Renaming of ther John Peel Stage - article in the Daily Hate

[BambooShanks]

The way I see it at the moment is that most people over 35 have memories of John Peel's radio show that massively helped broaden people's musical horizons and helped people discover so much new music that they would have never heard.

People 25 and under won't have those memories and knowledge of him.  Really the only thing they'll know is that he had a tent named after him and when they look at his wiki, they'll find a load of historic noncery. It may well have been consensual but I can understand the confusion and outrage even that in the current climate someone who has committed statutory rape is being celebrated in such a way.

John Peel's contribution to the festival and music as a whole has been honoured by Glastonbury for 18 years. While to an extent it would be a shame for his name to no longer remain attached to the festival, I can understand the view of the new generation of Glastonbury goers.

As to how GFL should / could move forward, they certainly need to acknowledge this.  It isn't going to go away and maybe they need to move with the times and quietly change the name to honour the people who have championed new music / artists / Glastonbury the way John Peel did in the past.  After all, we don't move forward if all we do is look back.

[maelzoid]

And while we are all so happy to condemn someone for having sex with a 15-year-old as a nonce and paedo, remember, there are many countries in which this would be legal, including Italy, Germany and Denmark... 

[stuie]

1 minute ago, maelzoid said:

And while we are all so happy to condemn someone for having sex with a 15-year-old as a nonce and paedo, remember, there are many countries in which this would be legal, including Italy, Germany and Denmark... 

That doesn't make it right.  Glastonbury isn't in Italy, Germany or Denmark. 

It's as simple as this for me - he openly admitted something that's illegal in this country and not only illegal, something that the overwhelming majority of people disapprove of in 2022 so why are we still celebrating him?

 

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

And while we are all so happy to condemn someone for having sex with a 15-year-old as a nonce and paedo, remember, there are many countries in which this would be legal, including Italy, Germany and Denmark... 

And the USA where it happened. 

[maelzoid]

It wasn't my intent to defend Peel, rather just highlight that it is a bit more nuanced than simply calling him a paedo and being done with it.

 

[The Nal]

8 minutes ago, Neil said:

And the USA where it happened. 

Fun Peel fact. 

He met JFK before he was president and when he was killed he was in the Dallas police station the night Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested. Blagged his way in with some "press pass". 

http://i.imgur.com/5jd5G7X.jpg

 

 

Theres Jack Ruby on the left.

http://i.imgur.com/EhC0Bw8.jpg

 

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by The Nal

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

It wasn't my intent to defend Peel, rather just highlight that it is a bit more nuanced than simply calling him a paedo and being done with it.

 

The DM doesn't do nuance. 

[gigpusher]

6 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

What about the oral sex with a 13 year old ? 

Given Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin probably also very much legal where it happened. 

[steviewevie]

 he's my hero so I just ignore any bad stuff.

[Nobby's Old Boots]

1 hour ago, gigpusher said:

I'm currently reading a book about The Beatles and I'll be honest so far they all come across pretty badly as well. Anyone who knows me will know I'm definitely not one to condone this kind of behaviour however I do think there is a tendency to judge people by modern standards and I hope everyone here is as happy to cancel their fathers/grandfathers etc because sadly society was just a shit show for women in the 60's and 70's. I was born in 1977 and the phrase old enough to bleed, bleedin old enough was common place when I was a kid. Given that I was old enough to bleed at 10 years old I think we can get a idea of how problematic a phrase that is. 

For me how you judge these men is how they moved with the times. I don't think anybody would say latter day Macca/Bowie or John Peel were still chasing teenagers when they were in their 40's and 50's. The behaviour whilst wrong was what everyone was doing at the time and what a lot of girls did participate in without any idea of how they were being exploited because that concept of being exploited wasn't really there either. 

The difference between Peel and someone like Savile is the deliberately preying on the vulnerable. Don't get me wrong to my modern the way rock stars and celebrities back then treated young girls is pretty creepy but people are begging for Aerosmith to play whilst asking for the stage to be renamed. 

