EXACTLY.... A car crash is absolutely no guarantee of killing someone, therefore, it's not a particularly effective assassination tool... God, there are LOADS of untraceable poisons and toxins out there, so if anyone was gonna kill her or Dodi, they would've used this method....

 

 

What about Dodi's blood sample being swapped at the lab? People say he wasn't drunk that night. White Fiat in tunnel? Hmmm. Ambulance taking so long to reach hospital, maybe delaying on purpose?

Generally, I believe an artist should be judged artistically on their music, not on their personality. So I don't think there's any moral/ethical issues regarding buying records by someone who was convicted on drug charges for example - they're only hurting themselves.

 

Convictions where other people are hurt - paedophila, rape, assault, murder - is more of a grey area. Chris Brown for instance - I think what he did is as bad as what Gary Glitter did, but I still listen to the two songs of his that I like regularly. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable actually buying his stuff and thus give him money though (although when I listen to him on Spotify, I guess he does get a cut of the profits from advertising revenue eventually...). And where exactly do we draw the line... Cheryl Cole was once convicted for racial assault, but I'm pretty sure there'll be atleast a few people in here who've advocated a blanket ban on criminals who are Girls Aloud fans.

Generally, I believe an artist should be judged artistically on their music, not on their personality. So I don't think there's any moral/ethical issues regarding buying records by someone who was convicted on drug charges for example - they're only hurting themselves.

 

Convictions where other people are hurt - paedophila, rape, assault, murder - is more of a grey area. Chris Brown for instance - I think what he did is as bad as what Gary Glitter did, but I still listen to the two songs of his that I like regularly. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable actually buying his stuff and thus give him money though (although when I listen to him on Spotify, I guess he does get a cut of the profits from advertising revenue eventually...). And where exactly do we draw the line... Cheryl Cole was once convicted for racial assault, but I'm pretty sure there'll be atleast a few people in here who've advocated a blanket ban on criminals who are Girls Aloud fans.

 

 

i agree with all of that

It's slightly tangential to this discussion but anyone who wants to condemn someone for one act should look at the example of Teddy Kennedy. Like Michael Jackson he was not convicted of serious charges but, again like Jackson, he was surely guilty. If he had been forced to quit his political career, the US would be a worse place than it is today. The point I'm making is that however flawed a character may be they are still capable of doing good.

It's slightly tangential to this discussion but anyone who wants to condemn someone for one act should look at the example of Teddy Kennedy. Like Michael Jackson he was not convicted of serious charges but, again like Jackson, he was surely guilty. If he had been forced to quit his political career, the US would be a worse place than it is today. The point I'm making is that however flawed a character may be they are still capable of doing good.

 

 

Well said Suedy. I'm sure Gary has some good in him still. I'm pleased to say that Amazon have posted my Gary Glitter double GH CD today! :cheer:

Edited August 30, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris

Well said Suedy. I'm sure Gary has some good in him still. I'm pleased to say that Amazon have posted my Gary Glitter double GH CD today! :cheer:

 

Yeah Peter Sutcliffe always was punctual and delivered his food on time

The Krays were good to their mothers

Harold Shipman didn't kill 90% of his patients so saved a lot of lives

Ian Huntley was a hard working caretaker

 

Your point is ? :rolleyes:

 

EVERYONE has some good in them

Yeah Peter Sutcliffe always was punctual and delivered his food on time

The Krays were good to their mothers

Harold Shipman didn't kill 90% of his patients so saved a lot of lives

Ian Huntley was a hard working caretaker

 

Your point is ? :rolleyes:

 

EVERYONE has some good in them

 

 

Yes they do. Even me.

Edited August 30, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris

Yeah Peter Sutcliffe always was punctual and delivered his food on time

The Krays were good to their mothers

Harold Shipman didn't kill 90% of his patients so saved a lot of lives

Ian Huntley was a hard working caretaker

 

Your point is ? :rolleyes:

 

EVERYONE has some good in them

The point is that to dismiss someone for one misdemeanour is not always right. Of course there are people like Harold Shipman and Peter Sutcliffe whose crimes were among the worst ever seen in this country. They were both given an all-life tariff and rightly so.

 

However, the point I am making is that some people - if given a second chance - can do a lot of good.

The point is that to dismiss someone for one misdemeanour is not always right. Of course there are people like Harold Shipman and Peter Sutcliffe whose crimes were among the worst ever seen in this country. They were both given an all-life tariff and rightly so.

 

However, the point I am making is that some people - if given a second chance - can do a lot of good.

