Disgraced former pop star Gary Glitter has been recalled to prison after breaching his licence conditions, the Probation Service has said.

 

The singer, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was freed in February after serving half his 16-year jail term for sexually abusing three schoolgirls.

 

His recall comes just over a month since being freed.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64946392

 

Did he forget to do his 90 day report?

And he breached his conditions HOW ?

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Did he forget to do his 90 day report?

I don't think they have that in the UK

9 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

And he breached his conditions HOW ?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21698886/shamed-rock-star-gary-glitter-recalled-to-jail/

From The Sun article:

 

“Glitter is suspected of trying to access prohibited material online. It is thought those attempts were unsuccessful, but that in itself is enough to reach the recall threshold.

“However, his phone will now be forensically analysed to determine exactly what he might have been searching for.”

The Probation Service confirmed Glitter’s recall, saying: “Protecting the public is our priority.

“That’s why we set tough licence conditions and when offenders breach them, we don’t hesitate to return them to custody.”

 

Being returned to jail simply under suspicion? Pretty strong stuff. If only they would control other suspects in the same way.

 

25 minutes ago, soi3eddie said:

From The Sun article:

 

“Glitter is suspected of trying to access prohibited material online. It is thought those attempts were unsuccessful, but that in itself is enough to reach the recall threshold.

“However, his phone will now be forensically analysed to determine exactly what he might have been searching for.”

The Probation Service confirmed Glitter’s recall, saying: “Protecting the public is our priority.

“That’s why we set tough licence conditions and when offenders breach them, we don’t hesitate to return them to custody.”

 

Being returned to jail simply under suspicion? Pretty strong stuff. If only they would control other suspects in the same way.

 

The sun obtained a video of him asking a "friend" how to access the Onion (slang for dark web) on his phone.   The pedophile has only served half his sentence and can be put back in prison for breaking bail conditions.   I would think any attempt to access illegal material would be a one way trip back to jail even if it is unsuccessful.   Hopefully his "friend" is also having his hard drive forensically analysed as well.    

 

Clearly prison has done nothing to rehabilitate him (if that is even possible).   The parole board should be held accountable for their decisions to release predators like this back into the wild after only serving half their sentence and their reasoning for letting him out should be made public. 

"Hello, Hello, I'm Back Again!"

5 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

"Hello, Hello, I'm Back Again!"

May I?

 

 

12 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

May I?

 

 

Happy memories of the 1970s.

Great news. Hopefully he'll be kept inside for the rest of his sentence.

 

Let's hope that covers the rest of his days.

34 minutes ago, James105 said:

The parole board should be held accountable for their decisions to release predators like this back into the wild after only serving half their sentence and their reasoning for letting him out should be made public. 

I'd guess their reasoning was at 80 years old he's not a risk to anyone.

At 80 maybe he didn't want out???? A cot and 3 squares

2 hours ago, James105 said:

The sun obtained a video of him asking a "friend" how to access the Onion (slang for dark web) on his phone.   The pedophile has only served half his sentence and can be put back in prison for breaking bail conditions.   I would think any attempt to access illegal material would be a one way trip back to jail even if it is unsuccessful.   Hopefully his "friend" is also having his hard drive forensically analysed as well.    

 

Clearly prison has done nothing to rehabilitate him (if that is even possible).   The parole board should be held accountable for their decisions to release predators like this back into the wild after only serving half their sentence and their reasoning for letting him out should be made public. 

According to the Guardian, he was freed automatically!

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/feb/03/why-did-gary-glitter-only-serve-half-his-prison-sentence

 

"Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, received a standard determinate or fixed-term sentence from a court for sexually abusing three girls, meaning he is automatically released on licence at the halfway point of his sentence. "

"Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the justice secretary, currently Dominic Raab, has a duty to automatically release certain fixed-term prisoners when they have completed the requisite custodial period."

Then it follows anyone using Tor could be held guilty of trying to access "The Dark Web". What a load of crxp. The Sun makes Fox look almost intelligent.

My guess on this is that the act lined up for the Christmas prison show this year got an early and unexpected release

2 hours ago, bradiston said:

Then it follows anyone using Tor could be held guilty of trying to access "The Dark Web". What a load of crxp. The Sun makes Fox look almost intelligent.

It doesn't follow.

Accessing, or attempting to access the dark web was one of the conditions of his licence that would mean an immediate recall (like getting into a relationship with anyone who has a child under 18).

He attempted to access the dark web, he got recalled.

 

The Sun and Fox are very much related. Both being Rupert Murdoch's organs (for the time being) and devoted to the lunatic fringe of society.

