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

[MikeandSan]

I dont think there is a question that the tent will be renamed now. It would be impossible not to. He was pretty close to admitting rape as a child under 13 can never consent. Strange how this has all just blown up now. It is like it was a revelation just this week.

[vertigocarbon]

4 minutes ago, Kizzie said:

Mandy Smith

Ta - then yeh Bill Wyman absolutely is a wrong-un 

[Beerqueen]

To be honest, when I was a teenager back in the dark ages (late 70s, early 80s), I don't remember anyone asking me my age before I had sex with them.  I think people (men) have much more awareness of their responsibilities now.  In those days, if a girl was keen enough, she was deemed to be old enough.  Which isn't right of course.

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

Have the rolling stones admitted to having oral sex with a 13 year old or other such crimes ?   If so - I am not sure many here would welcome them.  Have they done such a thing or is just a "what if" question ? 

No they haven't - just sort of implied it with that poster and released a song with the lyrics "“I can see that you’re fifteen years old / No I don’t want your ID / You look so restless and you’re so far from home / But it’s no hanging matter / It’s no capital crime." 

They have admitted to shagging 1000s of groupies, and being out of their heads on drugs while doing it. The odds that they didn't, at some point, sleep with someone underage seem miniscule.

Which is the core of what I've been saying all afternoon. We're only able to have this discussion now because Peel outright admitted it all. If he'd kept his mouth shut there'd be enough doubt that no-one would be paying any attention. 

In no way does that absolve him, but I struggle with condemning him more than the ones that will never admit it. That doesn't seem fair. And when I say not fair, I mean we should condemn them all, not that we should let Peel off.

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

  

 

That poster - isn't it saying let the kids fuck each other...  rather than let me fuck the kids ? 

lol - this has to be a new low moment for efestivals 😛 

I dunno - do you think it's saying let the kids rip each other off and slander each other? It's ambiguous just like Stray Cat Blues.

But honestly, if God appeared and told you "You can have a million quid if you answer this question right: have any of the Rolling Stones slept with a underage girl?" what would your answer be?

[stuie]

14 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yeah, but do you think the Stones "checked IDs" of every groupie?

More whataboutery.  Put them all in the bin.

14 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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.

Absolutely. 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But honestly, if God appeared and told you "You can have a million quid if you answer this question right: have any of the Rolling Stones slept with a underage girl?" what would your answer be?

Probably be "You're really not what I expected, God."

[vertigocarbon]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I dunno - do you think it's saying let the kids rip each other off and slander each other? It's ambiguous just like Stray Cat Blues.

But honestly, if God appeared and told you "You can have a million quid if you answer this question right: have any of the Rolling Stones slept with a underage girl?" what would your answer be?

i am a big advocate that in these circumstances (i.e. outside a court of law where they can restrict your freedom) beyond reasonable doubt is too high of a bar... but I think "C'monnn they must have - look at them" is slighly too low 😅

[DeanoL]

6 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I honestly don't know enough about them but going off everything you have posted I would side with - probably...

It's any of these bands that talk about drugs and groupies and stuff. Like, I don't understand how you can have that scenario and them not end up sleeping with someone underage. 1000s of girls, all throwing themselves at the band willingly, a band with their judgement and perception damaged by drugs... I dunno unless Keith Richards was just a really big fan of MILFs so just avoided anyone that looked in their 20s by default - or if there was a roadie on the tour with a conscious and actually was checking IDs before letting them up (not that that even helps if it was a 16+ show and you needed ID to get in, the fakes come out).

I genuinely think anyone that was involved heavily in that culture will have slept with underage girls. The Stones were just an example, and I think Peel's matter of fact description of what was going on is very true and it wasn't just him. But what we take from it instead of "wow, groupie culture was fucked up and not okay" is "wow, Peel was fucked up and not okay".

[tarw]

4 hours ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

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

I accept your point but you do have to look at things in the context of the times. 
At around that time I would drive to the next Town every Friday with 4 or 5 pints inside me. Then drive back with another 4 down. I’m not proud of it but it was generally accepted as ok back then

[maelzoid]

8 minutes ago, stuie said:

Put them all in the bin.

But what does this mean?

Sure, lets not name festival tents after them, but are you advocating 'cancelling' them completely, prison sentences...? Should we condemn those that still go to Stones gigs, who listen to Michael Jackson? 

[Neil]

20 minutes ago, MikeandSan said:

I dont think there is a question that the tent will be renamed now. It would be impossible not to. He was pretty close to admitting rape as a child under 13 can never consent. Strange how this has all just blown up now. It is like it was a revelation just this week.

this convo has been round before, without the tent being renamed.

