By Gadd, this is OTT!

[BaronChotzinoff]

Watching the videos on the BBC News site of Gary Glitter being flown to Thailand, obviously shot with a very intrusive camera pointing at him from the row in front, with a host of cameramen paparazzising him, I was totally sickened and thought the man at least deserves some privacy whatever he's done, there's nowhere to hide on an aircraft after all.

I would really have hoped that the Captain might have stepped in here and asserted some control to ensure he got this privacy - or do the pilots out there not enjoy the same authority while airborne that they have here?

[man friday]

its very unfair to think that Mr Gadds pictures are beamed all over the world,viewed by millions and no doubt broadcast and stored on the internet.
no thought what so ever for his privacy.What that poor man must have felt to have a camera thrust in his face as he tried to relax on his flight..............

HANG ON A MIN ISN'T THIS THE SAME MAN THAT DIDN'T GIVE A DAM FOR THE RIGHTS AND PRIVACY OF THE HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN OF WHOM HE HAD PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES OF ON HIS LAPTOP, OR THE OTHER KIDS WHO HAD TO ENDURE HIS PERSONAL ATTENTION

SPARE A THOUGHT FOR THOSE KIDS WHO HAD A CAMERA SHOVED IN THEIR FACE WHILST THEY WERE BEING SUBJECTED TO HORRIFIC ABUSE FOR THIS SICKO AND OTHERS PERVERTED ENTERTAINMENT, NOT THE TWISTED INDIVIDUAL SUFFERING IN FIRST CLASS!

[Selfloading]

Well it could have been easily avoided, all he had to do was not assault children :*

[Juud]

BaronC, agree with you regarding a passenger's privacy. It is up to the cabin crew to make sure that every passenger has his privacy in as much as that is possible in an aircraft cabin.
To my mind, as long as a passenger behaves on board, we have a duty of care for every passenger, irrespective of his quality as a human being.

Case in point; whenever transporting 'celebrities', I make sure that they are not pestered by either the FAs wanting an autograph or their fellow travellers wanting pics and what not.


PS: The Captain is in charge of and overall responsible for the aircraft and its operation, both in the cockpit and in the cabin.
The factual hands-on responsibility for the cabin is relegated to the Purser/CSD/No1, whose duty it is to make the cabin run smoothly and safely.

[Al Fakhem]

Well said, man friday and Selfloading.

The problem today is that the perpetrator is portrayed as the victim by the PC crowd. This guy, who BTW did not mind publicity when it meant selling more records, does not deserve special shielding from the media.

[goudie]

Wouldn't it be preferable if this sick old b*stard was never heard of again? Won't happen of course, he's 'news'.

[10secondsurvey]

Fact is, Rupert Murdochs bunch have a bee in their bonnet about Gary Glitter, and have realised they can 'make' a 'news' story by following him around the world.

The man is now pretty old, and has just spent three years in a vietnam jail (think about it), so I pretty much think he has done his time. Every day of the week, men who are much worse than this guy are set free in the UK. Whilst he was found guilty of possessing indecent images in the UK, I doubt the conviction in Vietnam - I mean, don't you think it's strange that NO media outlets have ever fully reported on the allegations and the evidence (Gary claims he was set up by a red top).

There are REAL dangerous paedophiles coming out of jail every week in the UK, but you just don't hear about it. I'm pretty sure he had a cr*p time in a vietnamese jail, and yes, the media coverage is way, way, way over the top. The police should keep tabs on him, but really I don't give a monkeys where he lives, as there are much much worse seriously sadistic eveil people walking the streets completely unmonitored.

I think they should re-show that famous Brass tacks programme on paedophilia, as it really hit the nail on the head.

[wanderin_star]

Completeley agree 10secondsurvey. In no way do I condone his odious behaviour but do believe he was completely set up in Vietnam. Perhaps the Murdoch media should concentrate on the more dangerous people roaming our streets who are a threat to society in general.

[Load Toad]

In no way do I condone his odious behaviour but do believe he was completely set up in Vietnam. Perhaps the Murdoch media should concentrate on the more dangerous people roaming our streets who are a threat to society in general.

What proof or source do you have to suggest he was 'set up' in Vietnam? Reports I've read suggest he procured at least two underage girls to share his bed and that the pedo also tried to pay off the families to get a reduced crime brought to court.

'...concentrate on the more dangerous people roaming our streets' - more dangerous that a convicted paedophile? One who appears to be totally in denial that he's done anything wrong and trying his damnedest to stay in a region where he can use his money to carry on..? A man that downloaded thousands of images of child abuse (of the worst kind apparently) thus being the demand to further drive supply?

