King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]DR2 wrote:[/b]
[quote]Here we go again. They should leave him alone. He's done the crime and served the time and now he should be left to get on with his life. In any case, wherever he goes, the police will no doubt keep their eye on him. He's 65 now and most men at 65 just aren't bothered about sex, due to the body ageing and chemical changes taking place. For instance, I'm nearly 63 and I'm nowhere near as randy or virile as I was forty years ago. It comes to us all.

I think Gary is at far less risk of getting into trouble now than he was when eleven year old girls were throwing their knickers at him in the 1970's. And I notice that the staff at the Oldham Advertiser have as little knowledge of the law regarding paedophilia as the rest of their colleagues in the media. Gary Glitter (or Paul Gadd) is not, as they state in their article, a &quot;convicted paedophile&quot;, as there is no such thing in law. It is not illegal to be a paedophile, as long as you don't act on your feelings and molest a child. He was a convicted sex offender, but he wasn't convicted of being a paedophile, because you can't convict someone because of what they think or feel, only for what they do. Yet the media continue to go on and on referring to child sex offenders as &quot;convicted peadophiles.&quot; Perhaps because the foreign word &quot;paedophile&quot; sounds horrorfic, like &quot;Dracula&quot; or &quot;Frankenstein&quot; and they want to scare their readers / viewers / listeners.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: We don't want Gary in our gang.
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
DR2	I could never understand why anyone liked Gary Glitter, nor why they bought his records in sufficient quantities to send him to the top of the hit parade with some pretty awful platters that I certainly wasn't going to waste my money on in 1973. No, it was definitely David Cassidy; The Carpenters and Darren Burn for me at that time. At least they could sing and their records ran rings around Glitter's stuff. I often wonder though, what happened to all the eleven years old female weenyboppers from 1973 who were mad on him and used to scream at him. They'd be around 48 years of age by now and probably parents and grandparents. Would they be too embarrassed to admit that they were once mad on him and had posters of him all over their bedroom walls?
ATB	There's a bloke on Buzzjack forums who is quite open about still listening to Glitter, and admits to downloading his greatest hits. You should see the abuse he gets...very harsh indeed.
robbiex	I think that it is ridiculous to think that Gary Glitter poses a threat to children. For a start it didn't have any previous record of offences against children until in his mid-50's when he was caught downloading child porn images. This doesn't necessarily mean he is a threat. The conviction in Vietnam should be taken with a pinch of salt, due to that countries reputation. Also Glitter can barely leave his house without the press and the police watching him, let alone go hunting for children, as those paranoid people seem to think he may be doing. Also like someone else said your sexual interest and capibility declines in your 60's.
DR2	Thanks, Locked Out. I've been waiting for years the film industry to jump on the bandwagon with all this, with titles like "The Curse of Paedophile"; "The Revenge of Paedophile" and "The Horror of Paedophile", all in breathtaking PeadoScope and glorious Paedo Colour and starring someone we've never heard of as Gary Glitter and at a cinema near you from Friday (if you have a cinema anywhere near you these days, that is). Rated 18, of course! Note that in the above titles, I merely swapped the name Frankenstein with the word Paedophile. That would be bound to keep the present day paranoia going along nicely.
JC	btw .. when I say Mr Uppermill, I don't just mean Mr Lowe but all those he represents. The ignorant masses.