Gary Glitter ..

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Glitter I think is seen as high profile peado because he essentially was a crap singer. Peel on the other hand had an amazing ear for future musical talent. And integrity. Which is a strange dichotomy. I would like further discussion on this as I'm concerned.

How does that weird analysis work jurisprudentially, please?

"Not guilty by virtue of being a good singer/DJ" is not a verdict known to law!

[I1L2T3]

How does that weird analysis work jurisprudentially, please?

"Not guilty by virtue of being a good singer/DJ" is not a verdict known to law!

 

How about not guilty through never having been charged/convicted vs guilty multiple times of sex crimes against young children.

 

Your analysis wilfully ignores that.

 

You can't have it both ways

[hackey lad]

How about not guilty through never having been charged/convicted vs guilty multiple times of sex crimes against young children.

 

Your analysis wilfully ignores that.

 

You can't have it both ways

 

Does that work for Jimmy Saville ? You cant have it both ways

[I1L2T3]

Does that work for Jimmy Saville ? You cant have it both ways

 

Not trying to. Read my post about John Peel, and repeated earlier posts about levels of tolerance in society.

 

There's no black/white answer here, just that there is a sliding scale of tolerance and part of that is whether a conviction has happened. People are going to be much less tolerant of somebody with repeated convictions for crimes against children.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

There's no black/white answer here, just that there is a sliding scale of tolerance and part of that is whether a conviction has happened. People are going to be much less tolerant of somebody with repeated convictions for crimes against children.

Of course. I don't think that anyone has argued otherwise.

But you'd equally agree, I hope, that:

a. such prior convictions would not give anyone the right to mete out extra-judicial retribution on the offender;

b. following release from imprisonment, the offender is required to fit back into society; and

c. none of that fitting-back is assisted by deprivation of royalties or having one's previous output banned.

[I1L2T3]

Of course. I don't think that anyone has argued otherwise.

But you'd equally agree, I hope, that:

a. such prior convictions would not give anyone the right to mete out extra-judicial retribution on the offender;

b. following release from imprisonment, the offender is required to fit back into society; and

c. none of that fitting-back is assisted by deprivation of royalties or having one's previous output banned.

 

A and B seem fair, but in practical terms for people like Gadd, A cannot be guaranteed and programming decisions by radio stations can hardly be considered 'retribution'. B is obviously difficult for people like Gadd. They can never truly fit back in.

 

As for C nobody has banned his output. Broadcasters are unlikely to play it, and people are much less likely to buy it than before. It's not a ban. It's effectively supply and demand. Nobody wants it.

[Halibut]

Simple really. Glitter, paedophile, Peel, not paedophile.

[GLASGOWOODS]

Cant believe GG is number one in the topic charts.

[alchresearch]

Simple really. Glitter, paedophile, Peel, not paedophile.

 

I think you mean Peel: a not-convicted paedophile.

 

Unless you consider a 26 year old man having a relationship with a 15 year old girl ok?

 

Teacher Jeremy Forrest was only a few years older and got sentenced to 5 and a half years after his relationship with a 15 year old girl.

[Jonny5]

Its a sad thing but few artists have no skeletons in their cupboard.

 

You have to evaluate the person's contributions against their crime.

 

In the case of Glitter, his crimes are horrendous and his music is imo abysmal. It's an easy decision to make.