Gary Glitter jailed for child porn
Bat Child (Sue M.)
====================
ISSUE 1632 Saturday 13 November 1999
Gary Glitter jailed for child porn
By Sean O'Neill
Gary Glitter was jailed for four months yesterday for amassing "a vast
private library of child pornography". The pop star, looking shaken
and distressed, was led off to prison two hours after he had been
cleared of sexually assaulting a besotted schoolgirl fan. Glitter, 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.
Trevor Burke, defending, said Glitter felt "considerable remorse" for
his crime. "It is no exaggeration to say that his professional life is
at an end. His public disgrace is now complete."
The jurors who had earlier cleared Glitter of eight charges of
sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl were not aware that he was
about to plead guilty to collecting child pornography. They delivered
their not guilty verdicts after Glitter's alleged victim, now 32 and
married with three children, became discredited because she stood to
earn £25,000 from the News of the World if he was convicted.
The woman alleged that Glitter began forcing her into sexual acts from
the age of 14 and had made her dress in school uniform and call him
Daddy. But Mr Justice Butterfield told the jurors that her evidence
had to be regarded "with the very greatest care" because she had
entered into a "highly reprehensible" newspaper contract. The Press
Complaints Commission has announced an inquiry into the contract
between the woman and the newspaper.
Fans of the singer, who sold 18 million records at the height of his
fame in the Seventies, greeted his acquittal on four charges of
indecent assault and four of serious sexual assault with cheers and
applause in the public gallery. Glitter acknowledged his public,
hugged Henri Brandman, his solicitor, and clasped his hands and bowed
towards the jurors as they filed out of the courtroom.
But within hours he was back in the dock to admit 54 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 £80,000 towards Crown costs.
The court clerk took 22 minutes to read the indictment and ask Glitter
to plead to each individual charge. The singer, tanned and wearing a
black Versace suit, stood with head bowed as the charges were put to
him. He answered "Guilty" to the first dozen counts before his voice
dropped and he nodded to each charge as he appeared to hold back
tears.
On being sentenced to prison, he appeared bewildered and clutched a
hand to his mouth before officers took his arms and he was taken down
from the dock to be driven away to Horfield prison, Bristol. John
Royce, QC, prosecuting, told the court that Glitter's paedophile
library had been discovered in November 1997 when he took his Toshiba
computer to PC World in Bristol for repair.
He told Blake Gilchrist, the technician, not to look at any files. But
when Mr Gilchrist had fixed the machine he had to look at a file to
check that it was working. The file contained an obscene picture of a
man and a child. Mr Gilchrist consulted his line manager and he called
the police. Glitter was arrested but made no comment during interviews
and detectives embarked on further examination of his computer and his
internet service provider records.
"The computer had been used extensively to download and store the most
appalling images of very young children engaged in the most
humiliating sexual acts," said Mr Royce. "He had an appetite for child
pornography that was, bluntly, voracious."
Mr Royce added: "Day after day and week after week he spent literally
hundreds of hours logged on, seeking out material of the sickest kind.
On occasions he was logged on continuously for six and 12 hours."
Speaking outside court, Mr Brandman said: "Gary is truly sorry for the
commission of the offence. He will be appealing the severity of the
sentence."
Mike Taylor, the director of child care at the NSPCC, said: "The judge
may well have had his reasons for imposing this sentence, but it
sounds very light for such a reprehensible crime. It sends out the
wrong message." He added: "Child pornography is a vicious industry run
by paedophiles for the pleasure of very sick people.
"We must never forget that these horrific images are real children who
have suffered terrible abuse at the hands of dangerous paedophiles.
And child pornography on the internet repeats the abuse, because the
children concerned know that the images will be broadcast again and
again."
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 1999. Terms & Conditions of
reading. Commercial information.
====================
Sue, SP4(:), listed on the Scieno Sitter list 5 times!
--
http://www.primenet.com/~xenubat
"It will take a *long* time to find another enemy
with the combination of evil and incompetence
you see in Scientology."--Keith Henson
Essex9999
>The jurors who had earlier cleared Glitter of eight charges of
>sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl were not aware that he was
>about to plead guilty to collecting child pornography. They delivered
>their not guilty verdicts after Glitter's alleged victim, now 32 and
>married with three children, became discredited because she stood to
>earn £25,000 from the News of the World if he was convicted.
I'm in no way defending Glitter's actions, but isn't there a statute of
limitations in the UK? How could he be charged with a crime committed 18 years
ago?
--Steve
Mal P
--
Cheerio,
Mal
"Essex9999" <esse...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991112230842...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> Xen...@primenet.com writes:
>
> >The jurors who had earlier cleared Glitter of eight charges of
> >sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl were not aware that he was
> >about to plead guilty to collecting child pornography. They delivered
> >their not guilty verdicts after Glitter's alleged victim, now 32 and
> >married with three children, became discredited because she stood to
> >earn £25,000 from the News of the World if he was convicted.
