BBC Criticised For Repeating Gary Glitter TOTP Footage

The BBC has been criticised after they showed an archive footage performance of Gary Glitter performing on Top Of The Pops this weekend.

BBC Criticised For Repeating Gary Glitter TOTP Footage
0
The BBC has been criticised after they showed an archive footage performance of Gary Glitter performing on Top Of The Pops this weekend. The footage, which was shown as part of the popular re-runs of episodes from the 1970s, showed Glitter performing "It Takes All Night Long" in 1977. The decision by the BBC not to edit out the convicted paedophile from their broadcast was met by shock and horror by many viewers, who made official complaints as well as making their opinions heard via Facebook and Twitter. However, the BBC have not apologised for their decision, stating: "It would be inappropriate for the BBC to rewrite history, so the programme was shown in its entirety." Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, will be due a financial payment from the BBC following the broadcast. Thanks for the report to Gigwise.com.

21 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    NiinjaMaster36
    At least rock fans get upset over musicians who commit crimes getting recognition. The pop culture hasnt done a damn thing about chris brown
    Bati
    Oh c'mon, are we going to rewrite all shows to get criminals out of them? The drummer in Derek and the Dominoes killed his own mother with a hammer. Should we ban "Layla"? I mean, he co-wrote it, he's getting money from it every time it plays on TV or the radio... Wagner was an out-and-out anti-semitic pamphletist. Newton believed in staunch, cruel religious persecution. Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder wrote "Evory and Ivory". What I mean to say is: artists and scientists who made great things are also capable of heinous, unforgivable acts. We cannot pretend they were perfectly good or perfectly bad. We should charish the good and repudiate the bad. Not that I'm a Glitter fan, the guy has like 3 great songs and a bunch of so-so material IMHO. But those 3 great songs should not be banned just because he's a bastard. You cannot pretend he never existed, or that everything he ever did was poisonous. Gauguin was a pedo too, but no one states his paintings should not be seen or are without artist merit because of that. Why would Gary Glitter's performances be any different? Don't buy his music if you don't want to, but you can forbid others to listen to it or watch his performances if they want, it's madness. Or that's how I see it anyway.
    Jon Ellison
    Logically, young Bati has a point. The fact that a large number of people are turning against Gary and not Roman Polanski represents hypocrisy.
    Mr Brownst0ne
    NeedACoffee wrote: NiinjaMaster36 wrote: At least rock fans get upset over musicians who commit crimes getting recognition. The pop culture hasnt done a damn thing about chris brown Yeah, but he kinda did the music industry a favour, if you get what I mean.
    By physically assaulting a young woman, he did the music industry a favour? You're an idiot.
    L.T Kickass
    I am in favour of the BBC, which is not something I say often. Yes, Gary Glitter was a paedophile, but once upon a time he was a very popular musician, and there's no sense denying in it. Roman Polanski was a convicted paedophile, but he was also a great filmmaker, and is still a great filmmaker to this day, and everyone is praising him. Gary Glitter is a bad person, but trying to deny he ever existed is insensitive to those he did hurt.
    FlyingPirahna
    "Oh no, Gary Glitter got some money, now he'll donate it to the Extraordinary League of Paedophiles!" If you get offended by an old song being played on TV, you need tiger your priorities in order.
    Ironpriest
    So is ultimate guitar in trouble for having his picture up here? Is Oasis no longer able to sell morning glory in stores because it samples one of his songs!? Seriously this is rewriting history in the style of 1984, scary stuff. At the end of the day, he is a terrible person but at one point in time he WAS a popular musician.
    robo37
    Mr Brownst0ne wrote: NeedACoffee wrote: NiinjaMaster36 wrote: At least rock fans get upset over musicians who commit crimes getting recognition. The pop culture hasnt done a damn thing about chris brown Yeah, but he kinda did the music industry a favour, if you get what I mean. By physically assaulting a young woman, he did the music industry a favour? You're an idiot.
