Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Paedophile Gary Glitter to be paid thousands in royalties for Top of the Pops repeat
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Bod
May 14, 2012, 6:23:12 AM5/14/12
to
Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
Top of the Pops in 1977.
Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
Opinions?
--
Bod
pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
Top of the Pops in 1977.
Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
Opinions?
--
Bod
Brian B
May 14, 2012, 6:52:15 AM5/14/12
to
Dissenter
May 14, 2012, 6:52:38 AM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:23:12 +0100, Bod <bodr...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
He's perfectly entitled to the royalties and to omit him from the
programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
(The BBC recently had to apologise to Jonathan King for omitting him
from a TOTP repeat: http://tinyurl.com/68qoc5u (Daily Mail again).)
--
Dissenter
wrote:
programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
(The BBC recently had to apologise to Jonathan King for omitting him
from a TOTP repeat: http://tinyurl.com/68qoc5u (Daily Mail again).)
--
Dissenter
Stephen Wolstenholme
May 14, 2012, 6:55:40 AM5/14/12
to
Steve
--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 6:56:02 AM5/14/12
to
"Dissenter" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bko1r71u8m56rla66...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:23:12 +0100, Bod <bodr...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>>
>>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>>
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>>
>>
>>Opinions?
>
> He's perfectly entitled to the royalties and to omit him from the
> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting history".
> wrote:
>
>>Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>>
>>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>>
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>>
>>
>>Opinions?
>
> He's perfectly entitled to the royalties and to omit him from the
> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
David McNeish
May 14, 2012, 7:12:29 AM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 11:23 am, Bod <bodro...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
> pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
> Top of the Pops in 1977.
>
> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary...
> Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
> pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
> Top of the Pops in 1977.
>
> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
>
> Opinions?
As pointed out in the comments, they've vastly exaggerated the
royalties payable. If the BBC really had to pay "thousands of pounds"
to every performer on each edition of TOTP, I doubt they'd be
bothering with the repeats.
Nigel Oldfield
May 14, 2012, 7:25:05 AM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 11:23, Bod wrote:
WM
Jethro_uk
May 14, 2012, 7:48:08 AM5/14/12
to
offended by the name-change of Guy Gibsons dog would support this ?
Phil Stovell
May 14, 2012, 8:00:31 AM5/14/12
to
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 8:03:17 AM5/14/12
to
"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:Yh6sr.368082$H11.2...@fx23.am4...
small *selection* of a huge amount of popular music at the time, not a world
history documentary. Maybe if they'd cut him out of the chart rundown it
might be different, but I don't think leaving his performance out of the
programme would make any difference to anything. Nobody is pretending he
wasn't famous or a big part of the music scene back then, but license payers
might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next trip to Vietnam.
Nigel Oldfield
May 14, 2012, 8:49:49 AM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 13:03, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
> pretending he wasn't famous or a big part of the music scene back then,
> but license payers might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next
> trip to Vietnam.
As though that would be allowed.
> pretending he wasn't famous or a big part of the music scene back then,
> but license payers might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next
> trip to Vietnam.
WM
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 8:51:27 AM5/14/12
to
"Nigel Oldfield" <WMCritica...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:joqv19$70v$1...@dont-email.me...
Nigel Oldfield
May 14, 2012, 8:53:50 AM5/14/12
to
WM
Nigel Oldfield
May 14, 2012, 8:55:48 AM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 11:23, Bod wrote:
http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/your-point-being.html
*****
Comment:
Ah, we see .... The bullying 'trolls' are fine, as long as they agree
with The Sun, the Daily Mail and TTP.
Hypocrites
*****
WM
Presently Flaccid
Richard McKenzie
May 14, 2012, 9:13:02 AM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 1:53 pm, Nigel Oldfield <WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> On 14/05/2012 13:51, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Nigel Oldfield" <WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> >news:joqv19$70v$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 14/05/2012 13:03, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
> >>> pretending he wasn't famous or a big part of the music scene back then,
> >>> but license payers might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next
> >>> trip to Vietnam.
>
> >> As though that would be allowed.
>
> > Anything is possible when you have the money...
>
> Not in this case.
>
> WM
Nigel is, Gary the leader of the OSC, the leader of your gang?
> >> On 14/05/2012 13:03, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
> >>> pretending he wasn't famous or a big part of the music scene back then,
> >>> but license payers might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next
> >>> trip to Vietnam.
>
> >> As though that would be allowed.
>
> > Anything is possible when you have the money...
>
> Not in this case.
>
> WM
Norman Wells
May 14, 2012, 9:16:30 AM5/14/12
to
repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out the
most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then repeat it
all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in 'thousands of
pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
The Todal
May 14, 2012, 9:24:53 AM5/14/12
to
of Associated Newspapers.
What next - maybe viewers will be "outraged" when they see repeats of
"The Thick of It" with Chris Langham starring.
