Is it right to deny people the freedom of choice - to buy his music or not - just because you personally think they shouldn't?

Either Glitter earns his money from people who freely choose to support him, or we all end up paying for him via state funding.

Dominic I'm with you on both counts.

I'd never ever take anything that happens in an Asian court as sancrosant.

You will recall that most charges against Glitter in Vietnam were dropped when money changed hands. That's the way in Asia-guilty or not guilty.

It's not too difficult to build up a case against a person by repeated reporting that he is into a certain 'lifestyle', by innuendo.

Sadly that's what happens in Asia repeatedly and the very fact of even living there is taken as proof-as in Glitter's case and by co-incidence, of the large ex-pat community now in Thailand.

Yet the real reasons most are there are usually financial and health reasons when one can live 4 times better on their pension than they can in the West and the heat is sooo much better on the bones !.

Another played down fact in Glitter's case ( which happened to Arthur C.Clarke) are the many appaling NGO's who cause tremendous mischief ( as opposed to the very genuine ones who do wonderful work for the poor). Some of the most high profile NGOs come from the US-are right wing religious fanatics and covertly see Asia as a new "market"..not too disimilar to the way cigarette manufacturers have pounced upon Asia to create millions of new cancer sufferers as they flog their product.

NGO's were behind Glitter's removal from Cambodia..not on the slightest proof but by innuendo. Never forget that there is big money in sensation for NGOs.

I know one in Australia who is often the most quoted NGO in the media here and abroad about child sex exploitation in Asia-her career consists of travelling Business Class throughout Asia courtesy of airlines-free 5 star hotel accomodation, obstensively to attend "conferences". When I've asked her to explain practical exmples of how she's helped kids ( either escape work or sexual exploitation) she cannot give a concrete example-except to name Glitter as some sort of success, and her other great score (that backfired badly)-the science fiction writer Arthur C.Clarke.

Now that Sir Arthur is dead-the truth can be discussed. His closest friend of over 40 years is also my best friend. The accusations of child abuse, fanned by this NGO-picked up by UK newspapers just as Clarke was to receive his knighthood from Prince Charles who was travelling to Sri Lanka, nearly destroyed this man.

The story is long over now-the boys who made the accusations all recanted but admitted they had been paid be a UK newspaper via this NGO.

And poor Sir Arthur-had been physically confined to a wheelchair for nearly 30 years-was parylised from the waist down ( something he hid from the world)-was incapable of any sexual contact.

He had lived with the same Sri Lankan lover for 40 years-a dear man who tended to every daily task for Clarke ( and Clarke had bought houses for every member of his lover's family). His lover's family treated Clarke like the elder of the clan-they adored him. His rambling old run-down house was always awash with 10 or so kids from all branches of the family who visited every day( something used against the man in newsapers-the fact that kids ran amok on his property as though he induced them inside.

I rang that NGO only a week ago as she was ranting in the media about a real pedophile released from a Thai jail and deported back to Oz-she seemed to be claiming he should be incarcearted again back home even though he's done his time.

I told her I'd attended the opening of an art show to celebrate the Pope's visit to Sydney and launched by a priest she constantly maligns because he works with street kids-finding them homes and careers-and in this case, they had all produced works of art ( but never produced an allegation against him).

I also reminded her of the Arthur C.Clarke episode and told her of the latest inside news (revealed here for the first time !!)-that he had left nearly $US40 million for Sri Lankan children's charity foundation. She had always said that Clarke moved to Sri Lanka for cheap child sex ( on no proof) when the real rreason was he was aboslutely broke-it was cheap and his lover came from there. (in the meantime he built an amazing fortune and never left despite his success)

"Still don't trust either of them" was her response which sadly-is the way of the world ( and the end of my rambling !)

Of course its wrong to deny people the freedom of choice. The question was will people choose Glitter given his track record??