Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, clarkete said:

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

Admittedly this is from Wikipedia and I haven't checked the citation

 In an interview with The Sunday Correspondent in 1989, Peel stated, "Girls used to queue up outside. By and large not usually for shagging. Oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember. [...] One of my, er, regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older." Peel joked that he "didn't ask for ID"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, clarkete said:

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

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...

Edited by Barry Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

stripping away all the moral relativism, whataboutery... it's pretty cut and dry that someone on record saying that stuff probably shouldn't have a tent named after them in 2022. kindof disappointing the festival is probably gonna have to be dragged to come to this conclusion - a weird blind spot.

Edited by vertigocarbon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And actually I sympathise with people who would rather not see the festival's hand being forced by a completely hypocritical shitrag like the DM, but they should have sorted this a while ago. None of this is new, and the longer it's dragged on the less chance there is to sort it on their own terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

And actually I sympathise with people who would rather not see the festival's hand being forced by a completely hypocritical shitrag like the DM, but they should have sorted this a while ago. None of this is new, and the longer it's dragged on the less chance there is to sort it on their own terms.

Problem for the festival is all this was being re-reported in 2004 when they named the tent after his death...  None of its been a secret...  Sorting it out on their own terms - we are way beyond that sadly.

Edited by Barry Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think if the festival do make a change, they won't make a fuss about it.

The lineup/map will come out next year and The John Peel Stage will no longer exist, but there will be a new stage with a new name... Probably with the exact same tent in the exact same spot.

They won't acknowledge the fact that the JP no longer exists, but they will celebrate this new stage instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, K2SO said:

Personally, I think if the festival do make a change, they won't make a fuss about it.

The lineup/map will come out next year and The John Peel Stage will no longer exist, but there will be a new stage with a new name... Probably with the exact same tent in the exact same spot.

They won't acknowledge the fact that the JP no longer exists, but they will celebrate this new stage instead.

Agreed. would be good to get a bigger tent though or one of those coachella type ones that are like hangers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Admittedly this is from Wikipedia and I haven't checked the citation

 In an interview with The Sunday Correspondent in 1989, Peel stated, "Girls used to queue up outside. By and large not usually for shagging. Oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember. [...] One of my, er, regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older." Peel joked that he "didn't ask for ID"

That's the interview I linked to earlier. 

Your phrasing "having sex with" made it seem like you were suggesting he had sexual intercourse with and I haven't seen that claimed anywhere. 

If you read that earlier interview it seems like he's interviewed at home and pretty open about what's happened in his life, including this and that he didn't ask questions of girls or women - as was too often the way then. indeed that was the way for many decades later as we've heard from later incidents and some of us will remember from teenage girls in our schools or towns, who saw older blokes - even teachers in some extraordinary cases with nothing done. 

It's a tawdry situation, complicated by no action being taken historically and the person not being in a position to answer any charges - is his openness in those interviews the distinction compared to Bowie and others who had claims against them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, clarkete said:

That's the interview I linked to earlier. 

Your phrasing "having sex with" made it seem like you were suggesting he had sexual intercourse with and I haven't seen that claimed anywhere. 

If you read that earlier interview it seems like he's interviewed at home and pretty open about what's happened in his life, including this and that he didn't ask questions of girls or women - as was too often the way then. indeed that was the way for many decades later as we've heard from later incidents and some of us will remember from teenage girls in our schools or towns, who saw older blokes - even teachers in some extraordinary cases with nothing done. 

It's a tawdry situation, complicated by no action being taken historically and the person not being in a position to answer any charges - is his openness in those interviews the distinction compared to Bowie and others who had claims against them? 

I really hate this post...  Its a shit mix of victim blaming and the standard it was a different time defence...  bit toxic really.

Teenagers need protecting from themsleves by having adults around them who won't fuck them to be frank...  The responsibility lies with the adult...  Peel needed to question why he had young girls queuing at the door and telling them to go home not putting his face in their crotch...  He probably should of checked their ids as well... 

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

15 minutes ago, clarkete said:

That's the interview I linked to earlier. 

Your phrasing "having sex with" made it seem like you were suggesting he had sexual intercourse with and I haven't seen that claimed anywhere. 

If you read that earlier interview it seems like he's interviewed at home and pretty open about what's happened in his life, including this and that he didn't ask questions of girls or women - as was too often the way then. indeed that was the way for many decades later as we've heard from later incidents and some of us will remember from teenage girls in our schools or towns, who saw older blokes - even teachers in some extraordinary cases with nothing done. 

It's a tawdry situation, complicated by no action being taken historically and the person not being in a position to answer any charges - is his openness in those interviews the distinction compared to Bowie and others who had claims against them? 

Sorry but my phrasing being taken out of context by you does not equate to me "suggesting" anything other than what I was saying.

"She wasn't quite 13"

"They didn't have sexual INTERCOURSE"

What is happening on this thread? Some people really need to pause before they post. Good god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I really hate this post...  Its a shit mix of victim blaming and the standard it was a different time defence...  bit toxic really.

Teenagers need protecting from themsleves by having adults around them who won't fuck them to be frank...  The responsibility lies with the adult...  Peel needed to question why he had young girls queuing at the door and telling them to go home not putting his face in their crotch...  He probably should of checked their ids as well... 

Exactly.

Morality is morality. Not every adult was having sex (and yes, that includes what he has himself described, stop being pedantic) with CHILDREN in those years. 

As a previous poster has said, people didn't just accept that it was right, they were still adults having sex with children and people who knew didn't just shrug it off, plenty were appalled and considered the perpetrators very very dodgy people, but the power structures in place allowed it to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what's going on in some of your heads.  Full sex or otherwise, 13 or 16, consensual or not - how would you feel if it was your daughter? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 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....

Why are you doing this?

You're saying other people are reading too much into things and then claiming people are being called rape apologists, when they're not? Daft.

We are having a discussion about it, and some people take issue with that being derailed by pedantic comments about ages and what constitutes sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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....

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.

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

I'm not quite sure what's going on in some of your heads.  Full sex or otherwise, 13 or 16, consensual or not - how would you feel if it was your daughter? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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...