I downloaded Chris Browns last song for free just so I felt less guilty about giving him any money.

:)

You don't have to derail a thread to do that. There's that wonderful facility known as PM.... though I'm quite sure that Angus is old enough and wise enough to decide what she likes and doesn't like. if she wants to 'complain' - that's her choice. Not yours.

Smithy gets told! :)

This was always going to be an issue. My opinion is this: if GG has paid for his crime then I can't see a problem. His music career was long over before this happened anyway.

Look, his music is out there - and at the time massively popular - so it's hard to ignore forever.

thats a very big IF

by all accounts he has been having sex with children for many years going way back in his travels.

he only got sentenced for molesting two under aged girls(10 & 11). Some would say a very lenient sentence at that.

he is an outright paedophile in every way and would just love to be on a plane back to paedo paradise given half the chance.

Glitter's hardly the only one who's been convicted of a serious offence and is still earning from past work, this is a bit of a storm in a teacup if you ask me

People should get money/royalties from their past work regardless of what crimes they have commited. They released it and put hard work in so they should get paid for their work.

but the argument here is that they should not have chosen his work to use in the first place.

knowing that he would gain financially

that said, people still happily quote and celebrate Oscar wilde and he was a dirty paedo too.

My point is you can't simply brush someone off the pop landscape. As others have said Ike Turner abused individuals, as did Phil Spector.

A pop song should stand on it's own as a piece of art.

Crap!

um. No he wasn't?

Money and exposure! What a dumb question to ask. "Glee" is the biggest show on television. Duh.

Someone has a inferiority complex.

How kind of you to share your problems with us, but there's really no need.

Lazy Americans? Really? The UK is the fattest nation in Europe, has an education problem with chavs running the country, a great percentage on benefits, and a huge percentage think that Winston Churchill was a fictional character in a novel. Yes, lazy, right. You know how many things you use now thanks to America? Pfft.

Well.....the Americans certainly didn't give us any of the following:-

Powered flight (and no....it wasn't the Wright brothers!)
Radar
Periscope
Torpedo
jet propulsion

Nor was it any of these either:-

Telephone
Television
Lightbulb
Seisometers
Thermos
Sewing Machines
Fax machine
Tarmac
Penicillin
Tyres
and even the web (due to an Englishman)

or a million other things.


None of this however is anything to do with the likes of Gary Glitter - and Glee using one of songs. But then again, I suppose that's to be expected..... such is their ignorance at times.

Oscar Wilde was GAY - that doesn't make him a paedophile. If you're referring to his famous relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas, Douglas was 21 years old at the time! Or are you privy to secret information that nobody else is? If so, do tell.

I have my dear - just not on this forum:rolleyes: It might have escaped your limited concentration and attention that this thread is about Gary Glitter, the convicted paedophile. FOCUS FFS.

It's a darn sight better than ignoring important issues and/or trivialising them by joking about them and being sarcastic in sad attempts at humour and attention seeking posturing. As usual your "opinion" (and I use the word loosely in your case) is of zero interest or importance and contributes ***** all to this thread:bored:

Meanwhile I shall carry on "complaining" about what the hell I want to complain about, without running it past you or anyone else first. Got it?

yes, my dear, Im well aware of the difference between being gay and being a paedo. Thanks very much.

I wasn't referring to Alfred Douglas either. Although by all accounts it was he who introduced Wilde to the joys of boy prostitutes.

If you want to read up on the life and times of Oscar wilde and conveniently leave out all the stuff about his taste for young underclass and working class boys then go ahead. But I don't.

I have studied Oscar Wilde extensively and have full knowledge about the various rumours flying about at the time, all of which are to this day still unproved conjecture. However he was convicted for being a homosexual, not a paedophile, or perhaps you believe every bit of gossip you hear with no proof or evidence?

Back on topic, after your failed attempt to deflect the argument away from the debate in hand, the fact is that Glitter is a paedophile convicted on hard evidence, testimony and irrefutable proof. If you don't get the difference, I can't help you.

you are free to believe what you like about Wilde just like I am. I called him a paedo and I stand by it 100%. Just because he wasn't actually convicted for it doesn't make it a lie. Every bit of gossip? LOL

as for deflecting I have no clue what you're on about. If you read my posts Im not even defending him so have no reason whatsoever to deflect! Geez you really need to concentrate more. :pat:

So you admit you just "choose" to believe the accusations? - Well of course you have to say that, otherwise you might just look like a gullible idiot!:xyxwave:

Of course you have a motive to "deflect" because you have tried to trivialise the debate on this thread without much effect by bringing in other so called examples. So don't play dumb when you're caught out - it's just pathetic.

seriously what the hell are you on about? I have no interest in trivialising anything. You're the pathetic one misreading peoples posts all the time and going off on some ridiculous rant.

My opinion about Glitter is that he is a hardcore paedo and Glee should not have chosen is work for the show. But now they have then he is entitled to the royalties. Is that clear enough for you?

seems you're the queen of deflection. So desperate to seize the upperhand you twist everything. Sad sad sad.

ps; you choose to believe that Wilde had no interest in young boys even though it's a very well known aspect of his life. At this point proof is impossible so it all comes down to how one chooses to interpret what they read about him. I suggest YOU are the gullible idiot if you can read about his life and not think he ever touched an underage boy!

Are you saying Oscar Wilde had a sexual attraction to children (sexually-immature prepubescents)?