theirs. So, as far as I am concerned, each must deal with life according to his own values. And let's face it, Michael is an innocent man, found innocent in the courts. Michael might not have been as capable of surviving and benefitting from the prison experience as I was.

Likewise Gary - if conforming to the existing morality of that country (especially if people were prepared to lie for financial incentives from others) by paying small sums to false accusers gave him slightly more justice, I can understand it.

I can only say - I did what I felt was right. Many others might say I should have bought off the false accusers and remained an innocent man.

Wouldn't have been half as much fun though!

I imagine facing those kinds of allegations is the scariest experience a person could have. I wouldn't be surprised if a great many would rather pay to make it go away rather than face a trial, especially when so many assume guilt and, even if you are cleared, society still closes it's doors to you.

I don't really blame Michael Jackson for taking that option. Fear makes people do strange things.

From what I know, Glitter was ordered by the court to pay compensation to his accusers. As for going to live in Vietnam, quite a few English people have done so. It's a beautiful country, so long as you have the money to provide a quality of life.

I had a similar reaction when I told someone I'd been to Amsterdam. "let me guess, you went for the sex. right?" I replied by asking why I would pay to travel to Amsterdam for sex when there are prostitutes in England. I went there because it's a wonderful city with great culture. The red light district is only a tiny part.

Great point Al; the red light district of Amsterdam is my least favourite part of the city; hard, seedy, unpleasant.

I spent a wonderful day in the place near the city where they smoke the delicious eels (with horseradish sauce - fabulous).

I love Holland but can live without the dull sex areas (all those bored women sitting in windows).

I'd go to Bangkok for one crucial reason (the food) followed by the wonderful, sweet, generous attitude of the people.

All fair points Al.

But one should view the case of Glitter in context.

He's obviously not very bright. Why not move to the US? Or to New Zealand...?

After being chased out of the UK, the guy has gotten his passport stamped in most of the popular underage sex-tourist hotspots. He has been chased out of at least two of them by the authorities and faces deportation from Vietnam once released from prison.

He's admitted, in court, to sharing his bed with an unrelated 11 year old girl. This is a man of 60 years of age!

What kind of behaviour is that? I mean, come on...

You know, he makes it very easy for the press to attack him. Much like Michael Jackson's failure to see anything wrong with his own behaviour, this guy just seems completely brazen in his attitude.

I think if you place everything in context, a pattern emerges but it doesn't paint a very wholesome picture.

All that Glitters certainly ain't fucking gold.

Nobody can move to USA or New Zealand if they have any kind of criminal conviction. The same goes for Australia and several other major non-EU countries. If I was in his position I'd want to get out of the EU and western society altogether. There is also the advantage of Eastern countries being quite cheap to live in. However, Glitter's first choice was Cuba. It was only after certain western media caused an uncomfortable stir in that country that his visa was revoked. He had been living a law abiding life in a quiet retreat. The tabloids pursued him from there, through a variety of countries, driving him to seek refuge in the Far East. Perhaps he would not have been there had they just left him in peace and used their resources to track down genuine threats such as Bin Laden or other known terrorists. Their behaviour was bizarre considering he'd only been legally classified as a minor risk. If he'd not been a celebrity they wouldn't have bothered. The responsibility for this entire affair must rest with the tabloids who drove Glitter into his current position.

I have already said that he acted unwisely by sharing his house with young girls. However, he was not acting unlawfully by doing that. I can fully see where Michael Jackson was coming from when he said people too often confuse affection with sex. Michael Jackson seems to be a big kid and saw no difference between another kid sleeping at his house than if they slept over at a school-friend's. His actions are unacceptable to those who assume sex is behind everything. The majority of abuse cases involve someone well known to the child, quite often a family member, so whether Glitter was related to the child is mostly irrelevent when you consider the overall pattern of worldwide child abuse.

I tend to look at all cases objectively, regardless of what's involved. I'm sure a great many people got emotional about the Stefan Kisco case and were 100% convinced that he murdered a child. He did, after all, confess to the crime. Fourteen years later he was cleared when it was established that he couldn't possibly have done it. He'd been manoeuvred into the confession by pressure from the police. A rather different situation to that of Gary Glitter, but it does highlight how judgements can sometimes be wrong, and things are not always what they seem to be.