 

In some cases yeah you are right but in the case of Glitter no chance, he is beyond redemption and if it wasn't for the fact he is under such police scrutiny he would 100% reoffend and has shown no remorse for his actions

 

In his particular case he is beyond help and is just better off being put down like a rabid dog

Josh - I'll tell you what I think is tedious, people like you continuing to defend Jackson and using his upbringing as some sort of excuse for unnacceptable behaviour, as if that's some sot of "get out of jail free" card..... He was GROWN MAN ffs, not a 10 year old kid, and he should have had the sense to realise that his actions could be read in a certain way, and that society as a whole does not accept behaviours such as that.... Mind you, perhaps if he hadn't surrounded himself with weirdos like Uri fukkin' Gellar......

I'm not going to use his childhood as an excuse at all, it's just that there is absolutely no denying that the man himself, paedophile or not, was a complete and utter weirdo with serious physiological problems.

 

It's kind of ironic, how the title of the thread says 'criminals in music', yet there's a discussion about Michael Jackson, who under US Law holds no 'criminal title' to his name.

 

 

My view on the topic in question anyway? I think music by that of Gary Glitter should be banned/removed/stopped being published etc. Okay, if someone wants to listen to his music, than that person has the right to listen to whatever they want. Selling his music (whether in stores or on the internet) is another story though. When convicted (and like any other criminal) they loose their 'job', removing the artists music would be no different to that of a normal person.

Gahhhh. It's late and I'm tired and I'm finding it hard to explain. :lol: I'll try again in the morning..

What about Dodi's blood sample being swapped at the lab? People say he wasn't drunk that night. White Fiat in tunnel? Hmmm. Ambulance taking so long to reach hospital, maybe delaying on purpose?

 

says who?..... thats speculative internet nonsense, NOT fact, and even so...how would that have saved diana? her life was in HER hands, no one elses, she chose not to wear a seatbelt, it wasnt tampered with, broken, or removed.

The point is that to dismiss someone for one misdemeanour is not always right. Of course there are people like Harold Shipman and Peter Sutcliffe whose crimes were among the worst ever seen in this country. They were both given an all-life tariff and rightly so.

 

However, the point I am making is that some people - if given a second chance - can do a lot of good.

 

absolutely.... is chris brown a serial woman beater?... he has shown remorse and apologised... ok at least its a step in the right direction....whereas glitter still protests that hes innocent and has done nothing wrong. diminished responsibility, extenuating circumstances, can play on an otherwise sane person causing momentary lapse.

It's slightly tangential to this discussion but anyone who wants to condemn someone for one act should look at the example of Teddy Kennedy. Like Michael Jackson he was not convicted of serious charges but, again like Jackson, he was surely guilty. If he had been forced to quit his political career, the US would be a worse place than it is today. The point I'm making is that however flawed a character may be they are still capable of doing good.

 

One act...? Dude, it was a case lightening striking a fair few times with Jacko.... He was constantly surrounding himself with kids and acting inappropriately... He actually went against the advice of several of his security advisors who suggested it really wasn't a good idea.... He was in a position of trust, and I feel that to a degree (okay, he perhaps didn't go "all the way"..) he abused that trust.... More than once....

 

And anyway, you cant compare Jacko to Teddy Kennedy... Kennedy actually DID do a lot of good and affected many changes in US politics, was a staunch advocate of Civil Rights, etc... Michael Jackson - er, was a Pop Star, sold some records, and did a bit of dancing.... :rolleyes:

 

In some cases yeah you are right but in the case of Glitter no chance, he is beyond redemption and if it wasn't for the fact he is under such police scrutiny he would 100% reoffend and has shown no remorse for his actions

 

In his particular case he is beyond help and is just better off being put down like a rabid dog

 

 

Can you please tell me how you KNOW he will re-offend again and that he's beyond redemption? Genuine question here. Are you a psychiatrist or child crime expert? Or have a crystal ball maybe? No-one can say whether he'll do it again or not. No-one. Anyway he says that he was framed and never touched any kids. He had the kiddie porn he admits but says the Vietnamese stitched him up.

Edited August 31, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris

Can you please tell me how you KNOW he will re-offend again and that he's beyond redemption? Genuine question here. Are you a psychiatrist or child crime expert? Or have a crystal ball maybe? No-one can say whether he'll do it again or not. No-one. Anyway he says that he was framed and never touched any kids. He had the kiddie porn he admits but says the Vietnamese stitched him up.

 

because its in his blood, he doesnt admit hes done anything wrong, he claims hes innocent yet ALL the overwhelming evidence tells us otherwise.

