Gary Glitter Released

[lankeela]

after serving 8 of his 16 year sentence - do you think he could resurrect his music career? I still enjoy his records and would probably go to a gig if he did one locally. Or do you think he should be permanently outcast?

[andy-hughes]

barry - // I am conflicted over Queen, love Freddie and the music but repulsed by Bill Wyman as a man. //

There may be some crossed wires there - care to elaborate please?

[barry1010]

Bill was 47 and Mandy Smith was 13, encouraged by her mother

[bednobs]

but bill wyman wasnt in queen?

[Prudie]

Haha Barry suddenly realises it's the Stones' music he loves!

[barry1010]

I've gone senile. I love Mick Jagger and the Stones but ....

[Untitled]

i can understand separating art from artist… lots of artists have objectionable opinions but i think it’s different when the artist is a person who has done real harm to the world and used the profile and money given him by his art in order to wreak it…

if you really want to listen to gary glitter’s music and absolutely nobody else will do then you should at least go to the trouble of stealing it!

[gness]

:-))

[Mozz71]

Damn, I've seen some defending the indefensible on these pages in the past, but Andy takes the biscuit.

[lankeela]

So nobody mentioning Michael Jackson?

[gness]

Biscuit, Mozz? The whole cookie tin I think.

[Mozz71]

I wonder if we can get shares in McVities Gness?

[Mozz71]

Lankeela, I think someone did mention him in passing, but I guess the difference is, at least according to his fans, is that nothing has ever been proven against Jackson.

[gness]

:-))

[andy-hughes]

Mozz, if you, or indeed anyone, would like to indicate the post(s) or any part of any post where I have 'defended' Gary Glitter, I will be delighted to discuss them with you.

Take your time ...

[Canary42]

Read the whole thread - Jackson did get a mention.

[Mozz71]

You never defended his actions Andy (that's beyond even your ability to do), but to ignore the man's crimes and choose to willingly listen to, and indeed enjoy music made by an utter monster is equally indefensible in my eyes.

Each to their own though. If your own personal moral code allows you to do that, so be it.

[andy-hughes]

Our morals are our own choice, I'm sure you would agree.

That said, perhaps you would like to retract your observation that I have 'defended the indefensible' - not because it is 'beyond me' but because his conduct is indeed indefensible.

Apology optional, but I always own up if found to be in error, I'm sure you'll offer me the same courtesy.

[Neveracrossword]

Moss71 at 21.47 mentioned 'defending the indefensible' - I took that to mean 'defending the idea that it is fine to continue to listen to GG'. I certainly didn't interpret it as 'defending the behaviour of GG' - it didn't say that, and I didn't read it as meaning that. Most people seem to find the idea of listening to the music abhorrent, and I thought that notion was being continued.

[Zacs-Master]

Paul Gadd was a very good pop songwriter. He was also a paedophile. The latter should overshadow him as a person.

[Mozz71]

You might want to reread my last post, as I said that, in my opinion, you deciding to separate artist and music is reprehensible and I don't think any amount of your wearisome posting will change my mind on that.

I tell you what though, if you apologise to gness, piggy or any others your insensitive opinions may have triggering to, I'll consider your request for an apology.