Have you been outraged by a decision to broadcast a re-run of a TV
programme? Send us your stories now......
Richard McKenzie
May 14, 2012, 9:32:35 AM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 2:24 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 14/5/12 13:00, Phil Stovell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:23:12 +0100, Bod wrote:
>
> >> Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of pounds
> >> in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on Top of the
> >> Pops in 1977.
>
> >> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
> >> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary...
> On 14/5/12 13:00, Phil Stovell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:23:12 +0100, Bod wrote:
>
> >> Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of pounds
> >> in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on Top of the
> >> Pops in 1977.
>
> >> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
> >> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
>
> >> Opinions?
>
> > The Daily Mail is being outraged on viewers' behalf.
>
> I cannot believe they found any outraged viewers who were not employees
> of Associated Newspapers.
>
> What next - maybe viewers will be "outraged" when they see repeats of
> "The Thick of It" with Chris Langham starring.
>
> Have you been outraged by a decision to broadcast a re-run of a TV
> programme? Send us your stories now......- Hide quoted text -
> >> Opinions?
>
> > The Daily Mail is being outraged on viewers' behalf.
>
> I cannot believe they found any outraged viewers who were not employees
> of Associated Newspapers.
>
> What next - maybe viewers will be "outraged" when they see repeats of
> "The Thick of It" with Chris Langham starring.
>
> Have you been outraged by a decision to broadcast a re-run of a TV
>
> - Show quoted text -
There was an episode of Bottom the other day starring Chris Langham.
GB
May 14, 2012, 9:38:36 AM5/14/12
to
Jethro_uk wrote:
> It's dangerously close though ... presumably the same people who were
> offended by the name-change of Guy Gibsons dog would support this ?
The film makers could EASILY have skirted round that issue by not referring
> It's dangerously close though ... presumably the same people who were
> offended by the name-change of Guy Gibsons dog would support this ?
to the dog by name at all. We all know that attitudes to racism were
different then, but it was still casual racism on Gibson's part.
--
Register as an organ donor with the NHS online. It takes 1 minute and
saves you carrying an organ donor card with you.
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp
GB
May 14, 2012, 9:41:21 AM5/14/12
to
Norman Wells wrote:
> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for
> a repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>
> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out
> the most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then
> repeat it all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in
> 'thousands of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's the world
> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for
> a repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>
> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out
> the most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then
> repeat it all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in
> 'thousands of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
coming to?
Phil Stovell
May 14, 2012, 10:02:41 AM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:41:21 +0100, GB wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for a
>> repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>>
>> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out the
>> most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then repeat it
>> all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in 'thousands of
>> pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>
> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's the
> world coming to?
I know! Weird.
> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for a
>> repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>>
>> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out the
>> most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then repeat it
>> all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in 'thousands of
>> pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>
> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's the
> world coming to?
Phil Stovell
May 14, 2012, 10:03:53 AM5/14/12
to
the opposite in fact.
Jethro_uk
May 14, 2012, 10:30:10 AM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:41:21 +0100, GB wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for a
>> repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>>
>> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out the
>> most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then repeat it
>> all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in 'thousands
>> of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>
> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's the
> world coming to?
Annoyingly enough, it can happen, albeit rarely. Best not to dwell on it,
>
>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for a
>> repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>>
>> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out the
>> most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then repeat it
>> all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in 'thousands
>> of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>
> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's the
> world coming to?
and move on ...
Norman Wells
May 14, 2012, 10:39:28 AM5/14/12
to
GB wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for
>> a repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>>
>> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out
>> the most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then
>> repeat it all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in
>> 'thousands of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>
> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's
> the world coming to?
You're growing up, that's what.
> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for
>> a repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>>
>> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out
>> the most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then
>> repeat it all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in
>> 'thousands of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>
> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's
> the world coming to?
As you get more sensible, it will happen more and more often, until you
agree with absolutely everything I say. Don't worry about it. It
happens to everyone.
Mrcheerful
May 14, 2012, 10:29:59 AM5/14/12
to
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4fb10aa3$0$7324$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
would you have missed that out?
Different eras have different norms, you should not try to suppress
something that was quite normal at one time, simply out of PC
Phi
May 14, 2012, 10:52:48 AM5/14/12
to
Michael Jackson springs to mind.
Richard McKenzie
May 14, 2012, 10:55:39 AM5/14/12
to
he wasnt convicted
Bod
May 14, 2012, 11:05:27 AM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 15:52, Phi wrote:
> Michael Jackson springs to mind.
>
>
Whatever turns you on :-)
> Michael Jackson springs to mind.
>
>
--
Bod
Nigel Oldfield
May 14, 2012, 11:09:44 AM5/14/12
to
WM
GB
May 14, 2012, 11:09:45 AM5/14/12
to
Norman Wells wrote:
> GB wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds'
>>> for a repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite
>>> absurd. But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of
>>> journalism.
