well 1 idiot has been bragging about buying gary glitters greatest hits, most of us im sure would be repelled by this, but it does pose the question in a free society.... when should we 'say no' to buying material created by someone who has a criminal conviction, and when is it acceptable?

 

now gary glitter is an extreme case, his music is rarely ever played on the radio (as by doing so he will get royalties, thus funding his sick lifestyle) and quite rightly so, but where do you actually draw the line?

 

many of our musicians have been caught out, ken dodd for tax evasion... (not that we would buy a kd record but still...lol) chuck berry, jerry lee lewis, bill wyman, a bloke from the bay city rollers, a bloke from the foundations, pete townsend, jonathon king, all have had some form of sexual encounter either by relationship or downloading child porn, with underage children. plus how many others have been convicted of violence, even murder.. oh and of course theres jacko! :lol:

 

when we now buy material these people have produced, arnt we actually saying "we know what youve done, we dont care" .... should we care? arnt we aiding them?

I'd like to make a point if I may. UK radio is hypocritical. They all have banned Gary Glitter's and Jonathan King's music yet carry on playing Phil Spector produced tracks. He's a convicted murderer. Surely a murderer is worse than a paedophile?

Edited August 28, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris

I'd like to make a point if I may. UK radio is hypocritical. They all have banned Gary Glitter's and Jonathan King's music yet carry on playing Phil Spector produced tracks. He's a convicted murderer. Surely a murderer is worse than a paedophile?

 

in essence, that is the point of this thread, highlighting the inconsistencies plus asking ourselves how it effects us. should we support criminals or in a certain case, suspected criminal (smooth criminal? :lol: )

 

as for 'surely a murderer is worse then a paedophile' .... dunno.... difficult question to answer, i suppose phil spector is highly unlikely to re-offend whereas gary glitter WOULD.

Depends on the offence really

 

If it involves kids in any way shape or form then their records should be taken out of all stores and never played on radio as these artists have many young fans but for example Chris Brown while what he did to Rhianna was vile I think he should be allowed to continue his career plus many musicans have convictions for possession of drugs and ban musicians who have taken drugs you are virtually left with Westlife and Crazy Frog so I think really depends on the offence

 

Child related, rape, murder = instant ban of all records

 

Drugs, wife beating, assault = allowed to continue career

Surely the reality is that it largely comes down to the quality of the music. Banning Gary Glitter and Jonathan King's records can hardly be said to be depriving listeners of quality music whereas a wholesale ban on all Phil Spector productions would. That's not to say that's how it should be but it's the way it seems to work.

 

 

Craig is right - what is an 'acceptable' crime? Where do you draw the line as unacceptable? Paedophilia? Rape/Murder? Dangerous Driving? Drug Use? As the question is, should we support someone with a criminal conviction ... that WOULD include 'minor' (or private) crimes such as speeding convictions and personal drug use - would anyone not buy the new Whitney Houston album purely because of her drug use in the past? Probably not - but can you really have one rule for one, and one for another?

Surely the reality is that it largely comes down to the quality of the music. Banning Gary Glitter and Jonathan King's records can hardly be said to be depriving listeners of quality music whereas a wholesale ban on all Phil Spector productions would. That's not to say that's how it should be but it's the way it seems to work.

 

ok i must admit the idea for ths thread wasnt completely mine, it is based on one on digital spy where someone asked whether or not ggs music would ever be acceptable. of course the fans who like that music dont have much of a problem with listening/buying his music as they 'seperate the man from the music' ..... and thats the excuse jacko fans use too ... i guess the real question is 'CAN you seperate the man from the music'? as turning a blind eye to wrongdoings so you can enjoy your music isnt really addressing the issue.

 

so fans of whoever would argue that it IS quality music...

I don't mind admitting that I'm the one who's ordered Gary Glitter's Ultimate Collection double CD from Amazon, along with a couple of other 70's hits albums. I liked most of his songs and they've been unobtainable for ages but Amazon got 12 in and only 1 left now so others are buying his music too. It's not a crime after all despite what anyone thinks. We live in a free country and I don't tell anyone else what to buy! I in no way condone what he did but can separate that from his fab 70's music. When it arrives it'll take me back to when I was 12/13/14. I have lots of 70's compilations by such as Smokie, Showaddywaddy, Hot Chocolate, Mud, Boney M, Slade etc and don't see the difference to be honest. I see HMV, Play etc are still refusing to stock Glitter music but it's their loss as he's obviously selling.

