Jump to content

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


Yoghurt on a Stick
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

Oral sex isn't sex ? and to be honest its bit ambiguous if it was oral or penetrative sex with the 13 year old...  not that I think it matters...

The way that quote is worded implies he didn't know her age until later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, gfa said:

 he's a nonce, assessment over.

 

I think this is exactly why we're having this discussion, and furthermore why there is a debate over the stage naming. While it depends on your definition of 'nonce' the point is he was not a paedophile (in the clinical sense), and he has neither been accused or convicted of any crime. Now, I am absolutely not defending him in any way with these statements, merely highlighting that actually, the assessment is not over but ongoing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I don't think a single person in this thread has said "it's okay, he did nothing wrong, keep the tent", at least not in the past couple of pages. You guys are reading far too much into things.

But there's an interesting discussion to be had beyond that about how much this was/wasn't known at the time, how we're still happy to venerate the likes of the Stones or Bowie just because they've never openly admitted it, whether there is any sort of path back from this by showing and having remorse...

Appreciate that conversation isn't for everyone, but it'd be good if people didn't automatically assume that those having it were rape apologists....

there is an interesting debate to be had about historical misconduct and repentance. sadly this is isn't really one of those cases - not seen any introspection or active attempts to right his wrongs on his behalf in those quotes. plus - like he's dead and we're talking about naming a tent after him ffs we're not trying to lock him up or deprive him of his livelihood.

Edited by vertigocarbon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

How are we still doing this????

Sex with a 13year old is i ndisputably wrong, but knowing she's 13 and not knowing are very different things. 

Edited by Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

How about a 15 year old?

Seen the "didn't know their age at the time" deployed for a lot of the statements he made.

Weird how he apparently managed to get fooled on age consistently over many years and many incidents.

Edited by FrancisH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FrancisH said:

 

Seen the "didn't know their age at the time" deployed for a lot of the statements he made.

Weird how he apparently managed to get fooled on age consistently over many years and many incidents.

Yep. But realistically people know that, and they're being willingly naive in choosing to believe that a man with a history of having sex with children doesn't realise a 13 year old girl is 13. Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nobby's Old Boots said:

So we're now suggesting he didn't know his own wife was 15.

No I pointed out that from what he said (quoted above) it appears he didn't know that girl was 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Neil said:

Sex with a 13year old is i ndisputably wrong, but knowing she's 13 and not knowing are very different things. 

Oh come on.  Surely we all accept it's your responsibility to know how old someone is before sex. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Neil said:

No I pointed out that from what he said (quoted above) it appears he didn't know that girl was 13.

Yes, then I asked if it's wrong to sleep with a 15 year old, and you said:

"same applies, knowing and not knowing are different things"

So now you know, that he DID know he was with a 15 year old, and you're talking about the 13 year old again.

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/whataboutery 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Tell that to the judge 😛 

We all nly have that quote to condemn him by for that particular incident, so a careful reading of it matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

I am guess if your a 25 year old bloke and you are in a situation where you are questioning if someone might be 16 or not...  Then you might want to make fucking sure of it before diving in there if you had any sort of moral compass.  Clearly Peel was a disgusting little bastard and it needs just calling out as such, tent renamed and we can all move on 🙂 

Nailed it🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Yes, then I asked if it's wrong to sleep with a 15 year old, and you said:

"same applies, knowing and not knowing are different things"

So now you know, that he DID know he was with a 15 year old, and you're talking about the 13 year old again.

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/whataboutery 

I was sticking to what I'd said, rather than the different covo you wanted to have as your own whataboutery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, gfa said:

The issue people have is summarised by this quote from stuie. why is this even being questioned and assessed. he's a nonce, assessment over.

But this is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss it - which is totally fair enough - you don't have to read the thread. I disagree with some of what is being said (especially the past page or so) and it's definitely quite icky but it's literally what the discussion topic is about. If you don't think it should be discussed, there are other threads. 

13 minutes ago, stuie said:

Oh come on.  Surely we all accept it's your responsibility to know how old someone is before sex. 

Yeah, but do you think the Stones "checked IDs" of every groupie? It's almost certain that Keith Richards slept with someone underage at some point. I mean:

rolling stones

Yet no-one complained when they played Glastonbury. Which is presumably a combination of Peel just being weirdly honest about the whole "scene" when everyone else wanted to cover it up, and the fact you can slander the living but not the dead.

And again, I'm not seeing anyone saying we should keep the name of the tent. Just more raising the point that if we're going to say there no place at Glastonbury for those involved in this (which we absolutely should) then we should follow that through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe an unpopular opinion - yeh we probably shouldn't venerate rock stars particularly from that era.

but there's also a big stretch between a man writing it and talking about how he did it and "it's almost certain that Keith Richards slept with someone underage at some point". maybe they have admitted it - I honestly don't know enough richards or the rolling stones to know this or not.

 

Edited by vertigocarbon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vertigocarbon said:

maybe an unpopular opinion - yeh we probably shouldn't venerate rock stars particularly from that era.

but there's also a big stretch between a man writing it and talking about how he did it and "it's almost certain that Keith Richards slept with someone underage at some point". maybe they have admitted it - I honestly don't know enough richards or the rolling stones to know this or not.

 

Mandy Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Neil said:

I was sticking to what I'd said, rather than the different covo you wanted to have as your own whataboutery. 

