Has this song been unofficially banned? Or are there still radio/TV stations that still play it?

I don't think there's a current Christmas compilation that has this song on, nor can I recall hearing it on the radio in an age. I do have it on a very old Christmas tape but nothing on CD.

I must admit I do like the song quite a bit, but I can understand why people would feel uncomfortable listening to it. I was tempted to get hold of the song and play it whilst DJing over Christmas, but I think that on reflection I might not bother doing this....

What do you think?

I don't think it would be a very good idea.

I think it's a great song but I can understand why some - maybe all - stations won't play it. Christmas is supposed to be a family time and I can well imagine that the first time some channel plays it, Outraged from Tunbridge Wells will immediately complain. If it was Madonna or Eminem, the channel would say stuff you, as they won't want to be seen to be banning them, but Gary Glitter is hardly Eminem, so the easy option is simply not to play it.

Stick with something safer from your collection - 'Everyones Gone to the Moon' for example

Not a good idea. He was a horrible man - funny thing is he was OK as a boy - I used to live round the corner from him.

I have it on a CD: 'The Best Christmas Album In the World Ever, released by Virgin Records around 8 years ago.

I think there is an updated version of this album that was released last year and it doesnt include Gary Glitter.

AFAIK, ever since Gary Glitter was banged up 5 years ago, not a single song of his has been played on air (and rightly so, if you ask me). This must surely be the longest radio blacklist of an artist.

It would be interesting to find out if this were true. I imagine it could well be the case!

While the song does make me feel a little uncomfortable now, and I would hate for any PRS cheques to have to go in his direction, I do find it very odd that the very same British public/media who have turned their back on Glitter somehow manage to accept, say, Leslie Grantham, a convicted murderer. I understand that Grantham's case was a long time ago, he's served time for it, etc. but it still seems strangely hypocritical to me.

This joke appears to have gone over everybody's heads methinks.
Nice one CH

Glen

If Michael Jackson is found guilty will all his stuff be banned!!!!

You could hear Gary Glitter music being used on TV during the US presidential campaign, and the Olympic Games! I couldn't believe what I was hearing - and must admit, it did make me feel uncomfortable. It's just not possible to hear those songs without thinking about his convictions. I've not heard him played in shopping mall muzak style situations, or any radio air play in this country.

I feel extremely annoyed at Glitter. I liked some of his music, but I feel compelled not to listen to it due to his rancid evil personality.

I think most people feel the same, like the music, but feel uncomfortable playing it......its a shame really.

I thought most people did get it, which is why no-one's questioned the choice of song. Maybe Glitter and Jackson could both come out hiding and duet and King could produce.

It does seem that Glitter is being singled out, albeit for a good reason. As someone else posted, it would be impossible to know you're listening to one of his songs and not think of what he did. Although if every singer that has a dubious to say the least past was banned from the airwaves there would be a great many struck from the playlists. Maybe it's like I posted earlier; he simply doesn't have a high enough profile to make it worth the stations while to play his songs. Can anyone name any other artists who have been seemingly blacklisted because of a criminal past?

Maybe R-Kelly could do the video!

I used to love Gary Glitter and have one of his CD's. I can understand why radio stations dont want to play his songs though - as noone wants him to make anymore money.

So if Michael Jackson gets found guilty will all his songs be banned then????
You cant have 1 rule for 1 person and 1 for another, altho back when Brian Harvey said about E's East 17 songs got banned for a while on some stations, while no one kicked up a fuss when Noel from Oasis said somethin very similar

I do agree with you up to a point - what Brian said was stupid, but I still think that most sensible people understand that young people can be reckless, take drugs, drink too much etc - its been happening for years - but there is a world of difference between reckless comments on drugs and paedophillia.

I think its best if that man was forgotten, its best his songs arent played as it can cause emotional disstress for some. In some cases you just have to let the artists and artists songs die, which i think is a good idea.

He was a nasty selfish person.

I can see the same thing happening to Michael Jackson if he is found guilty, definitely.

There is no evidence to say that michael jackson is guilty...there will always be doubt even if he is convicted...whereas with glitter there was 100% proof that he was doing what he was reported to be doing...so i doubt michael jackson will ever have his music blacklisted...

Michael Jackson is 100% innocent. I've been following this case very closely over the internet and here's a few things to think about:
The boy alledging the abuse appeared in Martin Bashir's documentary "Living With Michael Jackson". If you can remember back to when that programme aired MJ got a lot of negative press, well the boy say's the abuse happened after that show aired so how arogant must MJ be to think that in the middle of all that comotion he could abuse a boy and get away with it? I don't think so some how.

Here's another reason I think he's innocent: The mother of the boy was caught shoplifting from a store and caught by two security guards a few years ago. She then took the store to court claiming the guards had sexually manhandled her (groped her in other words). The store settled out of court to the tune of several thousand dollars. Can you see a pattern forming here?

And lastly, people often refer to Michael settling out of court with another accuser back in 1993. Tell me this - if you were the parent of a child who'd been sexually abused would you take money off the abuser? Of course you wouldn't!

That's really for the courts to decide, though I hope they have some more constructive "evidence" than that that you give in your post!

You say Jackson wouldn't have abused a child in the commotion that followed the Bashir documentary. That's not really constructive fact, strange things happen - whoever would have thought someone with thousands of child pornography pictures on their harddrive would happily give their computer to PC World to be fixed!? Never underestimate how daft people can be...


God, no. But I bet you that many people in this country would, and since America has always been ahead of us in terms of 'blame => claim' culture, it's not completely impossible that some chav parent decides that an out of court settlement is worth more than seeing proper justice handed out to their son's abuser...

Please note that I'm not implying that Michael is definitely not innocent - just that there's a chance that he couldn't be.

Didn't Jonathan King own the Record of the Year format? Do ITV have to pay him to use it, or was it never his "intellectual" property in the first place?

We know so little of the grounds and circumstances of the Jackson trial that I wouldn't want to hazard an opinion one way or the other. The media have hardly been party to the inner machinations of the case, therefore, neither have we!

Hear Another Rock 'n' Roll Christmas a couple of times when out last night with one DJ saying "Michael Jackson's mate".. People seemed to be dancing to it, although looking around you saw them having the same conversation we were having "Is this Gary Glitter?"

In regards to Michael Jackson, if found guilty I think his songs will initally not be played but overtime they'll reappear as he's too much of an important artist to completely disappear from the airwaves.

Gary Glitter is a different case as the majority of his material sounds dated in the current day while the majority of MJ's songs are timeless.

well they still play Kelly songs so why not him, ok Kelly wasn`t found "guilty" but a guy who OWNS video`s of himself having it away with a 13yo girl and who OWNS photos of naked girls IS guilty, it`s just a shame when the police found these they wheren`t looking for them, so he couldn`t be charged.

as for J-king, yep he owned the rights but ITV bought them off him for £200,000 acording to the paper last week i think it was.