Or is this just the Mirror getting things wrong?

Are they going to ban Benjamin Britten's works next, especially his
children's works, in the light of the recent BBC4 documentary that
made it clear that he was attracted to pre-pubescent boys - even if he
never 'acted' on his desires. (It appears that all his little boy
friends were resolutely heterosexual.)

--------------------------------------------
EXCLUSIVE: PERV RADIO BAN
By Bob Roberts

Mirror.co.uk, UK: 21 January 2006
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16610087&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--perv-radio-ban-name_page.html
Or, http://tinyurl.com/7zoyp

SONGS by paedophile pop stars face being banned from TV and radio.

A leaked document from broadcast watchdog Ofcom admits it is
"concerned" records by Gary Glitter, right, and Jonathan King are
still being played on UK stations.

A recent episode of Lizzy Maguire, a show for teenage girls, included
Glitter's hit Rock 'n' Roll Pt 2. Dad Phil Clayton from
Gloucestershire told the Mirror: "Material produced by a paedophile
can be broadcast to children for profit and without restriction. It is
totally immoral."

A letter from Ofcom said: "We are concerned that the inclusion of such
materials complies with our rules".

They said there was no evidence of "widespread offence" but an Ofcom
source said if enough people raised the issue it would be looked at
again.

Brave New Britain  wrote in
news:e364t1ljladl83iks1v5iq7c11314s7fdv@4ax.com: 

> Or is this just the Mirror getting things wrong?
> 
> Are they going to ban Benjamin Britten's works next, especially his
> children's works, in the light of the recent BBC4 documentary that
> made it clear that he was attracted to pre-pubescent boys - even if he
> never 'acted' on his desires. (It appears that all his little boy
> friends were resolutely heterosexual.)

I'd have thought this was more for the Radio Authority, but even then,
it would be a very dodgey use of their power if you ask me...

Martin Milan wrote:
> Brave New Britain  wrote in
> news:e364t1ljladl83iks1v5iq7c11314s7fdv@4ax.com:
>
>> Or is this just the Mirror getting things wrong?
>>
>> Are they going to ban Benjamin Britten's works next, especially
>> his children's works, in the light of the recent BBC4
>> documentary that made it clear that he was attracted to
>> pre-pubescent boys - even if he never 'acted' on his desires.
>> (It appears that all his little boy friends were resolutely
>> heterosexual.)
>
> I'd have thought this was more for the Radio Authority, but even
> then, it would be a very dodgey use of their power if you ask
> me...

Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it distasteful that GG 
will receive a royalties payment for the use of his music on a show for 
teenage girls.   The producers shouldn't really need to be told.

There is of course a big difference between convicted offenders (eg GG) and 
situations which are merely alleged by someone or other (eg BB).   I would 
firmly oppose any assumption of guilt or liability which was based upon 
anything less than the criminal standard of proof.

"Brave New Britain"  wrote in message 
news:e364t1ljladl83iks1v5iq7c11314s7fdv@4ax.com...
> Or is this just the Mirror getting things wrong?
>
> Are they going to ban Benjamin Britten's works next, especially his
> children's works, in the light of the recent BBC4 documentary that
> made it clear that he was attracted to pre-pubescent boys - even if he
> never 'acted' on his desires. (It appears that all his little boy
> friends were resolutely heterosexual.)
>
> --------------------------------------------
> EXCLUSIVE: PERV RADIO BAN
> By Bob Roberts
>
> Mirror.co.uk, UK: 21 January 2006
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16610087&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--perv-radio-ban-name_page.html
> Or, http://tinyurl.com/7zoyp
>
> SONGS by paedophile pop stars face being banned from TV and radio.
>
> A leaked document from broadcast watchdog Ofcom admits it is
> "concerned" records by Gary Glitter, right, and Jonathan King are
> still being played on UK stations.
>
> A recent episode of Lizzy Maguire, a show for teenage girls, included
> Glitter's hit Rock 'n' Roll Pt 2. Dad Phil Clayton from
> Gloucestershire told the Mirror: "Material produced by a paedophile
> can be broadcast to children for profit and without restriction. It is
> totally immoral."
>
> A letter from Ofcom said: "We are concerned that the inclusion of such
> materials complies with our rules".
>
> They said there was no evidence of "widespread offence" but an Ofcom
> source said if enough people raised the issue it would be looked at
> again.

