HP's ad, which is airing across the States, uses Glitter's 1973 hit 'Do You Wanna Touch Me'.
The song featured in the ad is actually a cover version performed by US singer Joan Jett in 1982. However, because the song was originally written by Glitter he collects all the royalties.
Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, is expected to receive up to £100,000 in royalties but could earn more if the ad becomes a popular internet download.
Child Abusewatch.net, a US child abuse prevention group, said the choice of song "shows a distinct lack of sensitivity".
Glitter returned to the UK in August this year after spending 27 months in a Vietnamese jail for abusing two young girls.
He was previously convicted for possession of indecent images of children in 1997. Despite this, Lastminute.com featured him in its email marketing in 2006, prior to his second conviction.
In the email, which offered theatre tickets in London's West End, a section on children's theatre and plays was headed with two young boys' faces and titled "Doing it for the kids".
The Advertising Standards Authority banned the ad, saying it breached decency rules and played on "contemporary, tasteless humour".
Comments
dano - 29/10/2008
Its no big deal. He served his prison sentence. If he didnt recieve royalties from his work, then he would no doubt be claiming from the state for housing benfit, welfare etc; and we'd all be up in a fuss about him recieving tax payers money. Next story please.
Well, my muso mate wants to string him up.. kept asking WHERES his money coming from so now we know. But.. oh dear.. the U.S. doesnt seem to think when whoever made the decision.. I read it may have already been pulled.. shame for Joan Jett. We get conflicting reports as it is.. Glitter included. Trial by press is always loaded with attitude.. I want the facts.. FAT chance.
Does this mean that we have to eradicate all our teenage memories of having a good time to all that Glitter stuff back in the 70s? There is no point in denying a paedophile a legitimate source of income. He won't be spending it on a holiday to Bangkok any time soon. But the hoo-hah seems to be about the companies that have knowingly used his songs. Well, that's their choice, their risk.
In view of the nature of his convictions I'm surprised this track is even available. I'm rather surprised any company would want to promote their product by using it - it's not the most sensible PR exercise I've ever seen. Why would you want to associate 'touch screen technology' with child molestation?
I wonder what Hewlett-Packard are attempting to convey to their public in their particular choice of knowlingly selecting 'Do You Wanna Touch Me'? their consequence being in highly rewarding a man considered by people across the world of direct and actual involvement in great evil.
Since this music is now so clearly associated with a known paedophile, now recorded on the Sex Offenders Register in Britain, which is an accepted means of 'WARNING: BEWARE' to ALL parents of young children.
Intended to effect any contact with this individual to stop his inticing interest in young children, certainly in not allowing him to get close enough to whisper in a childs ear "Do You Wanna Touch Me?"
Perhaps this was Hewlett-Packard's wish to show a sympathy towards Paul Gadd or even to aid and promote his return once again to his form of entertainment, heaven forbid.
Who knows what they had in mind, they clearly ill-conceived this idea or were ill-advised and don't understand the feeling of the general public in their efforts and financial support.
How come everyone is fine with Wack Jacko but not Glitter? You can still hear MJ records in the clubs, but no one dares put on a Glitter track. Just making an observation.
It might have something to do with them being total crap. Just a thought
dano - 30/10/2008
Gary Glitter is a convicted paedophile, Michael Jackson is not.
Gary Glitter hasnt changed the world, Michael Jackson has.
This is of course besides a more worrying point, which clubs do you go to mark where you might ever hear Gary Glitter?
IT'S ALL SICK, AND WRONG, CASTRATE THE BASTARD AND LET HIM DIE OF A SLOW, SLOW DEATH AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.!!!!
Comments
HBomber - 29/10/2008
this really is terrible
dano - 29/10/2008
Its no big deal. He served his prison sentence. If he didnt recieve royalties from his work, then he would no doubt be claiming from the state for housing benfit, welfare etc; and we'd all be up in a fuss about him recieving tax payers money. Next story please.
Keith Geddes - 29/10/2008
Well, my muso mate wants to string him up.. kept asking WHERES his money coming from so now we know. But.. oh dear.. the U.S. doesnt seem to think when whoever made the decision.. I read it may have already been pulled.. shame for Joan Jett. We get conflicting reports as it is.. Glitter included. Trial by press is always loaded with attitude.. I want the facts.. FAT chance.
Mark Griffiths - 29/10/2008
Does this mean that we have to eradicate all our teenage memories of having a good time to all that Glitter stuff back in the 70s? There is no point in denying a paedophile a legitimate source of income. He won't be spending it on a holiday to Bangkok any time soon. But the hoo-hah seems to be about the companies that have knowingly used his songs. Well, that's their choice, their risk.
Stuart Tunstead - 29/10/2008
In view of the nature of his convictions I'm surprised this track is even available. I'm rather surprised any company would want to promote their product by using it - it's not the most sensible PR exercise I've ever seen. Why would you want to associate 'touch screen technology' with child molestation?
Just Trying to Think it Through - 29/10/2008
I wonder what Hewlett-Packard are attempting to convey to their public in their particular choice of knowlingly selecting 'Do You Wanna Touch Me'? their consequence being in highly rewarding a man considered by people across the world of direct and actual involvement in great evil. Since this music is now so clearly associated with a known paedophile, now recorded on the Sex Offenders Register in Britain, which is an accepted means of 'WARNING: BEWARE' to ALL parents of young children. Intended to effect any contact with this individual to stop his inticing interest in young children, certainly in not allowing him to get close enough to whisper in a childs ear "Do You Wanna Touch Me?" Perhaps this was Hewlett-Packard's wish to show a sympathy towards Paul Gadd or even to aid and promote his return once again to his form of entertainment, heaven forbid. Who knows what they had in mind, they clearly ill-conceived this idea or were ill-advised and don't understand the feeling of the general public in their efforts and financial support.
Just My Opinion - 30/10/2008
How come everyone is fine with Wack Jacko but not Glitter? You can still hear MJ records in the clubs, but no one dares put on a Glitter track. Just making an observation.
jezwaspsrule - 30/10/2008
It might have something to do with them being total crap. Just a thought
dano - 30/10/2008
Gary Glitter is a convicted paedophile, Michael Jackson is not. Gary Glitter hasnt changed the world, Michael Jackson has. This is of course besides a more worrying point, which clubs do you go to mark where you might ever hear Gary Glitter?
michelle alexander - 17/11/2008
IT'S ALL SICK, AND WRONG, CASTRATE THE BASTARD AND LET HIM DIE OF A SLOW, SLOW DEATH AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.!!!!