Glitter arrested!

Author
Discussion

Axionknight

8,505 posts

134 months

Wednesday 28th January 2015
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
Not sorry enough to have the decency not to do it.
Exactly.

Dirty pig.

HD Adam

5,144 posts

183 months

Wednesday 28th January 2015
quotequote all
hora said:
Trying the Townsend defence..

Is that hearing aid for effect or does he REALLY need it? Am I a cynic?
This is something that always bothers me.

Whilst not condoning what Glitter did for a moment, doesn't the level of hatred seem to depend on how good your back catalog is?

Townshend as we know famously signed up to 2 kiddy fiddler sites purely for "research"
Jimmy Page had a 14 year old girlfriend.
As did Bill Wyman.
Elvis started seeing Priscilla when she was 14 as well.
Jerry Lee Lewis brought his 13 year old wife to the UK.
Michael Jackson? Not so much the Peter Pan of Pop but the Pedophile of Pop. Allegedly.

All still on the radio & TV without the same level of hatred.

terenceb

1,488 posts

170 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
Perhaps he had some Rotherham councillors on his side? They seem to be doing a bloody good job at the moment!!!
(Seems strange that paedophile activity amongst "stars" should actract so much publicity, yet the two thousand or so complaints from children who have been abused in Rotherham are seemingly unimportant.
Is it out of fear being labled a racist as these kids are being used and abused by Pakistani gangs? (Sky news this morning quotation)
Paedophiles need punishing harshly no matter who they are!!!!!!!!!!


Edited by terenceb on Thursday 29th January 11:35

mikeyr

3,118 posts

192 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
hora said:
I know but its Michael Ja'ackson!

He wouldn't do that, he's like a child inside!

Conversation with female wowork colleague

- so why did he pay off parents?
(He was badly advisedadvised)

Right.
Flip side Hora - why would a parent accept a payoff?

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Thursday 5th February 2015
quotequote all
"Gary Glitter has been found guilty of historical sex abuse against three young girls between 1975 and 1980.

The 70-year-old former singer - real name Paul Gadd - was convicted of attempted rape, four counts of indecent assault and one of having sex with a girl under the age of 13.

Gadd, who denied all charges, was acquitted of three other counts at Southwark Crown Court, London. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31153633

Kaj91

4,705 posts

120 months

Thursday 5th February 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
"Gary Glitter has been found guilty of historical sex abuse against three young girls between 1975 and 1980.
In todays other news it has been revealed that the Pope is a Catholic and a bear is suspected of defecating in the woods.

bazza white

3,551 posts

127 months

Thursday 5th February 2015
quotequote all
With his history in a case of my word vs yours it was only going to go one way unless he could actually prove himself innocent.


spadriver

1,488 posts

170 months

Friday 6th February 2015
quotequote all
So what evidence did the girls present?

longblackcoat

5,047 posts

182 months

Friday 6th February 2015
quotequote all
spadriver said:
So what evidence did the girls present?
Serious question?

They will, simply, have told their story. Usually it's almost impossible to convict if it's a single case - one person's word against another, essentially - but when it's two or more unconnected victims relating very similar stories, that becomes much more compelling evidence.

There will be court transcripts (or at the least the judge's notes) available once Gadd's been sentenced if you're interested further.

spadriver

1,488 posts

170 months

Friday 6th February 2015
quotequote all
Thanks, so just words as in all these paedo cases.
Obviously only one cure for these people!

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 6th February 2015
quotequote all
hora said:
- so why did he pay off parents?
I have an American friend whose daughter and son-in-law were sued by someone who suggested she was injured on their premises. Some years ago now and I can't remember the details.

The daughter had what she felt was concrete evidence that the person was not injured. Her brief, paid for out of insurance, felt so too and said that it would lower the pay-off figure.

I'm not suggesting Jackson did nothing by the way.

bridgdav

4,805 posts

247 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
16 years.. About time too...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31657929

Shaw Tarse

31,543 posts

202 months

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
16 years, well that's quite some sentence. You get less for murder. I think he'll die in jail.

smegmore

3,091 posts

175 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all

vixen1700

22,669 posts

269 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Wasn't really expecting a sentence that long.

MarshPhantom

9,658 posts

136 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
I'm guessing he'd have preferred under 16 years - as usual.

spadriver

1,488 posts

170 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Result! I wonder how many Pakistani taxi drivers will want to be in "His Gang".

telecat

8,528 posts

240 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
To be Honest where is the corroborating evidence? It sounds like he was convicted on reputation rather than evidence. His "Previous" convictions in the UK had solid evidence these do not seem to meet that criteria.

superlightr

12,842 posts

262 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
''wanna be in my cell, my cell, my cell..."




(copied from a comment in the article link)