Lizzy Maguire is an American show and finished production in 2004, what 
would Mr Phil "I'm an hysterical t*at" Clayton like Ofcom to do about it?

It's idiots like Mr Clayton who are the most dangerous people to have around 
children. While he's getting apoplectic about a 5 second snatch of a Gary 
Glitter song on a children's TV show he's totally ignoring Dear Uncle Nobby 
sniffing their bicycle seats.

"Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
news:43f8msF1nfb24U1@individual.net...
> Martin Milan wrote:
>> Brave New Britain  wrote in
>> news:e364t1ljladl83iks1v5iq7c11314s7fdv@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Or is this just the Mirror getting things wrong?
>>>
>>> Are they going to ban Benjamin Britten's works next, especially
>>> his children's works, in the light of the recent BBC4
>>> documentary that made it clear that he was attracted to
>>> pre-pubescent boys - even if he never 'acted' on his desires.
>>> (It appears that all his little boy friends were resolutely
>>> heterosexual.)
>>
>> I'd have thought this was more for the Radio Authority, but even
>> then, it would be a very dodgey use of their power if you ask
>> me...
>
> Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it distasteful that GG 
> will receive a royalties payment for the use of his music on a show for 
> teenage girls.   The producers shouldn't really need to be told.
>


Where would it end?   Jerry Lee Lewis married his underage cousin, which is 
an offence in this country.  Pete Townsend has been cautioned for accessing 
child porn, so that's The Who banned.  Hasn't a member of the Bay City 
Rollers been found guilty of child porn offences? Would Rolling Stones songs 
be banned if they came from the period when Bill Wyman was a member?

In article , Helen  writes

>Pete Townsend has been cautioned for accessing 
>child porn,

And is on the Sex Offenders Register as he *is* a sex offender, having
accepted a police caution
-- 
Mr X

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:18:21 -0000, "Steve Walker"
 wrote:

>Martin Milan wrote:
>> Brave New Britain  wrote in
>> news:e364t1ljladl83iks1v5iq7c11314s7fdv@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Or is this just the Mirror getting things wrong?
>>>
>>> Are they going to ban Benjamin Britten's works next, especially
>>> his children's works, in the light of the recent BBC4
>>> documentary that made it clear that he was attracted to
>>> pre-pubescent boys - even if he never 'acted' on his desires.
>>> (It appears that all his little boy friends were resolutely
>>> heterosexual.)
>>
>> I'd have thought this was more for the Radio Authority, but even
>> then, it would be a very dodgey use of their power if you ask
>> me...
>
>Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it distasteful that GG 
>will receive a royalties payment for the use of his music on a show for 
>teenage girls.   The producers shouldn't really need to be told.

So what if you think it's 'distasteful', Mr Walker?

We're not talking about the proceeds of crime here. Why shouldn't GG
receive royalties if people want to hear his songs?

It's all part of an Orwellian attempt to write people out of history
as 'unpersons'.

Hadn't we better ban Alice in Wonderland while we're about it?

-- 
Brave New Britain

Brave New Britain wrote:

> > Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it distasteful
> > that GG will receive a royalties payment for the use of his music
> > on a show for teenage girls.   The producers shouldn't really need
> > to be told.
> 
> So what if you think it's 'distasteful', Mr Walker?

Peronally, I think it is distasteful too, the difference, is that I
think he should still be afforded the same privilages as everyone else.
His sentence when found guilty, will fit the crime (hopefully), that
should be enough.


> We're not talking about the proceeds of crime here. Why shouldn't GG
> receive royalties if people want to hear his songs?
> 
> It's all part of an Orwellian attempt to write people out of history
> as 'unpersons'.
> 
> Hadn't we better ban Alice in Wonderland while we're about it?

Precisely.

-- 
wigwambam

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:41:08 GMT, Martin Milan  wrote:

>Brave New Britain  wrote in
>news:e364t1ljladl83iks1v5iq7c11314s7fdv@4ax.com: 
>
>> Or is this just the Mirror getting things wrong?
>> 
>> Are they going to ban Benjamin Britten's works next, especially his
>> children's works, in the light of the recent BBC4 documentary that
>> made it clear that he was attracted to pre-pubescent boys - even if he
>> never 'acted' on his desires. (It appears that all his little boy
>> friends were resolutely heterosexual.)
>
>I'd have thought this was more for the Radio Authority, but even then,
>it would be a very dodgey use of their power if you ask me... 

