I1L2T3 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Snoop dog was found not guilty as well. A fare chunk of them are dead, at least one (I got bored after a while) shot themselves. One point is whether they were serial offenders, i.e. were they convicted of a series of murders with no hope of rehabilitation? Is it possible to rehabilitate somebody who commits a single murder? The answer is in most cases yes. Is it possible to rehabilitate a serial predatory paedophile. Glitter has four convictions spanning two decades and went to extraordinary lengths to continue his activities after being convicted. There really is a world of difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 One point is whether they were serial offenders, i.e. were they convicted of a series of murders with no hope of rehabilitation? Is it possible to rehabilitate somebody who commits a single murder? The answer is in most cases yes. Is it possible to rehabilitate a serial predatory paedophile. Glitter has four convictions spanning two decades and went to extraordinary lengths to continue his activities after being convicted. There really is a world of difference. Even if that's so, it doesn't really assist in deciding whether GG's music is to be forever prohibited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 Even if that's so, it doesn't really assist in deciding whether GG's music is to be forever prohibited. Nobody has prohibited his music have they. Most people just don't want to hear it, and most people don't want to see him. There is extremely minimal demand for airplay. Don't get confused between censorship and market demand and commercial realities. You're never going to successfully argue that Glitter should be back on the TV or radio as if nothing has happened. It's stupidity to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 It would be- and that's why I didn't. But clearly you are wrong in claiming that Nobody has prohibited his music have they. Most people just don't want to hear it, and...there is extremely minimal demand for airplay. The broadcasters have in effect prohibited his music. At least some people do wish to hear it- OP, for one- so how do you arrive at that "Most" and "extremely minimal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 It would be- and that's why I didn't. But clearly you are wrong in claiming that Nobody has prohibited his music have they. Most people just don't want to hear it, and...there is extremely minimal demand for airplay. The broadcasters have in effect prohibited his music. At least some people do wish to hear it- OP, for one- so how do you arrive at that "Most" and "extremely minimal"? Tell you what, why don't you try an experiment, a couple in fact. Go to a shop and try and buy every CD by a pervert and see how you get on. I long for the days of a good old fashioned record shop where you could pick them out and stack them up on a counter - that would have had a better effect. Experiment two, play an hour of radio 2 then Gary glitters greatest hits you've just bought with the windows open. Ooh, even better, if you're having a BBQ or some other social gathering rather than just a bit background music stick Gary on repeat. Maybe mix it up with other paedos for a bit of variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 It would be- and that's why I didn't. But clearly you are wrong in claiming that Nobody has prohibited his music have they. Most people just don't want to hear it, and...there is extremely minimal demand for airplay. The broadcasters have in effect prohibited his music. At least some people do wish to hear it- OP, for one- so how do you arrive at that "Most" and "extremely minimal"? No they haven't prohibited it. They've decided not to play it because nobody wants to hear it. Commercial realities drive the decision as does the reputation of the stations. As for publicly funded broadcasters your rabid UKIP buddies would be properly on one if airplay led to public money going to a paedophile. You're all over the place with this. In fact what exactly are you arguing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted August 28, 2017 Author Share Posted August 28, 2017 Tell you what, why don't you try an experiment, a couple in fact. Go to a shop and try and buy every CD by a pervert and see how you get on. I long for the days of a good old fashioned record shop where you could pick them out and stack them up on a counter - that would have had a better effect. Experiment two, play an hour of radio 2 then Gary glitters greatest hits you've just bought with the windows open. Ooh, even better, if you're having a BBQ or some other social gathering rather than just a bit background music stick Gary on repeat. Maybe mix it up with other paedos for a bit of variety. you lost a lot of credibility with that last sentence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 you lost a lot of credibility with that last sentence Why? Some might see as glam rock icon, I see him as a paedo. Ditto the lead singer of the lostprophets. Besides, the main reason for adding a few other artistes in is that people are bound to get fed up of one cd over and over again regardless of who it is. Sadly there are a few more musicians you could pick with a similar (although not many can hold a candle to glitter and Watkins) deviances. Now, for reasons I'm not quite clear on, our Jeffrey seems to be keen on their records to be played and has a problem with radios self-policing ban on the likes of Gary glitter. He's not sure the majority want to see a ban. All I suggested was a couple of simple experiments. Oooh, what about hold music for his office?!?! "Just transferring you now, please hold" "d'y wanna be in my gang, my gang..." We had a product vaguely connected with jimmy savil. We pulled it as soon as we saw which way the wind was blowing. It's a PR disaster waiting to happen. Just ask the poor owners of what used to be called Saviles Hall in Leeds (never got the logic of calling it that in the first place.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 why say " mix it up with other paedos for a bit of variety" . That makes it sound like if you like music made by someone who was found out to be a paedo , then you like all music made by paedos . I can honestly say before the court case I had never heard of the lost prophets or their lead singer and to my knowledge have never heard a song by them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason crock Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 I was a massive fan of the lost profits as a formative teen. I danced on the roof tops with my first girlfriend to the song roof tops. I've now eradicated the band from my life. They were a brilliant band though unlike glitter who had no artistic merit whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now