Brian wrote:
Why is it that other countries will not let him anywhere near there borders, but we still take back the scum?.

SJ wrote:
Down Poole/Sandbanks way no doubt

Condor Man wrote:
Perhaps he could move to Paulsgrove, we all know what the people round there think.

The New Pretender wrote:
Bolthole - definition - a hole through which an "animal" may bolt when pursued into its burrow or den.

I can't believe that the whereabouts of paedophiles and the like is not common knowledge and not available in the public domain. Surely these people cannot move around our society undetected.

SJ wrote:
Down Poole/Sandbanks way no doubt

The New Pretender wrote:
Bolthole - definition - a hole through which an \"animal\" may bolt when pursued into its burrow or den. I can\'t believe that the whereabouts of paedophiles and the like is not common knowledge and not available in the public domain. Surely these people cannot move around our society undetected.

Denzil wrote:
We should dump him in Australia like we used to with his sort.

Denzil wrote:
We should dump him in Australia like we used to with his sort.

Mental Mickey wrote:
I'm not condoning or defending anything he did, but there have been so many other unrepentant murderers and rapists who have smirked their way into and out of their short jail terms round here who never had a fraction of the hatred directed at them. People posting here would happily form a lynch mob and tear Glitter to pieces, but just as a comparison we have plenty of examples round here of thugs who have beaten and kicked completely innocent people to death - and these killers are out on bail and showing no remorse - in fact there are some walking round in Waterside right now - and nothing like this was ever or is ever said. I'm not defending Gary Glitter but I do question the scary excessive hatred shown by some posters here.

Gary Glitter has been spotted in the leafy Hampshire seaside village

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Denzil wrote: We should dump him in Australia like we used to with his sort.

If the means of transportation is a boat with small hole at the bottom it could be s good idea. But will the European laws on human rights allow that?

quote

jack wrote:
are you lot stupid?????? can you not read? it even says in the article 'The former glam rock star was photographed outside a luxury car showroom, in Warsash and at a local Sainsbury's supermarket' WARSASH . IDIOTS!!!

You're the idiot wrote:

jack wrote:
are you lot stupid?????? can you not read? it even says in the article 'The former glam rock star was photographed outside a luxury car showroom, in Warsash and at a local Sainsbury's supermarket' WARSASH . IDIOTS!!!

It might say that now, it didn't when earlier comments were made. The Echo quite regularly edit stories once they've published them here. I thought everyone knew that. Next time, engage brain before posting and calling everyone idiots, eh

Pedant wrote:
Jack **** the story has been edited since first posting to include new information reported on here by Echo junior reporters

Trollwatch 2008 wrote:
Once again, Ken from Stubbington and "kebab man" mysteriously show up at the same time. I put it to you that it is you who needs to get out more, Ken

Bored wrote:
Hes an old man now, just leave him alone and let him get on with the rest of his life. No wonder he didnt want to come back to England when its full of people like you lot. We have far worse people on the loose in England look at it that way. Dont people deserve a second chance he has done his time?

Tina wrote:
Instead of following around like a pack of water rats why not allow him the peace and time to reflect. People do change. Not one person has ever provided any evidence of actual harm that he has done. I don't agree with the crime but you lot treat him as if he is a mass-murderer. Leave him alone - you all loved him once. Tina

Tina wrote:
Instead of following around like a pack of water rats why not allow him the peace and time to reflect. People do change. Not one person has ever provided any evidence of actual harm that he has done. I don't agree with the crime but you lot treat him as if he is a mass-murderer. Leave him alone - you all loved him once. Tina

me wrote:

Bored wrote: Hes an old man now, just leave him alone and let him get on with the rest of his life. No wonder he didnt want to come back to England when its full of people like you lot. We have far worse people on the loose in England look at it that way. Dont people deserve a second chance he has done his time?

he might be old but hes still a danger to society. by rights he should be dead. he tricked his way out of being executed by the firing squad. hes sick and twisted, what he did does not deserve any second chances. he will always be \\\"looking\\\" wherever he is/goes. i wonder if you have any kids? i doubt it, it surprises me to think that you would give him a second chance knowing what he did to those children!

