TV & Radio

Rain (AM and PM) 7° London Hi 11°C / Lo 4°C

Last Night's Television - Collision, ITV1; The Execution of Gary Glitter, Channel 4

Crash, bang, wallop

Reviewed by Brian Viner

The vehicular accident that kills or injures lots of people is fertile ground for dramatists. It offers the story-teller a way of bringing together a random cross-section of folk, and therefore an opportunity to create all kinds of juicily disparate characters, whose destinies collide in the blink of an eye, or the crash of a plane, train or automobile. On the silver screen this was done brilliantly by Paul Haggis, who wrote and directed the Oscar-winning 2004 film, Crash. Collision, which runs every night this week in what is beginning to look like a new trend for primetime drama, rather prosaically replaces the Los Angeles freeway in Crash with the A12 in Essex, but offers similar fare: ordinary people with lives in varying states of complication, whose stories are told in flashback after those complicated lives are suddenly reduced to a simple “deceased” or “critical” on a policeman’s wall chart.

The good news is that there is ample compensation for whatever Collision lacks in originality: plausibly interesting characters and an excellent script (by Anthony Horowitz and Michael A Walker), taut, pacy direction by Marc Evans and plenty of fine performances by a very good cast.

The ever-excellent Douglas Henshall plays the investigating detective inspector, required to give the case closer scrutiny than a pile-up on the A12 would normally receive in the Metropolitan Police because one of the Met’s own pursuit cars was involved and may even have caused the crash. But his emotions as well as his powers of detection are engaged because he has only just returned to work after what we are led to believe was the death of his wife, also in a traffic accident. There could be trouble ahead for DI Tolin. After all, some of us remember poor old George Carter going back to the job too soon after his missus was run over in The Sweeney, some 35 years ago. If you live in front of the telly for long enough, you can usually offer a fictional copper the benefit of your experience.

Anyway, others involved in the crash include a secretary either spying on or stealing from her boss; an attractive young woman about to introduce her boyfriend to her stern father; a piano teacher who seems to have some seedy secrets, possibly paedophilia; a low-level criminal illegally importing something from the Netherlands; and a shop owner who doesn’t like his demanding mother-in-law, and whose intentions for her seem not to be entirely wholesome. Which might very well be what you get if you randomly stop five cars on the A12.

The shop owner, incidentally, is played by Phil Davis, whose very presence in a drama like this is usually a guarantee of quality. The mother-in-law is Sylvia Syms, last seen in Blue Murder as a bag lady whose caravan was attacked by an arsonist, and once, in Ice Cold in Alex, a radiantly lovely nurse crossing the enemy-riddled Egyptian desert in a ramshackle ambulance. I wonder if it’s occurred to her that her long and illustrious career can be summed up as a series of vehicle-related traumas? At any rate, if Sylvia Syms offers you a lift, think twice.

Executives at Channel 4 no doubt thought twice before commissioning The Execution of Gary Glitter, a drama set in an imaginary Britain, in which the death penalty had been reintroduced for murderers and rapists of children under 12. To accommodate Gary Glitter as the first victim of this law, there also had to be further imaginary legislation, enabling people guilty of crimes committed overseas (in Vietnam, in his notorious case) to be tried here. All of which, for my sensibilities, amounted to several leaps of the imagination too far.

Gary Glitter might be a paedophile slimeball and all that, but television is itself guilty of an act of highly questionable morality to show him (as played, remarkably convincingly, by Hilton McCrae) weeping in his cell before being led to the scaffold. Even if you think the real Glitter has sacrificed the right to be treated with dignity, that’s not quite the same as television seizing the right (doubtless assuming that he won’t bother to sue for defamation) to put him to death. If he were actually dead, then fair enough. But he’s not, so at the very least, he should have been loosely fictionalised. A former glam-rock star called, say, Stanley Sparkle, who likes to have sex with children would have fooled nobody, but would have demonstrated a little more humanity.

Rob Coldstream, the programme’s writer and director, made an eloquent case in this newspaper yesterday for transmitting a drama that raised important questions about capital punishment (of which 54 per cent of Britons are apparently in favour), and I suspect that he has no more desire than I do to see the death penalty for sex offenders, or a Britain in which Garry Bushell and Ann Widdecombe are presented (as they were in his film) as the voices of reason. But somewhere in the moral maze that surrounds this issue, he took a wrong turn.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

The Execution of Gary Glitter
[info]mjm123 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 12:52 am (UTC)
A brilliantly presented, acted and produced drama. Made for disturbing and uncomfortable viewing on many levels, but very compelling nonetheless.