The Radio Authority no longer exits.

Ofcom have taken over all their functions since December 2003.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Moderators are not God. God has mercy.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In uk.legal Mr X  wrote:
> In article , Helen  writes
> 
>>Pete Townsend has been cautioned for accessing 
>>child porn,
> 
> And is on the Sex Offenders Register as he *is* a sex offender, having
> accepted a police caution

Being on the Sex Offenders Register as you've accepted a caution does
not make you a Sex Offender, any more than buying a TV license magically
makes a TV appear in your home.

It means that you (in the best case, assuming you fully understood)
believed that it was better for you to accept the caution, and get on
with your life, rather than drag it through the courts.

This may simply be as you believe that the court case, even if you are
found not-guilty, may be more damaging to your reputation, or be more
stressfull than just accepting.

And that's the best case, where you are fully logical, thinking clearly,
not intimidated or blindly following reccomendations of people you
trust.

Steve Walker  posted
>
>Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it distasteful that GG 
>will receive a royalties payment for the use of his music on a show for 
>teenage girls.   The producers shouldn't really need to be told.

What, they shouldn't need to be told not to do anything that Steve
Walker finds distasteful? 

-- 
PeteM

PeteM wrote:
> Steve Walker  posted
>>
>> Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it
>> distasteful that GG will receive a royalties payment for the use
>> of his music on a show for teenage girls.   The producers
>> shouldn't really need to be told.
>
> What, they shouldn't need to be told not to do anything that Steve
> Walker finds distasteful?

Yup.  I *am* the man on the Clapham Omnibus...  :o)

Brave New Britain wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:18:21 -0000, "Steve Walker"
>  wrote:
>> Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it
>> distasteful that GG will receive a royalties payment for the use
>> of his music on a show for teenage girls.   The producers
>> shouldn't really need to be told.
>
> So what if you think it's 'distasteful', Mr Walker?

I thought this was a general discussion of opinions & perspectives?

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:28:33 -0000, "Steve Walker"
 wrote:

>Brave New Britain wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:18:21 -0000, "Steve Walker"
>>  wrote:
>>> Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it
>>> distasteful that GG will receive a royalties payment for the use
>>> of his music on a show for teenage girls.   The producers
>>> shouldn't really need to be told.
>>
>> So what if you think it's 'distasteful', Mr Walker?
>
>I thought this was a general discussion of opinions & perspectives? 

Opinions, but not taste.

-- 
Brave New Britain

Ian Stirling  wrote in
news:43d3752f$0$2676$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net: 


> Being on the Sex Offenders Register as you've accepted a caution does
> not make you a Sex Offender, any more than buying a TV license
> magically makes a TV appear in your home.

In accepting a police caution you also accept your guilt, so I think
you'll find this does, in the eyes of the law. make him a sex offender.
Whether he has actually done anything of course is another matter. 


Martin.

Alex Heney  wrote in
news:3ue5t19vi4qmr36geknhqhg33hk5j6f249@4ax.com: 

> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:41:08 GMT, Martin Milan  wrote:
> 
>>Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>news:e364t1ljladl83iks1v5iq7c11314s7fdv@4ax.com: 
>>
>>> Or is this just the Mirror getting things wrong?
>>> 
>>> Are they going to ban Benjamin Britten's works next, especially his
>>> children's works, in the light of the recent BBC4 documentary that
>>> made it clear that he was attracted to pre-pubescent boys - even if
>>> he never 'acted' on his desires. (It appears that all his little boy
>>> friends were resolutely heterosexual.)
>>
>>I'd have thought this was more for the Radio Authority, but even then,
>>it would be a very dodgey use of their power if you ask me... 
> 
> The Radio Authority no longer exits.
> 
> Ofcom have taken over all their functions since December 2003.

Memo to self - get out more...