>
>
lucrezia
<esse...@aol.com> writes
>Xen...@primenet.com writes:
>
>>The jurors who had earlier cleared Glitter of eight charges of
>>sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl were not aware that he was
>>about to plead guilty to collecting child pornography. They delivered
>>their not guilty verdicts after Glitter's alleged victim, now 32 and
>>married with three children, became discredited because she stood to
>>earn £25,000 from the News of the World if he was convicted.
>
>
>limitations in the UK? How could he be charged with a crime committed 18 years
>ago?
There have been several high-profile "long ago" sexual abuse cases tried
here in the UK in the last few years; usually the victims were "children
in care", i.e. those living in children's homes because of
family/drug/alcohol problems. One man, who ran a local-government
funded children's home in Leicestershire, was convicted in the early
90's of abusing some dozen or so boys back in the 70's. I don't
remember all the particulars, but he was given something like a 20 year
sentence, even though 15-20 years had elapsed and he was in his late
50's when the charges were pressed. He died in prison a couple of years
ago.
There have also been a couple of murder cases brought to trial 20 years
after the fact; in one case, the victim's body was only discovered (at
the bottom of a lake) much later. (The police had suspected her husband
way back when, but lacked sufficient evidence until the body was
discovered along with some objects that implicated him beyond doubt.)
The notorious Fred West was convicted of several murders, including that
of his first wife some 20 years before his arrest.
I've no legal background, but I think that any statute of limitations
may be limited to crimes against property, but not crimes against the
person.
-Lucrezia
--
luc
email: lucr...@quentincrisp.com
web: http://www.bagels.demon.co.uk/
"Whoa... there is no spoon." - Neo-logism
Essex9999
>There have also been a couple of murder cases brought to trial 20 years
>after the fact; in one case, the victim's body was only discovered (at
>the bottom of a lake) much later. (The police had suspected her husband
>way back when, but lacked sufficient evidence until the body was
>discovered along with some objects that implicated him beyond doubt.)
>The notorious Fred West was convicted of several murders, including that
>of his first wife some 20 years before his arrest.
There is no statute of limitation for murder in the US, either.
>I've no legal background, but I think that any statute of limitations
>may be limited to crimes against property, but not crimes against the
>person.
That makes two of us lacking in legal training. However, I thought that, here
in the US, the statute of limitation applied to all crimes except murder. I
believe the duration of the statute varies between civil and criminal law, with
7 years apparently the usual limit on bringing criminal charges. Of course, I'm
basing that only on 42 years of TV-crime-show watching, so maybe this is just a
figment of Hollywood's imagination. Any lawyers out there?
--Steve
Anne Skove
>lucr...@quentincrisp.com writes;
>
>>There have also been a couple of murder cases brought to trial 20 years
>>after the fact; in one case, the victim's body was only discovered (at
>>the bottom of a lake) much later. (The police had suspected her husband
>>way back when, but lacked sufficient evidence until the body was
>>discovered along with some objects that implicated him beyond doubt.)
>>The notorious Fred West was convicted of several murders, including that
>>of his first wife some 20 years before his arrest.
>
>
>There is no statute of limitation for murder in the US, either.
>
>
>>I've no legal background, but I think that any statute of limitations
>>may be limited to crimes against property, but not crimes against the
>>person.
S of L for child abuse can be longer...to wait for the kids to tell
someone, grow up, realize what they've been through. etc.
Anyway, didn't it say that they confiscated stuff from his computer?
THAT isn't a 20-year-old piece of machinery lying around his house,
seems recent to me. (But the one girl, I guess that was 20 y.o.)
aes
Joy S.
lucrezia <lucr...@quentincrisp.com> wrote in message
news:lqDDLNAG...@bagels.demon.co.uk...
> In article <19991112230842...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, Essex9999
> <esse...@aol.com> writes
> >Xen...@primenet.com writes:
> >
> >>sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl were not aware that he was
> >>about to plead guilty to collecting child pornography. They delivered
> >>their not guilty verdicts after Glitter's alleged victim, now 32 and
> >>married with three children, became discredited because she stood to
> >>earn £25,000 from the News of the World if he was convicted.
> >
> >
> >limitations in the UK? How could he be charged with a crime committed 18
years
> >ago?
>
> There have been several high-profile "long ago" sexual abuse cases tried
> here in the UK in the last few years; usually the victims were "children
> in care", i.e. those living in children's homes because of
> family/drug/alcohol problems. One man, who ran a local-government
> funded children's home in Leicestershire, was convicted in the early
> 90's of abusing some dozen or so boys back in the 70's. I don't
> remember all the particulars, but he was given something like a 20 year
> sentence, even though 15-20 years had elapsed and he was in his late
> 50's when the charges were pressed. He died in prison a couple of years
> ago.
>
> after the fact; in one case, the victim's body was only discovered (at
> the bottom of a lake) much later. (The police had suspected her husband
> way back when, but lacked sufficient evidence until the body was
> discovered along with some objects that implicated him beyond doubt.)
> The notorious Fred West was convicted of several murders, including that
> of his first wife some 20 years before his arrest.
>
> may be limited to crimes against property, but not crimes against the
> person.
