Gary Glitter ..

[ANGELFIRE1]

Glitter/Gadd got off too lightly I think.

 

Male Kiddie fiddlers should be castrated by using two house bricks, then jailed for the rest of their miserable lives.

 

Female Kiddie fiddlers should be surgically neutered with two blunt spoons, then jailed for the rest of their life.

 

Harsh, maybe, but stealing a child's innocence is a heinous crime and deserves a heinous punishment.

 

Angel1.

[Fudbeer]

Its like the bbc won't show any totp's with Saville in them which to me is wrong because it is depriving us of many good shows.

 

I think they should just edit him out instead.

[I1L2T3]

It's a good point about being sensitive to potential victims, I agree with you there.

Not sure about the double standards though. Murder has the highest sentencing tariff, but nobody bats an eyelid at playing Phil Spector, that doesn't make much sense to me. Or is it that we are generally prepared to overlook the worst of crimes if someone is deemed a true genius?

 

Spector's crime, horrific as it was, is not the worst of crimes in the eyes of the public. There are things that are worse in the eyes of the public, and King & Gadd have been found guilty of them. Like I said it's not double standards, its about levels of tolerance. Rightly or wrongly.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Plenty of so-called celebrities (past and present) have criminal records, some for murder.

Should they all be banned or should their musical/theatrical/film output and their unlawful actions be viewed separately?

[tinfoilhat]

I agree with all of that . Its history in one way or another and even though evil things happen ,is it right that it should airbrushed out of history?

 

In the case of song writers I feel uncomfortable putting money in the pockets of paedos. If the BBC played a load of Gary glitter records they are effectivly giving him money to go out and re-offend when he's let out. I guess that goes for other art forms where royalties are involved. Once he's dead and gone I don't know.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

So why not then play his banned output but legislate that all proceeds should go to his victims?

[tinfoilhat]

So why not then play his banned output but legislate that all proceeds should go to his victims?

 

That could be something that could be done, it would benefit victims. Would we, or the victims be thrilled if they turned up at wedding or something and the DJ started playing glitters songs. How would you feel with a dance floor full yelling out if if you wanna be in my gang? Is it not better to airbrush him out in this, and similar cases, out of history?

 

Phil Spector is different. His victim is dead and gone for starters and he's from another country.

[Olive]

Spector's crime, horrific as it was, is not the worst of crimes in the eyes of the public. There are things that are worse in the eyes of the public, and King & Gadd have been found guilty of them. Like I said it's not double standards, its about levels of tolerance. Rightly or wrongly.

 

I know what you mean about the public seeing King and Gadd's crimes as being worse than murder, but society and the law don't see it the same way, or sentencing would reflect that. What did King do, a couple of years in prison? Spector's serving a very long murder sentence. So we're back to my point that it's inconsistent. Admittedly they were tried under different countries' legal systems, but Spector would have gone down for a long time if he had done his crime here.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2017 at 18:30 ----------

 

In the case of song writers I feel uncomfortable putting money in the pockets of paedos. If the BBC played a load of Gary glitter records they are effectivly giving him money to go out and re-offend when he's let out. I guess that goes for other art forms where royalties are involved. Once he's dead and gone I don't know.

 

Can't argue with any of that. Criminals aren't allowed to benefit financially from their crimes, but I guess there's no legal way to stop royalties going to these people or their estates.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Olive

[I1L2T3]

Plenty of so-called celebrities (past and present) have criminal records, some for murder.

Should they all be banned or should their musical/theatrical/film output and their unlawful actions be viewed separately?

 

The litmus test is the public reaction to their work being broadcast.

 

Phil Spector: probably a handful of complaints.

 

Savile/Gadd/King: probably thousands of complaints

 

Rightly or wrongly that is how it rolls. Think about it.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2017 at 18:56 ----------

 

I know what you mean about the public seeing King and Gadd's crimes as being worse than murder, but society and the law don't see it the same way, or sentencing would reflect that. What did King do, a couple of years in prison? Spector's serving a very long murder sentence. So we're back to my point that it's inconsistent. Admittedly they were tried under different countries' legal systems, but Spector would have gone down for a long time if he had done his crime here.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2017 at 18:30 ----------

 

 

Can't argue with any of that. Criminals aren't allowed to benefit financially from their crimes, but I guess there's no legal way to stop royalties going to these people or their estates.

 

It's not about trying to equate sentencing with public reaction. It simply doesn't correlate in that way.

[Olive]

 

It's not about trying to equate sentencing with public reaction. It simply doesn't correlate in that way.

 

It's a lot about equating sentencing with public reaction! Your post suggests that you agree that public reaction is not consistent with the law's definition of the "severity" of a crime. But if sentencing tariffs are not a barometer of how serious society perceives a crime to be, then what are they?