Steve Walker  posted
>PeteM wrote:
>> Steve Walker  posted
>>>
>>> Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it
>>> distasteful that GG will receive a royalties payment for the use
>>> of his music on a show for teenage girls.   The producers
>>> shouldn't really need to be told.
>>
>> What, they shouldn't need to be told not to do anything that Steve
>> Walker finds distasteful?
>
>Yup.  I *am* the man on the Clapham Omnibus...  :o) 
>

Seems to me the omnibus is on a slippery slope then. What about Pete
Townshend? No more Pinball Wizard on Radio 2?

-- 
PeteM

Its not just the witchhunt de jour.. What about drugs..

Convicted druggie performers? Get them off the air,
Bring on the white noise.

Richard Webb

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:26:10 +0000, PeteM  wrote:

>Steve Walker  posted
>>PeteM wrote:
>>> Steve Walker  posted
>>>>
>>>> Mmmm - not an easy issue, but personally I do find it
>>>> distasteful that GG will receive a royalties payment for the use
>>>> of his music on a show for teenage girls.   The producers
>>>> shouldn't really need to be told.
>>>
>>> What, they shouldn't need to be told not to do anything that Steve
>>> Walker finds distasteful?
>>
>>Yup.  I *am* the man on the Clapham Omnibus...  :o) 
>>
>
>Seems to me the omnibus is on a slippery slope then. What about Pete
>Townshend? No more Pinball Wizard on Radio 2?

It does look like a slippery slope, but there is a difference between
playing the songs on a programme aimed specifically at teenagers, and
playing them on a general channel playing general music.

Personally, I think it would be wrong to ban them in either situation,
but I would hope the programme makers would think carefully about it
in the first case.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney  posted
>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:26:10 +0000, PeteM  wrote:
>>Seems to me the omnibus is on a slippery slope then. What about Pete
>>Townshend? No more Pinball Wizard on Radio 2?
>
>It does look like a slippery slope, but there is a difference between
>playing the songs on a programme aimed specifically at teenagers, and
>playing them on a general channel playing general music.

What difference? I can't see one.  It's not as if Gary Glitter's records
are explicitly (or even implicitly) promoting sex offending. Not like
Neil Sedaka's "Sweet Sixteen", Chuck Berry's "Sweet Little Sixteen",
Gilbert O'Sullivan's "Clare", Abba's "Does Your Mother Know", Gary
Puckett's "Young Girl", and The Supremes' "Baby Love". That last one
alone must be worth a life sentence for any DJ who dares to play it. 

And what about albums? Should shops be stopped from selling The Who's
albums to teenagers? "Tommy" even has a whole track about a child-
molester uncle. Once that has been suppressed, it'll be easy to go after
Abba and the rest. Time for a crackdown here. 

-- 
PeteM

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:42:20 +0000, PeteM  wrote:

>Alex Heney  posted
>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:26:10 +0000, PeteM  wrote:
>>>Seems to me the omnibus is on a slippery slope then. What about Pete
>>>Townshend? No more Pinball Wizard on Radio 2?
>>
>>It does look like a slippery slope, but there is a difference between
>>playing the songs on a programme aimed specifically at teenagers, and
>>playing them on a general channel playing general music.
>
>What difference? I can't see one.  It's not as if Gary Glitter's records
>are explicitly (or even implicitly) promoting sex offending. Not like
>Neil Sedaka's "Sweet Sixteen", Chuck Berry's "Sweet Little Sixteen",
>Gilbert O'Sullivan's "Clare", Abba's "Does Your Mother Know", Gary
>Puckett's "Young Girl", and The Supremes' "Baby Love". That last one
>alone must be worth a life sentence for any DJ who dares to play it. 
>

The difference being that teenage girls do have a tendency to idolise.

So a program aimed specifically at them should not, IMO, be playing
records from such an anti-role model.

>And what about albums? Should shops be stopped from selling The Who's
>albums to teenagers? "Tommy" even has a whole track about a child-
>molester uncle. Once that has been suppressed, it'll be easy to go after
>Abba and the rest. Time for a crackdown here. 

As I said in the previous post, I do NOT think they should be banned.

Just that if I were in charge of music selection, I would not be
selecting any music from people I saw as particularly bad role models
for *that particular program*.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:42:20 +0000, PeteM  wrote:

>Alex Heney  posted
>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:26:10 +0000, PeteM  wrote:
>>>Seems to me the omnibus is on a slippery slope then. What about Pete
>>>Townshend? No more Pinball Wizard on Radio 2?
>>
>>It does look like a slippery slope, but there is a difference between
>>playing the songs on a programme aimed specifically at teenagers, and
>>playing them on a general channel playing general music.
>
>What difference? I can't see one.  It's not as if Gary Glitter's records
>are explicitly (or even implicitly) promoting sex offending. Not like
>Neil Sedaka's "Sweet Sixteen", Chuck Berry's "Sweet Little Sixteen",
>Gilbert O'Sullivan's "Clare", Abba's "Does Your Mother Know", Gary
>Puckett's "Young Girl", and The Supremes' "Baby Love". That last one
>alone must be worth a life sentence for any DJ who dares to play it. 
>
>And what about albums? Should shops be stopped from selling The Who's
>albums to teenagers? "Tommy" even has a whole track about a child-
>molester uncle. Once that has been suppressed, it'll be easy to go after
>Abba and the rest. Time for a crackdown here. 

This could be fun. Add:

AQUALUNG - Jethro Tull
  "Sitting on a park bench
  eyeing little girls
  with bad intent.
  ...
  Watching as the frilly panties run."

BIMBO - Jim Reeves
  "Does your mommie know,
  that your going down the road to see a little girlly o?"
  
CROSS-EYED MARY - Jethro Tull
  "Laughing in the playground
  gets no kicks from little boys:
  would rather make it with a letching gray."

DON'T STAND SO CLOSE TO ME - The Police
  "Young teacher
  the subject
  of schoolgirl fantasy
  she wants him so badly
  ...
  he starts to shake and cough
  just like the old man in
  that famous book by Nabokov"

FATHER FIGURE - George Michael
  "That's all I wanted
  But sometimes love can be mistaken for a crime"

I THINK WE'RE ALONE NOW - Tommy James, later Tiffany
  "Look at the way,
  We gotta hide what we're doin'.
  'Cause what would they say,
  If they ever knew..."

I'M ON FIRE - Bruce Springsteen
  "Hey little girl is your daddy home
  Did he go away and leave you all alone
  I got a bad desire
  I'm on fire
  Tell me now baby is he good to you
  Can do to you things that I do"

THE INFANT KISS - Kate Bush
  "I've never fallen for
  A little boy before."

MR TINKERTRAIN - Ozzy Osbourne
  "Would you like some sweeties little girl?
  Come a little closer
  I'm gonna show you a brand new world tonight"

MY DING-A-LING-A-LING - Chuck Berry
  "...those of you who will not sing
  must be playing with your own Ding-a-ling"

  (St. Mary Whitehouse said that song would encourage child
  molestation.)

SEVEN LITTLE GIRLS SITTING IN THE BACK SEAT - Paul Evans
  "Seven little girls sittin' in the back seat
  Huggin and a'kissin with Fred"

SODOMY - Hair
  "Sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, pederasty;
  Father, why do these words sound so nasty?
  Masturbation can be fun;
  Join the holy orgy, Karma Sutra, everyone!"

STRAY CAT BLUES - Rolling Stones
  "I can see that you're fifteen years old"

THANK HEAVEN FOR LITTLE GIRLS - Maurice Chevalier
  "Each time I see a little girl of five or six or seven
  ...
  Without them what would little boys do?"

TINY DANCER - Elton John
  "Hold me closer tiny dancer"

TOO YOUNG - Elton John
  "And how many times have they told you
  That you're too young
  How, how I've ached to hold you
  But you're too young"

YOUNGER GENERATION - Lovin' Spoonful
  "And Hey, Pop, my girlfriend's only three
  She's got her own videophone and she's taking L.S.D."

-- 
Dissenter

In uk.politics.censorship PeteM  wrote:
> Alex Heney  posted
>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:26:10 +0000, PeteM  wrote:
>>>Seems to me the omnibus is on a slippery slope then. What about Pete
>>>Townshend? No more Pinball Wizard on Radio 2?
>>
>>It does look like a slippery slope, but there is a difference between
>>playing the songs on a programme aimed specifically at teenagers, and
>>playing them on a general channel playing general music.

> What difference? I can't see one.  It's not as if Gary Glitter's records
> are explicitly (or even implicitly) promoting sex offending.

