Gary Glitter in the news again

Energize · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:32

Chimerical said:
If I hadn't read that article, I would have no idea that that was a Gary Glitter cover song.

But now the article is out (which was inevitable) loads of people will boycott them...

dmpoole said:
It amazes me how Gary Glitter's music is being erased from history but Pete Townshend is free to do what he likes.
Nobody gives a rats ass that CSI plays all his tunes.

Probably because molesting kids is worse than just looking at pictures...

SexyGreyFox · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:41

Energize said:
Probably because molesting kids is worse than just looking at pictures...

And that brings up a whole can of worms - which came first, egg or chicken?

And if molesting kids is worse why has Michael Jackson been allowed to continue?
This is a bloke who made 2 multi million dollar settlements.

TriedandTested · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:45

dmpoole said:
And that brings up a whole can of worms - which came first, egg or chicken?

And if molesting kids is worse why has Michael Jackson been allowed to continue?
This is a bloke who made 2 multi million dollar settlements.

Hmm. I'm pretty sure he wasn't found guilty and I'm also pretty sure that you don't know enough about what happened to make comments like that. :rolleyes:

Chimerical · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:46

dmpoole said:
And if molesting kids is worse why has Michael Jackson been allowed to continue?
This is a bloke who made 2 multi million dollar settlements.

Michael Jackson is innocent. He was proved innocent in a court of law.

However, I'm not denying that he could still be guilty though.

R Kelly is another one. Funny how everyone seems to talk about Gary Glitter though. He has become the figurehead of paedophillia.

SexyGreyFox · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:46

TriedandTested said:
Hmm. I'm pretty sure he wasn't found guilty and I'm also pretty sure that you don't know enough about what happened to make comments like that.

Take your roll eyes and shove them.

Why would an adult male make 2 multi million dollar payments to little boys.
America even had to change its laws so it couldn't happen again..

carlazai · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:47

LOL its a complete gaff as someone should have known

SexyGreyFox · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:48

Chimerical said:
Michael Jackson is innocent. He was proved innocent in a court of law.

And can you remember what some of the Jury said when they came out?

starfighter · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:48

He wrote the song, he deserves the money. Regardless of his convictions.

He has served his time has he not, don't get me wrong I wouldn't employ him as my babysitter but meh, tis just a bit of music.

Blackbadger · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:48

And if molesting kids is worse why has Michael Jackson been allowed to continue"]And if molesting kids is worse why has Michael Jackson been allowed to continue

The multimillion dollar settlements whilst at a private fairground with pet chimpanzees etc, doesn't sound the worst thing ever that could happen. Besides MJ was proven innocent in the court of law.

SexyGreyFox · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:52

Blackbadger said:
Besides MJ was proven innocent in the court of law.

When he went to court and found innocent, I also believed he was innocent for that particular crime.
However, before that he made settlements to shut people up.
Several of the jury also believed that he had committed crimes against children but not that particular case they were on.

semi-pro waster · 29 Oct 2008 at 21:58

Chimerical said:
Michael Jackson is innocent. He was proved innocent in a court of law.

However, I'm not denying that he could still be guilty though.

He was acquitted, that is quite true, however I suspect that has a lot to do with the simple black/white (no pun intended) dichotomy of the options available to the jury in an American court (or English for that matter) i.e. you are either guilty or innocent. I prefer the Scottish system for a more accurate reflection of life with its third verdict of not proven and I believe that would have been closer to the correct verdict in this case.

uknowist · 29 Oct 2008 at 22:04

wasn't pete townsend also cleared? although im sure he got off on lame grounds like he was "researching" for a book or some crap

SexyGreyFox · 29 Oct 2008 at 22:08

uknowist said:
wasn't pete townsend also cleared? although im sure he got off on lame grounds like he was "researching" for a book or some crap

he wasn't cleared and he is on the sex offenders list but nobody cares about him for some reason.
His lame excuse didn't wash with the judge.
We all download porn for research.

uknowist · 29 Oct 2008 at 22:18

The police searched his house and confiscated fourteen computers and other materials and after a four-month forensic investigation confirmed that they had found no evidence of child abuse images. Consequently, the police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, issuing a statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images."

"I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me." As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years.This would normally prevent travel abroad, but in Townshend's case such restrictions have been waived, making possible his numerous concert performances with and without The Who since receiving the caution.

from wiki, must say the evidence was not overwhelming against him, and it never went to court. Although I am appalled that he got special privileges, probably because he's in a famous band

Begbie · 29 Oct 2008 at 22:25

Song suits the advert don't see the problem.

How ever if the advert contained a lot of kids running about.......

TriedandTested · 29 Oct 2008 at 22:53

dmpoole said:
Take your roll eyes and shove them.

Why would an adult male make 2 multi million dollar payments to little boys.
America even had to change its laws so it couldn't happen again..

Who knows? I know I don't. You certainly don't. The use of the roll eyes were about as justified as they could ever be: you're talking crap, guessing, relying on what you read in tabloid news papers and then it pours out on here with no one to question it.

Burnsy2023 · 29 Oct 2008 at 22:54

Begbie said:
Song suits the advert don't see the problem

SexyGreyFox · 29 Oct 2008 at 22:56

TriedandTested said:
Who knows? I know I don't. You certainly don't. The use of the roll eyes were about as justified as they could ever be: you're talking crap, guessing, relying on what you read in tabloid news papers and then it pours out on here with no one to question it.

The bloke made 2 multi million pound settlements so that they wouldn't go to court and America had to change its laws so he (and others) couldn't do it again.
Jackson admitted on TV he made the payments.

TriedandTested · 29 Oct 2008 at 23:01

dmpoole said:
The bloke made 2 multi million pound settlements so that they wouldn't go to court and America had to change its laws so he (and others) couldn't do it again.
Jackson admitted on TV he made the payments.

Yes, I'm aware of that. However, again, you don't know the details of the payment and just presume the worst. Settlements are made outside of court all the time: payments far bigger than this have exchanged hands between parties and isn't necessarily to cover their guilt, often the damages to someone (especially to someone in the public eye) can be far worse if they are seen in court (guilty or not): remember, in the US the are allowed photography/film/TV in the court room.

Face it, you jumped on the Jackson-is-guilty bandwagon when all this kicked off and even now, after he was found INNOCENT, you're still happily riding along chatting rubbish.

KNiVES · 29 Oct 2008 at 23:25

Don't hate the songs, hate the singer!