King of Hits.co.uk - Tipsheet 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

Tipsheet

Tipsheet Messageboard

Post a new message in "Tipsheet Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Al wrote:[/b]
[quote]Nobody can move to USA or New Zealand if they have any kind of criminal conviction. The same goes for Australia and several other major non-EU countries. If I was in his position I'd want to get out of the EU and western society altogether. There is also the advantage of Eastern countries being quite cheap to live in. However, Glitter's first choice was Cuba. It was only after certain western media caused an uncomfortable stir in that country that his visa was revoked. He had been living a law abiding life in a quiet retreat. The tabloids pursued him from there, through a variety of countries, driving him to seek refuge in the Far East. Perhaps he would not have been there had they just left him in peace and used their resources to track down genuine threats such as Bin Laden or other known terrorists. Their behaviour was bizarre considering he'd only been legally classified as a minor risk. If he'd not been a celebrity they wouldn't have bothered. The responsibility for this entire affair must rest with the tabloids who drove Glitter into his current position.

I have already said that he acted unwisely by sharing his house with young girls. However, he was not acting unlawfully by doing that. I can fully see where Michael Jackson was coming from when he said people too often confuse affection with sex. Michael Jackson seems to be a big kid and saw no difference between another kid sleeping at his house than if they slept over at a school-friend's. His actions are unacceptable to those who assume sex is behind everything. The majority of abuse cases involve someone well known to the child, quite often a family member, so whether Glitter was related to the child is mostly irrelevent when you consider the overall pattern of worldwide child abuse.

I tend to look at all cases objectively, regardless of what's involved. I'm sure a great many people got emotional about the Stefan Kisco case and were 100% convinced that he murdered a child. He did, after all, confess to the crime. Fourteen years later he was cleared when it was established that he couldn't possibly have done it. He'd been manoeuvred into the confession by pressure from the police. A rather different situation to that of Gary Glitter, but it does highlight how judgements can sometimes be wrong, and things are not always what they seem to be.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: 2 things about Gary Glitter
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
BR	This is the problem as I see it and this thread has totally shown this up. If you even point out that Glitter cant be a prolific paedophile ( where is the evidence for this ? ) he is treated by the media as if he is one. Therefore when someone writes facts up on this forum not to defend Glitter but just to point this out then they are accused of defending a paedo or would you let your children spend time with him. Actually I would hope that children brought up properly would not actually be in danger from anyone because they would be taught not to sexualise themselves and become sex slaves at 11 years old and if some dirty old man of 60 tried it on they would actually report it instantly - whether that person is a rock star - priest or neighbour or family member. What we are discussing on here is a set of INNUENDOS from National Newspapers. Quite possibly the person who is sitting next to you has viewed porn - which by definition on the internet seems to include very disasteful stuff - yet are they a paedo ? and are they a risk to your children ? This "moral hysteria" is stoked by journalists who paint Glitter as if he is hanging around school gates all day and attacking every child..... Surely if he had been doing this in England ( where he lived most of his life ) it would have a ) Aroused suspicion and b ) led to him being arrested for alot more than a few photos ( let us remember that both Chris Langham and Pete Townsend have been arrested for the same thing ) GG's problem is that he is fat and old and stopped selling records long ago. He is an easy target for the tabloid press. I actually feel that those who attack him in such a way are like the bullies which abound under New Labour. When New Labour politicians do FAR WORSE it is accepted as usual and nothing happens....if someone is good looking and part of our ruling elite they can get away with things. I feel sorry for Glitter. His music has bought alot of pleasure to many people. He is not an Ian Huntley - he has not killed anyone - at worst he is a misguided old fool who has lost his judgement through the witch hunt. It used to be said that if you stereotype someone quite often they can live up to your stereotype. Though JK does not agree with religion I would like to point out what JC said when the "righteous" were about to stone the prostitute Mary Magdalen....you should all know the rest. Protecting children should be a priority - but our media pay it lip service. The same papers that demonise Glitter put topless shots of young girls in their knickers or less in them - quite often dressed at schoolgirls etc. Who are they aiming these shots at ? Pot - kettle and black. I would like to see the media cleaned up so that kids are protected - not from GLITTER or whoever is the latest celebrity witch hunt but from THE EDITORS WHO CHOOSE WHAT GOES in these papers. For me the editors of these papers have undermined morals and done a much bigger diservice to children and young people in the UK than Glitter has ever done. These papers are in the gutter yet have the nerve to preach about things. Anyone who believes them actually is a fool. If you all care about the kids - how about doing something positive to help a ) ex offenders or b) campaign to ban record companies exploiting their young artists. The last word : Britney Spears in her school uniform at 15 singing Baby Hit Me One More Time......we all know it is meant to be parody. But how do kids understand such a thing ? and look at Britney now.... The music industry has to accept far more guilt for society's wrongs than Glitter. We work in it - so are we the right people to slag off others such as Glitter without first putting our own house in order.
Godiver	I don't know.. defending Gary Glitter? you'll be singing the praises of Harold Shipman next, Eh? Oh..
Pete Clarke	Not sure who's comparing him to Ian Huntley. To my knowledge, Glitter hasn't killed any kids so yes, that would be a poor comparison.
JK2006	When I was a teenager my golden cocker spaniel Timmy slept on my bed (leaving very little room for me). I can assure I was not and am not into bestiality but I loved Timmy sleeping with me.
Pete Clarke	The point about moving to the US was just to illustrate where he has actually gone, as opposed to where he could have gone. Yes, I agree that we should not take everything in the media as gospel. I am not stupid. But to those who are defending Glitter and his actions, I would challenge any parents amongst you to allow this man to spend any time alone with your child. To allow this would be the act of an extremely stupid parent. And Al, you are off your rocker if you truly believe that there is nothing sinister in a 60 year old man sharing a bed with an 11 year old child. Al, do you have any kids?