The 'wig cleaning' excuse was laughable. Horrible that it's girls so young though - just like in Vietnam. Bet his activities would have been known by a lot of people from well before he was first arrested.
As an aside, I distinctly remember, some time in the early 90s - so well before his first arrest and when he was having a kind of a retro revival - seeing an article in the Observer magazine (of all places) about him, which stated that at the time, he was living with his fourteen or fifteen year old girlfriend and her parents. He'd have been late forties I guess? I remember thinking - what? That's weird. No negative comment was made about this in the article at all. How times change, eh?
The 'wig cleaning' excuse was laughable. Horrible that it's girls so young though - just like in Vietnam. Bet his activities would have been known by a lot of people from well before he was first arrested.
As an aside, I distinctly remember, some time in the early 90s - so well before his first arrest and when he was having a kind of a retro revival - seeing an article in the Observer magazine (of all places) about him, which stated that at the time, he was living with his fourteen or fifteen year old girlfriend and her parents. He'd have been late forties I guess? I remember thinking - what? That's weird. No negative comment was made about this in the article at all. How times change, eh?
Well, he definitely had a relationship with Denise Van Outen while she was in her teens. The fact she was his girlfriend at the age of 17 is a matter of public record as it was mentioned during his first trial in 1999. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/510582.stm
There's no verifiable reference to it starting when she was underage, though.
Well, he definitely had a relationship with Denise Van Outen while she was in her teens. The fact she was his girlfriend at the age of 17 is a matter of public record as it was mentioned during his first trial in 1999. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/510582.stm
There's no verifiable reference to it starting when she was underage, though.
It did say in the Beeb tea time news, there was more evidence but it was too disturbing to report. So we have not heard everything the jury did.
Looks like his money could end up sitting in a Bank until the day he dies if he gets a lengthy enough sentence. I suppose it depends on how many sexual crimes he's committed and how bad they were.
Looks like his money could end up sitting in a Bank until the day he dies if he gets a lengthy enough sentence. I suppose it depends on how many sexual crimes he's committed and how bad they were.
Surely his money will soon disappear if civil cases are brought by the victims?
To be fair, why would she? She's probably mortified by the whole thing now! I'm no fan of hers, but I find it unpleasant that people bring up her relationship with him as a means to criticise her. Glitter is the one who deserves criticism, not some 17 year old girl who had a relationship with him before the sordid truth about his abuse of underage girls came out.
Looks like his money could end up sitting in a Bank until the day he dies if he gets a lengthy enough sentence. I suppose it depends on how many sexual crimes he's committed and how bad they were.
He does not earn any money from his songs anymore as he sold his royalties years ago. Not sure where any money he's got came from. I doubt he has much left though.
I heard today that since 1999 the Glitter band have been unoficially banned from pick of the Pops on Radio 2. Thats really unfair they had those hit's without him and so why should they pay. They suffered with lost bookings in 1999 no doubt this will happen again now.
To be fair, why would she? She's probably mortified by the whole thing now! I'm no fan of hers, but I find it unpleasant that people bring up her relationship with him as a means to criticise her. Glitter is the one who deserves criticism, not some 17 year old girl who had a relationship with him before the sordid truth about his abuse of underage girls came out.
It's the same with Ferne Cotton she does not want to be reminded that she had a reationship with a pervert (Ian Watkins).
He does not earn any money from his songs anymore as he sold his royalties years ago. Not sure where any money he's got came from. I doubt he has much left though.
I heard today that since 1999 the Glitter band have been unoficially banned from pick of the Pops on Radio 2. Thats really unfair they had those hit's without him and so why should they pay. They suffered with lost bookings in 1999 no doubt this will happen again now.
That was a daft thing to do. I agree that the band shouldn't have to pay for Gadd's crimes. Very unfair to make the innocent pay for his selfishness. Bad call, BBC.
There might have been records of his movements back when he was supposed to have had illegal sex with them lasses. The records might show that he was with the underage lasses in a room. Of course, that's not absolute proof that he had sex with them though. I am wondering what convinced the jury that he did have sex with them.
Maybe it's because they found the confessions of his victims, truthful. Or maybe it's simply because the man is a paedophile, who else has over 4000 indecent photographs of children on their computers? Or maybe it's because he sexually assaulted a 10 and 11 year old in Vietnam and was convicted for it.
Yes I know the jury are supposed to live in the here and now, but he can't escape the facts, not stories, FACTS.
GG was acquitted of three of the counts, which to me shows that the jury was prepared to consider the difference in the level of evidence as between different crimes and was not entirely swayed by his criminal history.
Looks like his money could end up sitting in a Bank until the day he dies.
Has he actually got any money left? Glitter has been shunned by radio stations across Europe for years and rightfully so. Unless he invested well 40 years ago, I can't imagine him being wealthy any more.
Has he actually got any money left? Glitter has been shunned by radio stations across Europe for years and rightfully so. Unless he invested well 40 years ago, I can't imagine him being wealthy any more.
Even if he sold the publishing rights to his back catalogue, he would still have an income as a performer on the original recordings. Glitter's recording of Rock and Roll Part 2 is still played regularly at sports events across America and Canada. It has also been featured in many major movies and TV series with scenes at sports stadiums.
Comments
The 'wig cleaning' excuse was laughable. Horrible that it's girls so young though - just like in Vietnam. Bet his activities would have been known by a lot of people from well before he was first arrested.
As an aside, I distinctly remember, some time in the early 90s - so well before his first arrest and when he was having a kind of a retro revival - seeing an article in the Observer magazine (of all places) about him, which stated that at the time, he was living with his fourteen or fifteen year old girlfriend and her parents. He'd have been late forties I guess? I remember thinking - what? That's weird. No negative comment was made about this in the article at all. How times change, eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/510582.stm
There's no verifiable reference to it starting when she was underage, though.
Funny she never brings it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD6kD9G-OUM
Looks like his money could end up sitting in a Bank until the day he dies if he gets a lengthy enough sentence. I suppose it depends on how many sexual crimes he's committed and how bad they were.
To be fair, why would she? She's probably mortified by the whole thing now! I'm no fan of hers, but I find it unpleasant that people bring up her relationship with him as a means to criticise her. Glitter is the one who deserves criticism, not some 17 year old girl who had a relationship with him before the sordid truth about his abuse of underage girls came out.
He does not earn any money from his songs anymore as he sold his royalties years ago. Not sure where any money he's got came from. I doubt he has much left though.
I heard today that since 1999 the Glitter band have been unoficially banned from pick of the Pops on Radio 2. Thats really unfair they had those hit's without him and so why should they pay. They suffered with lost bookings in 1999 no doubt this will happen again now.
It's the same with Ferne Cotton she does not want to be reminded that she had a reationship with a pervert (Ian Watkins).
That was a daft thing to do. I agree that the band shouldn't have to pay for Gadd's crimes. Very unfair to make the innocent pay for his selfishness. Bad call, BBC.
You must be nearly 80, or in your 80s.
I can't say that I blame her for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RleE--HDBiU Definitely NSFW!
Maybe it's because they found the confessions of his victims, truthful. Or maybe it's simply because the man is a paedophile, who else has over 4000 indecent photographs of children on their computers? Or maybe it's because he sexually assaulted a 10 and 11 year old in Vietnam and was convicted for it.
Yes I know the jury are supposed to live in the here and now, but he can't escape the facts, not stories, FACTS.
Has he actually got any money left? Glitter has been shunned by radio stations across Europe for years and rightfully so. Unless he invested well 40 years ago, I can't imagine him being wealthy any more.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0322921/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
Yes, I am 78 and 79 in June! Don't feel it though, I'm glad to say!