Leo
Well-known member
my guess: lawyers.
my guess: lawyers.
Sectionfive
bandwagon house
May 94
http://soundcloud.com/craicpipe/peel
Next show opened with Remarc
Shame the beeb cant put them up. Even these days considering someone with bittorrent and a soundcloud account has the resources.
http://soundcloud.com/craicpipe/peel
Next show opened with Remarc
Shame the beeb cant put them up. Even these days considering someone with bittorrent and a soundcloud account has the resources.
sufi
lala
well unfortunately this was kind of obvious too in retrospect http://louderthanwar.com/one-half-rhinoceroses-a-defence-john-peel-daily-mail-and-others/
cf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill
cf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill
connect_icut
Well-known member
So basically, the Daily Mail is trying to besmirch Peel by repeating stuff he was 100% upfront about in his autobiography? Pathetic!
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
That he was upfront about them doesn't make those things OK though, of course. :slanted:
Last edited:
connect_icut
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure he was upfront about the fact that his behaviour was pretty reprehensible. But it should be clear that the two cases aren't comparable. Peel did some gross and idiotic stuff when he was young (surprise!) He wasn't a sexual predator.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
But we should also be clear that contrition (or how much we admire him as a DJ, for that matter) doesn't absolve him of his behaviour.
This case is not comparable to Savile, if that's what we're saying, sure I agree absolutely with that. But I don't think having sex with minors (a 13 year old because 'she looked older'? ffs) when you're well into your 20s (I may have got this wrong btw, but that's the impression I got from the links) can't be rationalised away by admitting it's gross and idiotic.
Whether or not he could be described as a 'sexual predator' is not the issue either. Lots of men who would never be fitted with that tag do things that shouldn't be tolerated and which are abusive. *
NB The problem with the Julie Burchill article, obv, is that it conflates lots of different reasons why she hated John Peel, and parts of it fail to make sense.
* This isn't a direct connection as no-one is accusing Peel of rape (unlike Savile), but the point made me think of this Laurie Penny article - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ays-but-the-reality-is-different-8079403.html , which I think is both really chilling and really good, and worth reading regardless of what you think of her other journalism (I wasn't a fan, fwiw, though I couldn't tell you what article made me reach that decision, as looking at some of her other stuff now, lots of it is pretty good)
This case is not comparable to Savile, if that's what we're saying, sure I agree absolutely with that. But I don't think having sex with minors (a 13 year old because 'she looked older'? ffs) when you're well into your 20s (I may have got this wrong btw, but that's the impression I got from the links) can't be rationalised away by admitting it's gross and idiotic.
Whether or not he could be described as a 'sexual predator' is not the issue either. Lots of men who would never be fitted with that tag do things that shouldn't be tolerated and which are abusive. *
NB The problem with the Julie Burchill article, obv, is that it conflates lots of different reasons why she hated John Peel, and parts of it fail to make sense.
* This isn't a direct connection as no-one is accusing Peel of rape (unlike Savile), but the point made me think of this Laurie Penny article - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ays-but-the-reality-is-different-8079403.html , which I think is both really chilling and really good, and worth reading regardless of what you think of her other journalism (I wasn't a fan, fwiw, though I couldn't tell you what article made me reach that decision, as looking at some of her other stuff now, lots of it is pretty good)
Last edited:
connect_icut
Well-known member
I totally agree but I don't think he ever tried to rationalise it, he just admitted that it happened. The behaviour was unforgivable but I don't think he ever asked for forgiveness. He just didn't lie about it or try to cover it up.
I think the relationship WAS abusive, BTW - I remember reading that she used to beat him up, although maybe I'm getting it mixed up with another relationship he had in his younger days.
Weird defending Peel like this when I became so anti Pete Christopherson when he moved to Bangkok for the boys. Again, the cases aren't really comparable.
Oh and I just noticed that - ironically enough - the "Sgt Pepper New My Father" compilation that Childline put out in the 80s has a quote from Peel on the back.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Ah, I meant abusive in terms of him sleeping with underage girls. (Obviously there could also be other physical abuse going on)
All I think is important is to separate disclaimers about it 'being a different time' or it being 'a mistake he made in his younger days', etc, from the reality of how Peel acted sexually, which wasn't OK, full stop. Which isn't to say that he's in the same category as Christopherson or Savile or whoever.
All I think is important is to separate disclaimers about it 'being a different time' or it being 'a mistake he made in his younger days', etc, from the reality of how Peel acted sexually, which wasn't OK, full stop. Which isn't to say that he's in the same category as Christopherson or Savile or whoever.
CrowleyHead
Well-known member
Well, Christopherson was totally unrepentant about it, which is the big difference right here. I mean, of course he would be, as his personality dictates, but still. Peel is at least aware of how his situation results in some very unpleasant perceptions of him, let alone if his own morals were alerted to his predicament.
four_five_one
Infinition
Hmm... I lived in Bangkok at roughly the same time as 'Sleazy' and I wonder if there isn't some confusion over his reference to 'boys'. Because if he used that term, most people familiar with Thailand would assume he was referring to young male prostitutes aged between 18 - 25 (i.e. 'bar boys' 'bar girls' etc). Now certainly it may be distasteful and morally questionable in itself to move to a developing country and pay young men - mostly from impoverished backgrounds - for sex, but surely it's not the moral equivalent of sleeping with a 13 year old girl, and especially not comparable to the abhorrent actions of Saville/Glitter etc. Of course, I haven't read all his interviews etc, but I do note in this interview (http://thequietus.com/articles/04504-sleazy-interview-coil-throbbing-gristle) he makes it clear he's talking about 'boys' aged 18 and over.