>>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out
>>> the most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then
>>> repeat it all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in
>>> 'thousands of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>>
>> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's
>> the world coming to?
>
> You're growing up, that's what.
Ah! Normal service has been restored.
> GB wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds'
>>> for a repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite
>>> absurd. But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of
>>> journalism.
>>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out
>>> the most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then
>>> repeat it all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in
>>> 'thousands of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>>
>> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's
>> the world coming to?
>
> You're growing up, that's what.
MM
May 14, 2012, 11:29:06 AM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:23:12 +0100, Bod <bodr...@tiscali.co.uk>
you one of the outraged?
MM
wrote:
>Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>
>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>
>
>Opinions?
If it's legal, then good luck to him. He's served his punishment. Are
>Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>
>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>
>
>Opinions?
you one of the outraged?
MM
MM
May 14, 2012, 11:30:11 AM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:56:02 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Dissenter" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:bko1r71u8m56rla66...@4ax.com...
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Dissenter" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:bko1r71u8m56rla66...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:23:12 +0100, Bod <bodr...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>>>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>>>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>>>
>>>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>>>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>>>
>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>>>
>>>
>>>Opinions?
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>>>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>>>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>>>
>>>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>>>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>>>
>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>>>
>>>
>>>Opinions?
>>
>> He's perfectly entitled to the royalties and to omit him from the
>> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
>
>Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting history".
Of course it is.
>> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
>
>Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting history".
MM
MM
May 14, 2012, 11:32:16 AM5/14/12
to
like persecuting people, don't you, even after they've served their
punishment.
MM
MM
May 14, 2012, 11:34:26 AM5/14/12
to
Bod
May 14, 2012, 11:58:10 AM5/14/12
to
--
Bod
Mr Pounder
May 14, 2012, 12:11:51 PM5/14/12
to
"Bod" <bodr...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a1c4og...@mid.individual.net...
> Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of pounds
> in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on Top of the
> Pops in 1977.
>
> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>
>
> Opinions?
> --
> in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on Top of the
> Pops in 1977.
>
> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>
>
> Opinions?
> Bod
Just how many times have you defended the BBC?
Cassandra
May 14, 2012, 1:17:41 PM5/14/12
to
>Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>
>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>
>
>Opinions?
They show Jimmy Saville all the time
>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>
>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>
>
>Opinions?
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 1:43:43 PM5/14/12
to
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q992r712fgbisklvg...@4ax.com...
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 1:45:40 PM5/14/12
to
news:b792r7pm8trrse92h...@4ax.com...
No, it really isn't in this situation.
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 1:48:26 PM5/14/12
to
"Cassandra" <cassand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fb13dd9...@news.virginmedia.com...
Bill
May 14, 2012, 1:52:28 PM5/14/12
to
In message <joqoc1$1u3$1...@dont-email.me>, Mentalguy2k8
<Mental...@gmail.com> writes
understandable under the circumstances. But a step all the same. The
only other option was to quietly have not shown that show at all.
I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree with
the guy making any money out of it. Perhaps if he had any decency he
would ask them to pay the royalties into a charity of their choice.
--
Bill
<Mental...@gmail.com> writes
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:23:12 +0100, Bod <bodr...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>>>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>>>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>>>
>>>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>>>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>>>
>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-
>>>Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.h>>>tml
>>>
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>>>pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>>>Top of the Pops in 1977.
>>>
>>>Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>>>programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>>>
>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-
>>>Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.h>>>tml
>>>
>>>
>>>Opinions?
>>
>> He's perfectly entitled to the royalties and to omit him from the
>> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
>
>Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>history".
It is the first step towards censorship, a minor step and very
>>
>> He's perfectly entitled to the royalties and to omit him from the
>> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
>
>Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>history".
understandable under the circumstances. But a step all the same. The
only other option was to quietly have not shown that show at all.
I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree with
the guy making any money out of it. Perhaps if he had any decency he
would ask them to pay the royalties into a charity of their choice.
--
Bill
GB
May 14, 2012, 1:59:08 PM5/14/12
to
>>> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>>> history".
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
> No, it really isn't in this situation.
To the extent that re-screening TOTP represents an historical event (and if
you are interested in pop music, perhaps it does), it isn't a fair
representation without him. Besides, wasn't he really popular at the time?
He may have been no. 1 when that show was recorded, in which case he could
hardly be omitted without cutting the show to shreds.
Is there any particular reason why that episode was chosen? they could show
an episode that never had him in in the first place.
Cassandra
May 14, 2012, 2:09:24 PM5/14/12
to
David McNeish
May 14, 2012, 2:09:28 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 6:59 pm, "GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Is there any particular reason why that episode was chosen?
Because they've been showing "TOTP from this week 35 years ago" since
> Is there any particular reason why that episode was chosen?
the beginning of last year - the only episodes they've omitted have
been those which are missing from the archives.