bored wrote:

me wrote:

Bored wrote: Hes an old man now, just leave him alone and let him get on with the rest of his life. No wonder he didnt want to come back to England when its full of people like you lot. We have far worse people on the loose in England look at it that way. Dont people deserve a second chance he has done his time?

he might be old but hes still a danger to society. by rights he should be dead. he tricked his way out of being executed by the firing squad. hes sick and twisted, what he did does not deserve any second chances. he will always be \\\"looking\\\" wherever he is/goes. i wonder if you have any kids? i doubt it, it surprises me to think that you would give him a second chance knowing what he did to those children!

And there are alot of dangerous people out there that wouldnt think twice about killing or raping you or me regardless of age/sex. What time are you living in he should be dead, dont the mass murderers deserve to de dead then, are you going to say that someone who helps perform euthanasia needs to be killed? There are alot of people looking out there too. I dont have kids no but i have alot of young family to look after. Everyone deserves another chance isnt that what people go to prison for to do there time and reflect on things? well hes had alot of time to reflect he may have changed.

AndyC wrote:
No doubt some of you would have cheerfully hung or torn to pieces Stefan Kiszko when he was convicted of the sexual assualt and murder of an 11 year old girl in 1975? When he was cleared (and the actual killer convicted) after spending 16 years in prison he could at least walk free. What would you lot have done if you'd had your way? Gone to his grave and said "sorry about that"?

mark from pompey wrote:
it's just too easy for people to make comments about glitter.

AndyC wrote:
No doubt some of you would have cheerfully hung or torn to pieces Stefan Kiszko when he was convicted of the sexual assualt and murder of an 11 year old girl in 1975? When he was cleared (and the actual killer convicted) after spending 16 years in prison he could at least walk free. What would you lot have done if you'd had your way? Gone to his grave and said "sorry about that"?

Nine Pin Din wrote:
Just goes to show what can happen if you go to PC World complaining that your 3 year old laptop keeps going down on you.

Trollwatch 2008 wrote:

AndyC wrote: No doubt some of you would have cheerfully hung or torn to pieces Stefan Kiszko when he was convicted of the sexual assualt and murder of an 11 year old girl in 1975? When he was cleared (and the actual killer convicted) after spending 16 years in prison he could at least walk free. What would you lot have done if you'd had your way? Gone to his grave and said "sorry about that"?

Arguably, they did get their way anyway. It's not as if Kiszko was released and went on to live a long and fruitful life, what was it, about 2 years of "freedom" he had before his heart attack? Poor guy, a tragic case really.

Pedro wrote:
Okay, so there's a guy. gets convicted, serves his time, then, like millions of other ex-cons, gets released. So what's the difference with ol'glitter? He's got to live somewhere , as have the thousands of other peados caught in the past couple of years. If everyone just ignored him, things would be a whole lot better.

the vengeful cabbage wrote:

Pedro wrote: Okay, so there\'s a guy. gets convicted, serves his time, then, like millions of other ex-cons, gets released. So what\'s the difference with ol\'glitter? He\'s got to live somewhere , as have the thousands of other peados caught in the past couple of years. If everyone just ignored him, things would be a whole lot better.

Whilst your ignoring him he will be having his way with your children. Scum like this deserve to have their nuts cut off and fed to them.

AndyC wrote:

Trollwatch 2008 wrote:

AndyC wrote: No doubt some of you would have cheerfully hung or torn to pieces Stefan Kiszko when he was convicted of the sexual assualt and murder of an 11 year old girl in 1975? When he was cleared (and the actual killer convicted) after spending 16 years in prison he could at least walk free. What would you lot have done if you'd had your way? Gone to his grave and said "sorry about that"?

Arguably, they did get their way anyway. It's not as if Kiszko was released and went on to live a long and fruitful life, what was it, about 2 years of "freedom" he had before his heart attack? Poor guy, a tragic case really.