But you're doing it again. You're the one who brought up the fact he claims not to have known the age as a defense.

So my question is - if the defense is that he didn't know they're that age, then what's the defense if he DID know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nobby's Old Boots said:

But you're doing it again. You're the one who brought up the fact he claims not to have known the age as a defense.

So my question is - if the defense is that he didn't know they're that age, then what's the defense if he DID know?

I simply pointed out what his actual words imply. While others put their own take on those words, a take not supported by the words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I am guessing if your a 25 year old or so bloke and you are in a situation where you are questioning if someone might be 16 or not...  Then you might want to make fucking sure of it before diving in there if you had any sort of moral compass.  Clearly Peel was a disgusting little bastard and it needs just calling out as such, tent renamed and we can all move on 🙂 

Yes Barry.  It's nice to agree with you. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Latest Activity

    • We’re after 1 Oxfam spot for my wife, having secured one myself back in Feb.   We’ve been weighing up whether to stick or twist with the cutoff coming up.    Your words sound encouraging though so we might have to stick it out and hammer the Oxfam site for that 1 spot! 
    • This gives us hope! We're lucky enough to work on our laptops all day so this is all possible!
    • So long as you requested your bus via the transport survey before April 15th, you're all good - there haven't been any confirmation emails yet 
    • Did some digging online. Well, you did ask.   There isn't much there that's very recent. An application for planning permission for "use of land for siting of up to 16 low impact residential shelters within a woodland garden setting and associated operational development comprising car park, telephone box, and children's play structure" was rejected in 1999 - though apparently there was a "legal breakthrough" in 2001. This is from 1995:   Clearly it's still in use. A resident called Theo Simon stood for election to the local council (for the Green Party) in 2017. His band, Seize the Day, seems to play Glastonbury every year (at Toad Hall, Small World, sometimes other sets elsewhere). This is a video of their 2019 set:     There's an interview with him, probably filmed at Kings Hill, here. He sounds pretty cool if you ask me.   https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/why-religion-matters/0/steps/73899   This is from a university thesis submitted in 1999:   The King’s Hill Collective The King’s Hill Collective can be seen as solution to increasing pressures of living on the road for Travellers who were bringing up children and as a solution to (and rejection of) mainstream consumerist society by non Travellers many of whom were originally city dwellers. Nevertheless because many of the members had direct travelling experience, this community provided an example of one extreme in a continuum between those Travellers for whom the tag ‘New Age’ is a complete irrelevance and those for whom it is at least understandable if not desirable. This group is on the ‘New Age’, ecologically aware, ideologically ‘hippie’ and ‘sorted’ end of the New Age Traveller continuum discussed in the previous chapter. The site, which overlooks Pilton farm (the site of the Glastonbury Festival), is slowly maturing now with numerous trees, vegetables and a fully functioning water bore hole which supplies the site with drinking water. Water is extracted on a weekly basis using an old petrol engine and pump. The water, which is filtered by a series of sand traps, is inspected on an annual basis. The collective is concerned to demonstrate its willingness to 243adhere to regulations were this is possible and not contrary to its collective ideology. There are 16 plots, each at some stage of the development of the site, having a bender.   The benders are almost exclusively constructed of light green Tarpaulin over a hazel wood matrix. Stainless steel flexi-vents lead from stoves in the benders. These act as chimneys supported by a single branch driven into the earth. The stoves are usually home-made conversions of gas cylinders which have been cut and welded into shape although there was an solid fuel Rayburn installed in one bender during the study period. Inside the benders bedding is arranged on wooden pallets or platforms and there is often an additional gas stove for cooking. Water is supplied either directly from the holding tank or stored in water barrels. Lighting is almost exclusively by candles or ‘hurricane lamps’. Twelve volt batteries and in one case a wind generator supplies electricity for radios and in one case a small black and white television. Some of the more established benders had a variety of trees and shrubs around the canvass construction including apple, pear and fig trees as well as a variety of fruits.   The collective is serviced by a pay telephone located in an old red telephone box. Its position, in the middle of a field, is as incongruous as the lamp post in C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books and is in a way reminiscent of the TARDIS of Doctor Who, adding to the slightly surreal or magical atmosphere of the place. Inside a small domestic pay phone is installed and managed by one of the community.   At the centre of the site is a clearing of grass that acts as a communal area surrounded by a small circular mound inside of which runs a circular ditch in the fashion of a place of worship. In the centre of the circle is a small collection of sea stones collected from a nearby shoreline. There are four gaps in the mound representing the solstices and equinoxes, which correspond to the cardinal points of the compass. Each section of the mound was constructed during the period of the year that it represents. There are symbols representing Beltane and other significant calendar dates placed appropriately on the circle. The King’s Hill site owes its existence to Chris Black, a man who was broadly sympathetic to alternative lifestyles and provided initial financial support to the project. Chris Black purchased the field and ‘loaned’ sixteen plots to a number of Travellers and bender dwellers. The newly formed community developed a ‘constitution’ and organised a system whereby the loan of the plots was paid back over a period of two years through weekly contributions to a central fund. Thus after two years the land belonged to sixteen stakeholders.
    • K.O.G. were one of my favourite acts at EOTR a couple of years ago. Just a joyful afrobeat danceathon
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...