Gary Glitter Returns to Prison for Violating Bail Terms, Just a Month After Release
Gary Glitter back in prison for violating bail conditions just a month after his release
Disgraced former rockstar Gary Glitter has been sent back to prison after breaching the conditions of his bail release. The 78-year-old was staying in a hostel in southern England, monitored by security, when he was caught using a smartphone to ask about the Dark Web. Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was jailed in 2015 for 16 years for sex crimes against a young girl. He had been released just 38 days before being recalled to prison.
Glitter’s release from prison last month had been highly controversial, with many campaigners calling for him to remain behind bars. The musician had been convicted of sexually abusing young girls in the 1970s and 1980s, and had also been found in possession of thousands of indecent images of children.
Despite this, Glitter was released on strict bail conditions, including wearing a tag, notifying police if he entered into a relationship with someone who had a child under 18, and notifying police seven days in advance of any travel. Officers were also able to veto any trip if they believed it posed a risk of further offences being committed.
However, it appears that Glitter was unable to abide by these conditions. According to reports, he was caught on camera at the bail hostel using a smartphone to ask about the Dark Web. The footage, reportedly obtained by a fellow inmate, shows Glitter looking gaunt and wearing a hearing aid. He can be heard asking about how to avoid detection when browsing the internet on his phone.
The use of a smartphone was a clear breach of Glitter’s bail conditions, which included strict restrictions on his use of the internet. Given his previous convictions, authorities were understandably concerned about the risk he posed to vulnerable children online.
News of Glitter’s recall to prison has been met with mixed reactions. Some campaigners have praised the swift action taken by authorities, arguing that Glitter should never have been released in the first place. They argue that he remains a danger to children and that there is a risk he could reoffend if left at large.
Others have criticized the decision to release Glitter on bail in the first place, arguing that the conditions imposed were too lenient given the seriousness of his crimes. They argue that stricter conditions, such as a total ban on internet use, should have been imposed to prevent any risk of further offending.
In any case, Glitter’s return to prison is a stark reminder of the ongoing challenge of protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation. While significant progress has been made in recent years, with increased awareness and tougher penalties for offenders, cases like Glitter’s serve as a sobering reminder that there is still much work to be done.