Gloating: Glitter’s twisted smile..”

I don’t think I’m being unduly pious at feeling uneasy at the sight of all those mikes and cameras shoved up the nose of the wretched Gary Glitter in airports in two hemispheres. Picadors dancing round before the kill is what it looked like. Needless to say, the press ignored the obvious point that the prospect of their endless hounding might have been Glitter’s bigger reason for avoiding coming home to Britain. The requirement to sign the paedophile register and report once a week may have seemed a trivial prospect to him by comparison. The UK papers divided predictably between the heavies and the tabloids.

As the newagency AFP reported,the Daily Mirror newspaper branded Glitter “Club Class Paedo” on its front page, while The Sun, which spoke to “Gary Gloater” on the plane from Ho Chi Minh City to Bangkok, ran the headline: “Creepy Glitter stroked my arm and called me sweetie”

My Sun’s 57 pages of 2Discussions includes the comment:

lets hope the firing squad is there
The Daily Mirror posed an inane top in its “5 big questions of the week”.

(1) Gary Glitter returning to England just months before his 65th birthday. What do you think the response would be if he applied to become a lollipop man?
As usual the Daily Mail excelled itself in moralistic outrage, first with the picture caption:
Gloating: Glitter’s twisted smile as he tries to avoid returning to Britain

And then from columnist ( and ex-William Hague press secretary) Amanda Platell, sharing her venom for Glitter with the Home Secretary and asking: Who gave this reptilian exhibitionist the oxygen of publicity? Who propelled him to world notoriety and made his claims for state protection legitimate?
Step forward Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. Instead of allowing Glitter to return to Britain with minimum fuss, to be placed on the child sex offenders’ register, she thought this might be an ideal chance to earn a few Brownie points through a bit of high-profile paedo-bashing.”
Once again, Her Majesty’s popular Press excels itself in quarry-bashing.

The Guardian’s veteran columnist Alexander Chancellor struck out at the pops, joined later by the Independent’s Matthew Norman:

Some of you may share the apparent belief of The Sun and The Daily Mirror that this is a noble ambition; that a man with convictions for downloading child pornography here and having sex with underage girls in the Far East has forfeited the right to life, as Margaret Thatcher once memorably declared of IRA terrorists.”
“No country in its right mind would want this pervert at large on its soil,” said a Daily Mail article. “All we can hope is that, wherever he ends up, he will be locked away until he ceases to be a threat to children.” But we traditionally lock people up only for crimes they have committed, not for crimes they may commit in the future. And, anyway, how will the Mail know “when he ceases to be a threat to children”? It can’t and won’t, so it presumably wants him locked up for life, just to be on the safe side.

The Daily Telegraph contented itself with pointing out that the quarry is not exactly on his last legs, with personal wealth of between £1 million and £5 million”

But it was Carol Sarler in The Times who fairly bravely raised a fundamental though unpopular question about paedophilia: crime or disease?

If Gary Glitter is a criminal, and not mentally ill, then he has paid the price and we should not punish him again, says Carol Sarler in The Times
If we accept that paedophilia is an illness – and there are reasoned voices who say that it is – then, by definition, we accept it as being beyond the control of its sufferer in exactly the way that we accept schizophrenia. Therefore, we should respond as such: if a man, for reasons not remotely his fault, is posing a risk to others, he should be subject to sectioning under the Mental Health Act, with all the appropriate regret, sympathy and kindness that accompanies such a move.”

Perhaps Glitter’s enforced homecoming will ignite a debate about the paedophilia. More likely, he’ll pass into obscurity until the first time he tries to leave the country and a paid tip-off merchant rings up the pops.

  • Turgon

    It is a very difficult one isn’t it? I have never been exactly pro-paedophile but now having two children of my own my sympathy level is approaching zero. I do remember one former boss suggesting the death penalty for paedophilia.

    Clearly that is not appropriate (though remember Glitter at one stage did face a possible death sentence). Now he (Glitter / Gadd) is back in the UK, he has not been convicted for any crimes here apart from ones he has already been in prison for. However, I would not be particularly happy with him wandering about Co. Fermanagh. So what on earth do we do with these people? We cannot lock them up forever: can we? The current scheme of registering them seems a good idea but is far from foolproof. The idea of a Megan’s Law is highly problematic especially in view of previously recorded episodes of paedophiles being murdered and sometimes the “paedophiles” are not paedophiles at all. One of the other (thankfully not fatal) episodes was the padeiatrician mistaken for being a paedophile. I really have no idea what the solution to this problem is. Also of course the vast majority of such terrible acts are committed within the family.