 

to be redeamed, you have to firstly admit theres a problem.... he doesnt even do that.

 

IF he admitted he has a problem, sexually finding little kids attractive, and asks for help to cure his sexual preferances, then id applaud him, and wish him every success... but he doesnt.

One act...? Dude, it was a case lightening striking a fair few times with Jacko.... He was constantly surrounding himself with kids and acting inappropriately... He actually went against the advice of several of his security advisors who suggested it really wasn't a good idea.... He was in a position of trust, and I feel that to a degree (okay, he perhaps didn't go "all the way"..) he abused that trust.... More than once....

 

And anyway, you cant compare Jacko to Teddy Kennedy... Kennedy actually DID do a lot of good and affected many changes in US politics, was a staunch advocate of Civil Rights, etc... Michael Jackson - er, was a Pop Star, sold some records, and did a bit of dancing.... :rolleyes:

Of course Kennedy's achievements are greater than those of Jackson. I also deliberately haven't mentioned Jackson (or Gary Glitter for that matter) in connection with Kennedy. I am merely making the point that condemning someone for the rest of their life for one act can prove to be a very bad idea. If some people had their way, Kennedy would not have been able to achieve most of what he did achieve. Or is that point too subtle for you?

because its in his blood, he doesnt admit hes done anything wrong, he claims hes innocent yet ALL the overwhelming evidence tells us otherwise.

 

to be redeamed, you have to firstly admit theres a problem.... he doesnt even do that.

 

IF he admitted he has a problem, sexually finding little kids attractive, and asks for help to cure his sexual preferances, then id applaud him, and wish him every success... but he doesnt.

 

Exactly

 

Glitter has never once expressed any remorse for what he has done so the fact he doesn't seem to realise he has a problem makes it all the more likely he will carry on repeating it

 

If he got help and admitted he had a problem...........

Of course Kennedy's achievements are greater than those of Jackson. I also deliberately haven't mentioned Jackson (or Gary Glitter for that matter) in connection with Kennedy. I am merely making the point that condemning someone for the rest of their life for one act can prove to be a very bad idea. If some people had their way, Kennedy would not have been able to achieve most of what he did achieve. Or is that point too subtle for you?

 

No, just a stupid comparison, IMO.... Kennedy wasn't some pervert child abuser like Glitter, some crimes are totally unforgiveable in my book, child abuse is one of them, or maybe you dont think so........

Can you please tell me how you KNOW he will re-offend again and that he's beyond redemption? Genuine question here. Are you a psychiatrist or child crime expert? Or have a crystal ball maybe? No-one can say whether he'll do it again or not. No-one. Anyway he says that he was framed and never touched any kids. He had the kiddie porn he admits but says the Vietnamese stitched him up.

 

 

Oh, please just SHUT UP CHRIS..... Why do you continue to defend this "man" and what he's done....? Are you just some sort of total moron, or are you just deliberately trying to wind everyone up, as I suspect your motives actually are to do just this...

 

Glitter had a chance to sort himself out after the first offence he committed downloading kiddie porn, he DIDN'T, and instead went out to SE Asia to pursue his perverted lusts for underage girls.... THESE ARE THE ACTIONS OF AN PREDATORY PAEDOPHILE AND AN ESCALATING OFFENDER YOU FUKKIN' IDIOT!!!!!!!!! It's clear to me that this "man" does not want to seek help for his perversions, or he doesn't seem to think he has a problem... Either way, he's an utter, vile, wicked b'astard who deserves nothing more than a bullet to the skull, and the money he makes off his records should go to his innocent young victims.....

 

Do you actually KNOW any people who have been abused as kids....???? WELL, I DO YOU STUPID FUKKER!!!!!! And let me tell you, these are scars that NEVER FULLY HEAL....... Some people cope with it somehow, but others self-harm, become alcohol or drug abusers, feel that they are cheap and worthless, become insecure and (genuinely, unlike YOU, you fukkin' freeloader...) depressed... And some, become so despaired that they take their own lives.......

 

Child abuse is the most evil, wicked and cruel act next to Genocide...... And for you to even suggest that there should be redemption for someone like Gary Glitter is an utter affront to any kind of decency or morality......

No, just a stupid comparison, IMO.... Kennedy wasn't some pervert child abuser like Glitter, some crimes are totally unforgiveable in my book, child abuse is one of them, or maybe you dont think so........

Where did I say that? Read my previous post where I said that I deliberately didn't mention Gary Glitter. Try reading what people say before reacting.