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 2:11:45 PM5/14/12
to
news:4fb147e4$0$12258$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
I think that a programme like ToTP is just a tiny sample of the music around
at whatever time it was made, I'm not sure it should be thought of as an
accurate historical documentary.
>
>>>> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>>>> history".
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>> No, it really isn't in this situation.
>
> Gary Glitter, for all his issues, was part of the pop scene at that time.
> To the extent that re-screening TOTP represents an historical event (and
> if you are interested in pop music, perhaps it does), it isn't a fair
> representation without him. Besides, wasn't he really popular at the time?
> He may have been no. 1 when that show was recorded, in which case he could
> hardly be omitted without cutting the show to shreds.
The song featured, only reached number 25, apparently.
>>>> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>>>> history".
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>> No, it really isn't in this situation.
>
> Gary Glitter, for all his issues, was part of the pop scene at that time.
> To the extent that re-screening TOTP represents an historical event (and
> if you are interested in pop music, perhaps it does), it isn't a fair
> representation without him. Besides, wasn't he really popular at the time?
> He may have been no. 1 when that show was recorded, in which case he could
> hardly be omitted without cutting the show to shreds.
I think that a programme like ToTP is just a tiny sample of the music around
at whatever time it was made, I'm not sure it should be thought of as an
accurate historical documentary.
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 2:13:55 PM5/14/12
to
news:4fb148c3...@news.virginmedia.com...
Yeah, legally.
Nigel Oldfield
May 14, 2012, 2:15:43 PM5/14/12
to
WM
Brian B
May 14, 2012, 2:22:38 PM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 18:52, Bill wrote:
all.
>
> I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree with
> the guy making any money out of it. Perhaps if he had any decency he
> would ask them to pay the royalties into a charity of their choice.
>
I bet they don't cut out the Michael Jackson videos.
all.
>
> I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree with
> the guy making any money out of it. Perhaps if he had any decency he
> would ask them to pay the royalties into a charity of their choice.
>
Brian B
May 14, 2012, 2:23:14 PM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 19:09, Cassandra wrote:
>>>
>>> They show Jimmy Saville all the time
>>
>> The same Jimmy Saville who was never convicted of any sex offences?
>>
> So as innocent as Kenneth Williams and Frankie Howerd then
Or Saint Cliff?
>>>
>>> They show Jimmy Saville all the time
>>
>> The same Jimmy Saville who was never convicted of any sex offences?
>>
> So as innocent as Kenneth Williams and Frankie Howerd then
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 2:26:23 PM5/14/12
to
"Brian B" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4fb14d6e$0$24386$7120d902@karibu...
GB
May 14, 2012, 2:29:27 PM5/14/12
to
different episode without him in it seems like censorship. Showing an
episode with him leads to a possible accusation of deliberately courting
publicity for the producer. One of those situations where you can't win, i
fear.
GB
May 14, 2012, 2:31:32 PM5/14/12
to
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 2:32:35 PM5/14/12
to
news:4fb14ef8$0$10725$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
never existed but convicted child abusers are fine.
> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4fb147e4$0$12258$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>>> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>>>>>> history".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>> No, it really isn't in this situation.
>>>
>>> Gary Glitter, for all his issues, was part of the pop scene at that
>>> time. To the extent that re-screening TOTP represents an historical
>>> event (and if you are interested in pop music, perhaps it does), it
>>> isn't a fair representation without him. Besides, wasn't he really
>>> popular at the time? He may have been no. 1 when that show was
>>> recorded, in which case he could hardly be omitted without cutting
>>> the show to shreds.
>>
>> The song featured, only reached number 25, apparently.
>>
>> I think that a programme like ToTP is just a tiny sample of the music
>> around at whatever time it was made, I'm not sure it should be
>> thought of as an accurate historical documentary.
>
> Hmm. Editing him out seems like censorship. Deliberately choosing a
> different episode without him in it seems like censorship. Showing an
> episode with him leads to a possible accusation of deliberately courting
> publicity for the producer. One of those situations where you can't win, i
> fear.
Well, this is the BBC we're talking about. Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson
>> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4fb147e4$0$12258$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>>> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>>>>>> history".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>> No, it really isn't in this situation.
>>>
>>> Gary Glitter, for all his issues, was part of the pop scene at that
>>> time. To the extent that re-screening TOTP represents an historical
>>> event (and if you are interested in pop music, perhaps it does), it
>>> isn't a fair representation without him. Besides, wasn't he really
>>> popular at the time? He may have been no. 1 when that show was
>>> recorded, in which case he could hardly be omitted without cutting
>>> the show to shreds.
>>
>> The song featured, only reached number 25, apparently.
>>
>> I think that a programme like ToTP is just a tiny sample of the music
>> around at whatever time it was made, I'm not sure it should be
>> thought of as an accurate historical documentary.
