Let Glitter settle . . . it’s only way to be safe

Aug 31 2008 by Ken Oxley, Sunday Sun

HE’S scum, but he’s our scum. And it’s a simple but inescapable fact that Gary Glitter has to live somewhere.

We might not want him in this country. And he may yet find a way to put down roots elsewhere. But wherever he lives, Glitter — real name Paul Gadd — is likely to pose a risk to children.

He is, after all, a repeat offender. Having been found guilty of downloading child pornography while living in the UK, he went on to commit even worse crimes abroad.

His arrogance and lack of remorse — typified by his insistence that his trial in Vietnam was unjust — only serves to demonstrate that he is far from reformed.

So what’s to be done with him? And how can we best protect children from the threat he poses?

The unpalatable truth is that Britain is probably the best place for Glitter. With vile crimes like paedophilia, it’s a big ask to put your trust in professionals whose job it is to monitor them after prison.

After all, aren’t we forever reading horror stories about how they have failed to do their job properly and have unwittingly allowed a convicted paedophile to strike again?

It’s true that there have been some high-profile blunders by the agencies entrusted with protecting children.

But for the most part, Britain is recognised as having one of the most stringent systems in the world for keeping tabs on sex offenders once they’ve been released from prison. Currently around 30,000 sex offenders are being monitored under the multi-agency public protection arrangements MAPPA.

The system links police, probation officers and social workers to ensure an offender is staying where he has registered, taking any medication he might have been prescribed and not attempting to make contact with children.

Sometimes mistakes are made and people are not monitored closely enough. Resources are not infinite either so, with the best will in the world, paedophiles who have served their time cannot be under surveillance 24/7.

But all of the experts will tell you that the risk of reoffending increases considerably when people are named and shamed . . . or hounded from pillar to post.

That’s when they’re most likely to go underground and lose contact with those tasked with challenging their behaviour and making them accountable for their actions.

This week Glitter was forced to flee the home of a wealthy friend in Fareham, Hampshire, after the Press got wind of his whereabouts.

It’s obvious that this is likely to be the pattern of things for the foreseeable future.

And while I enjoy seeing Glitter suffer for his sins as much as the next man, in the long run this game of cat and mouse with the media will be counter productive.

Sooner or later this sad, washed-up, has-been will have to settle somewhere.

All I am saying is that if we care about children — regardless of their nationality — it’s better that he lives at an address known to the authorities where he can be closely monitored, but otherwise left alone.