Using such a high profile convicted pedophile such as Gadd gave this drama added poignancy that would have been lost had the subject been fictional, even if loosly based upon Gadd's ertswhile alter-ego Gary Glitter . Likewise had the writers used another high-profile case such as Vanessa George the impact would have been far less as she has only ever been known to most of us as a pedophile.

The skill of the writers & producers to bring in all aspects of the process from the expediency of the politicians, the adversarial legal battle, the calm mechanical process of the 'hanging technician' through to the opportunistic street vendors and the YouTube montage No.1 download were all brilliantly married together. Add in the excellent acting performances, especially that of Hilton McRae (who played Gadd with almost unnerving accuracy) made the whole production believable.

Despite enjoying the drama I must admit that it did leave me feeling a little grubby - on one hand for believing that the death penalty might still have a place as the ultimate punishment for the heinous crimes that shock all reasoning people, and on the other hand for actually liking some aspects of Gadd's personality that exist beneath the glitter and the guilt.

Not asking Gadd for his permission (apparently he is threatening to sue the producers) somehow adds to the poignancy. I'm sure now he too feels he's been violated and abused, fortunately for him though he's old enough to understand - unlike his victims.
[info]world_of_water wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 01:06 am (UTC)
So, Mr Bushell, would you still support the death penalty if it was someone you knew or even related to about to swing and you knew for a fact they were innocent?

You smug obnoxious git.
[info]alexlane77 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:01 am (UTC)
Would you support the absence of the death penalty if your partner or child had been killed by someone who had murdered before and only served a few years in prison for it?
DNA advances makes the chances of wrongful convictions miniscule
In this instance Bushell is the voice of reason.
[info]fastguyeddie wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:43 am (UTC)
Oh and what do you base your understanding of DNA evidence on excactly? Just to give you a history lesson they pretty much said the same thing about fingerprints. No system built by humans is 100% foolproof; The truth is we can do nothing to bring back a murder victim and there isn't a huge amount we can do to help a victim of abuse forget it; but we can prevent an innocent person being murdered by the state and the only way to ensure that is not to have the death penalty.
The Execution of Gary Glitter
[info]iainmc wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 01:56 am (UTC)
This was a rather ridiculous piece of fiction which assumed not only that capital punishment had been reintroduced and that UK citizens who allegedly commited crimes overseas could be tried in this country, but also that criminals who had already served time could be retried again. I suspect the "54 percent of UK citizens would like to see the reintroduction of the death sentence" displayed at the end was also a piece of fiction - though that wasn't made clear.

If the program was supposed to "important questions about capital punishment", then it failed: I suspect many people watching would have agreed with it in Gadd's case. They should have thought of a totally fictional case and given far more arguments pro and con. The whole program just seemed like a show trial designed to poke two fingers up at Gann and little more.

I also agree that the choices for "voices of reason" were just not credible: Garry Bushell just was not convicing. And who would choose him rather than a high court judge or a barrister anyway for what was supposed to be a serious documentary written in a fictional UK? Again just a show trial - this time on the telly where most are these days...
Truly Enjoyalble!
[info]dolcevita306 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 08:06 am (UTC)
I truly enjoyed 'The execution of Garry Glitter'...It made me re-think about weather capital punishment is necessary! Superb Acting by Hilton McRae!!
Glitter Balls
[info]alexlane77 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 08:59 am (UTC)
It was about time the subject of capital punishment was addressed
Would world-of-water support the absence of hanging if one of their relatives had been killed by someone who had murdered before and had only served a few years in prison for it?
Re: Glitter Balls
[info]pattercake wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC)
I guess world-of-water would and so would I.
If you are religious you couldn't support the death penalty as it is for your god to give and take life, if you are not, then common sense and humanity would prevail over your barbarian views.
What would come next lynch mobs ?
Your silly argument is easily turned round if your child was convicted for murder and you knew without a doubt that he/she was innocent.
i suggest you write you fascist views in the Sun, you might get more support there.
Re: Glitter Balls
[info]alexlane77 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 04:27 pm (UTC)
AN EYE FOR AN EYE...a tooth for a tooth...that's religious isn't it?

