Its reported that following channel 4's semi ficticious drama aired on monday 'the execution of gary glitter' where the premis follows what would have happened to him IF the death penalty was re-introduced, paul gadd, aka gary glitter is considering sueing .

 

tbh i think it might have been abit unfair, using him as the 'star' of the drama when he just wants to crawl away and die... however, it did highlight the repugnancy of child rape ... but did we need it?

 

i liked the drama, i thought the guy who played glitter did it extremely well and convincingly.

 

thoughts?

I enjoyed this and thought the guy really looked like him. Thought it was in bad taste though having a mock trial of a real person who is still alive.

Frankly, he's got a fukkin' nerve.... How, exactly can he sue....? Is he going to sue for Defamation of Character???? Please..... <_< The guy's a notorious predatory Paedophile, there is absolutey no doubt as to his guilt, I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for him... If he indeed just wants to "crawl away and die", then why is he prepared to go through a high profile court case...? Nah, the fukker's milking it now....

 

Sorry, Chris, but "bad taste"...??? It's "bad taste" that this fukker is breathing the same air as decent people in my view..... I guess Hitler if Hitler had lived then he'd have a right to sue Mel Brooks or Kenny Everett would he....? And what about the actors who have imitated the likes of Thatcher, Bush, Blair and not exactly shown THEM in a positive light.... Where does this end....?

Well they could have done the same thing exactly but with a fictitious paedophile ex-pop star. Reports are that he wasn't even told about it or consulted as to it's content. He was also refused a request to attend an advance screening before Monday. His reason for possible legal action is that the programme "unfairly raised his profile again" according to The Mirror.

Edited November 11, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris

Tricky one.

 

There's no denying the guy is an absolute arse, and he'd be much better off just keeping schtum. Legal action is only going to bring even more attention to the very issues that he wishes to hide.

 

I also don't think the film necessarily did much to highlight anything about child rape that we didn't already know.

What it DID though was raise some interesting points about the death penalty. I found it scarily realistic - I really could envisage that type of scenario the type of national hysteria (whipped up by the likes of The Sun) brings about the return of the capital punishment. Supposedly civilised society screaming and baying for blood. I hope we don't go down that path though.

Tricky one.

 

There's no denying the guy is an absolute arse, and he'd be much better off just keeping schtum. Legal action is only going to bring even more attention to the very issues that he wishes to hide.

 

I also don't think the film necessarily did much to highlight anything about child rape that we didn't already know.

What it DID though was raise some interesting points about the death penalty. I found it scarily realistic - I really could envisage that type of scenario the type of national hysteria (whipped up by the likes of The Sun) brings about the return of the capital punishment. Supposedly civilised society screaming and baying for blood. I hope we don't go down that path though.

 

whilst i agree, i would like to see 'baby p's ' killer executed..not only did he abuse physically baby p but raped a 2 year old..

Well they could have done the same thing exactly but with a fictitious paedophile ex-pop star. Reports are that he wasn't even told about it or consulted as to it's content. He was also refused a request to attend an advance screening before Monday. His reason for possible legal action is that the programme "unfairly raised his profile again" according to The Mirror.

 

Why should he be...? There's surely no denying the facts here... The man IS a paedophile, he DID the crime, simple as.... Would you expect them to go and "consult" with the fukkin' Yorkshire Ripper and get his permission if a film-maker wanted to do a documentary or drama oh him...? "Unfairly raised his profile"??? What fukkin' nonsense.... This whingeing, bullsh!tting pervert is raising his OWN profile by making a big issue out of this and trying to make a court case out of it...... I really dont see how he can possibly claim that his repuatation or profile is being "damaged" by this film (which is kinda what you have to prove in a case like this..), his reputation was already in the toilet thanks to his OWN perverted actions....

 

If this ridiculous travesty actually does get found in his favour, then, sorry, but I will absolutely lose ALL faith in the English legal system.... Anything that shields perverts like him from facing the responsibility of their deviant, twisted actions is just plain wrong....

 

IF in the unlikely event he succeeds in this and gets awarded damages then he should not receive a penny of it and it given to his victims and child abuse charities, he should not profit from his crimes

Why should he be...? There's surely no denying the facts here... The man IS a paedophile, he DID the crime, simple as.... Would you expect them to go and "consult" with the fukkin' Yorkshire Ripper and get his permission if a film-maker wanted to do a documentary or drama oh him...?

 

im not so sure.... it isnt a factual documentary, its fiction, fiction about someone who is still alive, im not so sure they can do that without his permission. the fact that he is an oderous paedophile isnt in question, and just because he IS a nonce doesnt proclude him from the same rights everyone else has. .... and 2 wrongs dont make a 'right'.

im not so sure.... it isnt a factual documentary, its fiction, fiction about someone who is still alive, im not so sure they can do that without his permission. the fact that he is an oderous paedophile isnt in question, and just because he IS a nonce doesnt proclude him from the same rights everyone else has. .... and 2 wrongs dont make a 'right'.

 

So, does this mean that George W Bush should sue Oliver Stone over the film "W" then....? I'm sure Ollie took a few "liberties" here and there, as he did in his "Nixon" biopic; but I doubt that anyone would say that Dubya should actually sue him..... You can only sue someone if there are gross inaccuracies or it's blatantly libellous... Where's the actual libel or defamation in this docu-drama....? How can Gadd actually sue C4 on the facts here....?

 

So, does this mean that George W Bush should sue Oliver Stone over the film "W" then....? I'm sure Ollie took a few "liberties" here and there, as he did in his "Nixon" biopic; but I doubt that anyone would say that Dubya should actually sue him..... You can only sue someone if there are gross inaccuracies or it's blatantly libellous... Where's the actual libel or defamation in this docu-drama....? How can Gadd actually sue C4 on the facts here....?

 

i dunno scott, im just posing the question whether it is right/legal/ethical even to portray a fictional account of someones life whilst they are still alive and without their permission. tbh i thought the execution of gary glitter was more about revealing the depths he sunk to for gratification in an attempt to stick the knife further in, then for entertainment, good though it was. maybe it was a 'paedogedden' type excercise, revealing in quite graphic detail what he and others do.. was it needed?.. i dunno.

i dunno scott, im just posing the question whether it is right/legal/ethical even to portray a fictional account of someones life whilst they are still alive and without their permission. tbh i thought the execution of gary glitter was more about revealing the depths he sunk to for gratification in an attempt to stick the knife further in, then for entertainment, good though it was. maybe it was a 'paedogedden' type excercise, revealing in quite graphic detail what he and others do.. was it needed?.. i dunno.

 

If the makers of the film had approached him or, worse yet, actually paid for Gadd to be some sort of "consultant" or to get his permission, they would have been absolutely crucified in the press, and rightly so... I really, really dont think that Gadd has any right to complain, at the end of the day, he is/was in the public eye as a Pop Star/Entertainer (at the time of the first conviction he was still touring I believe), he's NOT a "private citizen" as such.....

 

I do tend to think that people like Glitter/Gadd need to be exposed for the arrogant hypocrites and scumbags that they are... I mean, let's not forget what this "man" actually did here... Like a lot of his kind, he went out to some far off country and thought he could get away with pursuing his perversions because he was a rich westerner, he totally exploited his position as someone who was once regarded as a "good entertainer".... Sticking the knife further in...? Not far enough IMO.... -_-