True, I think he did die shortly after release. He was the chap who sprang to mind as the murder of a child was involved. Just in case they wouldn't be put off by the 'occasional mistake, the "hang 'em" brigade should note they would also be saying sorry to the graves of the following have all had murder convictions overturned in the UK in the last 20 years or so....Barry George, Andrew Adams, Michael O'Brien, Darren Hall, Ellis Sherwood, Annette Hewins, Donna Clarke, Denise Sullivan, Donna Anthony, Angela Cannings, Sally Clarke, Steven Miller, Yusef Abdullahi, Tony Paris, the 'Bridgewater Four', The 'Birmingham six', the 'Maguire seven', the 'Guildford four',Andrew Evans, Judith Ward, Stephen Downing, Colin Stagg...and others...

TONY MARTIN wrote:
I WISH WE CAN SEND SEX OFFENDERS TO WAR. INSTEAD OF OUR SERVICE MEN/WOMAN GETING KILLED FOR NOTHING

the vengeful cabbage wrote:

Pedro wrote:
Okay, so there's a guy. gets convicted, serves his time, then, like millions of other ex-cons, gets released. So what's the difference with ol'glitter? He's got to live somewhere , as have the thousands of other peados caught in the past couple of years. If everyone just ignored him, things would be a whole lot better.

Whilst your ignoring him he will be having his way with your children. Scum like this deserve to have their nuts cut off and fed to them.

June wrote:
Were in the south coast?? Think we have a right to no!!

teacher wrote:

June wrote: Were in the south coast?? Think we have a right to no!!

No you don't, at least not until you can spell correctly. You should have written: 'Where on the S outh C oast? I think we have a right to know !' You need to do an evening class in English Language. I vote the Echo ban you until such time as you have completed one.

AndyC wrote:
Trollwatch I'm not saying Glitter is in the same category as Kiszko or even that Glitter is innocent, just that lots of people suffer wrongful convictions on what seems strong evidence and I just wonder what the "hang 'em" brigades reaction is to this fact. By all means have long jail sentences but death is pretty final!

The New Pretender wrote:
Hidden in a £2m detached house - there aren\'t many of them around so I reckon you could narrow it down to a few places. Dirty Scumbag!

Yes and it was okay but not as good as everybody makes out and a little crass in parts. But then if you need to have seen something to have an opinion on it i suggest you keep your opinions on peadophiles to yourself until you have met a victim of the crime (or been a victim of it yourself).

Bored wrote:
Hes an old man now, just leave him alone and let him get on with the rest of his life. No wonder he didnt want to come back to England when its full of people like you lot. We have far worse people on the loose in England look at it that way. Dont people deserve a second chance he has done his time?

James Montague wrote:
Everyone deserves a 2nd chance so just maybe he may learn from his errors & that he will be reformed & all will be good again.Let him stay & when reformed he may give a thanksgiving concert.
James

Trollwatch 2008 wrote:

James Montague wrote: Everyone deserves a 2nd chance so just maybe he may learn from his errors & that he will be reformed & all will be good again.Let him stay & when reformed he may give a thanksgiving concert. James

Second chance, you say? Arrested in 1997 for child p0rn offences. Convicted in 1999, and now a registered sex offender. Subsequently charged with having sex with a 14 year old, although acquitted when it became clear the victim stood to make money out of a conviction. Several accusations of sexual impropriety and underage sex levelled at Gadd in 2005, two of which led to actual convictions. This, despite already having been a registered and known sex offender for 6 years. So, despite being caught with his hands on some kiddie p0rn, and international attention being brought to his questionable sexual appetites, he still goes on to have sex with 11 year old girls. How many "second" chances does he deserve? I'm not saying "hang him high", but it's fairly obvious rehabilitation is out of the question for Gadd

KangarooJack wrote:

Denzil wrote: We should dump him in Australia like we used to with his sort.