Might I remind the honourable gentleman that one of the hit singles by
the aforementioned Mister Glitter was titled "Do Ya Wanna Touch Me
There?" - a lyric which featured prominently in its chorus and if I
recall correctly involved Mister Glitter pointing at his crotch while
performing on Top of the Pops.

> And what about albums? Should shops be stopped from selling The Who's
> albums to teenagers? "Tommy" even has a whole track about a child-
> molester uncle. Once that has been suppressed, it'll be easy to go after
> Abba and the rest. Time for a crackdown here. 

That's the great thing about witch hunts. Things get really crazy just
before they finally burn out. We're into the denumciation stage now,
where being denounced is sufficient to destroy someone, in this case to
get them on List 99. 

The end stage occurs when so many innocents are sent to the gallows that
someone has to call a halt.  I note that in one French village during
WWII, so many people were denouncing rivals and neighbours as
collaborators that even the Nazis called a halt and said they were only
going to accept a fixed number of collaborators to be shot each week. 

The Press have managed to cow a government minister into going along
with the moral panic. It's hard at the moment to see who can call a halt,
but sooner or later that moment will come.

FoFP

M Holmes  posted
>That's the great thing about witch hunts. Things get really crazy just 
>before they finally burn out. We're into the denumciation stage now, 
>where being denounced is sufficient to destroy someone, in this case to 
>get them on List 99. 

There's an even more exciting stage, where anybody who speaks out in
defence of a witch, or even just fails to denounce them, is himself
automatically treated as a self-confessed witch. This happened in the
France of (IIRC) Charles VIII, who passed an ordinance that "all persons
who refuse to denounce a witch should be punished as accomplices". 

>
>The end stage occurs when so many innocents are sent to the gallows that 
>someone has to call a halt.  I note that in one French village during 
>WWII, so many people were denouncing rivals and neighbours as 
>collaborators that even the Nazis called a halt and said they were only 
>going to accept a fixed number of collaborators to be shot each week. 

Excellent :)) Do you have a reference for this? Almost exactly the same
has AIUI happened in Iraq, except that the denouncees are not usually
shot but merely heaved into an oubliette at Abu Ghraib. 

-- 
PeteM

In uk.politics.censorship PeteM  wrote:
> M Holmes  posted

>>That's the great thing about witch hunts. Things get really crazy just 
>>before they finally burn out. We're into the denumciation stage now, 
>>where being denounced is sufficient to destroy someone, in this case to 
>>get them on List 99. 

> There's an even more exciting stage, where anybody who speaks out in
> defence of a witch, or even just fails to denounce them, is himself
> automatically treated as a self-confessed witch. This happened in the
> France of (IIRC) Charles VIII, who passed an ordinance that "all persons
> who refuse to denounce a witch should be punished as accomplices". 

Didn't we just reach this point? The whole fuss about Kelly was
essentially caused by her perceived failure to denounce people who the
Press were hounding as paedophiles. In merging the lists, Kelly has now
agreed that everyone with the slightest stain of suspicion must now be
denounced.

>>The end stage occurs when so many innocents are sent to the gallows that 
>>someone has to call a halt.  I note that in one French village during 
>>WWII, so many people were denouncing rivals and neighbours as 
>>collaborators that even the Nazis called a halt and said they were only 
>>going to accept a fixed number of collaborators to be shot each week. 

> Excellent :)) Do you have a reference for this?

I thought it would be easy to find but the best I came up with was a
review for a film made during wartime, "Le Corbeau" which was based on
what is said to have been a culture of denunciation sweeping occupied
France. Sounds like an interesting movie though.

> Almost exactly the same has AIUI happened in Iraq, except that the
> denouncees are not usually shot but merely heaved into an oubliette at
> Abu Ghraib. 

From google searches, it's pretty obvious that it happened in Chile
during the troubles there too. Perhaps wartime denunciation proves too
handy a way to dispose of an enemy or rival for some to resist. It's sad
to think of, but there it is.

I wonder how long it will be before denunciation of lawyers, and other
folks defending those accused, takes place. After all, requiring
evidence and convictions just lets some of them get away with it...

FoFP

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:16:41 +0000, Alex Heney 
wrote:

>Just that if I were in charge of music selection, I would not be
>selecting any music from people I saw as particularly bad role models
>for *that particular program*.