>
> Hmm. Editing him out seems like censorship. Deliberately choosing a
> different episode without him in it seems like censorship. Showing an
> episode with him leads to a possible accusation of deliberately courting
> publicity for the producer. One of those situations where you can't win, i
> fear.
never existed but convicted child abusers are fine.
Mentalguy2k8
May 14, 2012, 2:36:15 PM5/14/12
to
news:4fb14f74$0$12262$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
people are campaigning to allow child rapists the right not to be cut out of
pop programmes, they surely wouldn't tolerate cutting someone out who has
never been convicted of any crimes. Unless he's perceived to be a racist, of
course, that changes everything. No convictions needed for *that* one.
> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>> "Brian B" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:4fb14d6e$0$24386$7120d902@karibu...
>>> On 14/05/2012 18:52, Bill wrote:
>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree
>>>> with the guy making any money out of it. Perhaps if he had any
>>>> decency he would ask them to pay the royalties into a charity of
>>>> their choice.
>>>
>>> I bet they don't cut out the Michael Jackson videos.
>>
>> He wasn't convicted of anything. Maybe he should have been, but he
>> wasn't.
>
> He cannot sue for libel, so you are safe.
LOL, but regardless of my feelings, he doesn't have a criminal record. If
>> "Brian B" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:4fb14d6e$0$24386$7120d902@karibu...
>>> On 14/05/2012 18:52, Bill wrote:
>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree
>>>> with the guy making any money out of it. Perhaps if he had any
>>>> decency he would ask them to pay the royalties into a charity of
>>>> their choice.
>>>
>>> I bet they don't cut out the Michael Jackson videos.
>>
>> He wasn't convicted of anything. Maybe he should have been, but he
>> wasn't.
>
> He cannot sue for libel, so you are safe.
people are campaigning to allow child rapists the right not to be cut out of
pop programmes, they surely wouldn't tolerate cutting someone out who has
never been convicted of any crimes. Unless he's perceived to be a racist, of
course, that changes everything. No convictions needed for *that* one.
Owain
May 14, 2012, 2:40:19 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 1:03 pm, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
>, but license payers
> might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next trip to Vietnam.
I'm quite happy to fund his next trip to Vietnam.
>, but license payers
> might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next trip to Vietnam.
One-way, not return.
Owain
Owain
May 14, 2012, 2:52:24 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 2:38 pm, "GB" wrote:
> to the dog by name at all. We all know that attitudes to racism were
> different then, but it was still casual racism on Gibson's part.
Haven't heard anyone complaining that Tinky Winky is offensive to
itinerant tinsmiths.
Owain
> Jethro_uk wrote:
> > It's dangerously close though ... presumably the same people who were
> > offended by the name-change of Guy Gibsons dog would support this ?
> The film makers could EASILY have skirted round that issue by not referring
> > It's dangerously close though ... presumably the same people who were
> > offended by the name-change of Guy Gibsons dog would support this ?
> to the dog by name at all. We all know that attitudes to racism were
> different then, but it was still casual racism on Gibson's part.
Haven't heard anyone complaining that Tinky Winky is offensive to
itinerant tinsmiths.
Owain
®i©ardo
May 14, 2012, 2:58:51 PM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 11:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
> "Dissenter" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:bko1r71u8m56rla66...@4ax.com...
--
Moving things in still pictures
>
> "Dissenter" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:bko1r71u8m56rla66...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:23:12 +0100, Bod <bodr...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>>> pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>>> Top of the Pops in 1977.
>>>
>>> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>>> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
>>> pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
>>> Top of the Pops in 1977.
>>>
>>> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
>>> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>
>> He's perfectly entitled to the royalties and to omit him from the
>> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
>
>> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
>
> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting history".
Any more than airbrushing out Isambard Kingdom Brunel's cigar!
--
Moving things in still pictures
®i©ardo
May 14, 2012, 3:00:14 PM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 13:51, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
> "Nigel Oldfield" <WMCritica...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:joqv19$70v$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> Anything is possible when you have the money...
You might even be able to spell "licence" correctly!
>
> "Nigel Oldfield" <WMCritica...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:joqv19$70v$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 14/05/2012 13:03, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>>> pretending he wasn't famous or a big part of the music scene back then,
>>
>>> pretending he wasn't famous or a big part of the music scene back then,
>>> but license payers might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next
>>> trip to Vietnam.
>>
>> As though that would be allowed.
>>> trip to Vietnam.
>>
>
> Anything is possible when you have the money...
You might even be able to spell "licence" correctly!
®i©ardo
May 14, 2012, 3:03:14 PM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 14:38, GB wrote:
> Jethro_uk wrote:
>> It's dangerously close though ... presumably the same people who were
>> offended by the name-change of Guy Gibsons dog would support this ?
>
> The film makers could EASILY have skirted round that issue by not referring
> to the dog by name at all. We all know that attitudes to racism were
> different then, but it was still casual racism on Gibson's part.
