Gary Glitter / Paul Gadd

I've just watched a drama set in a parallel Britain where the death penalty had been re-introduced for murder or rape of children under 12 years of age.....

it was called "The execution of Gary Glitter"

Now I'm no fan of Gary Glitter/Paul Gadd (never was ...not even in the 70's in his hey day !!) he's been convicted on numerous occasions of sexual offences against children and not only in this country.... thereby confirming that he is indeed a paedophile.... BUT

I think Channel 4 overstepped the mark on making it into a docudrama type program, mixing fact with fiction and indeed mixing real life people with fictional characters.... Yes Gary Glitter is a child sex offender, but it wouldn't have been that hard to disguise it's parallels with the real Paul Gadd by calling Gary Glitter .....say......Donny Sparkle or Paul Cadd.... I mean we are all pretty intelligent (well some are) and would have made the connection anyway.....

Paul Gadd is a Paedophile and in most peoples eyes he is lower than a skunks backside.... but does that mean he can have his name used like this ? can a TV company get away with this ?

More worryingly what was the point of this Docu-Drama ? was it to point out the realities of capital punishment....or was it to show how great it would be if we could kill every convicted paedophile ? or was it to poke a stick at what Channel 4 thought was sub human and had no rights, therefore wouldn't sue them for defamation of character because nothing they said wasn't true and the rest was quite obviously artistic licence ???? does that make it fair ????

They are treading on very thin ice methinks, and I thought it went just that bit too far, yes Paul Gadd is scum but that doesn't mean it's an open season on him or anybody else for that matter to allow anything to go by uncensored.....

They'll be portraying Gordon Brown as a literary genius and wordsmith next .......to you, you and you, isn't you ;¬)