Capital punishment is hardly 'fascist' as it existed and exists in all Communist states

Most of us would kill an invader to save a loved one
[info]pompey_lad wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
MMMMMM i can see a can of worms opening here, i found the program very good but what is "Mr Glitter" going to do now, im sure he will be talking to his solicitors today to see what can be done. Whilst we all hate Glitter what ever happened to Jonathan King whom i consider to be even more vile the Glitter,
The Execution of Gary Glitter.
[info]vinniejb wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:59 am (UTC)
The Britain portrayed in the drama actually looked like a country that had it's moral values and backbone back again. Bring back hanging and sod the EU!
Re: The Execution of Gary Glitter.
[info]pattercake wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)
You disgust me, for the likes of you i would almost make a exception.
Pattercake the Liberal pansy
[info]vinniejb wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:04 am (UTC)
What about Wodenists? Woden, amongst other things, is the God of hangings, his followers demand the right to honour their God. Who are you to deny someone their religious concience?
Re: Pattercake the Liberal pansy
[info]pattercake wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:24 am (UTC)
So you are a Nazi ?
The Execution of Gary Glitter
[info]schleck wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:26 am (UTC)
Only my completely humanizing its subject can a programme like this really add to the debate on capital punishment. Paul Gadd is a naturally difficult subject to empathize with, but without that encouraging empathy, there is no real test of a publics willingness to legally kill another person.
To execute someone who has been portrayed as 'inhuman' or 'a monster' or 'weird' may be easier than executing a more complex human being with friends and family and who also shares some of our own values.

Downfall, about Adolf Hitler is an intersting and controversial example of a film which humanized its subject. far from being 'not human' and 'nothing like us', Hitler was in fact shown to be very 'human.'
Indeed it was the dehumanizing of Jews et al by Nazis that allowed ordinary german people to stand by an accept the persecution. It is easier to kill something that has been de-humanized.

It was that kind of 3 dimenionality and complexity which The Executuion of Gary Glitter lacked. It allowed the public an easy ride and seemed aimed at a vengeance fed tabloid readership. Ironically wthe pages of many tabloid newspapers are often filled with a worrying kind of lurid sex-crime and death-scene detail that seems to attract the very kind of readers that the journaklists seek to condemn.

My own feeling on the dath penalty is quite simple.

As a detterent it clearly does not work. Serial killers are hardly likely to say to thesmelves...I'd better stop at one killing....I don't want to end up being hung for serial killing.

But more simply...

If my child hits another child, should I then hit my own child twice as hard and say...'There that will teach that hitting is bad.'

Likewise if someone kills, should we kill them in a legally premeditated/long drawn out ritualized way ..and then say say..There, that will teach you that killing is wrong."

Mixed messages do not make good parenting.
Nor do they make a good society.
Yes let us foam at the mouth with feelings of vengeance...but let us not act on them

S.E
He is a human being
[info]bevfor wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:26 am (UTC)
Not my favourite person but to have him executed - crying and saying (a recorded) last goodbye to his children while he, and they, are still alive is disgraceful. All the puns about 'hang the leader of the gang' etc made it obvious why they used a real person and did not even bother using a pseudonym - for entertainment. A serious subject dealt with frivolously. I hope he does sue. This was very different from the trial of Tony Blair who has not served time for his crimes (ie, been punished). When will we stop punishing Mr Gadd?
Re: He is a human being
[info]smiffy5 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 11:47 am (UTC)
"When will we stop punishing Mr Gadd" what about the children he has molested etc will they ever get over their trauma that this sick git has inflicted on them No probably not but you don't mention them.,I don't necessarily agree with Capital punishment because there are too many flaws in the justice system. But the sentences for Paedo's and rpaists are too light lock them away in mainstream prison and let them get on with it.
Would his children admit that he is their father I know I wouldn't

Clarifaction
[info]bevfor wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC)
Sue for invasion of privacy, distress caused etc - not for defamation - that boat has sailed.
[info]dogsolitude_v2 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 11:32 am (UTC)
Given the misuse of RIPA powers by our State, I'd suggest it's probably best not to hand the State the right to take a human life.

It'll start off with child sex offences and murder, but sure as night follows day the scope will be widened. Drug traffickers, those who attempt terrorist acts, animal rights activists, political opponents...