  • Harry Flashman

    It’s really quite simple, the man committed a crime, he served his sentence, he is now on a register of such criminals, in the unlikely chance that he re-offends long him up for longer.

    Otherwise can we leave this sordid, silly season, non-story for the Sun and Daily Mail to froth over.

  • Harry Flashman

    “lock him up”

    Preview is your friend Harry.

  • Wordsmith

    It is more accurate to describe the loathsome Paul Gadd as a hebephile rather than a paedophile. As I understand it, a paedophile is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children and a hebephile to post-pubescent children, as seems to be the case with the Glittery creature.

  • Rory

    Why is there such a rush for all sorts of otherwise sensible people to go on record as “being opposed to/nauseated by/murderously angry about paedophilia? I mean it is not as if we all feel that it is incumbent upon us to disclaim any interest in coprophilia, or necrophilia for that matter and it can’t be that so many people are now taking a public stand in favour of paedophilia that it has somehow become unfashionably passé and we need to distinguish ourselves by taking a different view.

    I rather suspect that the current wave of sensationalism that fuels this insane urge to distance ourselves so vociferously from something really unconscionable boils down to the old, old question – how do the rich persuade the poor to keep giving them money? The answer is that they frighten them and the thought that if we don’t behave we somehow might find ourselves labelled as a paedophile plays wonders with the subconcious. Anyway now that an accusation of homosexuality is no longer such a powerful tool for blackmail and social repression a new one had to be found.

    As a little footnote, I recall in the 1970’s when Conway Hall, the home of the South Place Ethical Society, in keeping with its charter of free speech for all, let the hall out for a meeting of the Paedophile Exchange Network (PIE). There then followed a tale of shenanigans involving the Nazi Right, the Trotskyite Left and latter century libertarians that still has me shaking my head 35 years on. The National Front determined to physically close the meeting. The Trots fell for it and determined to physically oppose the National Front (and in the process support PIE, which in fact some Trots actually did support, British Trotskyism owing as much, if not more, to libertarianism than Leninism). The South Place Ethical Society felt obliged to allow the booking to proceed in the name of free speech. The cops were opposed to everybody but possibly more sympathetic to the proposed actions of the NF (as no doubt the NF had quite shrewdly counted on). I, looking on, thought “This place is fucking crazy and yet they call us mad” and took myself off to a tavern.

  • Rory

    Wordsmith is correct and the distinction is crucial. To label all encounters between mature adults and those under 16 as paedophilia is a serious error as it fails to distinguish between the pre-pubescent and the post-pubescent, a distinction the red-tops and their associated porn enterprises have fun toying with through their “Barely Legal” offers at titillation.

  • Harry Flashman

    “a distinction the red-tops and their associated porn enterprises have fun toying with through their “Barely Legal” offers at titillation.”

    I recall picking up some red top paper (the Star I think) read by the lads in my place of work some times at tea break and being amazed how they would have “Filthy! Digusting! Sicko! Perv Shocka!” headlines about some sad bloke chatting up a fourteen year old girl (actually it was usually a beer bellied forty year old copper from the porn squad)on the internet, then two pages in they’d have a special 16th birthday countdown displaying the voluptuous virtues of some fifteen year old schoolgirl who was about to celebrate her majority by taking off her bra to be photographed by their page three snapper.

    Beyond absurd.

  • Garibaldy


    Surely the problem with paedophiles is that they are highly likely to reoffend, hence the concern about watching them closely?


    I don’t know if you ever read the weekly worker (produced by ex-CPGB people gone Trot), but a few years back they had a big series of articles on whether socialists should call for the removal of laws on paedophilia. Weirdos.

  • Wordsmith, here’s a link for hebephiles everywhere …

    -phile would appear to me to be a most inappropriate suffix for the debased behaviour indulged in by GG. Consider Francophile or Hibernophile.

  • Jimmy

    A vile and depicable creature indeed. He deserves what he gets.

    But who benefits from such High profile media?, the Vietnamese (with an emerging tourist industry) can feel smug and satisfied that they have prosecuted and deported a sex offender, good for them,nontheless This may have been simply cosmetic to give the allure that they are serious about foreign sex tourists, while all the while turning a blind eye to part of the economy(And thats what it is) of the underage sex trade.