>
You know its like the system is saying, its not that much of a big deal
since you were only downloading the filth, not actually taking part in their
manufacture. As if! The low-life life who deals with this sort of shit is
just as guilty of moving the cog-wheels of CP. He is keeping the *industry*
(puke) in business.
What are child rights activists doing over there after this verdict? Any
protests going on?
peace
Elayne Riggs
> Glitter's paedophile
> library had been discovered in November 1997 when he took his Toshiba
> computer to PC World in Bristol for repair.
> He told Blake Gilchrist, the technician, not to look at any files.
Now see, I think he should have an even more severe sentence based on his
stupidity. It's reprehensible enough being into child porn, but to be
stupid enough to keep the files on your hard drive? What a moron.
- Elayne
Joy S.
Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:80pcdk$o6h$2...@news.panix.com...
> > library had been discovered in November 1997 when he took his Toshiba
> > computer to PC World in Bristol for repair.
>
> > He told Blake Gilchrist, the technician, not to look at any files.
>
> stupidity. It's reprehensible enough being into child porn, but to be
> stupid enough to keep the files on your hard drive? What a moron.
>
Ditto on your post Elayne.
Elayne Riggs
> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:80pcdk$o6h$2...@news.panix.com...
>> Bat Child (Sue M.) <Xen...@primenet.com> happened to mention:
>> > Glitter's paedophile
>> > library had been discovered in November 1997 when he took his Toshiba
>> > computer to PC World in Bristol for repair.
>>
>> > He told Blake Gilchrist, the technician, not to look at any files.
>>
>> Now see, I think he should have an even more severe sentence based on his
>> stupidity. It's reprehensible enough being into child porn, but to be
>> stupid enough to keep the files on your hard drive? What a moron.
> Ditto on your post Elayne.
And just in case someone believes we're condoning the former (which I
can't see them doing, I'm sure I can use stronger words than
"reprehensible" to describe paedophelia but didn't think I needed to),
I just wanted to add I'm condemning Glitter for BOTH his paedophilia AND
his stupidity (as well as his net.naivete!).
- Elayne
Joy S.
> Joy S. <peac...@prodigy.net> happened to mention:
>
> > Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:80pcdk$o6h$2...@news.panix.com...
> >> Bat Child (Sue M.) <Xen...@primenet.com> happened to mention:
> >> > library had been discovered in November 1997 when he took his Toshiba
> >> > computer to PC World in Bristol for repair.
> >>
> >> > He told Blake Gilchrist, the technician, not to look at any files.
> >>
his
> >> stupidity. It's reprehensible enough being into child porn, but to be
> >> stupid enough to keep the files on your hard drive? What a moron.
>
> > Ditto on your post Elayne.
>
> And just in case someone believes we're condoning the former (which I
> can't see them doing, I'm sure I can use stronger words than
> "reprehensible" to describe paedophelia but didn't think I needed to),
> I just wanted to add I'm condemning Glitter for BOTH his paedophilia AND
> his stupidity (as well as his net.naivete!).
Thanks for clearing that up.
k
:)
Brian OConaill
Elayne Riggs wrote in message <80pi7n$s3i$1...@news.panix.com>...
>I just wanted to add I'm condemning Glitter for BOTH his paedophilia AND
>his stupidity (as well as his net.naivete!).
This isn't relevant in Glitter's case since he had purposely downloaded
stuff but in general you wouldn't need to be particularly stupid to have
left porn or undesirable stuff on your hard drive accidentally. Not
everyone is aware of images being stored in C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet
Files on their PC and that they will remain there even if you just *viewed*
the pictures on the web.
I know people who work in computer hardware who go straight to that
directory as soon as they get their hands on a customer's PC.
Brian
Elayne Riggs
Heh. Point taken. I guess I just assumed people who downloaded, for
instance, personal stuff on company time (or questionable/illegal stuff on
personal time, for that matter) knew all about the Temp files and did a
regular clearing of both those and the History files, like I do at least
once a week (just did one this morning, in fact). In Explorer I know you
can find it under the Tools pulldown menu, Internet Options, General.
Can't remember where it is with Netscape. But honestly, don't you think
this kind of knowledge should be rudimentary for any surfer? (And yes, in
Glitter's case it was apparently actual standing files, not Temp ones...)
I mean, I'm not that Web-savvy and I even know how to turn off the cookie
acceptor!
- Elayne
Brian OConaill
Elayne Riggs wrote in message <80pudf$6v9$1...@news.panix.com>...
> But honestly, don't you think
>this kind of knowledge should be rudimentary for any surfer? (And yes, in
>Glitter's case it was apparently actual standing files, not Temp ones...)
>I mean, I'm not that Web-savvy and I even know how to turn off the cookie
>acceptor!
Well having spoken to people who fix computers I know they quite commonly
find stuff that while not illegal would most likely be embarrassing for the
owner. And that several of such owners have been experienced computer
users. Perhaps they don't embarrass easily or they rely on the integrity of
engineers not to look. Big mistake :-)
Brian