>
>
>
>
Not in his times it didn't, however much you may "feel the pain" of
> Jethro_uk wrote:
>> It's dangerously close though ... presumably the same people who were
>> offended by the name-change of Guy Gibsons dog would support this ?
>
> The film makers could EASILY have skirted round that issue by not referring
> to the dog by name at all. We all know that attitudes to racism were
> different then, but it was still casual racism on Gibson's part.
>
>
>
>
those who, 70 years on, are "offended" by it.
Phil Stovell
May 14, 2012, 3:31:09 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:09:45 +0100, GB wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for
>>>> a repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>>>> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
>>>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out
>>>> the most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then
>>>> repeat it all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in
>>>> 'thousands of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>>>
>>> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's the
>>> world coming to?
>>
>> You're growing up, that's what.
>
> Ah! Normal service has been restored.
Snigger!
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>> Absolutely. The idea that he would be paid 'thousands of pounds' for
>>>> a repeat of a 35 years old performance of one song is quite absurd.
>>>> But I admire the Mail in raising their own standards of journalism.
>>>> That's right, dear, go to the highly respected Twitter and pick out
>>>> the most lurid, ignorant comment you can. Show it in full, then
>>>> repeat it all. Fills up space, you see. That's the way to bring in
>>>> 'thousands of pounds' when you don't deserve any of it.
>>>
>>> Something's wrong here! I find myself agreeing with Norman. What's the
>>> world coming to?
>>
>> You're growing up, that's what.
>
> Ah! Normal service has been restored.
Snigger!
Frederick Williams
May 14, 2012, 6:01:45 PM5/14/12
to
Bod wrote:
>
> Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
> pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
> Top of the Pops in 1977.
>
> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>
> Opinions?
Manufactured outrage.
>
> Convicted sex offender Gary Glitter is set to be paid thousands of
> pounds in royalties after the BBC aired a repeat of him performing on
> Top of the Pops in 1977.
>
> Viewers were left outraged by TV chiefs' decision to rerun the BBC2
> programme featuring the disgraced pop star, 68, on Saturday night.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144050/Disgraced-singer-Gary-Glitter-paid-thousands-royalties-BBC-airs-repeat-performing-Top-Pops.html
>
> Opinions?
--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
GB
May 14, 2012, 7:08:40 PM5/14/12
to
Nigel Oldfield
May 14, 2012, 7:12:59 PM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 14:13, Richard McKenzie wrote:
> On May 14, 1:53 pm, Nigel Oldfield<WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
>>
>> WM
>
> Nigel is, Gary the leader of the OSC, the leader of your gang?
I do wanna touch him there.
WM
> On May 14, 1:53 pm, Nigel Oldfield<WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 14/05/2012 13:51, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Nigel Oldfield"<WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> On 14/05/2012 13:51, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> news:joqv19$70v$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 14/05/2012 13:03, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>>>>> pretending he wasn't famous or a big part of the music scene back then,
>>>>> but license payers might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next
>>>>> trip to Vietnam.
>>
>>>> As though that would be allowed.
>>
>>> Anything is possible when you have the money...
>>
>> Not in this case.
>>>> On 14/05/2012 13:03, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>>>>> pretending he wasn't famous or a big part of the music scene back then,
>>>>> but license payers might feel aggrieved that they're funding his next
>>>>> trip to Vietnam.
>>
>>>> As though that would be allowed.
>>
>>> Anything is possible when you have the money...
>>
>>
>> WM
>
> Nigel is, Gary the leader of the OSC, the leader of your gang?
I do wanna touch him there.
WM
MM
May 15, 2012, 4:38:37 AM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:43:43 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I never said he shouldn't, did I?
I think it's pretty clear from your posts what you think of Glitter.
MM
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I never said he shouldn't, did I?
I think it's pretty clear from your posts what you think of Glitter.
MM
MM
May 15, 2012, 4:39:19 AM5/15/12
to
MM
MM
May 15, 2012, 4:41:37 AM5/15/12
to
part of the music scene, especially given the small total number of
television channels.
MM
MM
May 15, 2012, 4:45:43 AM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 19:29:27 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4fb147e4$0$12258$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>>> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>>>>>> history".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>> No, it really isn't in this situation.
>>>
>>> Gary Glitter, for all his issues, was part of the pop scene at that
>>> time. To the extent that re-screening TOTP represents an historical
>>> event (and if you are interested in pop music, perhaps it does), it
>>> isn't a fair representation without him. Besides, wasn't he really
>>> popular at the time? He may have been no. 1 when that show was
>>> recorded, in which case he could hardly be omitted without cutting
>>> the show to shreds.
>>
>> The song featured, only reached number 25, apparently.
>>
>> I think that a programme like ToTP is just a tiny sample of the music
>> around at whatever time it was made, I'm not sure it should be
>> thought of as an accurate historical documentary.