    The hypocracy is that Joe ‘Sex offender’ bloggs will continue to do his disgusting deeds and most asian authoritys will be to unwilling,apathetic corrupt, and or under resourced to do anything, so a high profile case is just what they wanted.

    Anyone I have spoken too who has been to Thailand for example can tell you that, ‘all’ is on offer and the authorites simply don’t care.I’ve been to several third world countries and seen similiar.

    I have no doubt there was some truth by Gadd that he was ‘fitted up’ a scapegoat,it was more a political trial, yet no doubt he did it. However the really painful thing is that under this disgusting media melee the real issues are not being addressed.

  • billie-Joe Remarkable

    Y’all might want to try this:

    Before we have to wade through much more of the Nonce Sense on this thread.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Harry is bang on the money. Strange days 🙂

    Did anyone see the Brass Eye show a few years ago which satirized the media approach to this matter ? The Glitter story is almost a caricature of it.

  • baslamak

    Funny how some pedophile get the treatment whilst others do not, even in the music industry it seems to help if you have powerful friends, Pete Townsend still appears to walk on water whilst Gadd sinks.

    I feel all this pre-pubescent and post-pubescent children stuff is crap, not least because children need to be protected both from sexual predators like Gadd and from their own emotions and ignorance. That is why we have laws such as this.

    How many women who were young groupies in their teens are embarrassed about it today? Mind you, if we are placing blame, instead of scape-goating Gadd, the entire media and fashion industry would do well to look at itself.


    Usually on Slugger we would have a surfeit of people pointing out the simple fact that the trial in this case was seriously flawed, with more than a hint of reasonable suspicion that the whole thing was a set up on the part of the British press.
    Is Glitter a dangerous man to leave alone in the company of children?
    Is he deserving of the his current treatment, or indeed anything he has coming to him according to some here?
    Not in any civilised world he isn’t.

    Make your minds up folks, do you want civilisation and proper justice, or do you want mob rule?

  • Rory

    It’s even more depressing, TAFKABO. Usually on Slugger we have two absolutely polarised camps on any subject and that stark divide is missing on this thread. What we really need is a post from a section of contributors in support of paedophilia then we can all have a normal civilised ‘themmuns’ and ‘ussuns’ debate.

    We could even invite opponents to share our point of view by singing “Wanna be in my gang, my gang?”. Or perhaps not.

  • Comrade Stalin


    Agreed. People seem to treat this as a crime above all others. It is a heinous thing and the degree of punishment should be necessarily high, but to suggest that it’s worse than first-degree murder, for example, is off the mark.

    The funny thing about the Sun and so on is the way that people like Frankie Frazer, a chap who liked to pull out people’s teeth with pliers, are, along with the Kray twins he worked for, are lionized as “loveable old rogues”.

  • Liam Litter

    maybe the securocrats made him do it


    As Billy Bragg, the bard of barking once sang about the red tops… “where they offer you a feature on stockings and suspenders, next to a call for stiffer penalities for sex offendors”

    I remember the Sun back in the eighties did a feature on middleaged Glitter and his then sixteen year old girlfriend. it was all nudge nudge, wink wink, lucky old bugger…

    Anyway, Rory I don’t wht you were saying exactly, but just to make it clear, being against mob justice does not make one a supporter of paedophilia and I refuse to submit to the mob mentality that says we must all wave torches and pitchforks in harmony, or be suspect ourselves.

  • Rory

    I wasn’t suggesting that you or anyone else is a supporter of paedophelia (what would we call such a person? A paedophile-phile?), TAFKABO and I agree with your stance against mob rule and detest the hysterical frenzy being whipped up by the press. I was merely making a wry comment on the apparent necessity almost everyone seems to have every time the subject crops up to declare that they themselves are not in favour of it. I mean whenever Harold Shipman or the Boston Strangler is brought up in conversation no one feels the need to protest that they themselves think that killing lots of people is not to be recommended. We simply take it for granted that they won’t inject us with an overdose of morphine or strangle us with a pair of tights before doing something unspeakable on our corpse.

    So why this urgency for everyone to constantly express their horror of paedophilia ? It’s not as if by saying nothing whatsoever one might be assumed to be in favour of it.

