Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Don't know if anyone has seen this or mentioned it yet but parents and people please read on if
You are interested.
I put my neck on the line and sent the twitter account a message saying exactly what I thought prior to the revelation of the experiment, the neck on the line bit comes from me forgetting I was logged in using my business account oooops!!
I was absolutely sick at the amount of people who condoned his account and showed support for his up and coming "comeback", it was almost as though they didn't know his history.
http://glitterontwitter.tumblr.com/
What's your opinions?
I'd start by not panicking, and then by educating my children.
20,000 followers, I bet most of them were hurling abuse at the account so much so as to make it unusable in any practical sense. The "experimenter" won't tell you that though as they want to portray themselves as a guardian of public morality, and everyone else as morally corrupt in need of his/her guidance.
Well over the top in a daily wail style IMO,
Dunno what on earth they thought you were going to prove.
[img] 
[/img]
Lol that's brilliant
Edit: I also think what the person did to highlight the issues was excellent!
Serafinowicz is a genius, pure straight faced comedy as always 
Still a message to be heard aside of all the "other comedy stuff" though.......right?
Nope.
far worse people have got off scott free for far worse crimes.
Its odd he took such afront to the positive comments, some people like his music and are brave enough to say it. Im pretty sure none of them said they would rape a child?
Really Bob? No kids? Or all grown up?
I think we'll all be better off forgetting about GG. He's a ****.
That's a fair point tom, but to continue to follow and support him after his conviction is absolutely wrong IMO. Would you continue to pay a man wages if he worked for you and was convicted of the same crime?
I'm all for That terra, I was just intrigued to hear opinions on the "social experiment" side to this one. 😉
Yes , got kids. Don't see that is relevant though. Would I not have a valid opinion without them? But the account would have been unusable for any malevolent purpose, Twitter is a public space, its self regulation would appear to work. Seems all too much about the guy who created the account rather than a justifiable experiment. By that I mean, it has been labelled as an experiment, what was the conclusion; nothing new, or particularly valid imo.
Actually on second thoughts I think the experiment did work, but that is with an assumption that it was an experiment into rabble rousing.
Haha nice one Bob.
Lolz @ frankie Boyle 😆
Frankie Boyle was why I stumbled across the Glitter page!!!!!
If this whole thing gets just one parent to properly protect their child online then it was worth it IMO.
If this whole thing gets just one paediatrician removed from our streets then it was worth it IMO.
Hypocrisy bounds on this Pete Townshend was convicted but seems to escape the vitriol and the Who still tour
+1 for what Terra said
I have Gary Glitter's autograph (from many, many, many years ago) - would it be worth anything if I sold it do you think?
The way I see it someone created the account as a joke, it spiraled out of control, and so rather than get exposed and take the resulting flak, they decided to try and take the moral high ground and present it as if they were trying to highlight a serious issue. Completely pointless - making it illegal for paedophiles to access the internet will make no difference whatsoever - it's not as if they were scared of breaking the law prior to their conviction(s).
And yep as pointed out above, the same people who act outraged over Mr Glitter will quite happily watch a Polanski film, listen to The Who & R Kelly.
always makes me laugh that people still talk in hush tones about Gary Glitter, almost making out that he stalks the earth like a 40 foot robotic overlord of kiddy fiddling. But then if it helps parents sleep better at night knowing they've protected their kids a little better by buying into fear mongering while their 12 year old is setting up a date with a convicted sex offender on Facebook through their totally unmonitored web access then good luck to them.
And yep as pointed out above, the same people who act outraged over Mr Glitter will quite happily watch a Polanski film, listen to The Who & R Kelly.
Couldn't have put it better myself
The vast majority of sex offences against young children involve family members. The whole internet thing is a complete red herring.dogbert - Member
always makes me laugh that people still talk in hush tones about Gary Glitter, almost making out that he stalks the earth like a 40 foot robotic overlord of kiddy fiddling. But then if it helps parents sleep better at night knowing they've protected their kids a little better by buying into fear mongering while their 12 year old is setting up a date with a convicted sex offender on Facebook through their totally unmonitored web access then good luck to them.
