opinions please.

[Postdog]

I like watching Top of The Pops on BBC 4 every Thursday. For those who don't know, they re run the episode from that week 35 years ago, and at the same time as originally shown. It's actually very strange because as well as seeing acts you can't help but remember, you also see stuff that seems new to you.

Anyway, on checking my EPG, I notice that this week it includes an appearance by Gary Glitter. Personally speaking, I do not want to see him at all on my television, and I am disgusted that they are including him rather than editing him out. Fair enough, the guy has done time for his crimes (though personally I'd have thrown away the key and let him rot) BUT I cannot ever believe that is repentant, shamed, or a changed man because of it and he disgusts me, so much so that while there is a chance of seeing him, I probably shall not watch.

I believe I read sometime back that ho considered it a breach of his rights should the BBC edit him out, and as such they have to include him. My view is that it is sort of against my rights to have to see him, and that his appearance does nothing but unnecessarily incite and inflame feelings that are better left to lie.

Am I just being picky, or does anyone else share my view?

[micmak]

Good luck for tomorrow Post dog.

[starone]

I think this is going to put a lot of people off postdog. I would not watch it if that awful pervert is going to be in it. I agree with you entirely.

[craft1948]

I think there have been quite a few dodgy people on TOTP over the years......

[MarkRae]

You need to get your TV repaired if it's stuck on one channel, can't be switched off and you've lost the remote...

[NOX]

whilst I am no fan of child molesters by any means postie, it's simply a programme of what was happening in music at a certian point in time, and he was part of that. It doesn't in that context offend me. If he was trying to relaunch his career unrepentant I would be somewhat p1ssed off, but as this is histprical then no I don't see a need for it to be edited.

[Postdog]

It's NEXT week - you think I'd be worrying about Gary Glitter with a brain op the next day!

[Postdog]

My remote isn't stuck by any means - I'm a selective viewer.

[bpclouise]

I THINK THAT IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO SEE HIM THEN DO NOT NOT WATCH WHEN HE IS ON.
I WOULD RATHER HE WAS NOT ON AS HE WILL EARN MONEY FOR DOING SO, BUT HE HAS SERVED HIS SENTENCE AND WE CANNOT JUST STOP EVERYTHING WHICH PERSONALLY OFFENDS.

[Postdog]

Cap's lock is considered offensive BTW

[Canary42]

I'd rather see Caps Lock than Gary Glitter.

[ladybirder]

Somebody posted a video clip of him on here the other day.

[Hopkirk]

They should remove that other child molester, Michael Jackson aswell.

[MarkRae]

>> it is sort of against my rights to have to see him

> My remote isn't stuck by any means - I'm a selective viewer.

Go on - work it out! I dare you...

[Buenchico]

If we're going to remove GG from programmes showing how things were 35 years ago, do we then have to remove Adolf Hitler from programs showing how things were 70 years ago?

If we're going to exclude the work of people who've had an 'unnatural' interest in children, do we expunge the works of Lewis Carroll or J M Barrie?

[HowardKennitby]

Is Wagner's music diminished in worth because it was incorporated into Nazi German philosophy?
Would you consider GG's music differently if he had passed away naturally 50 years ago?

[MarkRae]

> Would you consider GG's music differently if he had passed away naturally 50 years ago?

When he was just about to turn 17...?

[THECORBYLOON]

No doubt it'll be on the iPlayer so why not watch it online and skip the bit showing Gary Glitter? As for it being sort of against your rights to have to see him, the thing is, you don't. Turn it over for a few minutes, make a cup of tea or whatever and he'll be gone.

[HowardKennitby]

For Mark Rae.

I meant having produced his body of work a long time ago.

[lankeela]

Sorry but I really don't see why people's private lives have anything to do with their professional careers. If a singer, actor, footballer or even politician does something unsavoury then thats their business and in my opinion providing it doesn't affect their music, sport or whatever else they do I really don't care. How many of the people whose music/films/sporting prowess we admire have got skeletons in the closet that we don't know about?

[bednobs]

picky i reckon