    Or is it? Is that the intention of the press – to keep people (men especially) in a constant atate of anxiety, trumpeting innocence quite unnecessarily lest they fall under suspicion? This dirty paranoia-inducing campaign has already practically denuded schools in England of male teachers at a time when a huge constituency of fatherless boys cries out for strong, caring male guidance. It is as tricky having a profession as a specialist in child medicine today as it must have been professing to be a commis chef in McCarthyite USA in the fifties.

  • Harry Flashman

    I think Rory is indulging in one of his usual wind-ups being rather disappointed by the all round good sense being displayed here about this rather loathsome little story and whilst I am usually the first to offer myself up for the anti received wisdom of the usual debates opting instead for the more controversial positions I do hope he’ll forgive me if I choose to miss out on being the pro-paedophilia poster on SO’T.

    On the subject of the hypocrisy of the Sun I do believe that they actually broke the law on this very issue a year or so back. Apparently the law on kiddie porn was toughened up to include any lewd or lascivious pictures taken of anyone under 18 without their consent, there was no necessity that the people be actually naked. The intention was presumably to stop secret filming of kids in public places.

    Anyhoo the Sun’s paparazzi snapper took a load of pictures of some girl band singer or perhaps girlfriend of some football player while she cavorted on a beach in a bikini, trouble was the girl was only seventeen.

    So delicious irony of ironies the editor and staff of the Sun were all child porn distributors and all their readers that day were guilty of possession of child pornography, needless to say there weren’t three million people having their homes invaded by dozens of peelers as was the case with Pete Townsend (no illegal stuff ever actually found on his computer) but then who ever said the law was applied consistently?

  • baslamak

    (no illegal stuff ever actually found on his computer)

    Is that true? if so I am ashamed to say I must have fell victim to the hype and hysteria, I thought he was let off with a warning or some such nonsense.

  • Garibaldy

    IIRC his credit card was used to access a website. He said he had been abused and was doing research. The excuse was accepted.


    Sorry Rory, my bad, I think we’re both singing from the same hymn sheet here.

  • Rory

    For some strange reason this:

    dropped into my mail box during all this.

    I can just envision a bust by the plod and them working their way through my e-mails:

    “Got sumfink ‘ere, guv. Serious.”


    “‘s worse, guv – animals. Chi- wow- wers actuerlly.

    “Bloody hell! They’re only little.”

    “‘sworse an’ ‘at, guv. It’s the really little uns – it’s the puppies, guv!”

  • Turtle

    Harry is correct. This is not an extraordinary situation. The man committed a crime. He is at elevated risk of committing a crime again. But that is exactly as is the case with all criminals whether they be muggers or fraudsters or whatever. On release they also have higher than average probabilities of committing crimes. Indeed criminality itself is something of a mental condition. It has been proven that certain genes predispose to criminality,
    as well as certain life experiences.

    Also psychiatry has already partly medicalised criminality in creating Antisocial Personality Disorder.


    Hebephile is a silly word. Being attracted to fertile adolescents is psychologically normal. If being attracted to anyone under the age of 16 (18 for nude photographic purposes) is a disorder then >50% of the population would have this disorder, making it a nonsense. Being turned on by tATu’s video for “All the things she said” or Alizee’s early videos is not a psychiatric disorder. Most men find 18-25 year olds most attractive but it is normal to have the capacity to be attracted to girls of about 13 and above. Basically when girls become capable of pregnancy – this is hardly a coincidence. I don’t really see why we should lie or pretend about that. There’s too much of it and it confuses the issues involved here. The age at which society judges that a person has a mental capacity to consent should not be conflated into some kind of guilt about having aesthetic feelings of attraction to another fertile human of the opposite sex. They’re two different issues.

    So much seems to be about context. Nobody really seriously tries to brand John McCain a pedo because of
    because we know it’s just silly. But if a man his age was being reported in the soaraway Sun as soliciting a 14 year old girl to show him her tits on a webcam in an internet chatroom he’d be described as a paedophile, although psychiatrically the man probably wouldn’t be.

    Normal men are not attracted to pre-fertile females. Indeed the entire point of some secondary sexual characteristics is to create sexual atraction in males. There is no other reason why women, relative to other primates, have such large breasts other than as a fertility signal for men. That’s what they’re for. Their size serves no other known function.

    Paedophilia cannot, and indeed in psychology is not, therefore defined by the age of the “child”. It is defined by their physical development. Most people who commit underage sex offences are not paedophiles. Indeed a large proportion of such offences involve an offender who is underage themselves. Some people who commit underage sex crimes with pre-pubescents are also not paedophiles, in an analogous way to how some men who rape other men are not homosexual.