Edited August 28, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris

I don't mind admitting that I'm the one who's ordered Gary Glitter's Ultimate Collection double CD from Amazon, along with a couple of other 70's hits albums. I liked most of his songs and they've been unobtainable for ages but Amazon got 12 in and only 1 left now so others are buying his music too. It's not a crime after all despite what anyone thinks. We live in a free country and I don't tell anyone else what to buy! I in no way condone what he did but can separate that from his fab 70's music. When it arrives it'll take me bck to when I was 12/13/14. I have lots of 70's compilations by such as Smokie, Showaddywaddy, Hot Chocolate, Mud, Boney M, Slade etc and don't see the difference to be honest. I see HMV, Play etc are still refusing to stock Glitter music but it's their loss as he's obviously selling.

 

By buying his albums you are condoning it not only condoning it but bloody funding it

 

How you think he paid for his laptop and his child porn subscriptions ? how you think he paid for the villa in Vietnam and the flights out there ? do you think he used to hitch a ride on the back of a carrier pigeon ? or a magic carpet ? NO he got out there with the proceeds from his album sales :manson:

 

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez are you really THAT thick Chris ?

I can assure you I'm not thick. Anyway from an £8.97 CD just how much will he get of that? I see he has a new album out soon, recorded in Thailand recently. Doubt it'll trouble the charts as I read that only Amazon have agreed to stock it.

I can assure you I'm not thick. Anyway from an £8.97 CD just how much will he get of that? I see he has a new album out soon, recorded in Thailand recently. Doubt it'll trouble the charts as I read that only Amazon have agreed to stock it.

 

You are being thick by saying you don't condone his lifestyle but at the same time giving him royalties to help fund it

 

On top of that you are a father too, Glitter goes for people your daughters age and younger

 

 

I wonder if the reason people slate it when people buy Gary Glitter albums and not Michael Jackson albums is because his songs weren't as good/memorable as Michael Jackson's who was, on a number of times, accused of sexually abusing children and even if he didn't, he still had inappropriate relationships with them :unsure:

 

Of course Michael Jackson was never prosecuted, but even when he was on trial, people were buying his music and isn't that condoning the activities of a potential criminal :unsure:?

Edited August 28, 200915 yr by nickthenoodle

I can assure you I'm not thick. Anyway from an £8.97 CD just how much will he get of that? I see he has a new album out soon, recorded in Thailand recently. Doubt it'll trouble the charts as I read that only Amazon have agreed to stock it.

 

The thing is unlike a lot of artists Gary Glitter not only earns artist and songwriting royalties from his music (as he self penned most of his material with Mike Leander), but he also earns publishing royalties as he still controls that as well. The publishing company he set up also included records by the likes of the Glitter Band and in the early 1980s Shakin Stevens original compositions like Oh Julie and A Love Worth Waiting For - which is why they rarely turn up on 1970s/1980s compilation albums as well.

 

Hence he would earn far more from a sale of one of his CDs than say the Lennon/McCartney partnership would from a Beatles CD.

I wonder if the reason people slate it when people buy Gary Glitter albums and not Michael Jackson albums is because his songs weren't as good/memorable as Michael Jackson's who was, on a number of times, accused of sexually abusing children and even if he didn't, he still had inappropriate relationships with them :unsure:

 

Of course Michael Jackson was never prosecuted, but even when he was on trial, people were buying his music and isn't that condoning the activities of a potential criminal :unsure:?

 

I bought Thriller and Bad and Off The Wall but they were well before the allegations came out, rest assured I have never since Bad bought a Jacko album, any songs I have liked I have downloaded for free and even then it has been about 2 that were not on those 3 albums

 

I feel the same way about Jacko as I do about Glitter

I bought Thriller and Bad and Off The Wall but they were well before the allegations came out, rest assured I have never since Bad bought a Jacko album, any songs I have liked I have downloaded for free and even then it has been about 2 that were not on those 3 albums

 

I feel the same way about Jacko as I do about Glitter

 

Ah ok then, fair enough :lol:

I wonder if the reason people slate it when people buy Gary Glitter albums and not Michael Jackson albums is because his songs weren't as good/memorable as Michael Jackson's who was, on a number of times, accused of sexually abusing children and even if he didn't, he still had inappropriate relationships with them :unsure:

 

Of course Michael Jackson was never prosecuted, but even when he was on trial, people were buying his music and isn't that condoning the activities of a potential criminal :unsure:?