Thing is cobber, Australia has it's head screwed on! We DON'T want him! Good luck.

the vengeful cabbage wrote:
Look at him in that picture does he look sorry for his actions. No he looks like a self satisfied, smug, kiddie fiddling git who should be put into the nastiest high security prison in the land not allowed to roam free. Then he should be roundly subjected to the sort of domination and utter humiliation which he has taken such delight in see how he likes a taste of his own medicine.

gary glitter wrote:
yeah yeah yeah !!!
i agree lock them bad boys up and throw away the key

minor attrition wrote:
I think it is fantastic that so many of the british public rally against one paedophile, emanding death sentences, chemical castration, his location etc. the fact that this completely overlooks our legal system as a modular form of punishment and rehabilitation seems trivial - should we cut off thieves hands? and if we are to demand his location, due to feeling unsafe that he might come and gobble our children at night, why should we not demand the location and criminal record of every copnvict in the UK to be publicised. I personally would not feel happy living on the same street as any form of violent criminal, but unforunately the statistics show i probably do...If you want to keep your kids safe, try cooking some vegetables into that mcshite happy meal and don't vote for mark oaten. if you want to loudly justify your hatred of paedophiles, maybe join a focus group. stop preaching all this fascile bullshit about your right to knowledge that you wouldnt share or request from a normal person. if you want to remove the scourge from hampshire, start lynching the smack dealers in st marys shirley and the angry youth everywhere else - they are lot easier to find and, statistically, have a higher chance of ruining your childs life than a washed up ex pop star with a penchant for pre-pubescent-girls.

discrimination doesnt just apply to race or belief - sexual preference, however diffuse, is a right each individual has. as long as he doesnt break any more laws, he is within his rights to like whatever he wants. and as he is a high profile case, you can assume he is being watched and checked by the relevant authorities. if not, vote tory next time round.

Lionel Broadfellow wrote:
My comment welcoming Gadd to the area has been removed....... We are living in a Police State!!

Denzil wrote:

KangarooJack wrote:

Denzil wrote: We should dump him in Australia like we used to with his sort.

Thing is cobber, Australia has it's head screwed on! We DON'T want him! Good luck.

Glitter should be dumped on an island with other vile minded people, if you lot don't want him the obvious option would be Portsmouth.

Andy wrote:

minor attrition wrote: I think it is fantastic that so many of the british public rally against one paedophile, emanding death sentences, chemical castration, his location etc. the fact that this completely overlooks our legal system as a modular form of punishment and rehabilitation seems trivial - should we cut off thieves hands? and if we are to demand his location, due to feeling unsafe that he might come and gobble our children at night, why should we not demand the location and criminal record of every copnvict in the UK to be publicised. I personally would not feel happy living on the same street as any form of violent criminal, but unforunately the statistics show i probably do...If you want to keep your kids safe, try cooking some vegetables into that mcshite happy meal and don't vote for mark oaten. if you want to loudly justify your hatred of paedophiles, maybe join a focus group. stop preaching all this fascile bullshit about your right to knowledge that you wouldnt share or request from a normal person. if you want to remove the scourge from hampshire, start lynching the smack dealers in st marys shirley and the angry youth everywhere else - they are lot easier to find and, statistically, have a higher chance of ruining your childs life than a washed up ex pop star with a penchant for pre-pubescent-girls. discrimination doesnt just apply to race or belief - sexual preference, however diffuse, is a right each individual has. as long as he doesnt break any more laws, he is within his rights to like whatever he wants. and as he is a high profile case, you can assume he is being watched and checked by the relevant authorities. if not, vote tory next time round.

Most of the posters on here are not in the mood to contemplate a measured response. I've got two teenaged daughters and I live in Locks Heath, which is a mile from Warsash and it is pretty obvious to anyone other than some of the lumpenprole morons in this thread that if the sum total of all the risks that face my girls in their everyday lives could be measured and compared, the sudden addition of Gary Glitter nearby into the mix will make no difference whatsoever. Reading some of the comments on this thread makes me worry more about what motivates the nasty little people who justify their lynchmob mentalities by assuming they occupy some kind of unchallengeable moral high ground. They are wrong of course, but too stupid to know why. Cue more snarling insults.....

