Gary Glitter may think it is ‘Good to be back’, but he is not welcome. Over a week ago, the BBC announced that pop star Paul Francis Gadd (aka Glitter) has been freed from prison. I also saw this story on GB News and I cannot understand why they have released him. To be honest, it has shocked me. Paul Francis Gadd, commonly known as Gary Glitter, is an English glam rock star from the 70’s and 80’s, whose most famous hit was Rock ‘n’ Roll.
His career came to an abrupt end when he was imprisoned for downloading child pornography in 1999. He was found guilty in Cambodia and Vietnam of obscene acts with minors, and was subsequently deported to the UK where he was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register in 2006. Later, he was convicted of child abuse and a series of sexual offences against three underaged school girls–including rape–in 2015, which resulted in his arrest and sentencing to 16 years in prison. While his crimes rapidly removed him from the limelight, Glitter still serves as a prime example of the inefficiency of our justice system, having been released after serving just half his sentence.
As the law currently stands, criminals must serve a minimum of two thirds of their sentence. This came into effect last year, although nothing could be done to extend the time Glitter was required to spend in jail. One has to ask what the justification is for routinely allowing serious criminals to serve half of their sentences? Obviously we can understand that prison places are few and expensive, but in the case of serious crime, particularly that committed against minors, surely ‘time off for good behaviour’ is in poor taste?
Surely such early release makes a mockery of the justice system, and serves as an insult to the victims of such crimes? While Glitter is now free as a bird (and a wealthy one at that, being allegedly worth £8 million), they are left with the mental trauma of what he has done to them.
Irrespective of whether you agree with early release, it is certainly arguable that sex offenders should be exempt from such benefits. When you consider the young lives crushed, or that reoffending rates for convicted child abusers range from 10-70%, I believe full sentences should be mandatory. As of 2021, there were 95,844 sex offenders registered in the UK. That means a minimum of 100,000 children have already been assaulted, and many thousands more are in jeopardy in the inevitable instances of reoffending.
It is often argued that the purpose of prison is rehabilitation. But Gadd has never shown any remorse for what he has done and has never apologised. Shockingly, he has never even admitted to his crimes. What better case could we have for someone serving their full sentence?
Glitter has stated his intention to flee to Spain after he is released from his bail hostel. This is not a good idea: allowing him to escape his notoriety and potentially commit further acts of sexual abuse would be negligent. At this point, the Ministry of Justice can do nothing but reassure the public that he will be highly monitored by the police, and face some strict licence conditions including being fitted with a GPS tag. While the girls whose lives he has destroyed suffer a life sentence, living with the consequences of his actions, the justice they were promised has not been given to them. Gadd meanwhile, is free to move on; probably to the next victim.
Jack Watson is a Year 9 student at Sirius North Academy, Kingston upon Hull. He blogs about being a Hull City fan at Ten Foot Tigers