I'm happy to say that John Peel at the start of his fame was a creep who treated women badly but grew up to be someone solidly married and who by all accounts appears to have treated his female colleagues with great respect. People do change and should any of us be judged forever by the worst things we did?

I get this and do agree it's important to judge how people move/moved with the times, but in one of his very last interviews ik 2004 he didn't exactly come across as someone repentant for his behaviour, and in fact this quote in particular is quite alarming and not really indicative of someone who had changed.

"They used to queue up outside, and sometimes they wanted to snog someone from England. But frustratingly, American girls of that period - as they do now, actually - had this strange notion of virginity as a tangible thing which you surrendered to your husband on your wedding night, as though it was something that could be kept in a drawer wrapped in silk. So they'd do anything except shag you."

https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/arts_ents/13789071.one-last-interviews-john-peel-talks-school-days-radio-1-peter-powell/

As said, this was 2004, not the 70s. If this is his him as a changed man, blimey...

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Just googled it... Dear lord...  So fucked up lol

I'm amazed you had to Google that, I thought everyone knew. 

[clarkete]

12 hours ago, Quark said:

If we can support tearing down statues of people who were acting within the law at the time but shouldn't be celebrated with  modern eyes, we can rename a festival stage. However much he did for new music.

 

Err are you referring to people responsible for the enslavement of up to 84000 and killing up to 19000? 

[The Nal]

1 minute ago, gigpusher said:

Given Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin probably also very much legal where it happened. 

Im fairly sure he killed his 5th wife. All killer, no filler.

Shame he never played Glasto.

[blutarsky]

1 hour ago, gigpusher said:

I'm currently reading a book about The Beatles and I'll be honest so far they all come across pretty badly as well. Anyone who knows me will know I'm definitely not one to condone this kind of behaviour however I do think there is a tendency to judge people by modern standards and I hope everyone here is as happy to cancel their fathers/grandfathers etc because sadly society was just a shit show for women in the 60's and 70's. I was born in 1977 and the phrase old enough to bleed, bleedin old enough was common place when I was a kid. Given that I was old enough to bleed at 10 years old I think we can get a idea of how problematic a phrase that is. 

For me how you judge these men is how they moved with the times. I don't think anybody would say latter day Macca/Bowie or John Peel were still chasing teenagers when they were in their 40's and 50's. The behaviour whilst wrong was what everyone was doing at the time and what a lot of girls did participate in without any idea of how they were being exploited because that concept of being exploited wasn't really there either. 

The difference between Peel and someone like Savile is the deliberately preying on the vulnerable. Don't get me wrong to my modern the way rock stars and celebrities back then treated young girls is pretty creepy but people are begging for Aerosmith to play whilst asking for the stage to be renamed. 

I'm happy to say that John Peel at the start of his fame was a creep who treated women badly but grew up to be someone solidly married and who by all accounts appears to have treated his female colleagues with great respect. People do change and should any of us be judged forever by the worst things we did?

You're always so bloody reasonable! 

Completely agree with everything you've said, although I'd be happy to cancel my problematic father... 

[Clarence Clemons]

[clarkete]

This has a link to pictures of the original interview, just in case anyone wants to see the whole thing. 

http://andywalmsley.blogspot.com/2014/10/peel-reveals.html

[maelzoid]

It always used to be the 'new band' tent, so no reason why it cannot revert to that. Although not sure Jesus & Mary Chain or Primal Scream could still play...

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

It always used to be the 'new band' tent, so no reason why it cannot revert to that. Although not sure Jesus & Mary Chain or Primal Scream could still play...

Ideally they'd call it the Old New Band Tent

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

It always used to be the 'new band' tent, so no reason why it cannot revert to that. Although not sure Jesus & Mary Chain or Primal Scream could still play...

That was a new tent for bands, not a tent for new bands. 

[zahidf]

Probably time to rename the John Peel tent: constant renewal is a good thing. He was definitely into younger girls alas

[gigpusher]

17 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

I get this and do agree it's important to judge how people move/moved with the times, but in one of his very last interviews ik 2004 he didn't exactly come across as someone repentant for his behaviour, and in fact this quote in particular is quite alarming and not really indicative of someone who had changed.