>
>Hmm. Editing him out seems like censorship. Deliberately choosing a
>different episode without him in it seems like censorship. Showing an
>episode with him leads to a possible accusation of deliberately courting
>publicity for the producer. One of those situations where you can't win, i
>fear.
The BBC wants to kowtow to the morons among the British public who
believe he will never have paid his dues, the kind that would quickly
turn into a paediatrician-burning mob of vigilantes with the slightest
encouragement. Strange how they don't think like that for burglars,
murderers etc, about whom they mostly couldn't care less. But when
it's about "the national hysteria", they're all ears!
MM
wrote:
>Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4fb147e4$0$12258$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>>> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>>>>>> history".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>> No, it really isn't in this situation.
>>>
>>> Gary Glitter, for all his issues, was part of the pop scene at that
>>> time. To the extent that re-screening TOTP represents an historical
>>> event (and if you are interested in pop music, perhaps it does), it
>>> isn't a fair representation without him. Besides, wasn't he really
>>> popular at the time? He may have been no. 1 when that show was
>>> recorded, in which case he could hardly be omitted without cutting
>>> the show to shreds.
>>
>> The song featured, only reached number 25, apparently.
>>
>> I think that a programme like ToTP is just a tiny sample of the music
>> around at whatever time it was made, I'm not sure it should be
>> thought of as an accurate historical documentary.
>
>Hmm. Editing him out seems like censorship. Deliberately choosing a
>different episode without him in it seems like censorship. Showing an
>episode with him leads to a possible accusation of deliberately courting
>publicity for the producer. One of those situations where you can't win, i
>fear.
believe he will never have paid his dues, the kind that would quickly
turn into a paediatrician-burning mob of vigilantes with the slightest
encouragement. Strange how they don't think like that for burglars,
murderers etc, about whom they mostly couldn't care less. But when
it's about "the national hysteria", they're all ears!
MM
totallyconfused
May 15, 2012, 4:47:22 AM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 9:38 am, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:43:43 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:43:43 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
>
> <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I never said he shouldn't, did I?
>
> I think it's pretty clear from your posts what you think of Glitter.
>
> MM
Can anyone explain why Mr. Townsend is allowed into the USA? (Normally
> >I never said he shouldn't, did I?
>
> I think it's pretty clear from your posts what you think of Glitter.
>
> MM
he would be banned for a conviction for 'moral turpitude')
TC
MM
May 15, 2012, 4:49:51 AM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:52:28 +0100, Bill <Bi...@birchnet.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree with
>the guy making any money out of it.
Why on earth? Don't you understand the way justice works? He was
convicted, he served a term in prison, end of story. Many thousands of
other ex-prisoners make money in various ways, legally, so what is the
particular beef you have with this bloke, and why?
MM
wrote:
>I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree with
>the guy making any money out of it.
convicted, he served a term in prison, end of story. Many thousands of
other ex-prisoners make money in various ways, legally, so what is the
particular beef you have with this bloke, and why?
MM
MM
May 15, 2012, 4:56:02 AM5/15/12
to
MM
Richard McKenzie
May 15, 2012, 5:07:17 AM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 9:56 am, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 19:26:23 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 19:26:23 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
>
god only knows what you will be letting yourself infor if you went
around his house for milk and cookies
Fredxx
May 15, 2012, 5:09:38 AM5/15/12
to
You ought to look at the bigger picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Townshend
and even the events surrounding his caution.
Fredxx
May 15, 2012, 5:12:10 AM5/15/12
to
rather than being a person of note and actually contributing to the
state finances.
Fredxx
May 15, 2012, 5:13:11 AM5/15/12
to
On 14/05/2012 15:55, Richard McKenzie wrote:
> On May 14, 3:52 pm, "Phi"<phis...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> Michael Jackson springs to mind.
>
> he wasnt convicted
Didn't he bribe his accusers?
> On May 14, 3:52 pm, "Phi"<phis...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> Michael Jackson springs to mind.
>
> he wasnt convicted
Didn't he bribe his accusers?
totallyconfused
May 15, 2012, 5:23:45 AM5/15/12
to
'Handbook' I rang the US Embassy about 4 years ago about my ex's
ability to get a Visa; I was told if he attended an interview and put
his case forward, then the likelihood was that he would be granted a
Visa.
And yes, the 'events' surrounding Mr. T were very much like my ex's.
TC
Richard McKenzie
May 15, 2012, 6:45:40 AM5/15/12
to
move in with Jackson. Odd had he been a victim of abuse.
Owain
May 15, 2012, 7:39:12 AM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 9:39 am, MM wrote:
> >I'm quite happy to fund his next trip to Vietnam.
> >One-way, not return.
> >I'm quite happy to fund his next trip to Vietnam.
> >One-way, not return.
> Another one not content with the punishment served.
I'm not talking about deporting him.