Make no mistake: if someone close to me was murdered or raped I'd be inconsolable, angry, scared... I honestly can't imagine how I'd feel. I doubt it would be rational or clear-thinking though.

I'd want revenge.

And I think if we're really honest with ourselves, that's what the death penalty is about: revenge and fear. Handing that over to the state would be a grave mistake.
I cried my heart out!/ That was too much to take!
[info]dolcevita306 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 11:54 am (UTC)
Hilton MacRae was absolutely brilliant! He well portrayed the human side of Glitter! The whole mocumentary was so intense, I didn't even know what to think and after it ended I was actually sobbing!
We are all being manipulated
[info]bevfor wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 12:11 pm (UTC)
Heinous and inexcusable though child sex offences are why is it worse to rape a child than simply physically abuse it? Both acts done for the 'pleasure of it'. In the child's opinion both are painful and fear inducing - it is only our perception of 'perversion' that makes the former a worse crime. The hysteria over paedophilia has grown exponentially in recent years. Granted repeat offenders (paedophiles and other violent offenders) should be separated from society if they cannot be rehabilitated. I can see how they have lost their right to freedom. We all have free will (and unless we are insane) are responsible for our actions.
correction
[info]natefitzgerald wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 12:40 pm (UTC)
Gary Glitter isn't a real person either, Brian, just a character thought up by a paedo called Paul Gadd.
[info]iansmithisa wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 01:30 pm (UTC)
Good afternoon

there also had to be further imaginary legislation, enabling people guilty of crimes committed overseas (in Vietnam, in his notorious case) to be tried here.

As I understand it, Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 grants this authority, it is in force today and it would cover the suggested situation.

Bye

Ian
The execution of Gary Glitter
[info]pint6x wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 02:33 pm (UTC)
I hope the sight of thousands of ghoulish bloodthirsty idiots standing outside the prison convinced anyone with more than half a brain that we cannot ever go back to a state where capital punishment is the ultimate punishment.

The fact that the programme makers used a living person as the subject of the film made me feel very sympathetic towards Paul Gadd - I feel the programme makers may have shot themselves in the foot a bit if they intended stirring up the lynchmob mentality against Gadd.

I sincerely hope Gadd successfully sues the programme makers.

To those who have previously trotted out the tired old cliches "what would you do it if was your child?" - I would be devestated and I would do what I could to surround my child with love and affection such that they may, one day, get over what happened. As for the perpetrator: I hope they be locked up and treated for the sickness that they have which attracts them to under-age children.

At a time when tensions between the traditional beliefs of the western world (Anglican/Catholic etc) and those from the east (Muslim etc) have never been higher, do we really want to bring about the values of Muslim Sharia law into our society? What's the next step after a hanging in prison? a public hanging? why not a public stoning? the end result is the same. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Perhaps I'll leave the last word to the review carried in the Radio Times - "a strange, often repellent film ... and you might just feel a bit grubby afterwards"
The Execution of Gary Glitter
[info]blahdiblah123 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 03:22 pm (UTC)
I agree with Brian Viner that whatever you may feel about Paull Gadd and I have no sympathy with him whatosever, to have him portrayed in this way while he is still alive is pretty low. I realise C4 has a serious shortage of viewers and when you look at the gratuitous content of many of its 'prime time' programmes, you can understand why but this made for cheap and unpleasant TV. The linking of the words 'paedophile' and' death penalty' is bound to swell an audience of the 'Sun says' supporters and this was no doubt part of the thinking behind it. (If there are any C4 officials or advertisers reading this, please note I recorded the programme, skipping through the commercials as I replayed it).
The death penalty will always be an emotive issue whether you are for or against but to those who thought last nights offering was good thought-provoking entertainment, may I suggest they might like the idea of it being used as a pilot for a new series? For the next imaginary Britian episode, how about the same law being re-introduced for treason with a 'parallel' Prime Minister in the Dock? Forget the Old Bailey and have a TV show trial on Saturday/Sunday night presided over by so-called 'celebrity' judges, followed by a rigged audience vote - isn't that our favoured platform for 'justice' now?
Ridiculous
[info]yukkejang wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 07:16 pm (UTC)
These ridiculous comments about would anyone support hanging if it were a relative that was killed etc are totally meaningless. I detest capital punishment, its a barbaric punishment and has no place in a civilised society but to ask me if it was a child of mine murdered or abused what would i do then the answer is obvious I would want the person killed by my own hands if possible.. But then this is pure emotion not justice that is why we have the law and like it or not its what separates us from the jungle....
Execution of Gary Glitter
[info]mcevoy784 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 07:34 pm (UTC)
Do all the bleading hearts and do-gooing liberals in this country believe that the criminals should lead a much better and rewarding life than their victims. As Mrs Widdicombe said, we live in a country where children kill children, adults rape and kill children and murder is on the increase! If we do not do something to stop evil now it will only keep tipping the wrong way - AND YES the majority of this country DOES support Capital Punishment.