Andy wrote:

minor attrition wrote: I think it is fantastic that so many of the british public rally against one paedophile, emanding death sentences, chemical castration, his location etc. the fact that this completely overlooks our legal system as a modular form of punishment and rehabilitation seems trivial - should we cut off thieves hands? and if we are to demand his location, due to feeling unsafe that he might come and gobble our children at night, why should we not demand the location and criminal record of every copnvict in the UK to be publicised. I personally would not feel happy living on the same street as any form of violent criminal, but unforunately the statistics show i probably do...If you want to keep your kids safe, try cooking some vegetables into that mcshite happy meal and don\'t vote for mark oaten. if you want to loudly justify your hatred of paedophiles, maybe join a focus group. stop preaching all this fascile bullshit about your right to knowledge that you wouldnt share or request from a normal person. if you want to remove the scourge from hampshire, start lynching the smack dealers in st marys shirley and the angry youth everywhere else - they are lot easier to find and, statistically, have a higher chance of ruining your childs life than a washed up ex pop star with a penchant for pre-pubescent-girls. discrimination doesnt just apply to race or belief - sexual preference, however diffuse, is a right each individual has. as long as he doesnt break any more laws, he is within his rights to like whatever he wants. and as he is a high profile case, you can assume he is being watched and checked by the relevant authorities. if not, vote tory next time round.

Most of the posters on here are not in the mood to contemplate a measured response. I\'ve got two teenaged daughters and I live in Locks Heath, which is a mile from Warsash and it is pretty obvious to anyone other than some of the lumpenprole morons in this thread that if the sum total of all the risks that face my girls in their everyday lives could be measured and compared, the sudden addition of Gary Glitter nearby into the mix will make no difference whatsoever. Reading some of the comments on this thread makes me worry more about what motivates the nasty little people who justify their lynchmob mentalities by assuming they occupy some kind of unchallengeable moral high ground. They are wrong of course, but too stupid to know why. Cue more snarling insults.....

clair wrote:
Gary Glitter - just an unusual man with a liking for young girls and unusual sex drive - he's a misfit, mentally malajusted, and brain dead to right and wrong - and I would say to all parents it is up to you to teach your young that these people are mentally malajusted and should be avoided - unfortunately there are many who are brain malfunctioned and they do not know it.
clair

clair wrote:
Gary Glitter - just an unusual man with a liking for young girls and unusual sex drive - he\'s a misfit, mentally malajusted, and brain dead to right and wrong - and I would say to all parents it is up to you to teach your young that these people are mentally malajusted and should be avoided - unfortunately there are many who are brain malfunctioned and they do not know it. clair

steph wrote:
so what happens when the childrengo to school if he is in warsash there are 3 schools within walking distance is anyone going to protect them answer me that?????????????

Tina wrote:
Instead of following around like a pack of water rats why not allow him the peace and time to reflect. People do change. Not one person has ever provided any evidence of actual harm that he has done. I don't agree with the crime but you lot treat him as if he is a mass-murderer. Leave him alone - you all loved him once. Tina

Hugh Carres wrote:

TONY MARTIN wrote: I WISH WE CAN SEND SEX OFFENDERS TO WAR. INSTEAD OF OUR SERVICE MEN/WOMAN GETING KILLED FOR NOTHING

They get paid.

happy_days wrote:

Tina wrote:
Instead of following around like a pack of water rats why not allow him the peace and time to reflect. People do change. Not one person has ever provided any evidence of actual harm that he has done. I don't agree with the crime but you lot treat him as if he is a mass-murderer. Leave him alone - you all loved him once. Tina

Good idea Tina - lets house him next door to you, so he can reflect while he looks out the window at your kids...

Bored wrote:
Hes an old man now, just leave him alone and let him get on with the rest of his life. No wonder he didnt want to come back to England when its full of people like you lot. We have far worse people on the loose in England look at it that way. Dont people deserve a second chance he has done his time?

Tony wrote:
Another Rock and Roll Christmas is one of THE best Christmas songs ever, so I can forgive him for what he has done in the past based on that one song alone.

Maybe if other people here had a listen to that song they would find it in their hearts to forgive and forget?

Bored wrote:
Hes an old man now, just leave him alone and let him get on with the rest of his life. No wonder he didnt want to come back to England when its full of people like you lot. We have far worse people on the loose in England look at it that way. Dont people deserve a second chance he has done his time?

