no.

of course not.

it is inseparable from his crimes.

Bullshit.

Let's not play any Michael Jackson or R. Kelly then.

SW wrote:
Bullshit.

Let's not play any Michael Jackson or R. Kelly then.
Not a very good analogy, SW, as neither were convicted of any crime. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the previous post is bullshit.

Where would we be if we start banning the works of everyone we don't approve of? Not in a very nice place, that's for sure.

Another Rock and Roll Christmas was played at Pride Park during Derby County's Christmas fixture last year. No censorship from the good old Rams at least!

Derby county to one side.....

No one is playing his records on radio are they SW? So there is an unspoken ban in place anyway.

Like I said - inseparable from what he's done.

The notion of singing along with a convicted paedophile is one step too far for most people, including radio programmers it seems.

Music is Music.

Crime is Crime.

Are we going to have to get "approved" lists of artists soon ?

Where does it stop ( or start ) only Paedos should not be played - how about anyone who has a drug offence - or anyone who has a speeding ticket - or anyone who votes Tory.....where does it end.

If society starts to pass "further" sentences onto people and "ban" them from things then we are following a NAZI ideology.

Once a criminal has served their time then they have paid back their debt to society. Of course it would not be a good idea to put GLITTER in charge of the local Youth Centre or Primary School but what harm is there playing his music ? Surely he would be better off doing concerts than shacking up with kids in the Far East.

There was much work done by sociologists on behaviour that showed that people could be forced into stereotypical behaviour if they were constantly bombarded and stopped from having the same opportunities as the rest of us. Especially at school - bad kids often find that bad behaviour becomes expected by peers and teachers.

Our society is in danger of creating Paedophiles and terrorists and not creating any way out of that behaviour for them - thus making the situation worse for everyone as society starts to disintegrate.

We are imprisoning more people - we have CRB checks but the actual situation is that we all feel less safe and no progress is being made on crime.

What is needed is an approach that helps criminals to change their behaviour.

Therefore I believe the best way to help GLITTER to become a better person is to play his music and let him do concerts and for us to sing along with his songs - so that he does not have time to re-offend and so that he starts to respect society and stops exploiting young children in the despicable way in which he has done in recent years.

Meanwhile, BR, in the real world......his records won't get played.

BR wrote:
Music is Music.

Crime is Crime.

Are we going to have to get "approved" lists of artists soon ?

Where does it stop ( or start ) only Paedos should not be played - how about anyone who has a drug offence - or anyone who has a speeding ticket - or anyone who votes Tory.....where does it end.

If society starts to pass "further" sentences onto people and "ban" them from things then we are following a NAZI ideology.

Once a criminal has served their time then they have paid back their debt to society. Of course it would not be a good idea to put GLITTER in charge of the local Youth Centre or Primary School but what harm is there playing his music ? Surely he would be better off doing concerts than shacking up with kids in the Far East.

There was much work done by sociologists on behaviour that showed that people could be forced into stereotypical behaviour if they were constantly bombarded and stopped from having the same opportunities as the rest of us. Especially at school - bad kids often find that bad behaviour becomes expected by peers and teachers.

Our society is in danger of creating Paedophiles and terrorists and not creating any way out of that behaviour for them - thus making the situation worse for everyone as society starts to disintegrate.

We are imprisoning more people - we have CRB checks but the actual situation is that we all feel less safe and no progress is being made on crime.

What is needed is an approach that helps criminals to change their behaviour.

Therefore I believe the best way to help GLITTER to become a better person is to play his music and let him do concerts and for us to sing along with his songs - so that he does not have time to re-offend and so that he starts to respect society and stops exploiting young children in the despicable way in which he has done in recent years.
It does seem the two things that can kill a pop-career are being a paedophile or being very right-wing.

I agree when somebody has done their time that's an end to it but is it unreasonable that an ex-con loses some status in society? I'm not saying felons should be excluded from ordinary life but perhaps it can be argued that they lose privileged status.

Certainly I'd be opposed to hounding felons as I think it is counter-productive and I agree we can create the thing we accuse somebody of being/doing.

Removing Gadd/Glitter from history strikes me as a wrong turn but I think I could be convinced that he has forfeited any right (I use "right" loosely) to a position of elevated status which playing his records would give.

Yes it is a good analogy - you were aware surely that an analogy does not have to be exact?

Let's add The Who/Pete Townsend and Led Zep/Jimmy Page to that list too.

They weren't convicted???

I'm with Zooloo and Leader. Once a Nonce always a Nonce. The public don't forget...

SW wrote:
Yes it is a good analogy - you were aware surely that an analogy does not have to be exact?

True enough, but radio stations censoring the work of a convicted criminal as opposed to someone we think may be guilty though no conviction was ever made are two significantly different issues.

But everyone seems to be discussing two different points anyway. Would Glitter have a chance of a successful career now? Unlikely. The public are more outraged by paedophilia than they are murder, and the chances of an ageing rocker with no criminal history reviving his career are low enough as it is.

Should he be airbrushed out of history? Absolutely not. That's the sort of society where book burning is only just around the corner.

Meanwhile, in the real world, BBC1 did feature Rock and Roll Christmas in a TV show last year, and I heard it in Woolworths. So he's not been totally airbrushed out.

Then there is Youtube.

of course he shouldn't be airbrushed out purposefully, but time will in fact do that all by itself.

his music will be confined to history, and he'll become a footnote.