Seems Gary is comin out of prison next month and is planning a comeback, says his lawyer who is trying to buy the rights of Top Of The Pops and have Gary as the presenter. www.entertainmentwise.com/news?id=23019 now as a long time fan of Gary I wish him the best of luck in the future, he should be given a chance to prove he's not this sadistic raping devil with horns popping outta his head, the press should leave him alone.

Not much chance of the gutter press leaving him alone. They virtually created his current situation, and they are making too much capital out of the story for them to quit. They have 100's of gullibles convinced that Gary Glitter is Public Enemy No.1.

I hope he is able to make a come back, but only if he has something of quality to offer. You can't live on memories.

Doubt that the BBC will sell the rights to TOTP though.

so gary glitter was caught with child porn on his computer.so was pete townshend.I wonder why pete was forgiven by british public and not hounded by press hmmm

GG and Townsend...

Partly due to sheer quantity and partly to reason.

Townsend argued it was for research for his autobiography, which I think the court accepted. I seem to remember he said using his real credit card would have been folly beyond comprehension if his interest was guenuine.

Not everyone who is convicted is wrongfully convicted.

zoo

Pete Townsend didn't have porn on his computer. He was arrested because his card details were registered with a child porn site. He explained that this was because one of his children had found the site and he ewanted to see how easy it was for them to get porn. He did not download any images. He was given a caution, which is what police generally offer when they do not have enough evidence to prosecute. He opted to accept the caution rather than carry the case through to the courts. Possible a mistake, as without evidence of downloads there would be little chance of conviction.

Gary Glitter had downloaded thousands of images, so there is a big difference between the two cases.

That said, I think Gary Glitter has served his sentence and should be premitted to live his life.

x

From what i heard and read at the time (which was a lot) I never saw Pete claim it was anything to do with his children asking questions. He always maintained it was research for a book. (did it ever come out?). I'm not making any judgement as I don't know him or anything other than what the papers, tv and radio, etc said, but then the same thing could be said for the case of Gary Glitter.

nothing to do with his children.his argument was that he stumbled on porn sites by putting the words "Russia," "orphanages," and "boys"into google.he also didn't go to court as stated above.he received a police caution and was placed on sex offenders registry for 5 years.

Yes, I misunderstood what Pete had said. He actually said "I accessed the site because of my concerns at the shocking material readily available on the Internet to children" and went on to add that it was also reseearch for his book.

Sorry about that confusion.

The main point still remains that he didn't actually download any of the images, and his case is different to Glitter's.

One has to question why a convicted sex offender decided to take up residence in Vietnam. If faced with the position Mr Gadd found himself would it have not been prudent to live somewhere not famed for child sex?

Just a thought........

Maybe he thought it would be easier to get a girlfriend there?

Let me ask you something. If Gary Glitter was hanging around with "lots of teenage girls" in public places like the tabloids and other media have claimed then where are the photographs of him doing this? They have plenty of photos of other things - his home, him on a boat, him driving a motorbike, him drinking beer, etc., etc., they even have a video of him singing in a bar with his guitar on stage. So where are the photos of him with teenage girls?

The TV documentry that went to Vietnam interviewed the head of a children's home.

The head's pleasure at the help and good work that Gadd was doing with and for the children turned to concern when informed of Gadd's previous conviction.

It's not teenage girls at issue here it's children.

I don't support rabid whitch-hunts that the Tabloids are into but their involvement doesn't automatically mean their victim is being falsely or unfairly accused.

Like Caesar's wife, some people have to be seen to be above suspicion - for a convicted paedophile to involve his or herself in direct involvement with vulnerable children is at best an act of great stupidity.

There still remains the fact that there was no actual evidence, beyond uncorroborated allegation. An act of stupidity is not necessarily illegal. One interesting fact is that Glitter was not convicted of any direct crime against children. The sole previous allegation was engineered by Max Clifford, which immediately casts doubt upon it's credibility.

If the law, in any country, is to deal entirely with facts and proof, then all Glitter is guilty of is having a collection of dodgy photos.

There are worse crimes, and worse people.

The 'altering of images' was engineered?

Got a ref for that?

Haven't seen any references to altering images, but in case it's me you're responding to ...

The previous accusation which I refer to was the one where GG was accused of having abused a girl in his past. This was backed by Max Clifford, and GG was cleared of the charges by a jury.

Just thought I'd clarify, just in case.

None of us really know the answer to many of these questions - BUT it does prove that if you "hint" strongly enough then some mud will "stick".

I was responding to you...

the charge of 'possession of Child Pornography' was the one they got him on... As far as I'm aware, that charge was engineered by no-one, although in other countries the way in which the evidence was obtained (an unauthorised search of the hard drive by PC World) would have had the case thrown out. The 'altered images' thing was my leaking and decrepit memory. Sorry, seems Mr Gadd did have an extensive, and somewhat sickening, collection of images.
[quote]Case of Gary Glitter (November 1999)

On 13 November 1999, Gary Glitter was jailed for four months for amassing "a vast private library of child pornography". The pop star, 55, admitted downloading more than 4,000 "hard-core, sick and degrading" images of children - some as young as two - on to his laptop computer. He had spent hundreds of hours logged on to the internet searching for paedophile websites and had catalogued the images he found for his private viewing. Bristol Crown Court heard that the pictures showed boys and girls being sexually abused, tortured, bound, gagged and blindfolded. Glitter admitted to54 specimen counts of making indecent photographs of children under 16. Mr Justice Butterfield told Glitter that he was being imprisoned as a punishment and to send a message to others who satisfied their "perverted desires" by gathering child pornography. "This is not victimless crime," he said. "The victims are the little children whose images you wish to view. Without the ultimate consumer, men like you prepared to pay for this material, there would be no market for this filth.

"The potentially corrupting effect of such filthy and revolting material on those who view it is obvious. The effect on the innocent children whose bodies have been abused to satisfy the perverted tastes of men like you can hardly be imagined." The judge said the pictures he had seen were pornography "of the very worst possible type". He added: "One image showed a little girl who was seven or eight years old with her legs tied together, gagged, with her hands tied behind her back bearing the marks, real or artificial, of a savage beating. It was entitled The Lovers' Guide to Better Child Sexual Abuse."

The judge also ordered that on his release Glitter, who was tried under his real name of Paul Gadd, be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for seven years. His pornography collection is to be destroyed and he must pay

I can't abide people wishing GG well in light of his admissions and lack of remorse. Imagine that it was your child that had been tied up and abused for the pleasure of these individuals. Torturing and abusing children (and creating the market by enjoying the footage) should be treated as the most serious of crimes. I don't agree with many of the witch hunts that take place regarding this subject but he admitted it and is therefore worthy of nothing more than abhorrance.

I would cordially agree