 |
| Pandora's Box |
So, only a few years after the shocking and sickening news that the Krankies were swingers and Barry Chuckle was twatted in a layby for playing away, there's more aged light-entertainment sex madness for us to deal with. This one's far more sinister though. The face of charities, fun runs, and going "Nururururgh" in this country had apparently been exposed. There always seemed something quite off about Sir Jimmy. After watching the Louis Theroux documentary I thought it was something Oedipal, the whole "The Duchess" thing had shades of Norman Bates combined with Mike Ranger in 1970's pornographic film Taboo (for the record I actually still have my suspicions on The Duchess thing, but that's neither here nor there), but instead it turns out his sexual deviancy of choice was hebephilia/ehphebophilia which is something far less palatable. And bonking your mum isn't superduper palatable.
So, is it a massive cover up? Was it a shroud of fear stopping people coming forward to say they'd been interfered with? I'd say there's a lot to be said for the second theory. With the blame culture so unfairly associated with victims of rape, would victims of his abuse feel particularly comfortable coming forward to talk against a 'national institution'? Was there massive underage sex orgies with Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter in dressing rooms in Shepherds Bush? I'm probably a bit doubtful of that. I don't think there was some massive paedophile ring of celebrities passing around children like currency like the Free Robert Green types would have you believe. (However, WHERE'S THE BOOK PETE?).
But apparently, there could other names involved. Personally I'd not be surprised, actually more hopeful than anything, if one of them had a beard, DJed, and I'm trying not to say enough about him to get sued by him. Because that's what it all seems to have boiled down to. Crap old light entertainers are all sex freaks. What next, Little and Large go dogging? Russ Abbot in rimming shame? Gyles Brandreth is a fucking massive tosser (Oh, wait!). Where's it all going to end? And is there a bit of a double standard in all of this?
Roman Polanski's career doesn't seem to have suffered to terribly since being charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14 in 1977. Indeed, he just fled around places that wouldn't extradite him until settling out of court in 1993. He still made films, people still went to watch his films, and not many called him a dirty norris. John Peel dallied with the underage, but because it's John Peel it seemed to fly under people's radar. John Bonham like them young too. Is this because they're seen as visionaries and artists, instead of cringeworthy relics like Glitter and Savile? I've always seen child abuse and rape as child abuse and rape in my eyes, regardless of artistic merit of their work, and all should be castigated.
Maybe if this was attacked at the crux of the problem at the time and not brushed under the carpet, maybe the stigmatising of victims may not be so prevalent and we wouldn't end up where we are now?
And I thoroughly expect to read about the bloke who played Reg Holdsworth cottaging with Paul Nicholas before we know it.
www.twitter.com/GazMaybury
No comments:
Post a Comment