I see that the beeb has been criticised for its interview with Gary Glitter.
Paul Harris, a retired businessman from Wivelsfield Green, East Sussex, who watched the lunchtime news, said: “It’s quite outrageous that they should have given the oxygen of publicity to a man who has been found guilty and given him an opportunity to try to clear himself. The BBC seems to have overlooked the reality of the situation.”
Christine Beddoe, the director of the charity End Child Prostitution, Pornography and Trafficking, said: “He is manipulating the media and the British public just as a sexual offender would manipulate or groom their victim and the victim’s families. It’s beyond me that [the interview] has happened.”
I saw the same snippet on the lunchtime news. What I saw said more to me about Glitter than any media report or secondhand statement from the man. Relatively simple questions left him struggling for an adequate response. That is; simple as in “have you ever slept with an under-age girl?” The available answer was a straightforward choice between “yes” or “no”. What we got was a painfully vacant moment when Glitter’s jaw gaped as he mentally struggled to find a suitably obfuscating reply. What eventually came out was garbled and nonsensical (not to his knowledge and apparently he didn’t know the age of consent in Vietnam – so he tells us), I presume, therefore, that the answer was probably “yes”. :dry:
I really don’t know if he is telling the truth or not, but from his behaviour, body language and gaping, vacant expression when asked a straight question, I certainly have my doubts.
All of which means that Paul Harris and Christine Beddoe and the others who criticised the airing of this interview just don’t get it. Gary Glitter was expressing his right to free speech (and yes, a convicted man should have the right to try and clear his name should he so wish) and the BBC were providing a vehicle. A vehicle from which he could publicly condemn himself. Therefore, the interview was quite right and proper. It served its purpose.
I can remember the furore over Bill Wyman bedding a 13 year old girl who he later went on to marry and subsequently divorce. I’m not defending Paul Gadd AKA Gary Glitter but why is he a paedophile and not Bill?
Next question… 😕
I just don’t understand the media at times. They fixate on one person or story yet say nothing about others. Bill Wyman slept with a 13 year old girl therefore should he not also be a paedophile?
Here you go:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Smith
“In 1983 at age 13 she started dating the then 47 year old Rolling Stones’s bassist Bill Wyman. The two eventually married in 1989 and divorced in 1991. At the same time Wyman’s son was engaged to Mandy Smith’s mother. It has been alleged (not confirmed), that the couple had sex when Mandy was 13 and this has been a source of some controversy with people asking why Wyman was not prosecuted.”
❓
“It has been alleged (not confirmed), that the couple had sex when Mandy was 13…”
That says it all really. There is no evidence that any offence took place.
That’s also not to say it did not take place. Would it be in his interests to say “oh yeah, I had sex with Mandy when she was 13?” Let’s say for the sake of argument that he did not have sex with her, he still dated her when she was 13. He was a 47 year old man at the time. In my opinion, that is very dodgy indeed.
To be perfectly honest, I couldn’t care less if he did or didn’t have sex with her. I’m merely stating that the media makes a big fuss over some stories and not others.
The news with Wyman was no news – at least nothing they could really get to grips with. If they stated that he had slept with Smith and had no evidence to back it up, then he could have sued for libel. Given that, what more was there to say? Glitter on the other hand has been convicted twice, so is ripe for a story. They can pretty much say what they like without any comeback.
That’s true. I must just add I’m not defending Gary Glitter in any way shape or form. He has got what he deserved.