Owain
Nigel Oldfield
May 15, 2012, 9:02:49 AM5/15/12
to
WM
Mentalguy2k8
May 15, 2012, 10:30:21 AM5/15/12
to
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ee54r7teg6bmofeel...@4ax.com...
that. Have you got a point?
Mentalguy2k8
May 15, 2012, 10:36:40 AM5/15/12
to
news:tj54r7d97d0sjii9h...@4ax.com...
>I remember TOTP well from back then and it was a key
> part of the music scene, especially given the small total number of
> television channels.
I never said it wasn't. Look, I don't mind you following me around and
contradicting everything I post, but perhaps you should try countering what
I actually type rather than what you imagine I'm typing.
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 19:11:45 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
> <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:4fb147e4$0$12258$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>>> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>>>>>> history".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>> No, it really isn't in this situation.
>>>
>>> Gary Glitter, for all his issues, was part of the pop scene at that
>>> time.
>>> To the extent that re-screening TOTP represents an historical event (and
>>> if you are interested in pop music, perhaps it does), it isn't a fair
>>> representation without him. Besides, wasn't he really popular at the
>>> time?
>>> He may have been no. 1 when that show was recorded, in which case he
>>> could
>>> hardly be omitted without cutting the show to shreds.
>>
>>The song featured, only reached number 25, apparently.
>>
>>I think that a programme like ToTP is just a tiny sample of the music
>>around
>>at whatever time it was made, I'm not sure it should be thought of as an
>>accurate historical documentary.
>
> You're wrong.
Nope.
> <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:4fb147e4$0$12258$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>>> Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting
>>>>>> history".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>> No, it really isn't in this situation.
>>>
>>> Gary Glitter, for all his issues, was part of the pop scene at that
>>> time.
>>> To the extent that re-screening TOTP represents an historical event (and
>>> if you are interested in pop music, perhaps it does), it isn't a fair
>>> representation without him. Besides, wasn't he really popular at the
>>> time?
>>> He may have been no. 1 when that show was recorded, in which case he
>>> could
>>> hardly be omitted without cutting the show to shreds.
>>
>>The song featured, only reached number 25, apparently.
>>
>>I think that a programme like ToTP is just a tiny sample of the music
>>around
>>at whatever time it was made, I'm not sure it should be thought of as an
>>accurate historical documentary.
>
> You're wrong.
>I remember TOTP well from back then and it was a key
> part of the music scene, especially given the small total number of
> television channels.
contradicting everything I post, but perhaps you should try countering what
I actually type rather than what you imagine I'm typing.
Nigel Oldfield
May 15, 2012, 10:43:49 AM5/15/12
to
On 15/05/2012 15:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
> I never said it wasn't. Look, I don't mind you following me around and
> contradicting everything I post, but perhaps you should try countering
> what I actually type rather than what you imagine I'm typing.
The Beeb said it would have been rewriting history.
> I never said it wasn't. Look, I don't mind you following me around and
> contradicting everything I post, but perhaps you should try countering
> what I actually type rather than what you imagine I'm typing.
Take from that what you will.
WM
MM
May 15, 2012, 12:10:00 PM5/15/12
to
MM
Robbie
May 15, 2012, 1:57:58 PM5/15/12
to
It's almost like they did it to create a controversy...
The edition was shown a few months ago on BBC4 as part of the regular
TOTP editions they show every week. This particular edition was one of
the worst shown so far this year.
It's good to see the beeb develop some balls though they could have
repeated a better TOTP episode that featured Glitter - one from 1972 or
1973 would have been better.
--
Robbie
Cynic
May 15, 2012, 2:42:21 PM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:56:02 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> He's perfectly entitled to the royalties and to omit him from the
>> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
>Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting history".
Yes, it pretty much is. It is effectively telling people that the
person in question did not take part in that program.
Just as it is rewriting history to make a film about "the dambusters"
and give a dog that was called "Nigger" a different name.
--
Cynic
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> He's perfectly entitled to the royalties and to omit him from the
>> programme would be 'rewriting history' as in the 'Ministry of Truth'.
>Editing someone out of an archived TV programme isn't "rewriting history".
person in question did not take part in that program.
Just as it is rewriting history to make a film about "the dambusters"
and give a dog that was called "Nigger" a different name.
--
Cynic
Cynic
May 15, 2012, 2:51:06 PM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:52:28 +0100, Bill <Bi...@birchnet.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree with
wrote:
>I do tend to agree with the Beeb on this one. Much as I disagree with
>the guy making any money out of it. Perhaps if he had any decency he
>would ask them to pay the royalties into a charity of their choice.
Why shouldn't criminals be permitted to make as much money as they
>would ask them to pay the royalties into a charity of their choice.
like from something unconnected with any criminal enterprise?
Do you believe that anyone convicted of a serious crime should be
forever barred from earning money legitimately, and so have no choice
but to either live off the taxpayer or commit crime?
Or is it only sex criminals that you believe should receive a lifetime
ban on being able to earn money?
--
Cynic
0 new messages