p.s. Also a good economic move, how many prison spaces will be made available!

Richard McEvoy
serving soldier
Re: Execution of Gary Glitter
[info]heatherous wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 08:07 pm (UTC)
I thought the programme last night was excellent and it gave a real insight into what Britain would be like if the death penalty was returned. I think for crimes of murder or child rape the death penalty should be brought back and implemented. What are the deterents at present in this country for these types of crimes? Everyone knows life imprisonment doesn't mean life. If you are the type of person to carry out a premeditated murder or rape a child then capital punishment should be the ultimate punishment. It's no wonder opinion polls consistantly show returns for the death penalty, when horrific crimes consistantly shown in the press go punished by menial sentences. This is great Britain.
Re: Execution of Gary Glitter
[info]tibleydoc wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:47 pm (UTC)
Why is everybody so terribly scared?

Does anybody think you'd have been safer on a cursory stroll through London 100 years ago? Every generation is brought up with the belief that everything is going to the dogs, and invariably, it doesn't. Compare what we live through these days to the hellish environment of the first or second world wars, and I think you'll agree, we live in good times.

As for the death penalty, it is clearly barbaric. It does not stop murder or rape or other perverse sexual acts, otherwise it would never have to be employed.
execution of gary glitter
[info]artclark wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:58 pm (UTC)
Well, pity the Independent didn't or doesn't start it's own debate on this program. ITV4 promised a hot debate, and I checked it out yesterday after the program and indeed it was stunning to see how many other people, like me, were deeply disturbed by this program, for all sorts of reason, and that most comments, despite the alleged '54%' of pro-death, seemed to be the calm voices of reason thank god. So today? Well for some reason Ch 4 have buried the debate, nothing left, no sign of it. A great pity, but then I suppose one has to expect such shallow treatment by a TV station. Which is why I say 'pity the Independent' hadn't started up the debate. Two of my comments were (a) yes, Anne Widecombe, did you really mean what you said in the programme????, and (b) would any of us really dream of siding backwards from 2 Millenia or more of slow but steady civilisation? Regarding your own comment, I wonder have Ch 4 buried it due to a pending defamation suit??? I neither love nor hate Gary Glitter, he exists, he was convicted of a heinous criminal offence, and I have faith that the law will continue to take its' course. However like you (and on reflection) I now consider the direct portrayal of GG without his consent to have been shabby and sordid. But, that said, I feel that without having a genuine 'fallen celebrity' as the villain, the program would have lacked that soul-searing stab that it managed to project. But I'm not sure that Ch 4 even asked the question of GG, and if they did it would have been difficult for him to agree as he might have had the sense to see that the public would view him as seeking sympathy. So all in all, double bluffs, maybe it was right the way it went!!
Fact and Fiction don't mix.
[info]blurbarella wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 11:41 pm (UTC)
Much the same as Oliver Stone's appallingly inaccurate and self-indulgent 'JFK', this programme makes the very serious mistake of mixing real people and events with fictional ones. Channel 4 is entering extremely dangerous ground here. Having just watched the programme, I am to some extent unsure what was real and what was not. Was the 'Detective' shown talking about Gadd real? Or his female victim shown with her face blurred out? Anne Widdecombe and Gary Bushell are both real (sadly), but are shown discussing real and fictional events. This is not a good idea, but I'm sure that Channel 4 sold a shed load of advertising space off the back of it. I have little sympathy for Gadd, but neither do I care to see fact and fiction blurred together to make tacky TV programmes, especially when i'm paying for some of it! The Death penalty is in my view a poor and immoral practice, as it does not deter criminals, and often results in the innocent being executed. Whatever, Channel 4 ought to know better.
A despicable programme
[info]outsider60 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 04:58 pm (UTC)
I was utterly appalled by this programme for several reasons.

