Paedophelia and state execution fetish ratings grab. Shameful.

were the facts of the case fictionalised too? It wasn't clear where the line between reality and fantasy was.

It actually left me feeling a bit sorry for the old monster - never thought that would happen.

If, in order to be able to use an image of Albert Einstein in a commercial enterprise you must get permission from his estate and, if they grant it, pay them, how is it possible that another famous person, Gary Glitter, can be portrayed in a commercial enterprise almost certainly without his permission?

Who he is and what he has done is irrelevant. Why does a 54-years-dead physicist apparently have rights that a living pop star - who is not even in prison, much less on death row - does not? Isn't the use of Glitter in this programme a purely commercial one, designed to make an otherwise rather dry subject more appealing to a mass audience?

Puzzled, I am.

I haven't seen the programme yet. I hope it's on some form of catch up. I have to comment on Anne Widdicombe. She presented a programme about the estate that I live in in North London. It was about hoodies. She portrayed our estate and the people in it as scum basically. She came on to the estate 'lived' with a family for a week and reported that it was threatening,run by hoodies,and generally a place that nobody would want to live. She neglected to talk to the leaseholders or freeholders on the estate which are over two hundred in number.She also missed the general opinion of the majority of the people who live here. I contacted her office and she didn't bother to reply personally just got one of her staff to say that those were her views and she didn't want to discuss further. The kids on the estate replied via a film that they took the time and effort to make and put on youtube. She came with her own agenda and no doubt made money and enhanced her reputation as the countrys 'matron'. She lost any credance she had if any years ago.

TV at it's worst.
Felt physically sick when that vile man was shown on the screen.
Was there no depths he would'nt sink to for personal satisfaction and his kicks?

Why did we have to look at Gary Bushell?

basically because we couldn't believe the description of it on the sky guide. Mr Gadd was on some form of witness stand. I don't think the subject matter is appropriate for a drama and it seemed unlikely that it was entirely factual which was a further issue in my mind. So we turned off.

so don't give away the ending.

From Charlie Brooker's tweets about it, it sounds like the nadir of human achievement. Well done Channel 4

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2009/nov/07/charlie-brooker-scree...

Just in time for Christmas too.

This is a perfect example of the sort of TV I wouldn't give a second's house room to.

we watched the first few minutes through inertia, already being on the same channel, in a kind of 'you have to be kidding' state of puzzlement before a growing sense of unease and a prickly feeling of uncleanliness made us simultaneously say, "Let's see what else is on".

So we turned over and watched a charming little movie called 'Starter For 10' about student life and love at Brizzle in the 80s (brilliant soundtrack by the way) that was a bit 'Rotter's Club' and a bit predictable (except the bit where he.... er, maybe not, don't want to spoil it for you) and very enjoyable too.

I quite agree with many of the points expressed above, but I do feel that it had, philosophically, a noble ambition: to serve as a forceful argument against capital punishment. I shared the queasiness of some of the massive, but found Hilton McRae utterly mesmerising and watched it through. However, if it had been to succeed in its mission, why choose Gary Glitter? Nobody would argue that his actions weren't despicable, but if they were looking for a cypher for a thoroughly 'evil' person, would Ian Huntley not have been a more appropriate choice? Maybe I'm missing the point. either way, it's watercooler tv so I'm sure the misguided/thoroughly cynical channel4 execs are breaking out the Bolly>

on catchup: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-execution-of-gary-glitter/4od#300...

I felt there were some problems with its style and it had a lot of elements which were implausible:

I didn't really buy the idea of the EU backing down on its attitudes to the death penalty.

I also didn't buy the idea that the death penalty would be brought in and the first crime prosecuted would be one that didn't involve murder. Now I would say that the people who are pro death penalty are clearer on the life for a life part of it, and though I am sure they would kill child molesters as well I think the test cases would be child molesters who kill as well.

No full appeals allowed (30 day rule) also doesn't sound very likely.

And what's with the weird new international laws where he is prosecuted in this country for things he did in another one! I guess its to avoid slander because the logical way of making it work would be to accuse him of crimes in the UK in the past.

That said I don't think that the programme was entirely without merit. Surely it is plausible that celebrities would be the ones prosecuted to prove political/moral/legal points in today's celebrity based culture. And Glitter is an interesting case because everyone feels let down by him. They trusted him. I mean I remember we sang Glitter songs in my primary school pantomime!!! The musical analysis element was pretty well done I thought. Remix of the witness box speech, t shirts etc was one element that did ring true.

The central performance was good. Although their were also some awful performances (the judge was rubbish I thought) and the whole thing felt a bit clunky. It was a strange mix of real and not real and none of that was clear and I find that problematic. Some bits were definately not things that would have been included in a documatary as they happened off camera and yet it was generally framed as a documenray which I find hard to relate to (District 9 had similar problems for me, although it had a lot more positives on the other side of the scale than this piece.)

Ultimately their have been loads of dramas against the death penalty, so I think one that explores a fictional Glitter case is interesting and valid. I'm just not sure it should have been done so clumsily, or even that it should have been linked to the death penalty.

Certainly it shouldn't have been framed as being about the public's desire for the death penalty. If you wanted to address that upsetting aspect of society surely the fact that we can NEVER KNOW for sure that someone is guilty and that innocent people will definitely die at state hands if we bring it back should have been addressed.

Also perhaps the fact that evil doesn't really exist, evil actions perhaps, but not evil people, and that all terrible acts are committed by human beings, making them monsters just simplifies things in an unhelpful way. That should be explored in relation to all this.

If this country did bring back the death penalty and I was asked to do jury sentence would I be allowed not to for philosophical reasons? That is also an interesting area to explore.

It is a horrendous thought that horrible people like Bushell or Widdicombe could get this hysterical and nasty way, and that lots of people support them. It is definitely an area for drama, debate and discussion.

I just think this drama was trying to fit an awful lot into 1 hour and 15 minutes, and wasn't being made by dramatists able to create plausible drama. There are many sensationalist and manipulative dramatic aspects to it, it played fast and loose with what was plausible in order to make it fast paced and "dramatic". But there are also lots of laudable things about what they did do and what they were trying to do.

All that said its hard not to agree with Charlie Brooker about the cynicism of it all. Fair enough be cynical I guess, if cynical means producing thought-provoking topicality. But make sure that the drama is up to it and well thought out when you do!