    Unfortunately all these definitions are clouded in a miasma of confusion. Child pornography need not involve paedophilia for example. Indeed some of the paedophile baiting tabloids used to publish material that would now be legally classified as child pornography. In the 80s the Daily Star even regularly featured 15 year old girls in bikinis etc. appearing in the run up to their 16th birthday on which day they would appear on page three topless. A lot of low end internet child pornography is not so different from that, e.g. 13-16 year old smiling nude Russian girls posing on a beach or whatever. It isn’t all babies being tortured. The media in my opinion pays far too little attention to the nature of the images involved. Indeed, in commercial child pornography as in adult pornography, the biggest segment is softcore and the most market demand is for underage teenage girls. The “babies being tortured” is generally not commercial but is usually produced by individual twisted people who have weird and perverted fetishes. Since web 2.0 with a camera on every mobile etc. a lot of the stuff circulating on the internet that would fall under the legal definition of child pornography is self produced, usually not for any commercial motive but sometimes child pornography IS self produced for a commercial motive, such as in the case of Justin Berry,
    Situations like that show that some of the foundational assumptions behind child pornography laws may be faulty. e.g. can a person sexually abuse themself?

    I’m not really sure whether paedophilia (i.e. being sexually attracted to prepubescents) should really be elevated to some kind of “orientation”, it’s more just a paraphilia or fetish, like Max Mosely liking a spanking, though obviously of a greater danger in causing harm to others.

    This whole area has been turned into a moral panic and very few people have a cool and logical head in regard to it.



    You raise an interesting point about the terminology. As pointed out, strictly speaking someone who is attracted to a post pubescent child is not a paedophile, but a hebephile, and yet the media and society insist on using the term paedophile.

    Why could we suppose this is?

    Might it be for exactly the reasons you have addressed, namely that were we to start getting factual about the terminology it would raise some uncomfortable home truths about most men?

  • Rory


    This is outrageous.

    Looking at a phenomenon with objectivity, examining available evidence, using common sense and making reasonable judgements based thereon. It must not be allowed to continue. People like you should be locked up.

    And if you continue to persist in this behaviour, the way current trends are going, you probably will be.

  • Turtle


    I feel all this pre-pubescent and post-pubescent children stuff is crap, not least because children need to be protected both from sexual predators like Gadd and from their own emotions and ignorance. That is why we have laws such as this.

    You’re making a category error though. A strong moral case does not compensate for a logical error. Paedophilia is an abnormal psychological trait. If we define anyone who is attracted to any person under the age of 16 as a paedophile then almost all men and probably the majority of women are paedophiles. That therefore renders the term pretty much useless and meaningless as a descriptor of anything. It’s like the ducking stool to determine whether someone is a witch. You can’t win. The penile plesmograph will get you. If paedophilia is to mean anything it must mean attraction to prepubescents. That is, after all, what the term was invented to describe in the first place. If it means attraction to a person who is under legal age then it means nothing. At best it means “non asexual human being” but what use is that? However, even aside the age issue, an aesthetic feeling (i.e. sexual attraction) also cannot be considered a crime – it does not meet the jurisprudential prerequisites to be so.

    This has become a crimen exceptum
    indeed it was fear of this that led to LITERAL witch trials as late as the 1990s

    Somebody has to burst this bubble and bring things back to logic and sense.

    I think part of the problem here is that there is some kind of unconscious fear that the justifications behind age of consent laws are empirically faulty, and that since we do not wish our children to be having sex at a young age we make up fictions about harm that do not really stack up, rather like society used to do about homosexuality. I’m not really an expert on what age children can be harmed and in what ways by sexual contact, but I get the impression that our beliefs about it aren’t based on hard evidence at the moment. It seems to be an attempt to put what is a societal taboo (not that there’s anything wrong with taboos necessarily) into a conventional legal framework of harm or capacity to contract. But it’s something of a square peg jammed into round hole. Not entirely dissimilar to the issue of adult consensual incest where the issue of genetic defects is always brought up. But really the reason it is illegal has little to do with conventional legal philosophy of rights and harm etc. but is just a culture dependant moral standard, like it being illegal to walk down a street with no clothes on whereas in some societies it would be normal.

