The future of John Peel

[Mr.Tease]

38 minutes ago, tarw said:

I wholeheartedly agree with the modern definition. I am a father. What I don’t agree with is judging JP by those definitions. Would you want to be judged for your actions now by the moral code in 40 years time?  A lot happens in 40 years. Maybe eating the flesh of an animal will generally be seen as akin to child abuse by then. 

What he did was wrong but to label him as a predator?

So if your child was one of the many 13 to 15 year olds he'd had sex with, would you honestly feel the same way and be making the same arguments?

[tarw]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

So if your child was one of the many 13 to 15 year olds he'd had sex with, would you honestly feel the same way and be making the same arguments?

Yes. I have said that what he did was wrong but to label him as a predator with the information we have is also wrong 

[whitehorses]

Can we call him a nonce at the very least? 

[bombfrog]

[Jay Pee]

In the interests of balance, he did get bummed in the Gents Toilets in Shrewsbury by the Head Boy of the public school he was attending at the time.  Not consenting.

Just to further muddy the muddy waters.

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

Wouldn't tho would it? If some dirty bastard has been preying on your child it wouldn't really make much odds whether they're past puberty or not, and it's creepy as fuck to suggest it would.

So what's the age at which your reaction would change?

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

I know it's the Sun, but even the girls he shagged don't call him a predator along the lines of Saville. Think there's a big difference between girls who are sexually active seeking Peel out for sex, and Saville who was actively grooming girls who weren't sure what was happening

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/429393/peel-groupie-hes-no-savile/

Edited July 11, 2019 by MEGATRONICMEATWAGON

[Digi]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

So what's the age at which your reaction would change?

As a 15 year old in the 80's I went out with a 20 year old. It wasn't really a big deal back then and 30 years later I don't feel exploited although looking back I do wonder what the actual fuck! 

There is a whole fucking world of difference between 15 and a half year old me and 13 year old me though. It's the 13 year olds thing I can't really get my head around. I find the whole thing disturbing but a 13 year old back in the 70s and 80s? That's just abuse and I don't think our moral compass has shifted so much that we wouldn't have seen it as horrid back then either. Those girls were certainly taken advantage of by someone in a position of power who should have known better 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

42 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

I know it's the Sun, but even the girls he shagged don't call him a predator along the lines of Saville. Think there's a big difference between girls who are sexually active seeking Peel out for sex, and Saville who was actively grooming girls who weren't sure what was happening

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/429393/peel-groupie-hes-no-savile/

Nobody is claiming he was as bad as Saville, there’s no publically-available evidence he was anything like as prolific or manipulative as that. The question is whether there should be a major stage named in tribute to him at the UK’s most progressive festival, and debating the terminology is kind of missing the point a bit ...

Edited July 11, 2019 by Rose-Colored Boy

[kingbadger]

19 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Nobody is claiming he was as bad as Saville, there’s no publically-available evidence he was anything like as prolific or manipulative as that. The question is whether there should be a major stage named in tribute to him at the UK’s most progressive festival, and debating the terminology is kind of missing the point a bit ...

The fact there's a debate at all over whether he was or wasn't a paedo kinda proves the point that there shouldn't be a stage named after him at the festival.

When you're having to get into those sorts of semantics you really shouldn't be celebrating or memorialising that person in any positive way.

[Amy Lawn]

His famous love of Teenage Kicks is pretty sinister when you look at it in the context of here's a guy who was regaling tabloid readers with how great it was when he used to get 13 year old girls to to suck his cock.

[stuartbert two hats]

Ok, so we're agreed:

* Saville and Jackson were proper groomers and into little kids and were worse than Peel.

* Peel did some pretty dodgy things. Definitely worse than the odd 15 yr old groupie coming backstage like Bowie.

* Just because some things can be really bad, we can recognise that some things are worse than some other things.

* The John Peel tent doesn't musically bear much resemblance to Peel's taste other than @fatyeti24 not liking lots of both.

What we don't agree on:

* The field near the tent needs more stuff

 

Have I missed anything?

Edited July 11, 2019 by stuartbert two hats

[Mr.Tease]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Ok, so we're agreed:

* Saville and Jackson were proper groomers and into little kids and we're worse than Peel.

* Peel did some pretty dodgy things. Definitely worse than the odd 15 yr old groupie coming backstage like Bowie.

* Just because some things can be really bad, we can recognise that some things are worse than some other things.

* The John Peel tent doesn't musically bear much resemblance to Peel's taste other than @fatyeti24 not liking lots of both.

