Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Ayrshire Chris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

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. 

Only because you probably aren't looking for it...

Quote

In 2012, a woman stated that she had a three-month affair with Peel in 1969 when she was 15 years old; Peel was 30.[36][29][37] She said they had unprotected sex; this was shortly after Peel discussed contracting a sexually transmitted disease.[36] The relationship resulted in a "traumatic" abortion.[33][36] She stated that, "looking back, it was terribly wrong and I was perhaps manipulated."[36]

Victims often to blame themsleves as well.  

Edited by Barry Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Nal said:

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.

I used to really like him until when he died in 2004 and various journalists pointed out his past...

Back in 2004 the wider media circle and industry where still ignoring the issue of what was going on within in it (still is today to some level - Tim Westwood)...  Remember BBC Radio 1 being all boo hoo about it and the festival renaming the tent etc.  I found it then all a bit incredible.   Looking back - it was scandalous really.

Edited by Barry Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

I used to really like him until when he died in 2004 and various journalists pointed out his past...

Back in 2004 the wider media circle and industry where still ignoring the issue...  Remember BBC Radio 1 being all boo hoo about it and the festival renaming the tent etc.  I found it then all a bit incredible.   Looking back - it was scandalous really.

Was boo hooed on here as far back as 2012

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seen a fb post about this (all over tiktok too), amount of people trying to justify John Peel on FB was vile. Long overdue a name change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Only because you probably aren't looking for it...

Victims often to blame themsleves as well.  

Look 97% of women experience some sort of sexual assault but men think only a tiny portion of evil men do it. I assure you almost every man on this forum has probably done something at some point that has led to a woman feeling a bit shit about herself.  

I have no problem with the tent being renamed (but would rather it wasn't because the Daily Mail who is probably more responsible for young girls being groped more than John Peel ever was)  and if we are going to hold every person who plays Glastonbury to this standard I'll just say the future's bright, the futures female 😄 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

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. 

But are they the words of a changed man? The times had changed by then, and yet he doesn't strike a regretful tone at all. It's deeply creepy and I think part of the problem when actions that clearly aren't as overt as Saville etc are brushed away for being lesser offences. If the argument is that he was a changed man I don't buy it on this occasion.

For a festival like Glastonbury it seems very ill-judged not to change it.

Lovely to nickname your wife "pig" too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, balthazarstarbuck said:

Get the New York Brass Band in there.

They turn up everywhere else.

We're at brass band saturation point. Can't move for bloody trombones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Look 97% of women experience some sort of sexual assault but men think only a tiny portion of evil men do it. I assure you almost every man on this forum has probably done something at some point that has led to a woman feeling a bit shit about herself.  

I have no problem with the tent being renamed (but would rather it wasn't because the Daily Mail who is probably more responsible for young girls being groped more than John Peel ever was)  and if we are going to hold every person who plays Glastonbury to this standard I'll just say the future's bright, the futures female 😄 

Is it really 97% ?   Where did you get that number ?  That feels incredibly high...

But I accept the premises of the post that its far more wide spread and I think if we all gave it some though there is stuff we would do differently.  I know I would...    But there is a long gap between the stuff I regret and the stuff Peel has admitted to doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Ugh. Why are some people making out that having sex with a 13 year old was somehow OK "back then".

Hate it when the argument goes in this direction.

I haven't seen anyone saying it was OK, but attitudes were different, and it wouldn't have been condemned in the same way it would be today, the context of the day is important when evaluating what happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Neil said:

I haven't seen anyone saying it was OK, but attitudes were different, and it wouldn't have been condemned in the same way it would be today, the context of the day is important when evaluating what happened. 

Agreed, but the context of modern day is equally important in deciding how they're celebrated today.

Should all mention of him be stripped out and never spoken of again? Nope. But equally is it time that a stage named after him at a place like Glastonbury is re-evaluated? Yeah, probably.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Is it really 97% ?   Where did you get that number ?  That feels incredibly high...

But I accept the premises of the post that its far more wide spread and I think if we all gave it some though there is stuff we would do differently.  I know I would...    But there is a long gap between the stuff I regret and the stuff Peel has admitted to doing.

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/97-of-women-in-the-uk/105940/ 

 

I'll be honest I think the 3% are in denial. I think every single woman in their lifetime would have multiple stories of assault and harassment. Not all are as serious as rape but unwanted sexual attention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gigpusher said:

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/97-of-women-in-the-uk/105940/ 

 

I'll be honest I think the 3% are in denial. I think every single woman in their lifetime would have multiple stories of assault and harassment. Not all are as serious as rape but unwanted sexual attention. 

okay that makes more sense...  There is obviously a different between assault and harassment.  I can well accept that figure for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Quark said:

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.

The difference for me is whether there's a link between what they're being celebrated for and what their crime was. In Colston's case, he was being celebrated for things he would never have been able to do without slavery. The two are linked - in celebrating Colston's successes you unavoidably end up celebrating the "benefits" of slavery. 

Whereas with Peel, the two things aren't linked. He did great things for music, and also some morally very wrong things. But there's no stories of him, for example, sleeping with underage girls and then using his position to champion their music.

I'd still rename the tent, personally - this isn't a defence of Peel, just why I think the two are quite different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

The difference for me is whether there's a link between what they're being celebrated for and what their crime was. In Colston's case, he was being celebrated for things he would never have been able to do without slavery. The two are linked - in celebrating Colston's successes you unavoidably end up celebrating the "benefits" of slavery. 

Whereas with Peel, the two things aren't linked. He did great things for music, and also some morally very wrong things. But there's no stories of him, for example, sleeping with underage girls and then using his position to champion their music.

I'd still rename the tent, personally - this isn't a defence of Peel, just why I think the two are quite different things.

A reasonable point. What are you doing on the internet? 😄

That is fair, but it was the best comparison I could think of.

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
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.



×
×
  • Create New...