I'd happily listen to a Gary Glitter song.
Classic
You bunch of Fascists. DezB, thanks for the support.
I'd happily listen to a Gary Glitter song.
People like you make me sick. Stoning's too good for you.
yeah, I'd get stoned to a Gary Glitter song *nods*
The whole internet thing is a complete red herring.
well its not completely a red herring but it is not the greatest risk.
I'd happily listen to a Gary Glitter song.
Would you be just as happy buying one?
Do you look at the criminal record of every employee of every company you have to deal with and then make a value judgement on whether or not you want to spend money with them?
So peadophiles and drugs cheats deserve more punishment than the law doles them out according to what I read on here...
...what about rapists?
I really dont understand your point here druidh
he is a convicted paedophile who has not been rehabilitated i am perfectly happy to judge him poorly for this and not partake in his music.
If i knew a company employed convicted unrepentant paedophiles would i give them my money ? No
What exactly is your view? It does not matter? we should not judge?
We can all listen to hs song about being in his gang knowing what he does and still all sing along?
I don't get druidh's point either.........
Plus I think the Internet being a red herring thing is a load of bull, putting your child in the care of a family member who you trust, they then abuse that trust by commiting such an act which is almost unpreventable under the circumstances, where as monitoring and policing a child's Internet usage can prevent them from unnecessary danger. Been some interesting opinions on this actually, bit of an eye opener for me.
Isn't it extremely difficult, if not impossible to 'rehabilitate' a paedophile. The 'feelings' will always be there even if they don't act on them. Which is one of the reasons why they are so villified in the community. They will always pose a threat.
Well, get you lot. Armchair psychiatrists!
I love his music. I don't wanna be in his gang.
Gary Glitter = 70s glam music
Paul Gadd = paedo.
Appreciating one doesn't mean you condone the other.
("One" being the music, obviously...)
All those people that went to his Christmas gigs in the 90s should now be whipping themselves with a birch for funding his trips to Thailand.
The whole internet thing is a complete red herring.
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8555221.stm ]Yeah, you're probably right[/url]
They do try to treat sex offenders in Prison, and just because you find something arousing doesn't mean you have to realise any thoughts you have into physical actions.
Had an eye-opening discussion with the head psycologist at HMP Albany some years ago, I was asking about how they use their IT and he told me about the data-logging from the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_plethysmograph ]penile plethysmograph[/url], to be honest I wish I'd never asked 😥
They would show the prisoners a powerpoint slideshow of kids in various oufits and measure the response, they would also record the amount of time they looked at each picture.
Basically they would use this to try to show to the prisoner what it was that stimulated them and how to recognise the warning signs and therefore avoid situations that might give them an opportunity to offend again.
Whether they were successful or not I have not idea, it was 10 years ago so I guess things will have moved on, but anything that helps us understand how people tick must be a good thing imo.
Durrrrrrrrr durr da da da duh!!! Heyyy duhh duh da da!!
ooooooosssh!
They do try to treat sex offenders in Prison, and just because you find something arousing doesn't mean you have to realise any thoughts you have into physical actions.Had an eye-opening discussion with the head psycologist at HMP Albany some years ago, I was asking about how they use their IT and he told me about the data-logging from the penile plethysmograph, to be honest I wish I'd never asked
They would show the prisoners a powerpoint slideshow of kids in various oufits and measure the response, they would also record the amount of time they looked at each picture.
Basically they would use this to try to show to the prisoner what it was that stimulated them and how to recognise the warning signs and therefore avoid situations that might give them an opportunity to offend again.
Whether they were successful or not I have not idea, it was 10 years ago so I guess things will have moved on, but anything that helps us understand how people tick must be a good thing imo.
Interesting stuff Nick, in a purely armchair psychologist sort of way of course.