Apparently, Duran Duran were given papers with the age of consent of the particuler country/state they were in so they were obviously not bothered as long as it was the legal age of consent..
Apparently, Duran Duran were given papers with the age of consent of the particuler country/state they were in so they were obviously not bothered as long as it was the legal age of consent..
We're talking about ages like 18 or even 21 in some of those states though.
But it's anyone's guess what was really going on with those pop acts in the 80s...........
I never liked John Peel although I wasn't aware of much of this. He just looked shifty to me and so did Jimmy Savile and also Michael Barrymore. You know when your flesh creeps?
He was overrated. He used to have this ridiculous notion that any band that became successful had sold out and he seemed to hate anything that was remotely mainstream. No wonder he was kept in a night time slot where most people were either watching the television or listening to Night Owls on Metro. I heard his show a couple of times and it was boring, self indulgent rubbish.,
He was overrated. He used to have this ridiculous notion that any band that became successful had sold out and he seemed to hate anything that was remotely mainstream. No wonder he was kept in a night time slot where most people were either watching the television or listening to Night Owls on Metro. I heard his show a couple of times and it was boring, self indulgent rubbish.,
I don't mind slightly off the wall stuff, but some of the stuff Peel played was even beyond that.
In later life he became a bit of a middle class darling with his Home Truths programme on Radio 4.
I don't mind slightly off the wall stuff, but some of the stuff Peel played was even beyond that.
In later life he became a bit of a middle class darling with his Home Truths programme on Radio 4.
Well I like prog rock, blues and experimental music, but you got the impression with Peel he was playing records that were unlistenable for the hell of it. Hey, look at me I'm a 60 year old ex public schoolboy, and I'm trying to get down with the indie kids by playing a tape loop of noise.
I haven't read the whole thread and I am not condoning what John Peel did but I do think there is a vast difference between sleeping with 'groupies' who are putting themselves forward as older than they are and probably - note probably - have an awareness of what they are about and the situation with JS on the other thread where he has obviously groomed and manipulated young teens and tweeners into having sexual relations with him.
JP and others in that situation today would probably be more aware and likely to check ages. Parents would hopefully be more aware of what their teenage daughters were up to. In my opinion the 70s and 80s were transitional decades in terms of sexual freedom and the new rules had yet to be written so to speak. Older men such as Peel were morally wrong in what they did but I don't believe they would have been convicted in a court of law unlike the practices of JS.
We're talking about ages like 18 or even 21 in some of those states though.
But it's anyone's guess what was really going on with those pop acts in the 80s...........
Very true but in some countries in Europe, where they were very big, the age of consent is quite a bit lower.
It seems that they didn't really care about the age as long as they were withing the age of consent of that particular country.
'Peel told the Guardian in 1975. "Girls," he said to the Sunday Correspondent in 1989, "used to queue up outside oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older.'
Easily just as bad as the Jimmy Saville stuff. As I said a few days ago I feel like this is just the tip of the iceberg of a rotten showbiz underbelly.
OMG!!! they even have selective outrage on this issue, you couldnt make it up!!!:mad::mad:
I haven't read the whole thread and I am not condoning what John Peel did but I do think there is a vast difference between sleeping with 'groupies' who are putting themselves forward as older than they are and probably - note probably - have an awareness of what they are about and the situation with JS on the other thread where he has obviously groomed and manipulated young teens and tweeners into having sexual relations with him.
JP and others in that situation today would probably be more aware and likely to check ages. Parents would hopefully be more aware of what their teenage daughters were up to. In my opinion the 70s and 80s were transitional decades in terms of sexual freedom and the new rules had yet to be written so to speak. Older men such as Peel were morally wrong in what they did but I don't believe they would have been convicted in a court of law unlike the practices of JS.
What nonsense.
John Peel self-admittedly did not check ages - see the quoted reference '...turned out to be 13...'
And purporting that 'groupies' probably had an awareness, and extrapolating from that that Peel would probably not have been convicted is as shaky a defence as they come. Children, for that's what they are, children under 16 queuing up to meet popstars or DJs may well be aware but that doesn't abrogate the responsibility of the adult. Children haven't at that age reached an age where they are capable of making mature choices.
Peel positively revelled in his preference for schoolgirls, even dressing up as one himself to illustrate his predilections. If Savile was guilty, then so were Peel and his ilk.
I could probably raise a few eyebrows with some of the goings on at the Rum Runner club
"It was acceptable in the eighties..." (quoting a song, don't lynch me!) I remember an interview with either Nick Rhodes or John Taylor, when they said they started getting BJs off boys to "see if they could tell the difference" just because the people out there queueing up to pleasure them was so immense it became "boring"!!