    He had a relationship with a teenager and a few underage porn pics on his laptop, plenty of mucicians have done worse things. Not that I aim to justify his actions in anyway. I just hope he got the help he needed.
    dewitt
    I agree with the BBC (and apparently everyone else here does, too). Just because he has questionable interests doesn't mean that he didn't exist, or that we should act like he's never been popular. Bati and L.T. Kickass gave plenty enough good examples of double standards. Also, I'm curious where all the users are from all the other articles... the ones who say he should burn in hell and be banished from the history books.
    NeedACoffee
    NiinjaMaster36 wrote: At least rock fans get upset over musicians who commit crimes getting recognition. The pop culture hasnt done a damn thing about chris brown
    Yeah, but he kinda did the music industry a favour, if you get what I mean.
    babinator99
    Bati wrote: Oh c'mon, are we going to rewrite all shows to get criminals out of them? The drummer in Derek and the Dominoes killed his own mother with a hammer. Should we ban "Layla"? I mean, he co-wrote it, he's getting money from it every time it plays on TV or the radio... Wagner was an out-and-out anti-semitic pamphletist. Newton believed in staunch, cruel religious persecution. Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder wrote "Evory and Ivory". What I mean to say is: artists and scientists who made great things are also capable of heinous, unforgivable acts. We cannot pretend they were perfectly good or perfectly bad. We should charish the good and repudiate the bad. Not that I'm a Glitter fan, the guy has like 3 great songs and a bunch of so-so material IMHO. But those 3 great songs should not be banned just because he's a bastard. You cannot pretend he never existed, or that everything he ever did was poisonous. Gauguin was a pedo too, but no one states his paintings should not be seen or are without artist merit because of that. Why would Gary Glitter's performances be any different? Don't buy his music if you don't want to, but you can forbid others to listen to it or watch his performances if they want, it's madness. Or that's how I see it anyway.
    Spelling aside, I wholeheartedly agree. An artist's personal life has nothing to do with the merit of their art. Courtney Love doesn't count, she's not an artist.
    hudsonstradlin
    MICHAEL JACKSON MICHAEL JACKSON MICHAEL JACKSON. that is all. and Pete Townshend, but that's debatable.
    NeedACoffee
    Mr Brownst0ne wrote: NeedACoffee wrote: NiinjaMaster36 wrote: At least rock fans get upset over musicians who commit crimes getting recognition. The pop culture hasnt done a damn thing about chris brown Yeah, but he kinda did the music industry a favour, if you get what I mean. By physically assaulting a young woman, he did the music industry a favour? You're an idiot.
    Good on ya mate, you've got an opinion too.
    Jon Ellison
    if you don't like Gary Glitter as a person, can you not still listen to his music and pretend it ain't his material? A song is a song. I still listen to his music, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna turn into a sex offender myself, does it?
    stephenunknown
    Love the art, not the artist. Pretty simple rule. Plenty of annoying/criminal musicians out there but it doesn't take anything away from the songs. Will I stop listening to QOTSA when Nick Oliveri was involved? NO WAY
    FlyingPirahna
    FlyingPirahna wrote: "Oh no, Gary Glitter got some money, now he'll donate it to the Extraordinary League of Paedophiles!" If you get offended by an old song being played on TV, you need tiger your priorities in order.
    Well, shit. I meant "to get", not "tiger". Stupid autocorrect.
    MrDo0m
    Bati wrote: Wagner was an out-and-out anti-semitic pamphletist. Newton believed in staunch, cruel religious persecution. Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder wrote "Evory and Ivory". What I mean to say is: artists and scientists who made great things are also capable of heinous, unforgivable acts. We cannot pretend they were perfectly good or perfectly bad. We should charish the good and repudiate the bad.
    I like your post.. However, I'm not sure what's so heinous about writing "Ebony and Ivory." Is it just that repulsive to you? lol