First up, Charlie shouldn't have to defend himself. To me its clear he is just referencing an age that most of us don't know of with any personal experience. CC does have experience and his input is a valid contribution.
It appears, from the evidence I've seen, that John Peel liked young girls and he didn't have enough of a conscience to be bothered to check if he was acting in the law. I don't mean his marriage to a 15 year old. That, presumably, was legal where it took place.
But he liked little girls. That 'everyone was doing it' is no excuse. That he was a superstar DJ to Indie kids should have no effect on A) judging him as a sex offender and B) his art.
In short, yes he was a sex offender. Yes, he gave a lot of new music a chance it would never otherwise have had.
Art and personal life can be, and generally are, mutually exclusive. James Brown's records aren't suddenly shit because you find out he had loose morals.
I honestly don't see how, after reading Peel's own words as proivided by PT, anyone can defend him as not being a sex offender. I don't care how 'mature' you think a 13 year old might be, the law, and common sense, argues that an underage person is not adult mature enough to make responsible decisions about such things.
My sister was a victim of a sex offender at 13. This was in 1973. The local lollipop man, the man who helped schoolkids cross the road, attacked her on her own in a deserted place. It went to court and my sister had to do all the things rape victims have to do - defend her actions. It was like she was on trial, not him.
The result? Many people in our town stopped talking to my family. The lollipop man was fined. Yes, fined. A desultory amount too, not that any amount of fine would have been appropriate. My sister, though vindicated by a court, was made to feel like the one in the wrong in our poxy small-minded town.
Sooooooooo....next time anyone thinks about 'explaining' sex offences from the 'olden days', seeing it in "context", think on that. Because it is precisely that attitude of "everyone was at it, it was just a bit of fun, just what 'they' did" that led to my sister having a ruined adolescence.
Further reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/oct/07/does-pop-encourage-under-age-sex
Older men, young girls: a common theme of 70s pop – but still wrong
So: are we projecting modern attitudes back into a very different time? Yes, we are. Are we right to do so? Yes, we are. Many things once considered "normal" – ranging from institutional racism and legal suppression of homosexuality to drinking and driving or smoking in public places – are now proscribed, and we are, both as a culture and as individuals, better for it.
And God only knows how often I agree with the odious Charles Shaar Murray. But he's right about this.
PS Little factoid for you. At the time of Shakespeare, the age of consent in this country was 10.
yoooz alright knock (for a commie)