Dont blame the 80s :eek:
Its these 60s stars and DJs you need to worry about.
By the way whatever happed to Michael Kelly?
Do you mean Matthew Kelly ("tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be...")? If so I think he's working on the stage now, very successfully, after being completely exonorated. Out of interest, do you think that Freddie Starr will come out of this unscathed or will there always be a question mark over his name?
John Peel self-admittedly did not check ages - see the quoted reference '...turned out to be 13...'
And purporting that 'groupies' probably had an awareness, and extrapolating from that that Peel would probably not have been convicted is as shaky a defence as they come. Children, for that's what they are, children under 16 queuing up to meet popstars or DJs may well be aware but that doesn't abrogate the responsibility of the adult. Children haven't at that age reached an age where they are capable of making mature choices.
Peel positively revelled in his preference for schoolgirls, even dressing up as one himself to illustrate his predilections. If Savile was guilty, then so were Peel and his ilk.
Jancee, I am polite when I talk to people on threads and I try to see things from other points of view. I don't expect to be spoken down to in such a way. I'd have had much more respect for what you wrote if you had been polite. It doesn't hurt you know?
I didn't say John Peel was innocent I said there was a difference. Obviously girls queueing up for sex is different from a young girl being groomed and it being forced upon her. I don't agree with what they did but there is a major difference in terms of consent.
I didn't say John Peel was innocent I said there was a difference. Obviously girls queueing up for sex is different from a young girl being groomed and it being forced upon her. I don't agree with what they did but there is a major difference in terms of consent.
I see your point, but the males involved could always have said 'No!'
I see your point, but the males involved could always have said 'No!'
I agree and I think now there would be much more care taken in checking who you were having sex with. Again I will say it was not right what they did but it is not in the ilk of JS and GG. We all know that John Peel wasn't the only one doing this in the 70s and 80s which is why I use the plural they.
Younger girls are likely to be more impressionable and maybe less realistic about famous people. Anyone who takes advantage of that is in my opinion a sleazebag. There are a lot of men who qualify for that tag and not just those in showbiz.
John Peel self-admittedly did not check ages - see the quoted reference '...turned out to be 13...'
And purporting that 'groupies' probably had an awareness, and extrapolating from that that Peel would probably not have been convicted is as shaky a defence as they come. Children, for that's what they are, children under 16 queuing up to meet popstars or DJs may well be aware but that doesn't abrogate the responsibility of the adult. Children haven't at that age reached an age where they are capable of making mature choices.
Peel positively revelled in his preference for schoolgirls, even dressing up as one himself to illustrate his predilections. If Savile was guilty, then so were Peel and his ilk.
Perhaps you should read this , which shows the Daily Mail has not actually bothered with many facts and also explains the schoolgirl outfit which was a joke and also points out how The Schoolgirl of the Year competition never actually exisited , it was seemingly made up by Julie Birchill
I haven't read the whole thread and I am not condoning what John Peel did but I do think there is a vast difference between sleeping with 'groupies' who are putting themselves forward as older than they are and probably - note probably - have an awareness of what they are about and the situation with JS on the other thread where he has obviously groomed and manipulated young teens and tweeners into having sexual relations with him.
JP and others in that situation today would probably be more aware and likely to check ages. Parents would hopefully be more aware of what their teenage daughters were up to. In my opinion the 70s and 80s were transitional decades in terms of sexual freedom and the new rules had yet to be written so to speak. Older men such as Peel were morally wrong in what they did but I don't believe they would have been convicted in a court of law unlike the practices of JS.
OMG!!! they even have selective outrage on this issue, you couldnt make it up!!!:mad::mad:
There's no doubt that Peel was irresponsible, almost self admittedly as he said he fled the US as he thought he was going to be arrested. But it's completely different from Savile & Glitter, these people have been shown to target children that are as young as possible (down to 9 years that we know of) throughout their lives, it couldn't be possibly be put down to them making a mistake about someone being 16.
Perhaps you should read this , which shows the Daily Mail has not actually bothered with many facts and also explains the schoolgirl outfit which was a joke and also points out how The Schoolgirl of the Year competition never actually exisited , it was seemingly made up by Julie Birchill
Sexual contact with a minor is illegal....end off. No ifs or but. It is a crimminal offence. There is no bloody excuse. none whatsoever. Jimmy Savile was an ugly weird git so he can take the fall.....no, I dont think so. If he was grooming children then that is heinous, so was taking advantage of 14 and 15 year old fans. The law is in place for a reason, to protect the young and the vulnerable. There should be no excepions, none.
Perhaps you should read this , which shows the Daily Mail has not actually bothered with many facts and also explains the schoolgirl outfit which was a joke and also points out how The Schoolgirl of the Year competition never actually exisited , it was seemingly made up by Julie Birchill
I didn't quote the Daily Mail nor did I state a competition existed. I know from my own memory about his frequent references to schoolgirls. The quote is taken from his autobiography.
