Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Gary Glitter Comeback ?!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-06-2014, 15:09
dearmrman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 4,628
Lets put the record straight from my view on jackson, then everyone can use it for future reference from me.

Jackson was a talented artist and was the biggest thing in music since the beatles, elvis and the other huge acts before him. He for me is the king of pop..period. So many great songs.

Now this whole "kids thing"

Yes sleeping with kids is not the norm and i would not allow my child to do so. Was he wrong to sleep with kids? Probably not the best judgment he made even if his intentions were honest.
Was he guilty of molesting kids? Judge ruled not guilty, i'm a big believer of innocent until proven guilty.

Jackson for me will be remembered for his music, videos and dancing and his influence on many many artists but will always be tagged for those scandals latter on in his career.

Gary glitter is a convicted peado and should not be put in the same sentence as jackson.
MJ may or may not be a peado, but he certainly was a child abuser, maybe not physically but almost certainly emotionally...so if we talk about child abusers then yes MJ can and should be used in the same sentence as any child abuser.

You still don't admit to his sleeping with children as wrong though, you sort of do but then try and defend him by saying "probably not the best judgement he made even if his intentions were honest" there is no probably not about it, it was wrong.
dearmrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-06-2014, 22:00
Gilbertoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 16,982
MJ may or may not be a peado, but he certainly was a child abuser, maybe not physically but almost certainly emotionally...so if we talk about child abusers then yes MJ can and should be used in the same sentence as any child abuser.

You still don't admit to his sleeping with children as wrong though, you sort of do but then try and defend him by saying "probably not the best judgement he made even if his intentions were honest" there is no probably not about it, it was wrong.
In the eyes of the law though, it wasn't. You have to concede that, surely?
Gilbertoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2014, 23:06
homer2012
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: John Lewis
Posts: 3,602
In the eyes of the law though, it wasn't. You have to concede that, surely?
Your spot on, when people use the words "not normal" it has to be asked well whats normal and are we not behaving "not normal"!

Would i sleep with kids other than my own...no due to lots of reasons.
homer2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 07:17
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,234
In the eyes of the law though, it wasn't. You have to concede that, surely?
theres a difference between being wrong and being illegal.

its not illegal to sleep with little unrelated kids.

who tf would say its not wrong?

ffs stop making excuses.
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 07:19
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,234
Your spot on, when people use the words "not normal" it has to be asked well whats normal and are we not behaving "not normal"!

Would i sleep with kids other than my own...no due to lots of reasons.
of course its not 'normal' for an unrelated middle aged man to sleep with unrelated kids.

stop fudging the issue and condemn the action.
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 07:23
dearmrman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 4,628
In the eyes of the law though, it wasn't. You have to concede that, surely?
There's laws against child abuse, if they had gone after him with regards to that of emotional child abuse, rather then molestation, then a different verdict may have been given...highly doubtful though, as it was MJ, not just some random person in the street.

In the eyes of the law, just sleeping with children may not be seen as a unlawful, but I don't need the law to tell me what is right or wrong, and what he did was wrong...as unique said he abused his power.
dearmrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 13:28
homer2012
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: John Lewis
Posts: 3,602
of course its not 'normal' for an unrelated middle aged man to sleep with unrelated kids.

stop fudging the issue and condemn the action.
I gave my view and my feelings enough said.
homer2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 13:29
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,717


in what way am i mistaken?

inkblot said " guilty means someone has committed an offence"
no, he didn't say that at all. have a look back at post number 78

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...6&postcount=78

look at the first two lines which I have cut and pasted below...

""Guilty" means that someone has been convicted of an offence. It may be be that Jackson committed offences but we only know he's guilty if he is actually convicted."

so you are clearly mistaken by reading words that haven't been said, and ignoring the key word or words that were said that make him wrong.

you don't have to be convicted of an offence to be guilty - which the dictionary confirms

so wrong again. plus off topic. I suggest if you need help with the dictionary, ask one of the teachers at your school.

so Michael Jackson or Gary Glitter can be guilty, without being convicted of an offence. I think you said a member of your family was a lawyer so in addition to checking with a teacher you can confirm this with your lawyer relation.
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 13:58
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,234
I gave my view and my feelings enough said.
you mean you fudged it and fell short of condemning his behaviour... 'not the best judgement' isnt exactly saying he was wrong. in fact its rather ambiguous.
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 14:06
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,234
no, he didn't say that at all. have a look back at post number 78

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...6&postcount=78

look at the first two lines which I have cut and pasted below...

""Guilty" means that someone has been convicted of an offence. It may be be that Jackson committed offences but we only know he's guilty if he is actually convicted."
you didnt quote 2 lines, you told him he was wrong for the first bit... see post 86 where you waded in. it was YOU that split the quote, YOU that ignored the second line where he actually agrees with you, and YOU that created the argument by doing so ...then you turn around and say i did it! PMSL youre bonkers! its all there for everyone to read!

you told him that he was wrong for saying "guilty means that someone has been convicted of an offence"

they were NOT wrong as ONE of the definitions of guilty confirms that as described in the dictionary definition.

now if inkblot had said "guilty ONLY means convicted of an offence" then i agree that they would be wrong.

you don't have to be convicted of an offence to be guilty - which the dictionary confirms
true, i agree, but the dictionary definition ALSO includes being convicted.

