Gary Glitter, the former singer whose real name is Paul Gadd, has been charged with historical sexual offences dating back to 1978, the Metropolitan Police has said.

The charges relate to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent assault on a girl under the age of 14.

There is one alleged victim, with the offences said to have taken place between the years of 1978-1981 at a residential address in Kensington.

Gadd is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 5 August.

The allegations were first reported to the Met on 9 January 2025 and an investigation into the circumstances was launched.

Gadd was first interviewed on 22 July 2025 in relation to the investigation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lywez0zddo

Can't they catch anybody new?!?

6 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Can't they catch anybody new?!?

They can. Unfortunately those in power stop it from happening, though we already knew that.

5 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Can't they catch anybody new?!?

Aren't you the self appointed protector of the downtrodden, the powerless, the people without a voice? As was demonstrated by past cases, such as those with Jimmy Savile, these types of crimes were suppressed or covered up and victims ignored. If there are charges after all these years, it is because there is a compelling case (or there should be). If the evidence is insufficient, then defence counsel will be able to have the charges dismissed. I do not support witch hunts, but the history of the accused does not lend itself to ignoring the claims of the possible victims and they deserve to be heard. However, as the case was reported 9 January 2025 and the accused was first interviewed on 22 July. 2025, it appears that a lengthy investigation was undertaken. The prosecutor has 25 years of legal experience. Bethan David, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor in CPS London said:

“The Crown Prosecution Service has decided to prosecute Paul Gadd with one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 and three counts of indecent assault on a girl under 14.

“This follows allegations made by a woman relating to a period of alleged abuse that took place between 1978 and 1981.

“Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring this case to court and that it is in the public interest to do so. “We have worked closely with the Metropolitan Police as they have carried out their investigation into the allegations. The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that proceedings are now active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial. It is vital that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” 

See my review of the rape reports, Pat. The Glit is 82. If he doesn't die before trial, he'll just be a drain on the taxpayers.

The only possible benefit is to have his victims look him in the face these decades later.

could be oldbirds with no pension trying it on as garys reputation makes him easy meat ,other rockers are all guilty too

wonder if he lived in kensington at the time?

the victim will have to proove glit in circ or uncirc..?and does he have warts on his member

No statutes of limitations in the UK?

52 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

could be oldbirds with no pension trying it on as garys reputation makes him easy meat ,other rockers are all guilty too

wonder if he lived in kensington at the time?

A rocker without groupies?!? Remember the Plaster Casters?

13 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

gary glitter problems with jailbait

I heard similar about Rolf Harris

12 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

See my review of the rape reports, Pat. The Glit is 82. If he doesn't die before trial, he'll just be a drain on the taxpayers.

The only possible benefit is to have his victims look him in the face these decades later.

I'm sure that when it comes to this abomination of a human being remaining incarcerated, your taxpayer see it as money well spent. I doubt that his early release due to being an excessive drain on the state coffers will gain much support. The law dictates he cannot be executed or deported.

Right now, the British can't even deport a similarly vile, but foreign-born perpetrator of sexual predation due to some ill-conceived legislation that foisted citizenship rights on people after only a few years. British parliamentarians should pay attention to Obama's warning that "votes have consequences" when debating legislation.

And for that victim, this face to face may be more cathartic and liberating than any additional punishment that may be handed down.

Historical sexual offences indeed.

"The alleged victim is currently being supported by specialist officers, and they have been made aware of this update.”

“Supported by specialist officers” for having sex with one of the most desirable rock stars on the planet at the time (however naff he appears now) and when it was taken for granted that rock stars banged their groupies.

What an insane society, and a very sadistic one too, to put this man through such unrelenting persecution.

5 hours ago, JackGats said:

Historical sexual offences indeed.

"The alleged victim is currently being supported by specialist officers, and they have been made aware of this update.”

“Supported by specialist officers” for having sex with one of the most desirable rock stars on the planet at the time (however naff he appears now) and when it was taken for granted that rock stars banged their groupies.

What an insane society, and a very sadistic one too, to put this man through such unrelenting persecution.

The child in question was 13.

Even though times in the 70s were certainly different to today, this decidedly was NOT a "teen groupie".

If you do disgusting crimes, be prepared to do the time... persecuting such a vile man is important, and if just for the sake of closure for the victims.

11 hours ago, jts-khorat said:

The child in question was 13.

Even though times in the 70s were certainly different to today, this decidedly was NOT a "teen groupie".

If you do disgusting crimes, be prepared to do the time... persecuting such a vile man is important, and if just for the sake of closure for the victims.

Not a teen groupie? What then? A thirteen groupie.

Who? Never heard a single hit song of his. Nope.

Sorry I am not familiar with the low class UK pedophiles and their music 🎶

On 7/3/2026 at 2:46 PM, Patong2021 said:

Aren't you the self appointed protector of the downtrodden, the powerless, the people without a voice? As was demonstrated by past cases, such as those with Jimmy Savile, these types of crimes were suppressed or covered up and victims ignored. If there are charges after all these years, it is because there is a compelling case (or there should be). If the evidence is insufficient, then defence counsel will be able to have the charges dismissed. I do not support witch hunts, but the history of the accused does not lend itself to ignoring the claims of the possible victims and they deserve to be heard. However, as the case was reported 9 January 2025 and the accused was first interviewed on 22 July. 2025, it appears that a lengthy investigation was undertaken. The prosecutor has 25 years of legal experience. Bethan David, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor in CPS London said:

“The Crown Prosecution Service has decided to prosecute Paul Gadd with one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 and three counts of indecent assault on a girl under 14.

“This follows allegations made by a woman relating to a period of alleged abuse that took place between 1978 and 1981.

“Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring this case to court and that it is in the public interest to do so. “We have worked closely with the Metropolitan Police as they have carried out their investigation into the allegations. The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that proceedings are now active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial. It is vital that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” 

Just look who was the DPP at the time of Jimmy Savile.