Gary Glitter is sung by children in family show
A PANTOMIME has been blasted for using a song by paedophile pop star Gary Glitter.
www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/365...ldren-in-family-show

Parents were horrified when I’m The Leader Of The Gang was used in an amateur performance of Cinderella.

The 1973 song was a hit for Glitter, who has been jailed for child sex offences and probed as part of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

Show director Tara Vaughan said she had received complaints after the performance by the Kingswood Players at Challock Village Hall, Kent.

But she added: “The song was appropriate for the scene. It fitted what we were trying to do.

“We even changed some of the words. The audience were part of the ‘gang’.

“It was completely innocent. In fact, when I pulled the lyrics up on the internet I found the Spice Girls’ version. It was never meant to offend anyone. It did upset me when I heard the complaint.

“We had some great feedback this year, with people telling us how funny the pantomime was.

One audience member who went with his wife and two children said: “We thought it was inappropriate, considering who sang it and what he was jailed for.

“We did really enjoy the show, we just thought they could have chosen a different song. It was probably innocent and they didn’t realise.”

Glitter, 69, real name Paul Gadd, was one of the most successful glam-rock stars of the 1970s. But in 1999 he was convicted of possessing thousands of child abuse images and served four months in jail.

And in 2006 he was jailed in Vietnam for 26 months for abusing two girls aged 10 and 11.

In October 2012 he was arrested and bailed as part of Operation Yewtree, the investigation into alleged child abuse sparked by the death of Jimmy Savile.

pathetic.

they'd be frightened of their own shadows next.

I hope he gets his royalties

I sang it all the time at school along with class mates.

andrew wrote:
I sang it all the time at school along with class mates.

Me to, it was in that Spice girls film to
...

Wasn't it edited out on home releases ?

I guess he does. I do.

Shrieking with horror at "unsuitable" records is a way of dehumanising sex offenders, probably because it is easier to think of them as monsters than seemingly ordinary people who they might be friends with, or people they trust with their children because they have a bit of paper saying they are "safe".

USA were very laid back on Glitter's music, they used Rock and Roll for years after he was arrested. His albums still sell on Amazon and they would of done in HMV etc, they sell Bill Wyman, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and R Kelly.

andrew wrote:
USA were very laid back on Glitter's music, they used Rock and Roll for years after he was arrested. His albums still sell on Amazon and they would of done in HMV etc, they sell Bill Wyman, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and R Kelly.

Its not quite the same thing though, because Wyman, Elvis, and Jerry Lee Lewis's girlfriends although younger were not actually "children" and were not raped, as (apparently) in the Glitter case, and it was in different times when it was acceptable.

Regardless of the precise nature of Glitter/Gadd's offences unless a sentence of the court included his being stripped of intellectual property rights - and I am not aware that it did - so long as he continues to be the owner of those rights (or, at the very least, entitled to a share of the royalties) he will get his PRS/MCPRS cheque come rain or shine.

The BBC had a "pop" about a year back about/on some chap convicted of abuse that had written a book on how to play the recorder that had - until then - been widely used in primary schools. The import of the "pop" was that the book(s) should not be used is such situations.

The thing is, though, the public has a straightforward choice to make if it desires to express disapproval by withholding royalties from the composer or artist. As no-one forces the public to buy a recording/sheet music, by far the simplest thing to do is to stop buying it in the first place if the don't like or disapprove of the artist/composer.

And that would be a shame.

excon wrote:
Regardless of the precise nature of Glitter/Gadd's offences unless a sentence of the court included his being stripped of intellectual property rights - and I am not aware that it did - so long as he continues to be the owner of those rights (or, at the very least, entitled to a share of the royalties) he will get his PRS/MCPRS cheque come rain or shine.

The BBC had a "pop" about a year back about/on some chap convicted of abuse that had written a book on how to play the recorder that had - until then - been widely used in primary schools. The import of the "pop" was that the book(s) should not be used is such situations.

The thing is, though, the public has a straightforward choice to make if it desires to express disapproval by withholding royalties from the composer or artist. As no-one forces the public to buy a recording/sheet music, by far the simplest thing to do is to stop buying it in the first place if the don't like or disapprove of the artist/composer.

And that would be a shame.

It is one thing if an individual chooses to boycott something from a sex offender (I cant see the point myself) but it seems a bit sinister for an organisation to deliberately ban it.

Are You Being Served was shown before Christmas BBC edited a joke about GG, same with Man About The House with the question being said what you think about Gary Glitter then ?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:


It is one thing if an individual chooses to boycott something from a sex offender (I cant see the point myself) but it seems a bit sinister for an organisation to deliberately ban it.

Exactly so. I have always maintained that under those circumstances the critical/aesthetic faculties cannot have been functioning in the first place. Either the music is good/aesthetically satisfying and competently written, or it is not. In this context I find what is supposed to have happened to the cash versus aesthetic value of Graham Ovenden's paintings especially pertinent, for example.

Do I imagine that British organisations in receipt of public money might pursue a very particular (and very sinister) agenda?

Utterly.