. plus off topic.
says the person who created the argument about guilt!

so Michael Jackson or Gary Glitter can be guilty, without being convicted of an offence. I think you said a member of your family was a lawyer so in addition to checking with a teacher you can confirm this with your lawyer relation.
true, but in the eyes of the law they are not guilty.
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 14:43
homer2012
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: John Lewis
Posts: 3,602
you mean you fudged it and fell short of condemning his behaviour... 'not the best judgement' isnt exactly saying he was wrong. in fact its rather ambiguous.
Fudged it??? You can take what you want from my comments but they wont change
homer2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 15:44
dearmrman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 4,628
Fudged it??? You can take what you want from my comments but they wont change
It wasn't poor judgement though was it? he knew exactly what he was doing.
dearmrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 16:10
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,234
Fudged it??? You can take what you want from my comments but they wont change
you mean you wont say catagorically that jackson was wrong to sleep with unrelated kiddies?... ok...
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 16:26
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,717
you didnt quote 2 lines, you told him he was wrong for the first bit... see post 86 where you waded in.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...0&postcount=86

post 86 - he said ""Guilty" means that someone has been convicted of an offence." - which is wrong. - I said "no it doesn't. I suggest you have a look at a dictionary" which you incorrectly said in post 89 that he was right

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...2&postcount=89

it was YOU that split the quote, YOU that ignored the second line where he actually agrees with you,
the second line is irrelevant. the part I initially quoted is simply and factually wrong



and YOU that created the argument by doing so ...then you turn around and say i did it! PMSL youre bonkers! its all there for everyone to read!
you are the one arguing about it. I was correct in what I said. you were incorrect when you said he was right, you were also incorrect when you misquoted him in post 99 as I mentioned before

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...9&postcount=99

so it was you that started the argument and you who is wrong, and you who is continuing yet another bickering off topic rant because yet again you've been proven wrong about a simple thing


you told him that he was wrong for saying "guilty means that someone has been convicted of an offence"

they were NOT wrong as ONE of the definitions of guilty confirms that as described in the dictionary definition.
yes they were. as you don't have to be convicted of an offence to be guilty. you don't seem to understand how the English language works or how to understand a dictionary. you can check with the teachers at your school and with your lawyer relative who will both be able to confirm yet again you are wrong


now if inkblot had said "guilty ONLY means convicted of an offence" then i agree that they would be wrong.
I said "you don't have to be convicted of an offence to be guilty - which the dictionary confirms "


true, i agree, but the dictionary definition ALSO includes being convicted.
so if you agree with that, which is the point I was making in the first place, you are arguing over nothing


says the person who created the argument about guilt!
no. you did. my post was on topic. your posts are all about arguing about the meaning of a word which you don't seem to understand, or how to understand how a dictionary works. that's off topic. people shouldn't have to explain simple English to someone online in a UK based English speaking forum




true, but in the eyes of the law they are not guilty.
it's actually innocent until proven guilty as far as the law is concerned

however I hope this is now settled. you surely can't have anything more to argue about now. you seem to have more comebacks than gary glitters wig
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2014, 16:35
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,234
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...0&postcount=86

post 86 - he said ""Guilty" means that someone has been convicted of an offence." - which is wrong. - I said "no it doesn't. I suggest you have a look at a dictionary" which you incorrectly said in post 89 that he was right

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...2&postcount=89



the second line is irrelevant. the part I initially quoted is simply and factually wrong



you are the one arguing about it. I was correct in what I said. you were incorrect when you said he was right, you were also incorrect when you misquoted him in post 99 as I mentioned before

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...9&postcount=99

so it was you that started the argument and you who is wrong, and you who is continuing yet another bickering off topic rant because yet again you've been proven wrong about a simple thing



yes they were. as you don't have to be convicted of an offence to be guilty. you don't seem to understand how the English language works or how to understand a dictionary. you can check with the teachers at your school and with your lawyer relative who will both be able to confirm yet again you are wrong



I said "you don't have to be convicted of an offence to be guilty - which the dictionary confirms "



so if you agree with that, which is the point I was making in the first place, you are arguing over nothing




no. you did. my post was on topic. your posts are all about arguing about the meaning of a word which you don't seem to understand, or how to understand how a dictionary works. that's off topic. people shouldn't have to explain simple English to someone online in a UK based English speaking forum



it's actually innocent until proven guilty as far as the law is concerned

however I hope this is now settled. you surely can't have anything more to argue about now. you seem to have more comebacks than gary glitters wig
ive not even bothered reading your guff...

i dont have to, its all there above in black and white in chronological order, you waded in saying he was wrong when by the terms of the dictionary he wasnt.

end of.
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2014, 12:19
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,717
ive not even bothered reading your guff...

i dont have to, its all there above in black and white in chronological order, you waded in saying he was wrong when by the terms of the dictionary he wasnt.

end of.
wrong again. and anyone that understands English and how a dictionary works will know that, and know you are wrong and notice your attempt and failure to win an argument by misquoting

now to get back on topic, as presumably you've stopped waffling

fans of Gary Glitters MUSIC have made 'leader of the gang' climb over 540,000 places overnight on amazon !!!! its currently number 73 in the top 100 rock mp3 bestsellers rank
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27917993

Gary Glitter has appeared in court accused of a series of sex offences against two girls.

The former pop star, 70, has been charged with six counts of indecent assault, one of unlawful sex with a girl under 13 and one count of administering a drug to obtain sex.

He appeared at Westminster Magistrates Court under his real name, Paul Gadd.

The offences are alleged to have taken place in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Mr Gadd is to appear at Southwark Crown Court on 3 July.

Judge Emma Arbuthnot bailed him until that date.

Mr Gadd, who listened to the proceedings through a hearing loop, spoke only to confirm his name, age and address.
so it seems there will be a comeback, but not one that gary glitter is likely to be happy about
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2014, 14:04
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,234
wrong again. and anyone that understands English and how a dictionary works will know that, and know you are wrong and notice your attempt and failure to win an argument by misquoting

now to get back on topic, as presumably you've stopped waffling

youre funny.
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2014, 00:26
eugenespeed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: HEED ARMY!!!!!
Posts: 29,575
Deleted, wrong thread.
eugenespeed is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09.