Advanced search

What do we think of this? HP to use Gary Glitter song in advert....

(31 Posts)
KerryMumchingOnEyeballs Wed 29-Oct-08 10:58:25

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KerryMumchingOnEyeballs Wed 29-Oct-08 11:03:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Saturn74 Wed 29-Oct-08 11:08:01

"A spokesperson for Child says, "It shows a distinct lack of sensitivity".

Of course it does; it's a horrible idea.

But the attention they will receive for doing it will be huge. So job done, as far as the HP publicity campaign goes.

SaTanicGore Wed 29-Oct-08 11:08:40

HP have withdrawn the internet links to the ad.

The music is a cover version, GG gets the money through royalty rights which HP may not have been aware of when the advert was produced.

chequersandchess Wed 29-Oct-08 11:10:14

Thought it was HP sauce blush

filthymindedSixSixSixen Wed 29-Oct-08 11:10:50

who isn't aware of royalty rights ffs.
Bad cess to him and them...

WhereWolfTheWildThingsWere Wed 29-Oct-08 11:11:54

Torn between pmsl at the sheer stupidity, and angryangry at the thoughtlessness and tactlessness behind such a decision.

MmeTussaudsChmberOfChocHobnobs Wed 29-Oct-08 11:12:02

It shows that someone did not research properly more than anything, I would say.

Very embarrassing mistake to make.

SaTanicGore Wed 29-Oct-08 11:15:09

The product (a touch screen PC) would seem to be ideal for a track called 'Do You Wanna Touch Me'.

I suspect whoever chose the track is a young ad exec who has heard the song but is unaware of the GG connection. It may be his song, but his version was in 1972 and in the UK.

HP are a US firm. The Joan Jett version was a hit in the US.

filthymindedSixSixSixen Wed 29-Oct-08 11:19:17

they could have used this

sweetgrapes Wed 29-Oct-08 11:19:49


Of all the songs...

wannaBe Wed 29-Oct-08 11:20:34

can't see the issue. It's not as if it's being used to advertise the nspcc is it?

Or should gg never be allowed to earn again? hmm

Swedes Wed 29-Oct-08 11:21:18

Horrible Paedophile sauce.

wannaBe Wed 29-Oct-08 11:27:06

am not familliar with the song itself, but do we know that it was written wrt molesting children?

if not then imo too big a deal is being made of this.

The man is vile - that is not in question.

But the song they are using is a cover version. He will receive royalties. Whether we agree that he has been justly punished or not is irelevant - he has served his time.

HP haven't asked him to appear on their advert - they have used a song which he originally wrote but which was covered by another artist (who to my knowledge is not a paedophile) and by law he is entitled to receive the royalties from that song, in the same way he will every time someone buys a version of it from itunes or napster or in hmv.

There is no law that says he must never earn from any of his music again.

There is no suggestion that every song he wrote was to do with molesting children.

I am not a glitter fan and wouldn't go out and buy his music but if hp see it as an appropriate song for their advert I don't see anything wrong with that.

KerryMumchingOnEyeballs Wed 29-Oct-08 11:27:09

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KerryMumchingOnEyeballs Wed 29-Oct-08 11:27:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SaTanicGore Wed 29-Oct-08 11:28:14

They have withdrawn the ad, what more do you want them to do?

CombustiblePumpkin Wed 29-Oct-08 11:31:00

Haven't bought it since they moved production out of the UK. Daddies is our brown sauce of choice now.

wannaBe Wed 29-Oct-08 11:31:29

oh yes, let's put all convicted criminals on benefits when they come out of jail. that'll really convince them that they can be integrated back into society and disuade them from offending again. hmm

KerryMumchingOnEyeballs Wed 29-Oct-08 11:32:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

littlelapin Wed 29-Oct-08 11:32:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KerryMumchingOnEyeballs Wed 29-Oct-08 11:33:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WhatFreshHellIsThis Wed 29-Oct-08 11:38:56

It's interesting - would it provoke the same feeling if it was a different crime that he'd perpetrated?

If he was a bank robber who had killed people, for instance, would we say when he came out of jail he was no longer allowed to earn an (honest) living? In which case, what is he meant to do with his life?

I'm assuming Gary Glitter has enough money to get by even if all his royalties ceased, but maybe he doesn't? Maybe he spent it all on legal fees? In which case, should the state and the taxpayer be asked to support him? I'd rather HP did than I did, to be honest!

Where do we stop giving criminals human rights, if we stop at all? Is it murder? Is it sexual abuse? Is it genocide?

SaTanicGore Wed 29-Oct-08 11:41:21

I don't know if the TV ads have gone, I am not in the US.

RubberDuck Wed 29-Oct-08 11:47:53

Combustible: a) it's not HP SAUCE running the ad, it's Hewlett-Packard b) Daddies is owned by HP. HTH HAND grin

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: