Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

6 minutes 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.

I don't agree...

I think there is a link when someone uses their fame and position to enable the abuse...

Edited by Barry Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, K2SO said:

Fuck The Daily Mail

However, I do agree that it should be changed. There are plenty of other people it could be named after... Michael Eavis?

Or even for a similar reason to why it was named after John Peel, someone who pioneered new music. Maybe somebody like Steve Lamaq?

Honestly, the Steve Lamaq (or Lauren Laverne?) tent really isn't a bad shout. I agree it should be renamed. The festival should run a poll of potential options and let the fans vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think attitudes have changed in the last couple off decades and it is time to change the name and I say that as someone who admired John Peel professionally.

Then again The Who have played twice since then and Aerosmith nearly did.  If you are to draw a line (Aerosmith pun for you all there) you have to do it consistently and not book them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes 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. 

So therefore it's important that he wasn't repentant about it even into the early 00s, no? Because I'm confident in saying that having sex with children would have been condemned at that point.

We are talking about whether the tent should be renamed now, so today's context IS important, moreso than the context of the past because of everything that has happened between now and then. We can't burden the progress people are trying to make by continuously saying "but it was alright back then" when plenty of people won't have felt it was OK.

Yeah minstrel shows were fine back then, no one minded. Not true.

Yeah slavery was just accepted as the norm back then, no one minded. Not true.

It can't be excused any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jparx said:

Honestly, the Steve Lamaq (or Lauren Laverne?) tent really isn't a bad shout. I agree it should be renamed. The festival should run a poll of potential options and let the fans vote.

Tenty McTentface will win...

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iwalker said:

I think attitudes have changed in the last couple off decades and it is time to change the name and I say that as someone who admired John Peel professionally.

Then again The Who have played twice since then and Aerosmith nearly did.  If you are to draw a line (Aerosmith pun for you all there) you have to do it consistently and not book them again.

That is a separate conversation about separating art from the artist.

Naming a tent after someone is very different to booking a band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

So therefore it's important that he wasn't repentant about it even into the early 00s, no? Because I'm confident in saying that having sex with children would have been condemned at that point.

Yup, but I also think that's who he was: utterly frank about everything. By 2004, most others had realised that it was pretty important not to mention that stuff any more. Hell, most of them knew well enough to not mention it at the time. Again, doesn't excuse it, but if someone thinks for a minute that the likes of the Stones or any rockstars who have talked openly about sleeping with groupies never slept with 15-year olds then they're pretty naive.

If Peel were alive and this was being used to tear him down I might even use that a defence. But since he's dead we probably don't need a tent named after him. And honest even if there is an afterlife, and he's looking down on what's happening now, I'm pretty sure he'd probably agree!

Edited by DeanoL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, had no idea he was that up front about it all. Gross. That's actually really surprised me, one of those things that I just somehow didn't know about even though I've been in the tent loads over the years, listened to countless Peel sessions etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

So therefore it's important that he wasn't repentant about it even into the early 00s, no? Because I'm confident in saying that having sex with children would have been condemned at that point.

We are talking about whether the tent should be renamed now, so today's context IS important, moreso than the context of the past because of everything that has happened between now and then. We can't burden the progress people are trying to make by continuously saying "but it was alright back then" when plenty of people won't have felt it was OK.

Yeah minstrel shows were fine back then, no one minded. Not true.

Yeah slavery was just accepted as the norm back then, no one minded. Not true.

It can't be excused any more.


The point I was trying to make (admittedly fairly badly when I read it back) is that immoral actions are immoral. What the "but it was accepted back then" argument tends to omit is the fact that these things were always wrong. Everyone didn't just accept that behaviour like this was OK. That's just rewriting history from a privileged position. What about the young girls who would by todays standard be called victims? They weren't called victims back then, so are we saying they weren't? The fact that society put up with it, or the systems in place weren't equipped to, or willingly chose not to challenge these actions as the "norm" does not, in my opinion, relieve the perpetrator of a moral obligation to behave in a certain way, because not everyone was doing it. And people questioning why no one came forward are the same people saying that society was accepting of this behaviour back then - well there's your answer. People like you are probably one of the reasons they don't, because they'll be told it was perfectly normal to grab a young girls bum back then (I've seen this situation and heard this first hand)

And I do believe redemption is completely possible, but there has to be an admission of wrongdoing and that actually it's not OK to hide behind the past & say it was acceptable back then.
John Peel shows no remorse at all, and that's what makes the "times have changed" argument redundant IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yup, but I also think that's who he was: utterly frank about everything. By 2004, most others had realised that it was pretty important not to mention that stuff any more. Hell, most of them knew well enough to not mention it at the time. Again, doesn't excuse it, but if someone thinks for a minute that the likes of the Stones or any rockstars who have talked openly about sleeping with groupies never slept with 15-year olds then they're pretty naive.

