• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

Jimmy Savile (aka: paedo speculation megathread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, they split up quite quickly, and she committed suicide, according to wikipedia anyway. I think it's wrong, but it doesn't change the fact he gave airtime to a lot of interesting musicians who otherwise would have remained obscure. I mean, what are we supposed to do with the information?

On the other hand, Saville didn't really contribute much and I don't buy the idea that he invented disco. Maybe he did popularise or pioneer mixing records, but if he didn't do it someone else would have. Peel's contribution to music was much more significant.

what are we to do with the info? I dunno, but Peel's contribution to music has little or no merit or relevance next to the situation of whether he was a paedo or not, surely?

I was mixing up Sheila for Shirely ... apologies

I'm not saying that we should dig him up & stamp on his skull. I'm not saying that he was a filthy sexual predator (a la Savile). I'm just saying that I don't think that's OK, regardless of when it happened, or the "context" & that he was in my eyes & the eyes of the law (even back then) a sex offender.
Honestly, I don't really care about the defaming thing, even if that's what you intended (I accept that you weren't intending that tho). People can defame away and that wouldn't bother me because my experience of him will pretty much stand on it's own if that makes sense, how others view him is inconsequential to me tbh.

I think there is merit in discussing the paedo thing re Peel if people want to to that, he's open to question like anyone should be, but I think that should be away and separate from the whether he was talented or not debate tho, and it's much better to keep them separate .. not sure why knock's trying to integrate them.
 
Last edited:
i do feel uncomfortable at the peely stuff but......it sounds to me as tho it was at a time when there wasn't a big age gap between himself and the girlies.. and the bill wyman stuff nasty.... saville was a perv. end of story. i have more to say but i am tired. had a loooonggggggday
 
what are we to do with the info? I dunno, but Peel's contribution to music has little or no merit next to the situation of whether he was a paedo or not, surely?

I was mixing up Sheila for Shirely ... apologies

I don't see how his sexual deviance (and we don't really know much about it) is relevant to the respect one might have for the fact he played music no-one else was playing. He had taste, I enjoyed listening to his radio one programme. I'm not going to stop liking music he played because I've discovered he had dodgy morals.


<3 yoooz alright knock (for a commie)

Ha, not sure where that came from, I think you're all right too!


marmalade said:
I think there is merit in discussing the paedo thing re Peel if people want to to that, he's open to question like anyone should be, but I think that should be away and separate from the whether he was talented or not debate tho, and it's much better to keep them separate .. not sure why knock's trying to integrate them.

Integrate them? We're only discussing Peel because he's famous for his work in the field of music. There might be a paedophile living at the end of my street, shall we talk about him/her? No, because no-one would know who we're talking about. I'm not trying to integrate different aspects of Peel's life, but we're discussing him, and the reason is that people have a lot of affection for him. So we can talk about the reasons for the affection, no?
 
Last edited:
I don't see how his sexual deviance (and we don't really know much about it) is relevant to the respect one might have for the fact he played music no-one else was playing. He had taste, I enjoyed listening to his radio one programme. I'm not going to stop liking music he played because I've discovered he had dodgy morals.

erm, that's pretty much what I just said in the post above, I thought you seemed to want to do the opposite and integrate the two concepts and do exactly the opposite to what you just said above

So we seem to be agreeing then?

[edit]

I was pretty much of the same opinion when Sam called out Mark E Smith as a wife beater. If we start to discount all our favourite artists on moral or even criminal grounds, we'd be left listening to no-one
 
erm, that's pretty much what I just said in the post above, I thought you seemed to want to do the opposite and integrate the two concepts and do exactly the opposite to what you just said above

So we seem to be agreeing then?

I was never arguing with you, as such! :p

I was at the peek of my nod while posting about him, to be honest! Drugged disclaimer.
 
Just because there was an agreement, doesn't mean there was an argument =D

Why are you trying to argue about Peel while you're nodding, btw? ...
 
I think there is merit in discussing the paedo thing re Peel if people want to to that, he's open to question like anyone should be, but I think that should be away and separate from the whether he was talented or not debate tho, and it's much better to keep them separate .. not sure why knock's trying to integrate them.

Agreed.

I need some weed, my brain clearly isn't functioning correctly here.
 
Aw, you crazy kids!

Nothing dodgy, MM. I'd never personally go near an underage girl and believe defilers of innocence the worst of scum. But if you'd told an intelligent 15 year old California girl who'd hustled a backstage pass to get close to a performer she fancied she was a 'victim' and her conquest a 'pedophile', she'd either laugh at you or slap your face.