I don't mind slightly off the wall stuff, but some of the stuff Peel played was even beyond that.
In later life he became a bit of a middle class darling with his Home Truths programme on Radio 4.
I always got the impression he saw himself as superior to the other DJs because he refused to play chart music and golden oldies. He struck me in later years as some embarassing middle aged man who was trying to be hip, but basically playing records he liked. I always found Peel as the kind of guy who thought musicians should only sell 500 records a year, live in a bedsit and starve.
Comments
We're talking about ages like 18 or even 21 in some of those states though.
But it's anyone's guess what was really going on with those pop acts in the 80s...........
He was overrated. He used to have this ridiculous notion that any band that became successful had sold out and he seemed to hate anything that was remotely mainstream. No wonder he was kept in a night time slot where most people were either watching the television or listening to Night Owls on Metro. I heard his show a couple of times and it was boring, self indulgent rubbish.,
I don't mind slightly off the wall stuff, but some of the stuff Peel played was even beyond that.
In later life he became a bit of a middle class darling with his Home Truths programme on Radio 4.
Well I like prog rock, blues and experimental music, but you got the impression with Peel he was playing records that were unlistenable for the hell of it. Hey, look at me I'm a 60 year old ex public schoolboy, and I'm trying to get down with the indie kids by playing a tape loop of noise.
I could probably raise a few eyebrows with some of the goings on at the Rum Runner club
JP and others in that situation today would probably be more aware and likely to check ages. Parents would hopefully be more aware of what their teenage daughters were up to. In my opinion the 70s and 80s were transitional decades in terms of sexual freedom and the new rules had yet to be written so to speak. Older men such as Peel were morally wrong in what they did but I don't believe they would have been convicted in a court of law unlike the practices of JS.
Very true but in some countries in Europe, where they were very big, the age of consent is quite a bit lower.
It seems that they didn't really care about the age as long as they were withing the age of consent of that particular country.
OMG!!! they even have selective outrage on this issue, you couldnt make it up!!!:mad::mad:
THIS ^^^^^
What nonsense.
John Peel self-admittedly did not check ages - see the quoted reference '...turned out to be 13...'
And purporting that 'groupies' probably had an awareness, and extrapolating from that that Peel would probably not have been convicted is as shaky a defence as they come. Children, for that's what they are, children under 16 queuing up to meet popstars or DJs may well be aware but that doesn't abrogate the responsibility of the adult. Children haven't at that age reached an age where they are capable of making mature choices.
Peel positively revelled in his preference for schoolgirls, even dressing up as one himself to illustrate his predilections. If Savile was guilty, then so were Peel and his ilk.
Dont blame the 80s :eek:
Its these 60s stars and DJs you need to worry about.
By the way whatever happed to Michael Kelly?
Do you mean Matthew Kelly ("tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be...")? If so I think he's working on the stage now, very successfully, after being completely exonorated. Out of interest, do you think that Freddie Starr will come out of this unscathed or will there always be a question mark over his name?
Jancee, I am polite when I talk to people on threads and I try to see things from other points of view. I don't expect to be spoken down to in such a way. I'd have had much more respect for what you wrote if you had been polite. It doesn't hurt you know?
I didn't say John Peel was innocent I said there was a difference. Obviously girls queueing up for sex is different from a young girl being groomed and it being forced upon her. I don't agree with what they did but there is a major difference in terms of consent.
I see your point, but the males involved could always have said 'No!'
I agree and I think now there would be much more care taken in checking who you were having sex with. Again I will say it was not right what they did but it is not in the ilk of JS and GG. We all know that John Peel wasn't the only one doing this in the 70s and 80s which is why I use the plural they.
Perhaps you should read this , which shows the Daily Mail has not actually bothered with many facts and also explains the schoolgirl outfit which was a joke and also points out how The Schoolgirl of the Year competition never actually exisited , it was seemingly made up by Julie Birchill
http://louderthanwar.com/one-half-rhinoceroses-a-defence-john-peel-daily-mail-and-others/
A wholly sensible and intelligent perspective.
Thanks for link. Nothing like a bit of clarity.
I didn't quote the Daily Mail nor did I state a competition existed. I know from my own memory about his frequent references to schoolgirls. The quote is taken from his autobiography.
I always got the impression he saw himself as superior to the other DJs because he refused to play chart music and golden oldies. He struck me in later years as some embarassing middle aged man who was trying to be hip, but basically playing records he liked. I always found Peel as the kind of guy who thought musicians should only sell 500 records a year, live in a bedsit and starve.