If you were a DJ, you would very quickly learn that the *only* thing
that matters is to attract as many listeners to your program as
possible.  The higher the ratings, the higher the advertising
revenues.  If your ratings go down too far, you'll be out of a job.

So you find out what your target audience wants to hear, and you play
it in between the plugs that you *have* to play in order to maintain
the cooperation & support of the music producers.

Anyway, if a 14 year old has a pop-idol who turns out to fancy young
kids, do you *really* believe that s/he will grow up to become a
paedophile in order to emulate his/her idol?  it is probably one
aspect of an idol's behavior that a youngster is *not* likely to want
to emulate.  Though it might make the 14 year-old hopeful that s/he
has a chance to get ijnto bed with the idol!

-- 
Cynic

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:59:38 +0000, Cynic 
wrote:
<snip>

>Anyway, if a 14 year old has a pop-idol who turns out to fancy young
>kids, do you *really* believe that s/he will grow up to become a
>paedophile in order to emulate his/her idol?  it is probably one
>aspect of an idol's behavior that a youngster is *not* likely to want
>to emulate.  Though it might make the 14 year-old hopeful that s/he
>has a chance to get ijnto bed with the idol!

It is the latter I was thinking of, not that they would emulate the
behaviour, but that they would see it as acceptable. And if it is
acceptable for their idol to do it, then it might also be acceptable
for their Uncle to do it.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"Nietzsche is dead." --God.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:11:47 +0000, Alex Heney 
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:59:38 +0000, Cynic 
>wrote:
><snip>
>
>>Anyway, if a 14 year old has a pop-idol who turns out to fancy young
>>kids, do you *really* believe that s/he will grow up to become a
>>paedophile in order to emulate his/her idol?  it is probably one
>>aspect of an idol's behavior that a youngster is *not* likely to want
>>to emulate.  Though it might make the 14 year-old hopeful that s/he
>>has a chance to get ijnto bed with the idol!
>
>It is the latter I was thinking of, not that they would emulate the
>behaviour, but that they would see it as acceptable. And if it is
>acceptable for their idol to do it, then it might also be acceptable
>for their Uncle to do it.

Yes, there's that.  But then there's *so* many things that I would not
want youngsters to emulate what rock idols do that thid particular
thing doesn't seem top of the list.  Homophobic murders, drug
addiction - all sorts of things.  I doubt many youngsters would equate
Uncle Ben with their rock idol, so the transference is not, IMO, all
that likely.

-- 
Cynic

Alex Heney  posted
>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:59:38 +0000, Cynic 
>wrote:
><snip>
>
>>Anyway, if a 14 year old has a pop-idol who turns out to fancy young
>>kids, do you *really* believe that s/he will grow up to become a
>>paedophile in order to emulate his/her idol?  it is probably one
>>aspect of an idol's behavior that a youngster is *not* likely to want
>>to emulate.  Though it might make the 14 year-old hopeful that s/he
>>has a chance to get ijnto bed with the idol!
>
>It is the latter I was thinking of, not that they would emulate the
>behaviour, but that they would see it as acceptable. And if it is
>acceptable for their idol to do it, then it might also be acceptable
>for their Uncle to do it.


It's all rather a long and speculative chain of ifs. Much too long to
justify restricting what kind of music people can listen to, at the whim
of the authorities. 


-- 
PeteM

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:47:38 +0000, PeteM  wrote:

>Alex Heney  posted
>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:59:38 +0000, Cynic 
>>wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Anyway, if a 14 year old has a pop-idol who turns out to fancy young
>>>kids, do you *really* believe that s/he will grow up to become a
>>>paedophile in order to emulate his/her idol?  it is probably one
>>>aspect of an idol's behavior that a youngster is *not* likely to want
>>>to emulate.  Though it might make the 14 year-old hopeful that s/he
>>>has a chance to get ijnto bed with the idol!
>>
>>It is the latter I was thinking of, not that they would emulate the
>>behaviour, but that they would see it as acceptable. And if it is
>>acceptable for their idol to do it, then it might also be acceptable
>>for their Uncle to do it.
>
>
>It's all rather a long and speculative chain of ifs. Much too long to
>justify restricting what kind of music people can listen to, at the whim
>of the authorities. 

And *again* I repeat. I do NOT think there should be any imposed
restriction on playing this music.

-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Junk: stuff we throw away. Stuff: junk we keep.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom