Options
ridiculous new Daily Mail article on John Peel
whatever54
Posts: 6,456 Forum Member
✭
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216453/John-Peel-got-pregnant-I-15-Woman-claims-month-affair-DJ.html
so you get to the end of the article and discover this woman contacted him years later not to complain but to ask him to open her new bar in Croydon, I mean seriously:rolleyes:
so you get to the end of the article and discover this woman contacted him years later not to complain but to ask him to open her new bar in Croydon, I mean seriously:rolleyes:
0
Comments
Speak for yourself.
I'm entirely unsurprised by the usual horsesh*t-mongering of a paper I wouldn't wipe my backside with.
ain't that the truth, I thought John Peels response was pretty funny really:o
what a random letter to write, the first bit fine but did she seriously think he would go to her bar opening and what take his wife and kids along :rolleyes:
that is true and it annoys me all these others jumping on the bandwagon and detracting from true victims. The next thing we'll have a 15 year old saying she slept with a member of The Rolling Stones/Beatles in the 70s:rolleyes:
No idea what will happen in all this and what's true but my sympathy lies with the victims, not groupies trying to cash in on current situation
Or is that just the Daily Fail/Wail off on one it's ridiculous self righteous crusades again?
Nothing like some analogical context.
There is another thread on showbiz that is naming them using the worst code ever.
Some of the things being said about people who are likely totally innocent is dreadful.
Its like washerwomen gossiping.
There have been TV shows and articles where women who worked with BH were quite candid, but they were all over the age of consent and they were willing, for one reason or another.
I think I've heard you say this before, I have never read it but remember my friend did at GCSE as she was in the more clever class:o
anyway I just read about it on Wiki and still don't get it (they put me in the right english group:o)
what's the gist, morals etc I think it is probably to do with lies perpetuating more lies and trouble but not sure
Spot on. They totally seem unable to differentiate between 15 year old willing participants passing themselves off as older, and victims of abuse who had no say in what happened to them.
As I have said before, in the 1970s a lot of 15 year olds were working in shops, offices and factories and were quite worldly. For all the information that teenagers have now with the internet etc., I actually think that we were more 'out there' mainly because we were out working.
I don't think the Savile stuff is hysteria. Though we are fast going down the path of a modern day witch hunt.
While Savile was clearly taking advantage of young girls, it's quite possible that some of those coming forward with allegations are making it up to get attention. Also the coverage is way over the top. The BBC is being treated as if it was an underage brothel back then, not a rather stuffy broadcasting organisation as it really was. The BBC couldn't and didn't control everything that went on inside it's buildings. What happened in offices and dressing rooms, horrific as it might be, is not their fault.
Given that rumours were quite widespread when Savile was alive, it's very odd that it's taken all this time to come out in public. Victims are saying they couldn't complain as he was too powerful in the BBC, but what stopped them going to the police?
When this advice was posted a few days ago (was it by your good self?), I thought that it was a tad over the top to link the current "paedo" search, and the rampant hysteria that prevailed in The Crucible.
Now I have changed my mind, and think that you had hit the nail firmly on the head regarding this current "outing" of celebrities.
I am not liking this blame the BBC witch hunt (I think this is Rupert seeking revenge after all these years (probably for wonderful life parody)
also didn't a few police forces have complaints on him that they dismissed
At festivals he would have his family staying with him and I certainly never saw him exploiting his position.
I respected him when he was alive and I still respect him.
In the case of Colleen Nolan, is she saying that her TV career was more important than preventing Jimmy Saville from going on to cause absolute misery for other teenage girls? I can understand feeling that way as a youngster starting out but not as an adult with teenage daughters.
What are these women hoping to gain now that he's dead?
That now people will perhaps believe them?
He also seemed to have a much more healthy attitude towards women (being vocal about sexist attitudes or lyrics etc in the music industry) while his contemporaries were still doing wet t-shirt competitions at the Radio 1 roadshow. The idea of him being some sort of lecherous womanising beast doesn't really stick.