If Peel were alive and this was being used to tear him down I might even use that a defence. But since he's dead we probably don't need a tent named after him. And honest even if there is an afterlife, and he's looking down on what's happening now, I'm pretty sure he'd probably agree!

Agreed, but him being frank doesn't excuse his complete lack of remorse, that in itself is really troubling and makes it harder to justify naming a tent after him (or anyone really- it's a slippery slope)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think its a bit weak for people to link what was legal with what was accepted...  Not sure that square circles  - specially within the USA...

My nan always says it was never accepted or thought to be okay...  but they used to refer to people like this as "dirty old men" and people to be avoided...  Attitudes of the police back in the day where not exactly great for anyone who spoke out and media / industry actively defended these people who was often their mates...

Its totally without merit for people to use the different time defence.  Its bollocks.  The abuse and supporters of the abuse was just more institutionalised. 

Edited by Barry Fish
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Agreed, but him being frank doesn't excuse his complete lack of remorse, that in itself is really troubling and makes it harder to justify naming a tent after him (or anyone really- it's a slippery slope)

I'd imagine he didn't show any remorse as he didn't feel any. Which again, isn't a defence but a lot of the time I'm not convinced the remorse people "show" over stuff like this is actually real. His attitude of "yeah, it happened, it was a thing then, I enjoyed it, I didn't think it was wrong and still don't" is refreshingly honest. I do get the impression that if anyone he raped actually came out and said they were taken advantage of while he was alive, he probably would have genuinely felt remorse and expressed as much. But he was never confronted with that.

And I think if you could somehow ask him right now he'd probably still be pretty unrepentant, but happy to say that on reflection, there shouldn't be a tent named after him at Glastonbury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'd imagine he didn't show any remorse as he didn't feel any. Which again, isn't a defence but a lot of the time I'm not convinced the remorse people "show" over stuff like this is actually real. His attitude of "yeah, it happened, it was a thing then, I enjoyed it, I didn't think it was wrong and still don't" is refreshingly honest. I do get the impression that if anyone he raped actually came out and said they were taken advantage of while he was alive, he probably would have genuinely felt remorse and expressed as much. But he was never confronted with that.

And I think if you could somehow ask him right now he'd probably still be pretty unrepentant, but happy to say that on reflection, there shouldn't be a tent named after him at Glastonbury.

Why on earth is it refreshingly honest for someone to say they enjoyed having sex with children and would do it again?

Honestly this conversation is so baffling to me. Why in this day and age is honesty so highly revered - more than the actual content of what is being said? If you're being honest about enjoying doing something appalling, why is the honesty held up as a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Why on earth is it refreshingly honest for someone to say they enjoyed having sex with children and would do it again?

Honestly this conversation is so baffling to me. Why in this day and age is honesty so highly revered - more than the actual content of what is being said? If you're being honest about enjoying doing something appalling, why is the honesty held up as a good thing?

This thread is depressing me now.  People defending the indefensible. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Why on earth is it refreshingly honest for someone to say they enjoyed having sex with children and would do it again?

For a start, can you tell me where he said he'd do it again?

Nor am I revering it, just saying that I genuinely don't believe a lot of the remorse you see in instances like this, I think the only remorse is for the impact it has on their careers. 

Your post read like, if he'd said "sorry, I did it but regret it and to be fair I didn't enjoy it at the time" you'd then be fine with the stage being named after him. 

Edited by DeanoL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

For a start, can you tell me where he said he'd do it again?

Nor am I revering it, just saying that I genuinely don't believe a lot of the remorse you see in instances like this, I think the only remorse is for the impact it has on their careers. 

Your post read like, if he'd said "sorry, I did it but regret it and to be fair I didn't enjoy it at the time" you'd then be fine with the stage being named after him. 

OK fine I misread the post & thought he said he'd do it again.

We can start again then if you like - I believe calling someone "refreshingly honest" for saying they had sex with a child, which was a "thing then", that they enjoyed having sex with a child, that they didn't think having sex with a child was wrong and still don't think having had sex with a child was wrong is very very troubling. 

You can make up nonsense about what my post "read like" but I didn't say that at all. I said I believe in redemption but only there is remorse for previous actions. I never said saying "sorry" would cover it.

And you're the one going on about honesty? Pull the other one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

It's a seedy thing to be pedantic about, but it wasn't sex with a 13 year old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

OK fine I misread the post & thought he said he'd do it again.

We can start again then if you like - I believe calling someone "refreshingly honest" for saying they had sex with a child, which was a "thing then", that they enjoyed having sex with a child, that they didn't think having sex with a child was wrong and still don't think having had sex with a child was wrong is very very troubling. 

You can make up nonsense about what my post "read like" but I didn't say that at all. I said I believe in redemption but only there is remorse for previous actions. I never said saying "sorry" would cover it.

Fair enough. To me the rape in the first place is the "troubling" bit and whether someone afterwards expresses remorse or not, I still don't think they should have a tent at Glastonbury named after them.

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...