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, vertigocarbon said:

i am a big advocate that in these circumstances (i.e. outside a court of law where they can restrict your freedom) beyond reasonable doubt is too high of a bar... but I think "C'monnn they must have - look at them" is slighly too low 😅

I get you, but think about it. They openly admit to shagging loads of groupies and being off their heads while doing so. What systems do you think they had in place to ensure they didn't sleep with 15-year-olds? Because unless they were proactively doing something to avoid that, balance of probabilities is that some of those girls will be teenagers.

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, tarw said:

I accept your point but you do have to look at things in the context of the times. 
At around that time I would drive to the next Town every Friday with 4 or 5 pints inside me. Then drive back with another 4 down. I’m not proud of it but it was generally accepted as ok back then

yep, attitudes to drink driving have changed hugely over our lifetimes. 

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

But what does this mean?

Sure, lets not name festival tents after them, but are you advocating 'cancelling' them completely, prison sentences...? Should we condemn those that still go to Stones gigs, who listen to Michael Jackson? 

Don't book them for festivals that believe themselves progressive. To be fair, I don't think they would get booked now with Emily's influence.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I am happy to go with declaring Peel an awful bastard and not booking c**ts like the Stones as well.  But I have to declare I have never liked the Stones anyway. 

say goodbye to ledzep, and plenty of others too.

[Alvoram]

Probably already been said, not reading 4 pages of backdated posts... But the change emailer has picked this up now, had an email earlier about it...

[Nobby's Old Boots]

4 minutes ago, tarw said:

I accept your point but you do have to look at things in the context of the times. 
At around that time I would drive to the next Town every Friday with 4 or 5 pints inside me. Then drive back with another 4 down. I’m not proud of it but it was generally accepted as ok back then

Right, and if you were the most influential DJ of your generation who did a high profile interview where you admitted to that, and showed no remorse (although of course you already have in that post) and Glastonbury decided to name the cider bus after you, it probably wouldn't be a great idea. 

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, tarw said:

I accept your point but you do have to look at things in the context of the times. 
At around that time I would drive to the next Town every Friday with 4 or 5 pints inside me. Then drive back with another 4 down. I’m not proud of it but it was generally accepted as ok back then

But to be clear, there was no legal limit on drink driving until 1967. It was just illegal if you were "impaired".

The age of consent was still 16 throughout the 60s.

[vertigocarbon]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I get you, but think about it. They openly admit to shagging loads of groupies and being off their heads while doing so. What systems do you think they had in place to ensure they didn't sleep with 15-year-olds? Because unless they were proactively doing something to avoid that, balance of probabilities is that some of those girls will be teenagers.

I'm not really sure what you want the conclusion to this to be - other than yeh, we should have a bit of introspection about venerating these people and the culture they were part of. I personally wouldn't have a problem if people started to question whether we should give these people our money and adulation.

But it's also just a massive bit of whataboutery

[K2SO]

I love The Rolling Stones as musicians, but as people there's no way they're not dodgy as fuck from all different sorts of moral and legal standpoints (except Charlie Watts, I've never heard anyone say anything bad about him) and I think this brings around the debate of separating the art from the artist, or in John Peel's case, the man from his work... I feel like sometimes you HAVE to do that. Even in the worst of cases such as Jimmy Saville. As disgusting as it is to think about him, but there's a lot of people who would have died had he not worked to build hospitals, etc. Possibly more people would have died than people he hurt.

I'm rambling a bit, but I think it's fine to celebrate The Rolling Stones as musicians, John Peel as a pioneer of new bands, etc... But acknowledge that they're shit people and the people's name's shouldn't be celebrated.

Anyway, if you had any limgering doubts about how dodgy The Stones are, you've never heard this one;

 

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, vertigocarbon said:

But it's also just a massive bit of whataboutery

It's only whataboutery if I'm using it to defend Peel, which, as I've said in every single post I've made and you still don't seem to get: I'm not. And no-one really is. We all agree the should re-name the tent, so yeah, we're saying "what about?" other things as there's no real discussion to be had on the Peel front. And discussion is the entire point of a discussion forum.

What did you want this thread to be? Just everyone posting "yes" ?

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Would it be so bad to clear the decks ?   New music is more fun and relevant to contemporary arts festival anyway...  Clues in the name...

clearing the decks doesn't have to be about dragging stuff up from the distant past (that wouldn't necessarily happen the same today), any underage women, have the right to go legal if they feel the need to, and i think its best dealt with that way if it needs dealing with the omen involved are the best ones to decide if it needs dealing with.

[K2SO]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

Could you imagine listening to that with your kids walking around ffs ? lol

Not sure whats worse - when Rolf played Glasto or when the stones did 😛 

I know, it's mental. The worst thing is that I used to listen to it without clocking the lyrics and loved the song. Now I get a weird feeling of disgust whilst wanting to sing along whenever I hear it

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

Well with Peel its clear cut for me...

You have a point with bands where its only rumours... 

same as with peel, many have condemned themselves with their own words, often in biographies.