The future of John Peel

[Watergirl]

On 7/11/2019 at 8:25 AM, fatyeti24 said:

In one way, it is.  There's a load of unlistenable shite on there.

True, but not the quirky type of unlistenable shit that appeals to me!

[stuartbert two hats]

21 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Indeed but they broke up very quickly and some of these allegations - like knocking up a 15 year old - were when he was 30 and living in the UK. 

Anyway, different times and all that. As @stuartbert two hats says. Even the 90s had a culture that looks toxic nowadays. "Get your tits out for the lads". 

But it was called out as boorish at the time. People pretended they were being ironic to get away with it. People of the past weren't these morally simple idiots who didn't know it was a bad thing to tell a woman to get her tits out or that getting a blowjob off a 13 yr old was dodgy.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

Keith Lemon was popular enough to release a movie as recently as seven years ago

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

But it was called out as boorish at the time. People pretended they were being ironic to get away with it. People of the past weren't these morally simple idiots who didn't know it was a bad thing to tell a woman to get her tits out or that getting a blowjob off a 13 yr old was dodgy.

I'm not old enough to know what attitudes were like around 1965, tho I'm aware how different they were to now in 1980.

As far as the law goes, things started to change for the better from around 1980 - all sorts of stuff has been introduced since then, particularly about how adults hold responsibility for their actions towards someone under age or under their care (teachers, etc).

Law changes are normally pushed along by changes in social attitudes, so it's probably the case the law was lagging behind and those social attitudes changed sometime before.

But how long before? While i'm sure there were some who'd have regarded Peel's actions very wrong at the time, the number might have been comparatively small.

[eFestivals]

Just for comparison for changing social attitudes and changing laws....

I read something by KD Lang yesterday, talking about how groundbreaking it was for her to be openly gay in 1992. And it was groundbreaking! Sure, acceptance of gays had been growing for the previous 25 years or so (since it was made legal - 1967, i think), but it was still something mostly hidden away.

By around 10 years later we'd had equality in the age of consent and the right to civil partnerships. It took a further 10 years for gay marriage.

[Wooderson]

41 minutes ago, BluePaul said:

Can I raise a practical question at this point?  Are we gonna have screens outside the tent next year?

NOOOOO WE'RE NOTGONNAFAHHCKING HAVE SCREENS!!

[Mark E. Spliff]

48 minutes ago, The Nal said:

...Peels "Of course, I never asked for ID" could mean he was a paedo. Ie he didnt want to know the answer. Or it could've just been the bravado of the time but its hardly a witch hunt.

You're working on a model whereby paedophilia is on some kind of spectrum in which the 'level' of paedophilia is determined by how low below 16/18/21/whatever you're prepared to go.  That model is simply wrong - there is no spectrum of paedophilia.  It's a binary issue: a disorder which you either have or you don't.  The research in this area is vast and unequivocally demonstrates that sexual attraction is not poetic or romantic - it's a brutish, animalistic thing.  Physical features, such as facial symmetry, are all compared against an ideal template to decide what's hot and what's not.  A key determinant is 'not reached puberty?  not interested.'  If you're not genetically/neurologically/psychologically pre-programmed with this determinant, you're a paedophile.  If you are, you're not.  It's as simple as that - black and white.  John Peel has never been accused of having anything to do with pre-pubescent girls, so bringing paedophilia into the thread has been a red-herring which has helped derail the discussion.

One other undisputed finding of the research into the laws of sexual attraction will make uncomfortable reading for some of the people contributing to this thread.   The other key determinant of sexual attraction is that, after puberty, 'younger = better.'  That's why, throughout history, trying to make 40 year-olds look like they're teenagers has been one of the world's most profitable industries.  Anyone expressing disgust at someone for being attracted to a sexually mature 14 year-old is simply in denial.  It's right to blame a perpetrator for the abuse of trust, and fathers would be justified in getting out their shotguns etc., but pretending you don't share the impulse is dishonest.  It's also a bit worrying: people in denial often have a poor 'track record' - just ask the Catholic church.

To summarise.  The issue with John Peel was statutory rape/abuse of position.  We can all wave pitchforks at his grave for that.  Introducing the concept of paedophilia is irrelevant, scientifically-illiterate and needlessly derails the discussion. 

[BluePaul]

15 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

NOOOOO WE'RE NOTGONNAFAHHCKING HAVE SCREENS!!

I'll set 'em up, you put 'em away...

[Mr.Tease]

1 hour ago, BluePaul said:

Can I raise a practical question at this point?  Are we gonna have screens outside the tent next year?

Yes, but as a compromise they're going to face inwards, so only people inside the tent can see them

[stuartbert two hats]

19 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

NOOOOO WE'RE NOTGONNAFAHHCKING HAVE SCREENS!!

We had them for a couple of years. Nobody cared.

[eFestivals]

59 minutes ago, Mark E. Spliff said:

To summarise.  The issue with John Peel was statutory rape/abuse of position.

In today's terms, yup.

Those ideas didn't exist in UK law at the time. They're an addition within the last few decades.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

14 hours 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 ...

Some others have actually brought up Saville, so that is kinda happening. Debating the terminology is important here, because words have meanings. Was he grooming girls? No. Did he have a sexual relationship with a girl who didn't give her age but very much looked like a mature woman? Yes. It's not semantics, it's definition. It's very different to have a predator who forced girls to touch him, and one who had girls throwing themselves at him.

Personally, I don't think historical situations should be brought up from the past with the torch of modern standards to silence or erase memories of people - except in the very worst cases like Saville. David Bowie also slept with a girl who was 14, but I bet nobody on these forums is going to stop playing his discography. Should his music be banned from the festival? Mick Jagger too had a history of sex with groupies under 18, should he have been banned and protested in 2013?

There's a big difference between someone like Gary Glitter/Saville and Jagger/Peel imo. 

 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Personally, I don't think historical situations should be brought up from the past with the torch of modern standards

I've no particular problem with considering the past with today's standards as long as people are aware it's that - and they're not retrospectively applying it onto individuals of the time.

Today sex with someone underage is regarded as one of the most heinous crimes - rape. But that's not how it was back then, and I think it's hugely likely that Peel would have swerved away from commiting rape (if that's what it had been at the time) just as you or I would swerve it today.

Edited July 12, 2019 by eFestivals

[TheGoodWillOut]

3 hours ago, BluePaul said:

Can I raise a practical question at this point?  Are we gonna have screens outside the tent next year?

Only if they display pictures of wrong un's from time gone by. Kind of like a crime watch rogue's gallery but for dodgy celebs or ex celebs ? 

[Mark E. Spliff]

58 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

In today's terms, yup.

Those ideas didn't exist in UK law at the time. They're an addition within the last few decades.

You're absolutely right.  Criminal law is a man-made thing so changes with societal norms.  There are two things that always distort this kind of discussion.  (1) the paranoid 'witch hunt' scenario whereby people feel if they don't shout 'pedo' (sic) louder than the next man they'll become suspect, regardless of the facts.  (2) the paranoid need to publicly deny our 'lizard brain' - i.e. the primal urges which evolved as successful reproduction strategies and which, though often embarrassing, we're all subject to.

You can't have a rational debate about this sort of stuff unless you can acknowledge and overcome these 2 things.  But they're so deeply ingrained in our culture that right up to the level of policy-makers nobody will stick their head above the parapet and confront them.  Consequently, the experts in harm-prevention have long been complaining that public discourse has become so toxic that children are actually suffering because the most effective prevention policies get shouted down.

Bringing it back to John Peel, the laws that applied in 1960s Texas were radically different to the UK's now.  So putting the law aside, if I was to try and define a non-legal, non-hyprocritical standard by which to judge the morality of his actions, it would be whether he could credibly claim to the parents/friends/colleagues that they were having a 'relationship' with some semblance of power balance.  In the case of Shirley Anne Milburn, the answer is demonstrably yes.  As for any other 'groupies,' I've only read gossip so can't judge.

[DeanoL]

They will probably change the name eventually but it's still awkward for them right now as they can't really condemn that and make a point of changing it while still booking bands that engaged in similar behaviour. I'm sure Fleetwood Mac groupies must have been a thing too. 

[bombfrog]

51 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'm sure Fleetwood Mac groupies must have been a thing too. 

That's just Rumours.

[Quark]

43 minutes ago, bombfrog said:

That's just Rumours.

[Ayrshire Chris]

45 minutes ago, bombfrog said:

That's just Rumours.

Could be an albatross around their necks

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I've no particular problem with considering the past with today's standards as long as people are aware it's that - and they're not retrospectively applying it onto individuals of the time.

Today sex with someone underage is regarded as one of the most heinous crimes - rape. But that's not how it was back then, and I think it's hugely likely that Peel would have swerved away from commiting rape (if that's what it had been at the time) just as you or I would swerve it today.

Looking back and saying "that's not okay today" is fine of course, but I think it's a bit pointless taking their actions from the past and then removing their names from things.

Peel probably would have been more careful (but who knows for sure?) if he was alive and at his peak now, but I don't know if it's heinous if for example the girl is 15 and the guy is 18-21. When I was at school (90s) there were quite a few girls in yr 10 dating older guys, I'd be surprised if that's completely changed now. Statutory rape is illegal still of course, but it's unforced/consensual sex, so I don't know if calling it just rape is correct either, as Peel wasn't going out and forcing girls into sleeping with him. I wouldn't advocate renaming the tent anyway on that basis, just as I wouldn't start digging around in everybody's history for signs of immorality, otherwise they'd probably be no festival at all 

Edited July 12, 2019 by MEGATRONICMEATWAGON

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Looking back and saying "that's not okay today" is fine of course, but I think it's a bit pointless taking their actions from the past and then removing their names from things. I think we're more or less in agreement on that. 

 

No we're not. Not as a forum and not as a society.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

No we're not. Not as a forum and not as a society.

Which part, sorry, it's not clear what you're saying no to?

[stuartbert two hats]

14 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Which part, sorry, it's not clear what you're saying no to?

Sorry, I don't think there is agreement that we shouldn't remove people's names from things because their actions don't fit with modern moral sensibilities.

I think it's incredibly controversial. See Confederate statues in the US for example.

[DeanoL]

42 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

 I wouldn't advocate renaming the tent anyway on that basis, just as I wouldn't start digging around in everybody's history for signs of immorality, otherwise they'd probably be no festival at all 

I mean, Pyramids are a huge tribute to the success of slave labour under horrendous conditions... 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

29 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Sorry, I don't think there is agreement that we shouldn't remove people's names from things because their actions don't fit with modern moral sensibilities.

I think it's incredibly controversial. See Confederate statues in the US for example.

Quite. If a football stand was named after an ex player or manager or whoever that it later turned out had been a nonce, said stand would be renamed in a heartbeat.