Viewers of ITV's Gary Glitter documentary say it was 'hard to watch' (2024)

Viewers of ITV's Gary Glitterdocumentary have revealed they found the show 'hard to watch' and made them feel'physically sick'.

Audiences have shared their disgust over thepaedophile's 'vile' crimes that feature in the Glitter: The Popstar Paedophile documentary after it aired on ITV1 last night, with some claiming the disgraced pop star was 'worse' than Jimmy Savile.

Gary Glitter, 79, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was jailed for 16 years in 2015 for sexually abusing three schoolgirls between 1975 and 1980.

He attacked two of the girls, aged 12 and 13, after luring them backstage to his dressing room and isolating them from their mothers. His third victim was less than 10 years old when he crept into her bed and tried to rape her in 1975.

The extent of these crimes as well as others that Glitter committed across the globe were laid bare in the documentary which also featured historical victim testimonies and interviews with those who met him on the showbiz circuit.

Reacting to the documentary on X, formerly Twitter, one person wrote: 'Watching the#GaryGlitterdocumentary on @ITV1 was harder than I thought it would be.'

Another shocked viewer added: 'TheGary Glitterprogramme is a tough watch. To think he was a hero when I was a kid.'

One woman said she felt 'physically sick after watching that documentary'

Another distressed user added: 'This documnetary on #ITV about #GaryGlitter is absolutely sick making. He was worse than Savile- young toddlers.'

A fifth viewer wrote: 'Watching the Glitter, The Popstar Paedophile, what a vile man.'

A sixth person said: 'My God that Gary Glitter documentary on itv is vile, what a revolting piece of s***. Can't even look at him!'

Another viewer also voiced their disgust for Glitter's crimes.They said:'Skins crawling watching this Gary Glitter documentary on ITV.'

In one scene from the documentary, a photographer revealedGlitter kissed and 'disappeared' with young children at a hotel in Cuba where staff turned a blind eye because he was a 'good tipper'

Nick Ysenberg was working in Havana,Cuba, in 1997 when he witnessed the perverted popstar lounging by a swimming pool with children, where he kissed them and later then 'disappeared' with them.

Nick explained how he came across Glitter in Cuba's capital, where the disgraced singer moved in 2000 after serving two months in a British prison for possession of indecent photographs of children under 16.

He said: 'As the afternoon wore on I noticed one man brought three very young girls, probably between the ages of eight, 12 or 13. One of them seemed to know him.

'This wasn't playtime-with-children behaviour. That's sort of why it made me really suspicious in the first place.

'The next day, another three [were there]. They turned up on their own. Then I had my cameras on me, so I decided that I would record this because it was getting sort of uncomfortable.

'He kept asking to put their arms around him. It didn't look right at all.'

Revealing the photographs he took during his time in Cuba, Nick added: 'This is them arriving.

'Just strange, a man of this age with these three children and all this kissing. Then he would disappear and one of them would disappear. It was uncomfortable.'

It was Glitter's flamboyant attire that first caught the photographer's attention. Nick explained: 'There was a man in a great big wig with makeup in a purple velvet jumpsuit by the pool. And there he was.

'And he stripped that off down to his little black briefs. And instead of the usual music around the pool there was: Do You Want To Be In My Gang?'

After witnessing a string of 'uncomfortable' interactions between Glitter and multiple minors, Nick took it upon himself to complain to hotel staff.

He said: 'I did even say something to the management and they would say, "It's fine, he's well behaved, he tips well. He's great with us". So nothing was really said.'

'I would never have interfered with him or [taken] pictures if I hadn't thought something pretty dark was going on. I think I did the right thing. The hunch was correct. Boy, was it correct.'

Glitter was raised by a single mother in Banbury, Oxfordshire. At the height of his career, Glittermania helped him rack up 12 consecutive Top 10 singles and he performed in front of sell-out crowds wearing sparkling, silver jumpsuits and platform heels.

Hits like 'I'm the Leader of the Gang (I Am),' released in 1972, still rake in a fortune in royalties and are streamed on apps like Spotify, where he has over 700,000 monthly listeners.

Glitter's fall from grace first came to light in November 1997 when a technician discovered thousands of horrific child abuse images on the hard drive of a laptop that he had taken in for repair in Bristol.

In 1999, he was given four months in prison and put on the sex offenders register. He was next found hiding out on a yacht off Andalusia, Spain, where he was living under the pseudonym Larry Brilliante. Glitter next moved to Cuba in the Caribbean.

Six months after moving to Cambodia in 2002 he was expelled amid reports of sex crime allegations.

In March 2006 he was convicted of sexually abusing two girls, aged 10 and 11, in Vietnam and spent two and a half years in jail.

After 19 other countries refused him entry, he was deported back to the UK where in 2015 he was jailed by Operation Yewtree detectives for abusing three girls aged between 10 and 13 from 1975 to 1980.

Earlier this month, the disgraced paedophile pop star lost a Parole Board bid to be freed from jail.

The singer appeared at a private parole hearing last month as he fought to be released from prison after he was locked up for breaching his bail conditions.

The 79-year-old pervert was found surfing the dark web just 39 days after being automatically released halfway through his 16-year sentence for sexually abusing three schoolgirls between 1975 and 1980.

Revealing its decision last month, the Parole Board said Glitter remained a danger to society and a risk to children, who he had a 'sexual interest in'.

'After considering the circ*mstances of his offending, the lack of progress made while in custody and on licence, and the other evidence presented at the hearing, the panel was not satisfied that release at this point would be safe for the protection of the public,' the board said.

'Rather, the panel considered that Mr Gadd was appropriately located in custody where outstanding levels of risk could be addressed. He will be eligible for another parole review in due course.'

Glitter was automatically released from HMP The Verne, a low-security prison in Portland, Dorset, in February last year after serving half of his 16-year fixed-term determinate sentence.

But less than six weeks after walking free, he was taken back to prison for breaching his licence conditions by allegedly viewing downloaded images of children.

It was alleged at the time that Glitter had used a smartphone to watch videos of young girls on the dark web while in a bail hostel.

He was found to have been looking at girls in leotards and short skirts in ballet shows and doing gymnastic exercises.

In October 2023 an application to have last month's parole hearing in public was rejected, on the grounds that it was too difficult to contact all of his victims.

A document leaked last year showed how the paedophile performer planned to plead his case to get released.

In the draft, littered with spelling mistakes, he ranted: 'I know nothing about a onion (dark web) or in- scription (encryption). I am not tec savey (savvy) and I have been away from computers and phone for eight years.'

Referring to probation officials who ruled he had broken licence conditions, he added: 'There agenda is there opinion and speculation never real fact. And more often not taken from ­articles.'

Glitter attempted to persuade the Parole Board that it was a disproportionate decision to return him to prison and he did not break his licence conditions.'

But in a summary released last month, the Parole Board revealed Glitter still had a perverted sexual interest in children which 'could not be safely managed'.