Entertainment For Lively Minds
More Glitter nonsense
Posted by Ralph on 30 January 2012 - 8:07pm.
A fine piece of journalism from The Sunday Express (not my paper of choice)
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/298668/BBC-finds-cash-for-Gary-Glitt...
Leaving aside the misleading headline I did wonder if Gary Glitter is actually banned from TV and radio as the piece states?
I tend to go along with the BBC's stance on not rewriting history but wonder if we're in for more of this when the show airs?
- More from Ralph.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Oh Jesus...
I was foolish enough to look at the comments under this story. As with YouTube, such comment viewing is not good for my overall view of humanity.
So, let us get this straight, The Sunday Express.
US Football team use cover of paedophile singer's song. Singer is subject to royalties and has served his sentence. BBC airs game. Therefore the BBC is funding kiddy-fiddlers with YOUR money.
So, unless nobody watches the Superbowl in the UK, we are all nonce-funders (though even if we don't, we should probably head for the hills, cutting off our genitalia on the way, just to be sure). Even if it's shown on Channel Five. Or maybe, when The Patriots score, they might air a ten-second advert for one of Richard Desmond's other shows, such as Recession Girls or Naughty Knee Highs, previous highlights of Televison X. (thanks to Private Eye for the background).
US football team adopt....
....erm.....'rock anthem' by Gary Glitter.
Quite apart from the recent history concerning the man, this would have been in horrendous taste musically any time since 1972.
I know sport and quality pop music rarely collide (the Booker T. cricket theme being an honourable exception) but can they really not do better than that?
Not "banned", but...
... simply never played, which is easier for everyone concerned, at least in avoiding BBC witchhunt stories like this. There is no ban on playing records/showing performances by convicted felons of any type, but especially in the current climate, they're not going to pick any fights they don't need to. They can get away with it in the context of a full TOTP repeat, and this Superbowl story in nonsense...
Mind you, the Beeb were caught out last year when a performance by Jonathan King was "inexplicably" edited from one of the 1976 TOTP repeats, and he was sent an apology afterwards.
Up the Gary.
Glitter was shown in full on the TOTP77 last week. Is that what this is about?
I'd never heard the song before actually. It was boring.
Are you sure?
I watched the whole show and there was no sign of Glitter - even though he was listed on the Sky info box as being among the acts appearing.
He was included
in the longer Saturday night repeat showing. Terrible song. I've never heard it before.
Ah, I see
I didn’t realise they showed different length edits on different days. I always record the Thursday evening show.
There was a Slade song on last week that I’d never heard, too. Early ’77 was obviously the last gasp of the titans of glam. (I know Slade made a comeback in the 80s, but you know what I mean.)
I posted something similar about a year back....
http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/the-rehabilitation-gary-glitter
This was when Gwyneth Paltrow, as a High School teacher, belted out "Do You Wanna Touch?" on Glee...
Created a bit of a heated debate
i think my very first post here all those years ago
was on similar lines, about separating the rhyme from the crime, which is what we all agreed on in the end.
Vile man, but with a string of great hits that shouldn't be airbrushed out of history. Just don't think about him when you're listening.
You can't beat a bit of this after all:
Or this:
Justice?
It's strange that the actor Chris Langham rightly did time for seemingly the same offence (and same excuse) as Pete Townsend who was seen to be innocent.
Is there not an inconsistency with sentencing or is it just a case of how much money you have to throw at the legal profession?
As far as I remember,
After seizing their computers and subjecting them to forensic analysis, the rozzers concluded that Chris Langham had actually downloaded a load of smut, while Townshend had paid to access a website but had not downloaded any of its content, so they are not comparable cases.
A distinction,
to the average lay person, without a difference.
Maybe so, but so what?
I was answering a comment about how the courts had decided. Surely the day we have justice determined by lay commentators is the day we've lost the rule of law? May as well leave it to the Express.
How's the Polanski
boycott/witch-hunt progressing?
hmmm
Seems to me there is a lot of confusion about inappropriate sexuality in musical artistes. Bill Wyman and Jimmy page seem to have got off scot-free (can I still say that?) despite underage mischief; and while the 70s were another age, the 80s don't seem to be so far off, and Bill Wyman's relationship with mandy seemed distinctly suspect with hindsight (and it looked dodgy in prospect to me even then). One can only imagine the consciences NOW of the English rock stars who were 'entertained' at Rodney Bigenheimer's glam rock disco THEN(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Bingenheimer's_English_Disco).
Didn't Gary Glitter sell...
...his publishing years ago? If so, what are they getting so fussed about?