Can you point us in the direction of 'more dangerous people' on the streets please?

As for being photographed on the 'plane....Gadd had courted the publicity machine when it suited him and even when in court in Vietnam, when released from prison, he has gone for the 'cheeky grin' pose and the 'I'm back' pose. He gave up his rights to privacy when he started abusing innocent kids - that was his choice which he was in a position of power to take. The kids he abused and the kids in the images he downloaded were not in a position of power and could not make a choice. Get your priorities straight - a camera in his face isn't a big deal.

As for the pathetic arguments about him having a hard time in a Vietnamese jail - how do you know? He looks pretty damn healthy to me and if he had a hard time - oh how my heart bleeds. I'm sure his money and celebrity status were as likely to soften the situation he was in and I can be as sure of that as you are that he had a difficult time.

As for other paedophiles on the street - I don't understand your argument - you seem to suggest unless we can keep every paedophile in such a situation that they can not try to abuse children we shouldn't bother trying stop any of them. That's a quite interesting attitude to crime prevention.

[BaronChotzinoff]

So Man Friday and Selfloading - you agree 'in principle' to the rights of intrusive media journalists to harass and exploit their chosen targets in pursuit of news content, then? Or are you being selective here? Would you say, "Well, Princess Di, serve 'er right, she married that Prince Charles and was sleepin' with the 'Arrods geezer, serve 'er right" and then rush out to buy The Sun next day - or rather "It appals me when I see the Beckhams having their private family life carved up for the media, but it's OK with celebrity paedophiles." Seems like dodgy ground to me.

Note I'm not talking about what information is reported here, rather the way the journalism is conducted.

[WHBM]

I'm not going to get involved in any discussion about the original offence, but I too think it's quite inappropriate for the media to have been allowed to run riot in the cabin in the manner seen on the television.

In one of the news clips one cameramen could be seen using the head of the poor pax seated in front as a handhold as he pushed in front of the next cameraman. No passenger on a commercial aircraft should be subjected to this, and the crew should have them all seatbelted in for the flight if they can't behave reasonably.

Cabin crews can unfortunately be almost as bad. My worst was on a US major carrier where the media-prominent President of the airline was in the seat row ahead of my aisle seat. Each member of the cabin crew, having been back to the galley to adjust their make-up, came up in turn, introduced themselves, fawned sycophantically to him, stuck their bum in my face as they did so, etc. It was "Oh god, here comes another one" after a while.

[Load Toad]

The role of 'the media', what it is, who owns it, how it works is a major debate in its own right. I don't like sensationalist, advertising revenue driven drivel myself but in the paparazzi type situation of Diana, Gadd and that type there is a symbiotic relationship between the subject that at one time benefits from but later is the victim of the media and the media with it's advertisers and the customers.
I can have sympathy for people who don't wish to benefit from such symbiosis but not for people who willingly court it when it is to their advantage and then complain when the beast wants feeding.

With regard to the melee of photographers on the 'plane I can't see why they can not be ordered to their seats as would any other passenger whose actions caused discomfort or annoyance - or safety issues for the passengers or crew.

[man friday]

you can't court the media one moment to sell glamrock records, ( or exclusive pics of you're wedding as the becks, or tell your side of why you've got the hump with your jug eared other half) and then cry foul when they take an interest in you when things go pete tong in your private life.

by seeking to enter the limelight you are making yourself news worthy, and thats just what they are when S@*T happens in their personal lives.

bottm line is this man has chosen to interfere with young children, even if the redtops had a hand in it, he still is responsible for his actions. You can bait a trap with cheese but its still the mouses descision to eat it

[TightSlot]

This thread is either about privacy as it relates to aviation, specifically the cabin, or it is about Jet Blast - your decision from here on in.

[Salusa]

I felt more sorry for the pax sitting next to Glitter/Gadd.

The crew should have prevented photography more for his sake than Glitter.

If I were that pax I would not be in the least bit amused.

[grumpysnail]

I felt more sorry for the pax sitting next to Glitter/Gadd.

The crew should have prevented photography more for his sake than Glitter.

If I were that pax I would not be in the least bit amused.


If someone courts the media in their own interest I believe they give up much of their moral right to privacy.

However, any avoidable behaviour that annoys other passengers or risks flight safety shouldn't be allowed; so the "privacy for all" policy on flights makes perfect sense.

If you want to chat about the particular case, trial by media or sensationalism masquerading as journalism; see you in Jet Blast :yuk:

[WHBM]

I am wondering how all the journalists managed to get their broadcast-standard cameras etc past security and into the cabin. The ones visible were way beyond hand baggage limts for both weight and size.

[Load Toad]

..and got bizniss class tickets for the flights he got on.