What we don't agree on:

* The field near the tent needs more stuff

 

Have I missed anything?

No we are NOT agreed on the last bit! Keep the space free! Not every inch of the festival site has to be filled!

[stuartbert two hats]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

No we are NOT agreed on the last bit! Keep the space free! Not every inch of the festival site has to be filled!

So you agree that there's not agreement on that point?

[Mark E. Spliff]

6 hours ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

Good job those lads came in here to tell us what the dictionary definition of a pedo is, tackling the real issues there for sure.

Ask yourself why you posted the above.  Why are you expressing outrage that someone has pointed out something that is factually incorrect - i.e. the claim that John Peel was a paedophile?  It looks a bit like the paranoid need to be seen publicly denouncing anyone who's pussy-footing around with facts and rationality when there are pitchforks to be waved.  Witch-hunt mentality.

It's not necessary to shoe-horn paedophilia in to hold people to account for statutory rape.  As I stated in an earlier post, it can be argued that statutory rapists are more culpable than paedophiles as they're guilty of a deliberate criminal act rather than an innate pathological disorder - i.e. bad rather than mad.

[bombfrog]

The definition is sort of important when it's the difference between somebody being a criminal or not. 

[Ian Gunpowder]

7 minutes ago, bombfrog said:

The definition is sort of important when it's the difference between somebody being a criminal or not. 

He engaged in sexual acts with minors, that is a criminal act. There's no ifs or buts about it. 

[bombfrog]

29 minutes ago, mrchnry said:

He engaged in sexual acts with minors, that is a criminal act. There's no ifs or buts about it. 

I thought people were referring to him marrying a 15 year old in Texas when it was legal. I'm kind of lost at this point.

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

I work with survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and also sexual exploitation, today it counts as predatory behaviour, which I think it is to be honest. They were school children and he was a fully grown man. Don't think the 'they came on to him" as if he was powerless to refuse, works as a defence anymore.

so what you're saying is millions of marriages of the past - before marriage age changed - are all predatory abuse, no matter what the (now-adult) women involved might think.

And that the UK govt authorises allows and endorses predatory abuse by allowing schoolchildren to marry.

I'd say your version is a crock of shit because you are unable to think outside of today.

 

Quote

He knew where the school girls were waiting and went up and interacted with them. And did it again and again. 

did he? Or did you make that part up.

(I've no idea, but nothing I've ever see has even hinted that's what went on)

 

Quote

I get why people find it tricky getting their heads round the new definitions, but I think the new definitions are for the best.

Oh dear. When you're reducing to comments like this it really is pathetic.

No one is arguing with today's definitions for today.

People are pointing out that culture - including the culture of abuse as well as the culture of normal relationships - was entirely different in a time of different normals and rights.

Edited July 12, 2019 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

Good job those lads came in here to tell us what the dictionary definition of a pedo is, tackling the real issues there for sure.

How about you spend a little time getting your tiny mind around the definition of a legal marriage in Texas in 1965.  

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

Yeah, if they had a son or daughter who was 13-15 and they found out that a 20-25 year old adult had had sex with them (and who frequently slept with 13 to 15 year olds), I'm not sure their first thought would be "oh, well technically my child wasn't a pre-pubesent child" or "well, my child did crack on to them!"- they'd see it for what it it was, their child was exploited by a sexual predator.

today, yes.  

In 1965 Texas, that was not anything abnormal in the way you're seeing it today.

And i'm guessing, but I suspect the girl's parents had to give the OK to the marriage (same as is needed in England today for marriage at 16 or 17) - so what you're "sure" about is very unlikely to have been the case at the time.

[Amy Lawn]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

How about you spend a little time getting your tiny mind around the definition of a legal marriage in Texas in 1965.  

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Neil.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

Wouldn't tho would it? If some dirty bastard has been preying on your child it wouldn't really make much odds whether they're past puberty or not, and it's creepy as fuck to suggest it would.

yes, it's impossible that a girl of illegal-sex 15 can have the same or better maturity as another girl of legal-sex 16, because there's that magic head-switch that flips on 16th birthdays. :lol: 

And before you ride that high horse into the distance cheering your (not) victory, it's perfectly possible to agree with and respect the law as it stands today while recognising the human condition.

[stuartbert two hats]

6 hours ago, bombfrog said:

The definition is sort of important when it's the difference between somebody being a criminal or not. 

He's dead mate.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Neil.

all you're giving is a sense of your own intellectual inabilities.