Tina wrote:

Bored wrote:
Hes an old man now, just leave him alone and let him get on with the rest of his life. No wonder he didnt want to come back to England when its full of people like you lot. We have far worse people on the loose in England look at it that way. Dont people deserve a second chance he has done his time?

Would you have the same feeling if it was your child that had been involved with this sicko?

Um wrote:

the vengeful cabbage wrote: Look at him in that picture does he look sorry for his actions. No he looks like a self satisfied, smug, kiddie fiddling git who should be put into the nastiest high security prison in the land not allowed to roam free. Then he should be roundly subjected to the sort of domination and utter humiliation which he has taken such delight in see how he likes a taste of his own medicine.

Hmmm, subject a known sexual deviant to a variety of deviant sexual practices. That'll teach him, eh!

AndyC wrote:
that there are 1,000 people on the Violent & Sex Offenders register (to give it its proper title)in hants does not mean there are 1,000 crazed paedophiles charging about the Hampshire countryside. Anyone convicted of a violent crime and jailed for 12 months or more is on it, if your convicted of any sexual offense, you're on it, if you're 16 and a day old and have consensual sex with your 2 day younger girlfriend you could be on it, anyone cautioned for such an offence(i.e. considered so trivial or with so little evidence that there's no prosecution) will be on it and also anyone considered at risk of commiting such an offence can be put on it.....

I like that last one as it means all those threatening Glitter could end up on the list. If that happens, I do hope the list is published 'cause they might get a visit from a hoard of like minded people wanting to bash up someone of the "sex offenders register"

true wrote:

AndyC wrote: that there are 1,000 people on the Violent & Sex Offenders register (to give it its proper title)in hants does not mean there are 1,000 crazed paedophiles charging about the Hampshire countryside. Anyone convicted of a violent crime and jailed for 12 months or more is on it, if your convicted of any sexual offense, you\'re on it, if you\'re 16 and a day old and have consensual sex with your 2 day younger girlfriend you could be on it, anyone cautioned for such an offence(i.e. considered so trivial or with so little evidence that there\'s no prosecution) will be on it and also anyone considered at risk of commiting such an offence can be put on it..... I like that last one as it means all those threatening Glitter could end up on the list. If that happens, I do hope the list is published \'cause they might get a visit from a hoard of like minded people wanting to bash up someone of the \"sex offenders register\"

Good post, Andy. The register, whilst useful, is skewed. I know someone who is on it. Why is he on it? He had an argument with a female housemate over a phone bill, and kicked her - not particularly hard - on the behind, in a joking manner. I was there, it wasn\'t any sort of violence, or even a malicious act, and at the time she didn\'t react as if it were either. She abused the law to basically get her own back on someone for daring to ask that she pay her share of a phone bill. Now the guy is heavily restricted regarding where he can work, and has basically been branded a woman-beater

Denzil wrote:
second thoughts he can live with me chilworth is lovely would fit in just nice

true wrote:

AndyC wrote: that there are 1,000 people on the Violent & Sex Offenders register (to give it its proper title)in hants does not mean there are 1,000 crazed paedophiles charging about the Hampshire countryside. Anyone convicted of a violent crime and jailed for 12 months or more is on it, if your convicted of any sexual offense, you're on it, if you're 16 and a day old and have consensual sex with your 2 day younger girlfriend you could be on it, anyone cautioned for such an offence(i.e. considered so trivial or with so little evidence that there's no prosecution) will be on it and also anyone considered at risk of commiting such an offence can be put on it..... I like that last one as it means all those threatening Glitter could end up on the list. If that happens, I do hope the list is published 'cause they might get a visit from a hoard of like minded people wanting to bash up someone of the "sex offenders register"

Good post, Andy. The register, whilst useful, is skewed. I know someone who is on it. Why is he on it? He had an argument with a female housemate over a phone bill, and kicked her - not particularly hard - on the behind, in a joking manner. I was there, it wasn't any sort of violence, or even a malicious act, and at the time she didn't react as if it were either. She abused the law to basically get her own back on someone for daring to ask that she pay her share of a phone bill. Now the guy is heavily restricted regarding where he can work, and has basically been branded a woman-beater