JOHN GIDLOW'S SHOCKING CRIMES IN CLITHEROE AND NORFOLK: A PREDATOR'S REPEATED OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR

In January 2012, a disturbing case emerged involving John Gidlow, a convicted sex offender residing in Clitheroe, who engaged in a series of inappropriate and predatory actions targeting a 13-year-old paperboy. The proceedings, held at Blackburn magistrates, revealed that Gidlow, aged 69, had persistently approached the young boy with the intent of establishing contact and exerting influence over him.

Gidlow’s troubling behavior included giving the boy gifts and handwritten notes that conveyed romantic interest, which is particularly alarming given his prior criminal history. The court heard that he had invited the boy to stay with him at a remote holiday cottage located in Norfolk, a proposal that raised serious concerns about potential further offenses.

Further evidence presented during the hearing indicated that Gidlow had also approached the newsagent where the boy worked, requesting the boy’s address. Subsequently, Gidlow left a note at the shop, reiterating his invitation for the boy to visit him in Norfolk. This pattern of behavior demonstrated a clear obsession with the young boy, which the authorities considered a significant risk of sexual misconduct.

Gidlow’s criminal record is extensive. In 1985, he was convicted of seven counts of indecent assault on young boys, a history that underscores his long-standing issues with inappropriate conduct towards minors. Additionally, in 2005, he was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) following concerns about his behavior at Ribblesdale Wanderers Cricket Club, where he was involved in coaching young players. Despite this, Gidlow breached the order later that same year by speaking to a teenage boy at a cricket match, which resulted in a six-month jail sentence.

During the current case, the prosecution, led by Mr. Scott Ainge, detailed how Gidlow had engaged in multiple conversations with the boy between June and September, during which he encouraged the boy to visit “rude” websites. The boy, who was on school holiday at the time, received a love note containing a five-pound note, along with other cash gifts from Gidlow. When asked about his personal details, the boy refused to disclose his address or school, indicating discomfort and awareness of the inappropriate nature of Gidlow’s advances.

It was also revealed that the boy confided in his brother about Gidlow’s behavior, and the brother advised him to inform their mother. However, the boy admitted to police that he was too frightened to tell his mother earlier, fearing he might get into trouble. The situation came to light when a staff member at the local paper shop handed the note to the boy’s mother, after Gidlow had handed it to her and asked her to pass it along.

Legal experts emphasized that Gidlow’s obsession with the boy posed a significant risk of further sexual offenses. The court noted that Gidlow’s history of offending, combined with his recent attempts to contact and invite the boy to Norfolk, demonstrated a pattern of predatory behavior that could not be ignored.

Gidlow’s defense, represented by Mr. Richard Prew, acknowledged that the Sexual Offences Prevention Order prohibited him from having contact with boys under 16. He expressed remorse for his actions, stating that Gidlow did not expect the boy to visit him in Norfolk and that he had not repeated the offenses since his previous convictions. The defense also highlighted that Gidlow had been coaching at Ribblesdale Wanderers Cricket Club for nearly a decade, with no prior incidents until recent concerns arose.

Judge Andrew Blake, delivering the sentence, emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the court orders and the gravity of Gidlow’s breaches. He pointed out that Gidlow’s decision to attend a youth cricket match and converse with a minor in the absence of supervision was a serious lapse in judgment. The judge made it clear that Gidlow’s long history of offending, spanning over 26 years, underscored the need for continued supervision and restraint.

In conclusion, the court remanded Gidlow in custody for the preparation of a pre-sentence report, reflecting the seriousness with which the judicial system views his repeated violations and the ongoing risk he poses to minors in the community.