Gary Glitter is to receive a GBP100,000 pay cheque

This is so wrong on many levels.

Glitter payout sparks outrage - Yahoo! News UK

 

Its simply royalties. He owns the rights to the song, even if he did get arrested. The basics are no different then any other musician.

 

I reluctantly have to agree with you Mussolini, but to give this convicted pervert who was convicted of having child porn on his PC here and what he did abroad dose not justify him getting this money.

The law must change on issues like this.

 

Its HIS music. He CREATED it. Anyone who uses has to pay him. It doesn't matter what crimes he has committed. Now, I am not defending him, I'm just saying that despite what he has done in his life, the rights to the music are still his.

 

I didnt totally agree at the time with how it went down in regards his PC , a kid in PC World discovered the downloads and blew the whistle.
Others guilty of the same thing were let off the hook claiming it was "research" Pete Townsend springs to mind.

Paul Ravens (aka Gary Glitter) antics since tho changed my mind , he pulled out all the stops and went on the rampage in Far flung countries abusing thier kids.
He should have been imprisoned there much longer or better yet another candidate for the firing squad.

He should seek bed and board at Michael Jacksons new home in Ireland ..isnt it funny how these creeps suddenly profess a love of far flung places after being caught kiddie fiddling.

 

Completely correct. Spare me from the American religious right loonies.

 

Had you read the thread i think you'll find it was an Englishman who posted the thread.
That aside , you are happy a convicted paedophile who isnt even welcome in most countries never mind his own continues to make enough money to fund his sordid lifestyle?

 

I'm with Musso, his royalties have no relation to any of the cases, like it or not they're his and that's an end to it. Whatever fines, compensation, & prison time have been handed out were the punishment, just because some people are outraged by this there's nothing in criminal law to allow any further sequestration of assets just because some demand it, nor do I think there should be.

You're punished for what you did, not for having once been more famous than infamous.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Why then is it that a convicted criminal ..lets say a killer ..is not allowed to write a book and make money or get a share of film rights ?
The killer also has served time and perhaps suffered the ultimate penelty , so why can a convicted phadophile whos not welcome anywhere continue to make money when we all know what he's going to use it for in all liklihood.
Yes ..its royalties from the past , big deal , he forfeited those rights when he was convicted of abusing kids.

 

Because he/she isn't allowed to make money from his crime. Thus he/she is not permitted to write a book detailing his murders (a book that the public would buy in the 1,000's by the way) and make money

He didn't forfeit those rights. You may wish he had but that is not the situation. If he was to write a song about his criminal activity then I presume that would be able to be siezed.

 

Emotive responses make bad law.
There is a scale of severe punishments, to step beyond that scale in a blanket manner leads to a totalitarian approach to Justice.
Are Hewlett Packard now to be liable in some way for generating this chunk of Royalties?
No, a line is drawn before extremism sets in.

Paedophiles and fame sell newspapers, nice easy targets that raise the moral indignation and circulation with minimum effort. I'm sure there are many others with more money and an equally heinous criminal record (or worse) that the tabloids would never bother to turn their attention to, far too much effort to create a story. With Glitter/Gadd (Paul Francis Gadd, not sure where that 'Paul Ravens' came from) they have a ready made target.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Maybe im alone in thinking he should not be awarded vast sums of money so close on the conviction of sexually abusing children...apart from Richard..who'd have figured

 

Such as the criminals at Wall street and the international banks.

For that matter Glitter isn't a paedophile, he's a child abuser. If you don't know the difference, ask a Dutchman.

It is a gigantic leap of faith to say that Glitter is using his money for nefarious purposes.

 

I except he has done his time and under the law is entitled to the payment but it also shows how the law is not perfect and yet there it is. Like it or not until such time when the law is changed Mr Glitter has the right to the money.

I'm not happy about it but I'm not going to jump up and down in a flying fit.


Nothing on the TV about it as yet due to that BBC row hogging the lime light at the moment.

 

You are confusing your feelings about Glitter and the law relating to his crimes. No one said your indignation is misplaced. Rather it has been pointed out there is no law that can be used to stop him recieving the cash.
Governments who make laws in haste usualy get it wrong. A classic example is the RIPA powers in the UK. Brought in to combat serious crimes and Terrorism it has ended up being used by local Councils to film and track track dog foulers or people littering.

 

This argument is so absurd because to take it to its full conclusion, any money earned by any ex criminal would be denied them.

 

Im not sure what a Dutchman would make of your response , a minute ago you wanted spared the American loonie right was it? To an English threadstart being replied to by a Scotsman..vaguely amusing.

So Gary Glitter is no paedophile eh ? Im sure your rush to his defense pleases paedophiles everywhere.


The singer, real name Paul Gadd, was recently released from a prison in Vietnam, where he served nearly three years for sexually assaulting two girls aged nine and 11.

Not such a giant leap of faith as you put it as to what he might do with any money..more a stick on.

What would you call someone convicted of sexually assaulting a 9 yr old?

 

Don't forget the eavesdropping that Councils are doing, vetting emails and the such.

"What would you call someone convicted of sexually assaulting a 9 yr old?"

i would call him a child abuser. And I'm not rushing to his defence.

 

An inmate on Death Row/Convicted Killer is not allowed to write a book because that would be gaining profit from a nefarious crime. When you take away the basic right of another human (the right to live) you then forfeit all your own rights. Trying to compare that to what Glitter did is a bit of a stretch.

 

Perhaps you would be as kind as to post the definition of Paedophile , or ..would you like me to ?