  • Reader

    TAFKABO: Might it be for exactly the reasons you have addressed, namely that were we to start getting factual about the terminology it would raise some uncomfortable home truths about most men?
    There’s nothing wrong with precision in terminology; and with trying to separate psychological disorders from criminality, too. It might even lead to an improvement in the level of public debate on the topic.
    But first we need an alternative term for adults who seek sexual contact with others who are too young to consent. Maybe ‘nonce’ could be elevated from an acronym and a slang term to a technical term?
    By the way, for those who are worried about keeping an interest in schoolgirls while well into adult life, may I recommend a period of time on public transport? A couple of months with mindless chatter about boy-bands, ponies and ringtones as the background to all of your journeys should effect a complete cure in all but the most serious cases.

  • Turtle


    You raise an interesting point about the terminology. As pointed out, strictly speaking someone who is attracted to a post pubescent child is not a paedophile, but a hebephile, and yet the media and society insist on using the term paedophile.

    As I say though, hebephilia is not much of a differentiating category. People who DON’T find any adolescents attractive are the exception rather than the rule. Some men don’t find teenage girls attractive, but most men do. I can’t see how this can be much of a secret. Most teenage girls themselves are very much aware of this and hence women should know this too. It doesn’t seem to be a secret so much as it is a tissue of lies. Everybody actually knows it, the taboo is to say it out load.

    Of course the taboo can’t be very deep. It’s somewhat superficial. For example when Chris Langham was accused of having sex with a 14 year old girl there were cries of “monster!” but I’ve yet to see crowds gathered outside the Croatian embassy protesting against their “monstrous” laws that set the age of consent at 14. Somewhat incongruous. This is what I mean about it being superficial. It’s more about social conformity than a genuine sense of a real crime. If Croatia had, say, legalised slavery or something you would get protests.

    Why could we suppose this is?

    Might it be for exactly the reasons you have addressed, namely that were we to start getting factual about the terminology it would raise some uncomfortable home truths about most men?

    But why should we be uncomfortable about men finding underage teenage girls attractive? Are we really uncomfortable about it? I’m not so sure that we actually really are. For example, take the clip before where John McCain described a 14 year old girl that asked him a question earlier that day as a “very attractive young woman”. Is anybody actually disgusted or repulsed by John McCain because he said that? Is anybody calling McCain a paedophile because of this? Of course not. That would be ludicrous. At best it would be a joke.

    So much seems to depend on context. McCain is not considered a paedophile. A man caught with a nude picture of a 14 year old on his hard drive, let’s say for the sake of argument the same 14 year old, becomes a “paedophile”, a monster, and a sex offender, and probably the media will say that he was found guilty of “making child pornography”, a technical offence that doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means. Now I’m not saying that nude pictures of 14 year olds should be legal, but there’s something deeply stupid about how these matters are presented. If the internet fiend is a paedophile for yanking off to a picture of a 14 year old girl without clothes on then surely McCain must be a paedophile too for saying to a news anchor that the same girl was “a very attractive young woman”. No? Logic surely dictates it. Yet somehow it doesn’t work like that because of context. Of course neither of these people would probably actually be paedophiles by the medical definition, if you strapped them in and done a penile plesmograph or whatever.


    I agree that if we’re all honest most men will admit that young females can be and are attractive, what I mean by saying it would make for uncomfortbale truths was that we would be forced to confront the double standards you have just explained in your post.
    Another thing that would have to be faced is that we need to accept that finding someone attractive is not necessarily the same as wanting to have sex with or do harm to. The problem with this is that people would then have to make a difference between those criminals who just want to look at young females naked, and those criminals who want to have sex with young females. At the moment wev’e got a one size fits all attitude to child sex crime and that is a bad thing.

  • Doctor Who

    Now Gary Glitter, he´s a dirty old man,
    Ruining the reputation of the Glitter Band.

    Luke Haines (Bad Reputation)

  • i still secretly listen to me Gary Glitter cassette tapes.
    Favourite tracks are Rock ‘n roll pt 1
    and unsurprisingly Rock ‘n roll pt 2.
    Anyone else still a closet GG music fan?
    We havent all gone away u no.

  • rabelais

    I’ve learnt more about paedophilia (and that which apparently isn’t paedophilia at all, but something else entirely, although it is labelled paedophilia) from this thread than all the incredible number of column inches and extensive coverage in the mainstream media. What does that say about our free press?

  • Earnan

    Pedophiles should have be castrated (chemically). There chances of repeating their offense is very high. They are sick individuals.