"They used to queue up outside, and sometimes they wanted to snog someone from England. But frustratingly, American girls of that period - as they do now, actually - had this strange notion of virginity as a tangible thing which you surrendered to your husband on your wedding night, as though it was something that could be kept in a drawer wrapped in silk. So they'd do anything except shag you."

https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/arts_ents/13789071.one-last-interviews-john-peel-talks-school-days-radio-1-peter-powell/

As said, this was 2004, not the 70s. If this is his him as a changed man, blimey...

But is he talking about finding it frustrating at the time rather than him still wanting to shag a load of teenagers. I have no problem with whether his name is on the tent or not but I think we need to be careful about judging people of the past by standards from the present. 

I'd also much rather we tackle the crimes of the here and now in the first place. Unlike with Savile the only evidence of John Peel's crimes comes from John Peel himself. I'm not hearing from women who feel he exploited them. 

[Ayrshire Chris]

Why not just stay away from naming it after someone? Works for Avalon, west holts etc.  since it’s nearest to the village call it the Pilton or Village green .  
musicians, like all of us, have a past, unless you manage to find some clean cut untarnished virgin type.  The Cliff Richard tent 😉, maybe not! 
 

please don’t click on the link to that vile paper, the daily mail 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Ayrshire Chris

[DeanoL]

51 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

Obviously twitter is alive with this.

One thing that winds me up is labelling Peel a paedophile, which there is no evidence for.

Paedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. Peel was likely guilty of statutory rape of a minor, and could be classed as an Ephebophile (attracted to young, but post-pubescent people).

Labelling him a nonce is not only inaccurate, but I think actually think goes a way to normalise genuine paedophilia. ie. equating Peel, Page, Bowie, Tyler et al, with Jimmy Savile actually does Savile a favour.

With regard to renaming the tent, ultimately, I find I just don't care enough either way.

I agree it's important to differentiate, but I do I do hate the way many people (not yourself) use this argument to somehow play down the crime. Was the same with Prince Andrew. If we want to be technical, they're rapists, not paedophiles.

I can't begin to understand the mind of a paedophile, but I can't imagine it's not a very nice place. To find yourself sexually attracted only to kids sounds like one of the most horrendous ways to be broken. In no way does that ever excuse acting on it, that should go without saying, but they are truly mentally ill.

Ephebophiles... is that even really a thing? I mean, you like women that look like women but are young? I'd suggest from the prevalence of everything from "barely legal" porn sites to "school disco" nights at clubs that that's a huge portion of the male population. If you find 15-year olds attractive, you'll find 18-year olds attractive. There's not much difference. Squint a bit. Or ask her to change her hair or do her make-up a certain way. Fuel your weird legally and without being a predator. It's perfectly possible. Especially if you're a famous celebrity or member of the royal family. Like Prince Andrew couldn't have said "Can you arrange me an 18-year old that looks young?" instead of just choosing to be a monster.

Ephebophilia has always felt a lot nastier and predatory to me for that reason. 

[The Nal]

18 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I wonder how many artist know about Peels history ?   Before agreeing to play the stage with his name on it.  I know I would feel uncomfortable.  Wouldn't be surprised to see backlash from artists if its highlighted.  I doubt most young ones know about his past. 

Well he spoke about it in an interview with the Guardian. The Guardian sponsor the festival. It was all widely available at the time of the tent rename aswell.

Festival in an awkward position now. Changing the name would almost be like an admission.

[Quark]

23 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Err are you referring to people responsible for the enslavement of up to 84000 and killing up to 19000? 

If you mean am I equating John Peel to Colston then no, I'm not. I'm not a monster!

I was trying to make the wider point about the principle, and whether it's appropriate for someone who did things that were "acceptable at the time" to be publicly celebrated or honoured when those things are viewed through the lens of the modern world.

And subsequently how people in general are more or less likely to either defend or condemn based on whether it's someone they like or not.

It was an extreme comparison I'll grant you, but being relatively recent and pretty generally supported on this forum it was also a useful one.