That's neither approving, disapproving, pc nor a joke. It's just a statement of reality in those days and probably now as well.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
scrooloose said:
What a fucked up world we live in



i always think this. have done for a long time.. through rotten dotcom in school to ken bigley/the 1st yank dude taliban beheadings ..but my god, about a year ago i saw that video of those eastern bloc psychopaths murdering the drunk tramp guy with a screwdriver.. most disturbing thing i have ever seen. truly evil walks among us all
 
Well I'm glad finally someone (SHM) is speaking sense. I couldn't believe some of the comments I read in this thread last night.
 
yeh, so what if john peel played (some) good music. i feel queased by that...tho it was in his younger days, it doesn't seem like he kept doing it a la gary glitter.... (who also did some good music) thats horrid an age of consent of 10. revolting. i was reading some of the ickery stuff, it does make you think..don't think every person in power is a paedo but there must be a fair few up high. im a bit jumbled up
 
This thread is ridiculous. People taking Cornishman's orginal post about him being a man of integrity seriously? Scrooloose and MM aswell, really? LOL.

The guy was clearly a paedophile before this was confirmed, far too many people saying the same thing for it to be bullshit. There were seeds planted long ago that suggested it from what I've read.

Totally agree with crackhead about Peel aswell, he's pretty much dropped himself in it with some of what he's said. Not to mention whether I'm in the UK or not, no matter what she looked like I wouldn't be marrying a 15 year old. He blatantly likes young girls.
 
hrmn.

I've got a 14 yr old niece I'm in the company of everyday, and have been everyday for the last 5 years, probably longer

I've also got an older 44 year old sister, who, yer, well .. a couple of different scenarios. Not pleasant really. Don't want to elaborate further publicly tbh.

I can't honestly say I have too much of a problem with Peel's past confessions. I don't consider him a predator. I think that's the crux of my concerns within this topic, and I don't consider him to be crossing my lines within this subject matter.

A deviant? most definitely. I'd probably classify myself in the same category, but for different reasons, if push came to shove.

A sex offender? Under the government's terminology? possibly, and I'm okay with that too. I don't really value the government's guidelines in these arena's either, tbph, because I have my own, and that's more relevant to me. The fact that on one day it's okay (16), and yet 2 days before and it's not okay (15) is key to that. That reasoning is okay for technicalities and decision making (for things like voting, where behaviour isn't really much of a factor), but not when it comes to human behaviour and the assessment of. Blanket straight lines are necessary sometimes, I get that, but not always helpful in certain circumstances

Eh, there's a ton of other scattered, and more intricate points to address here but I'm not up for addressing them. These things take lots of time to do proper justice to, and I'm not really able or prepared to give it the time it needs to be typed and communicated in a coherent way that allows for a better chance of shared meaning and understanding (not necessarily 'agreement' just shared understanding of concepts) , so I'm out of any debate for now <3

It basically cruxes on the concept of being a 'predatory' situation, or not, for me I think. maybe a few other things too, but mainly that. I don't think Peel was predatory, and he doesn't appear, in my eyes, to like 'little girls' or pursue them inappropriately.
 
Predatory is not the key for me. Predatory is just a degree of behaviour. Because someone is not predatory does not make them not guilty in my book.

Power is the key. Abuse of power. One occasion, within circumstances, I can forgive and accept. Constant abuse of power and status? I can't forgive that.

Why? Partly, at least, because this is a 'male thing'. Only one sex appears to be abusing this constantly. And that's not a coincidence. And it's not down to some irresistible, uncontrollable, biological urge.

It's about the abuses of a patriarchal society.

And I'm surprised (kind of) to see females being complicit/wishy washy in it.
 
Originally Posted by Mailmonkey
are you fucking joking

I don't think you are, you've made some right dodge posts over the last few days if you don't mind me saying. And you seem to assume that others will share your views, or be too "PC" to admit to sharing them.

That response to Charlie. I only read the bit you've quoted but what Charlie said in the quote seemed to make sense to me. Not that I condone any of these fuckers shagging 15 year olds. I've not followed his other posts over the past few days, but the bit you've quoted I can understand tbh.

Scrooloose for taking Knockando so seriously on post 126.
 
Those underage backstage 'girls' were as emotionally and sexually sophisticated as most 30 year olds.

That bit? I think thats totally wrong. Classic phiddler excuse.

I'm NOT in any way suggesting you are a phiddler Charlie. Far from it. But I think the idea that a 13 year old girl is as emotionally or sexually sophisticated as a 30 year old is way off. And makes any act an abuse of power, whether the girl believes it to be or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top