 

Yes, but a pretty huge difference was that Gary Glitter was CONVICTED. Michael Jackson was ACQUITTED.

 

If Michael Jackson was CONVICTED then I would fully support the banning of his music, and the likes of HMV should refuse to stock his music. But he was found not guilty. Hence they are two entirely separate situations.

Yes, but a pretty huge difference was that Gary Glitter was CONVICTED. Michael Jackson was ACQUITTED.

 

If Michael Jackson was CONVICTED then I would fully support the banning of his music, and the likes of HMV should refuse to stock his music. But he was found not guilty. Hence they are two entirely separate situations.

 

Even though he was acquited of child abuse the things he admitted to should be enough to ensure no one bought his records, certainly if I was a father there is no way I would have permitted my son or daughter to buy any Jacko material

 

1) Plying 8 year olds with alcohol when the legal age is 18 infact 21 in some states

 

2) Letting kids sleep in his bed when he is in his 40's and they are not his kids

 

3) Showing porn to 8 year old boys

 

4) Teaching masturbation to 8 year old boys

 

Those things are not rumour or heresay they are established facts so while I accept in the eyes of the law no abuse took place same way as I am forced to accept OJ Simpson is not a double murderer the things that Jacko confessed to were to me repugnant enough to lead to a ban on sales of his records or airing of his records even if he did not sexually abuse

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Chris is condoning GG's behaviour by buying his records. Having said that, I wouldn't buy them because I'd feel uncomfortable doing so. I don't like the idea of my money potentially financing his future activities.

 

Buying or not buying products for moral or ethical reasons is a matter of choice. I try to avoid Nestle products because of some of the things they've done. That doesn't mean that I accuse anyone buying a Kit Kat of agreeing with everything they've done.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Chris is condoning GG's behaviour by buying his records. Having said that, I wouldn't buy them because I'd feel uncomfortable doing so. I don't like the idea of my money potentially financing his future activities.

 

Buying or not buying products for moral or ethical reasons is a matter of choice. I try to avoid Nestle products because of some of the things they've done. That doesn't mean that I accuse anyone buying a Kit Kat of agreeing with everything they've done.

 

I don't for a moment think Chris is condoning what Glitter did even though I am sure that Glitter would buy Chris a drink and pat him on the back if he found out Chris had stripped off infront of 13 year old girls on webcam but Chris by helping fund Glitter's activities is condoning what Glitter did by the backdoor

Even though he was acquited of child abuse the things he admitted to should be enough to ensure no one bought his records, certainly if I was a father there is no way I would have permitted my son or daughter to buy any Jacko material

 

1) Plying 8 year olds with alcohol when the legal age is 18 infact 21 in some states

 

2) Letting kids sleep in his bed when he is in his 40's and they are not his kids

 

3) Showing porn to 8 year old boys

 

4) Teaching masturbation to 8 year old boys

 

Those things are not rumour or heresay they are established facts so while I accept in the eyes of the law no abuse took place same way as I am forced to accept OJ Simpson is not a double murderer the things that Jacko confessed to were to me repugnant enough to lead to a ban on sales of his records or airing of his records even if he did not sexually abuse

 

EXACTLY!

 

it bugs me when people say 'he was aquitted' .... well not many actually believe the trial was just, the same way oj simpsons was! but ok, for arguments sake lets say that jacko didnt 'fiddle' with kids.... but as craig has listed those established facts are enough surely to have him branded a grubby old perv!

 

anyway i dont want this thread to focus solely on jacko... its about the whole area of buying records by convicted criminals... and yes, craig is right again about condoning glitters actions. if i was in glitters position id be thinking "well my records are still selling so some people must think ive done nothing THAT wrong!!!!" chris, you are giving him the green light, if he offends again you will be partly to blame.