Of course, I have no idea what he was doing in private. But if he was doing anything untoward, I doubt he'd have lasted long if he'd been open about it as is suggested he was here. NGOs and police have done a lot of good work on child prostitution in the last twenty years. There must be cases where rich people buy their way out of charges, but in general it's taken very seriously. And though I didn't know him personally, I knew some of the arty-music crowd he mixed with and they certainly wouldn't have tolerated it, and neither would the vast majority of Thais. Bangkok really isn't somewhere where 'anything goes' anymore (if it ever was - but certainly less now than 20 - 30 years ago anyway)... that's why I find it unlikely he was sleeping with underaged boys, and far more unlikely than that is that he could do it openly and get away with it.
Last edited:
Local Authority
bitch city
It sound like a euphemism for younger boys. You don't need to travel to Thailand just to pick up young adult males.
Local Authority
bitch city
Even then, if they weren't underage, travelling to another country to exploit impoverished people for sex is still morally reprehensible. In some ways worse than any exploits made over here because it oppresses people and is one of the many factors why the country finds it difficult to develop.
SecondLine
Well-known member
To backtrack a bit...are y'all making the point that because Peel was open about his crimes and 'aware of how his situation results in some very unpleasant perceptions of him', he is somehow no longer guilty?
glad we've got that sorted - you can fuck kids as long as you're self-aware while doing it
glad we've got that sorted - you can fuck kids as long as you're self-aware while doing it
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
my point too - agreed completely.
On another note - that Lostprophets story, words fail. I thought I'd misread when I saw what the charge actually was.
On another note - that Lostprophets story, words fail. I thought I'd misread when I saw what the charge actually was.
Last edited:
Local Authority
bitch city
A lot of this stuff is morally ambiguous though.
Other than the Lostprophets case.
Other than the Lostprophets case.
four_five_one
Infinition
You don't need to but I'd imagine it's not easy for a man living in Europe to still attract twentysomethings in his fifties. Whereas in Thailand you can have as much 'fun' as you want as long as you can pay their fee - which is relatively cheap for a European. I would guess a male (or female) prostitute would cost you about £40 for a night in BKK, in London you could be talking about £200 or more. The other attraction is you can walk into a bar and take your pick in BKK, whilst in London I'd assume you'd look online or prowl the streets. Both are more difficult and much riskier. As I say, whether this sort of sex tourism is morally wrong* is open to question, but in the end they are two adults so I can't see how it could be compared to the sort of abuse perpetrated by some of the other names mentioned here.
But there are plenty of good reasons to live in Bangkok not related to sex! Not sure why everyone is convinced that was his main reason for moving there. Maybe it was, but it shouldn't be automatically assumed.
*In most cases I'd consider it more pitiful and distasteful rather than necessarily exploitative and wrong, but it's a complex issue.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Most activity designated as criminal is, and a lot of it is way more morally ambiguous than sleeping with underage girls.
Anyways, if you make an exception for John Peel, however it's framed, then you have to make an exception for everyone else who does it, and I don't think anyone here would be comfortable taking that line, tbh.
Local Authority
bitch city
The older they get the more ambiguous it becomes.
four_five_one
Infinition
Well - I think it's a tricky issue. I don't know if it does 'oppress' people. I've only been to 'go go bars' (prostitute pick-up bars) in Thailand a handful of times - out of curiosity, rather than to partake - but I know a lot more through reading and talking to people. And it seems to me that the vast majority of Thai prostitutes who work in the market aimed at Westerners do it out of choice, because they can make far more money than they otherwise could. You're basically talking about people that have the skills to either help on the family farm, work as a cashier in Tesco or something like that. But working as a prostitute for a few years allows them to send a lot of money back to the countryside to help their family, buy a house, buy a car and that sort of thing. However, of course if they reach the age of 35 and haven't saved enough money or found anyone to marry, it can be bad for them because they haven't learned any skills nor do they have a work history. And, of course, they're often treated with contempt by members of 'decent society'. There's also a high incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse (particularly methamphetamine). I strongly believe legalisation would help with some of these issues. There are prostitutes that have unionised and set up their own bar - that's a huge step forward. Whereas I don't think outright condemnation helps anyone. And it is a moral fantasy when you're buying t-shirts that have been made in sweatshops for people working for a couple of dollars a day in conditions of which practically amount to forced labour.
I'm mainly talking about female prostitutes above. For male prostitutes, apparently most don't do it for very long and wouldn't consider themselves 'prostitutes'. I believe it has a much higher turnover rate. Many of those who work in gay go-go bars are Thai boxing (Muay Thai) hopefuls who need money to support fledgling careers.
Now of course I'd rather people earned good money from jobs that didn't involve having sex with strangers (unless they really wanted to do that, of course, then I'd have no problem with it). And it's happening. The incidence of outright poverty in Thailand is much lower than it was a decade ago, and getting lower all the time. Real wages are rising and the government just introduced a substantially higher minimum wage. So the opportunity cost for becoming a prostitute is getting higher all the time. I believe this is why 50 yr old white guys (and other sex toursts, huge market for Japanese/Chinese sex tourists too, but they tend to pay more anyway) are complaining and thinking of moving to other, cheaper, sex tourism destinations as the price in Thailand keeps getting ever steeper. Truly tragic.
When I first lived in Thailand I thought prostitution was something to be condemned but I've come to a more nuanced view through experience of talking to those involved. It's still - and always will be - unsavoury in many respects, but I'd shy away from moral outrage, at least so far as it involves two consenting adults, because I don't think it does anyone any good. Anyway, apologies for turning the Peel thread into a thread about Thai prostitution.
Last edited: