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

[DeanoL]

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.

[Nobby's Old Boots]

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?

[K2SO]

I've got it..... The Monorail Tent.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

Are attitudes different?

 

[steviewevie]

just name it after the latest sponser.

[Poorside.2]

The Teenage Kicks stage? 

 

No?

OK then.

[stuie]

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. 

 

[DeanoL]

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 July 5, 2022 by DeanoL

[Nobby's Old Boots]

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.

 

[clarkete]

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. 

[DeanoL]

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.

[Nobby's Old Boots]

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"

[Nobby's Old Boots]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Fair enough. To me the rape in the first place is the "troubling" bit

To be frank... obviously. 

[vertigocarbon]

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 July 5, 2022 by vertigocarbon

[Nobby's Old Boots]

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.

[K2SO]

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.

[gfa]

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

[clarkete]

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? 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

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.

[Nobby's Old Boots]

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.

[stuie]

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? 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

1 minute 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? 

Honestly, its mind blowing.

[DeanoL]

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....

[Nobby's Old Boots]

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.

[gfa]

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?