"Pervert" Glitter's £100k telly ad...

MCN wrote:

Roonmastor wrote:If someone does good, they should be rewarded for it. If someone does something bad, they should be punished for it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

He strawberry floated a kid, he went to jail.
He wrote a song that some company likes enough to use in their ad campaign, he should get royalties.

Another angle, how many famous persons are minor drug users? Doesn't drug money apparently fund terrorism? Shouldn't those people also be villainised?

I'm not villianising him, I'm laughing at the hilarious choice of song given the circumstances.

And it's mainly heroin use that funds terrorist activity, or at least in Afghanistan.

Brerlappins little hat wrote:

Cal wrote:

DML wrote:Even you Cal must be able to see that having the worlds number one kiddyfiddler's track as you anthem for your new touch screen device probably wasn't the wisest move....

I find it funny, actually. But seriously, I hardly think we need hound the man further. Three years in a Vietnamese prison cannot have been much fun and now he will be watched by The Fuzz here for the rest of his life (probably not long) and refused travel abroad just about everywhere. I say leave him alone now. Watch him, but just leave him alone. The Scum brings nothing useful to the Glitter debacle - just a rather distasteful and unhealthy voyeuristic fascination for the man's predilections, imo.

3 years in the clink and were supposed to forget he strawberry floats kids??

Roonmastor wrote:If someone does good, they should be rewarded for it. If someone does something bad, they should be punished for it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

He strawberry floated a kid, he went to jail.
He wrote a song that some company likes enough to use in their ad campaign, he should get royalties.