Last weekend went to a "70's" disco night. The DJ played a couple of Gary Glitter tracks, and the majority danced to them. DJ said that was part of the history of music from that era.
My question - What GG did in his personal life was abhorrent but should that wipe him from musical history? If so, hypothetically had Cliff Richard been found guilty, (really pleased for him that he isn't), would the same have occurred. My feelings are leave the music alone and any royalties go to charity.
There doesn't have to be a complaint if a fact of a crime becomes known to the police.
I refer, of course, to the case of R V Brown and Others where all of the participants were consensual adults and there was no complaint made to the police but the police became aware when they found evidence whilst investigating something else entirely.
M Jackson ONLY avoided prosecution for child sex abuse by paying $ Tens of Millions, to the parents of children he had abused to get them to refuse to give evidence against him. Even the judge in the case made the comment that he was reluctantly forced to free Jackson despite strong evidence that he had a case to answer.
It's well known that Bill Wyman had sex with Mandy Smith when she was 13; her mother encouraged the relationship, apparently. I can't understand why he has never faced charges.
This is a perennially tricky subject - do you separate the art from the artist?
I am a party DJ, and I have never yet played a Gary Glitter record, although I would love to because they are great disco party songs. I am aware that people do find playing his music offensive - not a view I share personally, I do separate the art from the artist.
It is a matter of personal feeling, there is no definitive answer I feel.