Could not agree more
Here is something I posted on my blog after the recent BBC documentary "Come Home Gary Glitter".
I watched one of the most disturbing documentaries the night before last (05/12/2005). Entitled “Come Home Gary Glitter” It will go down in history as perhaps the best sex tourists guide to south east Asia there has ever been, whilst watching I had the thought of child abusers scribbling little notes into their laptops for future reference, where to go, who to meet and who to steer well clear of. I had originally planned to watch this and I can only describe it as pro paedophile propaganda to see what one of my abusers lawyers had to say, I was not at all surprised when Jonathan King made an appearance, making references to fourteen and fifteen year old boys and then quickly remembering what he had just said on camera and bringing the so called interview to an end although still using the media to harrass his victims.
He has been asked on his website what he thought of the program and his reply was somewhat typical, I quote:
“Flippant Faux Naive approach not suited to now very serious situation, I felt
Author: JK, Dec/6/2005 13:25:41
and all the obvious points... was the orphanage person as innocent as he protested? Was that copper really straight? Why wasn't Max asked about his News of the World/trial involvement? Where the judge had a lot to say.
Still, it was worth watching if only to see Max swallow that fly. I thought it was shit flies were attracted to”.
As per usual King deflected any serious questions, a’la the Jon Ronson documentary "The Double Life Of Jonathan King", by concentrating on others and how hard done by he is. That besides the two filmmakers Joel Wilson and Jamie Campbell knew they were onto a winner, swanning around the world at the licence payers expense, picking up little clues here and there and then showing us just how easy it is to pick up or loan for a couple of days underage children for sex.
This was the most disturbing part of their film making exploits. It was incredibly stupid showing just how inept the authorities in Cambodia were with dealing with sex tourists. They were filming and recording poverty stricken parents of the kids they could have hired for any number of days for ex amount of dollars, pure voyeurism and then stating exactly where they were must have been a godsend to any paedophile contemplating visiting Cambodia for the explicit reason of having sex with children.
I could have wept when they were filming in the bar when one of the film makers said he had a preference “for boys” and was promptly served one up. It was highly noticeable that they did not report the bar owner to the local police for pimping these youngsters.
I have to ask myself why?
I imagine that that would have taken the viewers mind off the reason they were making “Come Home Gary Glitter” which was suggesting that Glitter come home and receive treatment for his paedophilia. That’s just great when most of us who have been abused search for years for support with problems that CSA can bring and there are legions of problems. It was a shame they did not give more airtime to the likes of Donald Findlater of the Lucy Faithful Foundation or Jim Gamble assistant chief constable of the National Crime Squad, both who work with the fallout of child sexual abuse, both who do more work in a day to protect vulnerable children than most of us will achieve in a lifetime.
This program has possibly done more damage than even the most amateur of filmmakers could have done looking into the problem of sex tourism and the ones that remain closer to home. It lacked balance, where were the victims? Where was their voice in all of this?
Instead they interviewed the wrong people, with the wrong questions as if Giovanni “I’m not even a criminal lawyer” de Stefano was going to tell them where Glitter was holed up, unless it was for a large amount of money. However de Stefano did make an accurate statement that “Jonathan King has technically committed far more serious offences than Gary Glitter” and I thought he had been convinced by Kings continuous whining about being innocent. Interesting to say the least.
There is no technicality about it. King is a sex offender of the worst kind, in denial of his actions and therefore beyond any help and/or control, stautory or otherwise.
This film was a total waste of time and money when they could have opened up the whole can of worms and they missed the obvious link, the one I keep banging on about, Bell Records of the early seventies indeed they featured two of Bells recording artistes Glitter and King, no lateral thought between the pair of them, obviously and that does not make for good reporting or filmmaking.
It is interesting to note that Joel Wilson has worked on lots of comedy documentaries. A free word of advice mate, stick to making people laugh and don’t do programs where you appear to have no understanding of the subject matter.
Doesn’t take a genius does it?