14 minutes ago, mrfill said:

It doesn't follow.

Accessing, or attempting to access the dark web was one of the conditions of his licence that would mean an immediate recall (like getting into a relationship with anyone who has a child under 18).

He attempted to access the dark web, he got recalled.

 

The Sun and Fox are very much related. Both being Rupert Murdoch's organs (for the time being) and devoted to the lunatic fringe of society.

Using tor is not any sort of evidence of accessing the dark web though.   Perhaps he was banned from using anonymizing procedures? 

 

But as Bradiston says the Sun, like so many of the right wing papers, just spout disinformation to manipulate their audience.  Like in Murdoch's Fox, facts are to be avoided in Murdoch's Sun.

8 minutes ago, Slip said:

Using tor is not any sort of evidence of accessing the dark web though.   Perhaps he was banned from using anonymizing procedures? 

 

But as Bradiston says the Sun, like so many of the right wing papers, just spout disinformation to manipulate their audience.  Like in Murdoch's Fox, facts are to be avoided in Murdoch's Sun.

A 'source' said “Glitter is suspected of trying to access prohibited material online. It is thought those attempts were unsuccessful, but that in itself is enough to reach the recall threshold. However, his phone will now be forensically analysed to determine exactly what he might have been searching for.”

Knowing the Sun, a 'source' means a bribed cop.

5 minutes ago, mrfill said:

A 'source' said “Glitter is suspected of trying to access prohibited material online. It is thought those attempts were unsuccessful, but that in itself is enough to reach the recall threshold. However, his phone will now be forensically analysed to determine exactly what he might have been searching for.”

Knowing the Sun, a 'source' means a bribed cop.

That's the thing really- it's just dreadful sensationalist journalism.  Is 'being suspected of' enough to trigger the recall or is there a need for evidence, did he really try to access the dark web, or did he just make an enquiry about tor?  

 

Regardless, I have no sympathy for the dreadful man.

6 minutes ago, Slip said:

That's the thing really- it's just dreadful sensationalist journalism.  Is 'being suspected of' enough to trigger the recall or is there a need for evidence, did he really try to access the dark web, or did he just make an enquiry about tor?  

 

Regardless, I have no sympathy for the dreadful man.

Have you thought about reading a different news source ?

The Sun isn't regarded as a quality newspaper , and there's no need to state that as everyone knows that .

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Have you thought about reading a different news source ?

The Sun isn't regarded as a quality newspaper , and there's no need to state that as everyone knows that .

Agreed.  I take most issue with their lies and hypocrisy, but of course we are way off topic here, so I'll leave it there.

31 minutes ago, Slip said:

That's the thing really- it's just dreadful sensationalist journalism.  Is 'being suspected of' enough to trigger the recall or is there a need for evidence, did he really try to access the dark web, or did he just make an enquiry about tor?  

 

Regardless, I have no sympathy for the dreadful man.

The probation service stated the he breached his licencing conditions and they didn't go into detail , its a legal matter and they don't disclose their private information .

   Their info was that he breached the conditions , so back to jail he goes .

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'd guess their reasoning was at 80 years old he's not a risk to anyone.

Maybe not, but his victims are scarred for life. Kiddy fiddlers should be subject to a death penalty!

14 minutes ago, prakhonchai nick said:

Maybe not, but his victims are scarred for life. Kiddy fiddlers should be subject to a death penalty!

That's not what the law suggests.

Punishing someone for a crime they committed 40 years go seems excessive.

27 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The probation service stated the he breached his licencing conditions and they didn't go into detail , its a legal matter and they don't disclose their private information .

   Their info was that he breached the conditions , so back to jail he goes .

Agreed.  The irresponsible reporting and flimsy journalism is all the responsibility of the newspaper.  I would be interested to know if there is any nugget of truth in their report or they're making it up as usual.  No doubt more details will emerge.

 

Many people seem to be commenting on gadd's early release which is perhaps a better (and more on topic) focus than the guttersnipe ethics of Murdoch's rags.

22 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

That's not what the law suggests.

Punishing someone for a crime they committed 40 years go seems excessive.

Trying to understand your thinking here. For example; if I murdered someone 40 years ago that wouldn't be as bad as murdering someone yesterday? Or does it vary with the type of crime?

 

 

Sure looks like he is guilty of being suspected of doing or asking how, to do a bad thing. 

I'm all in favour of trying to rehabilitate offenders but there must come a point when it becomes that rehabilitation isn't going to happen. Seems like this is the case here.