First, its clear bias in favour of capital punishment. It was presented in such a way as to make this potentially attractive to liberal-left types. (For example, we were shown a culturally and ethnically mixed jury consisting of several women.) The anti-death penalty voices were few in number, and were invariably shown to be crushed either by the superior passion (in the case of the young woman protestor) or the rhetoric (in the case of Glitter's defence counsel) of their adversaries.

Second, its inaccuracies and implausibilities. I suspect that the programme's writer/director/producer, Rob Coldstream, is rather a young man. It would be natural for such a person to assume that the conduct of the trial and execution would proceed along lines similar to the contemporary United States, with unanimous-jury verdicts (presumably after procuring a "death-qualified" jury), jury sentencing, executions carried out not first thing in the morning, but later in the day (to allow for last-minute pardons). (The only significant departure from American practice was the arbitrary "execute within 30 days" rule, brought in allegedly (but implausibly) as a "humanitarian" measure.)

Third, the cowardly defamation of a living person ill-equipped to fight back. I find Paul Gadd (Garry Glitter) an utterly repellent man, but it is for courts of law to deal with him and those like him, not the makers of semi-fictional television programmes. If Coldstream wanted to make a case for the death penalty, it would have been more courageous to have had an anonymous, completely fictional paedophile as his central character. Paul Gadd is already known to the general public, and is an almost universally reviled figure; consequently, the serious issues have mostly been pre-judged. (Indeed, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that Coldstream is relying on such prejudice to tip his wavering viewers in favour of the pro-death penalty stance his programme presents.)

The programme made no effort to consider the implications of such a criminal justice policy in those cases where guilt was less certain. Apart from the inherent barbarity and vileness of judicial executions (with its brutalising effect on society), the impossibility of reversing a wrongful execution must remain the single most compelling argument against its re-introduction.

I have already mentioned the manipulative use of women and minority-ethnic characters as jurors. Strangely enough, this is one aspect of the programme that was not implausible. It should be a warning to those on the liberal-left that the social conservatism of many minority-ethnic people is not merely an acceptable cultural variation (as they seem to think), but an unavoidable social fact with serious implications.
The Execution of Gary Glitter
[info]lawstudent100 wrote:
Thursday, 12 November 2009 at 08:22 pm (UTC)
Channel 4 have sunk to a new level. As a parent myself I no way condone what Gary Glitter has done, it is nothing short of sick, I am not sticking up for him or his actions in any way but we have a justice system in place to serve justice and to take away revenge. He has served his time and supposedly paid his debt to society. Channel 4 or any other person or channel does not hold the right to suggest that he will commit further crime even if statistics show that he is likely to, by adding the victims families into this programme they seem to suggest that he will go on to abuse others. the programme was deeply offending and wrong on so many levels, inciting hatred is against human rights and although many believe that he should not be entitled to any, the fact is he is! well done channel 4 if he sues, you have just allowed a child abuser to gain a large amount of money due to your stupidity and ignorance. I would also like to know who the % of people who want the death penalty back are, I have never been asked and neither has anyone I know. it is true that we do have DNA but it fails, for example Barry George. the death penalty is legalised murder and serves no purpose. what you have to ask yourselves is if you or a relative was looking at the death penalty would you be ok with it, would it still be right? if the answer is no then you cannot push that onto others. miscarriages of justice still happen.
The Execution of Gary Glitter
[info]daijhi wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 07:55 pm (UTC)
Absolutely brilliant programme....
I supported the death penalty before seeing this - but afterwards I have changed my mind.
Although we might all support hanging for murder - where do we draw the line about capital punishment for other crimes?
Glitter wasn't charged with violent rape - but technical rape because he had sex with a 10 year old.
I think hanging is too severe for such crimes - the 10 girl may quite easily get over it and live a full normal life. He should be imprisoned of course - but execution should be reserved for crimes that rob others of life.
And the danger thst it might be used for a whole variety of other non violent crimes (like denial of the holocaust or political sedition or desertion in war) means that I've changed my mind.
NO DEATH PENALTY HERE.
Thank you Channel 4 for educating me.

Most popular in Arts & Entertainment

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date