Wacko Jacko

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
26,830
Likes
11,291
Points
284
What is an "offence archaeologist"? Are they digging up old offences or are they finding "offence" in the past?
A bit of both. The James Gunn controversy (which has now been resolved) was all about offensive jokes that were dug up from a decade ago. Basically, unless you've lived the life of a saint then someone will find some misdemeanour in your past to lambast you with, should they so desire, either out of maintaining an idea of justice, or just to be an arsehole.

Mind you, if, say, someone discovered David Attenborough was a serial killer, then it would be wholly justifiable. If he'd made a casually racist joke back in the 1970s, then you're dealing with a lot of caveats. Note: he has done neither of those things, as far as I know.

For some reason we expect celebrities to be paragons of virtue, then relish any dirt anyone finds or invents on them. It's a curious paradox when they're just as fallible as you or I.
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
3,000
Likes
2,314
Points
154
Please, David Attenborough has travelled the globe, doing nature shows with large and dangerous creatures. He'd definitely know how to get rid of the bodies.
 

Ogdred Weary

Sooner than expected.
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,032
Likes
3,213
Points
159
A bit of both. The James Gunn controversy (which has now been resolved) was all about offensive jokes that were dug up from a decade ago. Basically, unless you've lived the life of a saint then someone will find some misdemeanour in your past to lambast you with, should they so desire, either out of maintaining an idea of justice, or just to be an arsehole.

Mind you, if, say, someone discovered David Attenborough was a serial killer, then it would be wholly justifiable. If he'd made a casually racist joke back in the 1970s, then you're dealing with a lot of caveats. Note: he has done neither of those things, as far as I know.

For some reason we expect celebrities to be paragons of virtue, then relish any dirt anyone finds or invents on them. It's a curious paradox when they're just as fallible as you or I.
I can see that the term could be used either way. It's just some people on @maximus otter 's list have committed the sort of crimes one doesn't "sweep under the carpet", if The Stones or Bowie slept with willing underage teenage girls it's not the same thing as Jackson grooming and abusing pre-teens or Glitter who owned child porn in the 90s and committed offences (against I believe pre-teens) in the same period in Asia.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
4,121
Likes
7,289
Points
234
...if The Stones or Bowie slept with willing underage teenage girls it's not the same thing...
Let's see what the (then) relevant law said:

6: Intercourse with girl between thirteen and sixteen

(1) It is an offence...for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl not under the age of thirteen but under the age of sixteen.

s.6(1), Sexual Offences Act 1956

I'm not seeing the bit where it says, "Except, of course, if she was gagging for it."

maximus otter
 

Ogdred Weary

Sooner than expected.
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,032
Likes
3,213
Points
159
Let's see what the (then) relevant law said:

6: Intercourse with girl between thirteen and sixteen

(1) It is an offence...for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl not under the age of thirteen but under the age of sixteen.

s.6(1), Sexual Offences Act 1956

I'm not seeing the bit where it says, "Except, of course, if she was gagging for it."

maximus otter
It is illegal, yes of course. It is also immoral: though that is something a little more nebulous. I did not know how to interpret your post, which used the term "offence archaeologist": a term which could be interpreted in a number of ways and appeared potentially derisory, which is why I quoted you and asked what it meant. It's also taken place in a thread where people have commented that recent history where "people had different standards".

I did not know if you where dismissing the actions of all the people listed as something that is the exclusive province of "offence archaeologists".
 

Coal

Polymath Renaissance Man, Italian Wiccan Anarchist
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,832
Likes
10,636
Points
279
I'm not seeing the bit where it says, "Except, of course, if she was gagging for it."

maximus otter
Isn't that the point (obliquely)? Someone under the age of consent, legally, is not able to give informed consent. Ergo, even if 'gagging for it' consent has not been given.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
4,121
Likes
7,289
Points
234
I did not know how to interpret your post, which used the term "offence archaeologist": a term which could be interpreted in a number of ways and appeared potentially derisory...
Offence archaeology refers to the modern practice - much seen in politics - where legions of nitpickers descend on the past writings and actions of those of whom they disapprove, keen to find something - anything - which could conceivably be used to paint them in a bad light.

The term is meant to be derisive, as no-one can survive such a level of scrutiny without having something found in their past which could offend someone today.

Taken to its logical extreme we should, for example, burn all books printed in Gill Sans typeface, as its designer Eric Gill was a vile man.

maximus otter
 

Ogdred Weary

Sooner than expected.
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,032
Likes
3,213
Points
159
Isn't that the point (obliquely)? Someone under the age of consent, legally, is not able to give informed consent. Ergo, even if 'gagging for it' consent has not been given.
I think that's the point MO was making there.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
4,121
Likes
7,289
Points
234
Isn't that the point (obliquely)? Someone under the age of consent, legally, is not able to give informed consent. Ergo, even if 'gagging for it' consent has not been given.
Which was the whole point of my post...

;)

maximus otter
 

Ogdred Weary

Sooner than expected.
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,032
Likes
3,213
Points
159
Offence archaeology refers to the modern practice - much seen in politics - where legions of nitpickers descend on the past writings and actions of those of whom they disapprove, keen to find something - anything - which could conceivably be used to paint them in a bad light.

The term is meant to be derisive, as no-one can survive such a level of scrutiny without having something found in their past which could offend someone today.

Taken to its logical extreme we should, for example, burn all books printed in Gill Sans typeface, as its designer Eric Gill was a vile man.

maximus otter
Thank you for your response, I too dislike offence archaeology, as you say where does it end? The ouroboros consumes itself.

It's just that Savlle "allegedly" fucking corpses and raping small and not so small children sort of transcends contemporary thin skinned types finding things to get their knickers about. Likewise things Glitter was actually convicted of. It's not in the category of "X" elderly celebrity once have described people as being "coloured".
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,883
Likes
4,402
Points
159
Which was the whole point of my post...

;)

maximus otter
You will note the law dates from 1956, at which time it was most unlikely that a 15 year old would be at a club at 2am in a mini skirt and thigh boots, and have been getting served alcohol at the bar.

People may be cynical now, but there was a profound cultural revolution between say 1965 and 1975, and the law - and indeed parents - found it difficult to keep up. Everyone thought they were having fun, with hindsight we can see some of that fun was irresponsible. But fun often is.

It all went sour with the skinheads and the like soon after
 

Ogdred Weary

Sooner than expected.
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,032
Likes
3,213
Points
159
You will note the law dates from 1956, at which time it was most unlikely that a 15 year old would be at a club at 2am in a mini skirt and thigh boots, and have been getting served alcohol at the bar.

People may be cynical now, but there was a profound cultural revolution between say 1965 and 1975, and the law - and indeed parents - found it difficult to keep up. Everyone thought they were having fun, with hindsight we can see some of that fun was irresponsible. But fun often is.

It all went sour with the skinheads and the like soon after
It was probably less common but the rumours about Savile go back to the fifties, where it appears very young girls were in the clubs he ran or was a bouncer/DJ at. Of course, given his "interests" he may have been encouraging them but I dare say there were a number of underage kids of both sexes going to whatever nightlife was around at the time. The more things change the more they stay the same.
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,883
Likes
4,402
Points
159
It was probably less common but the rumours about Savile go back to the fifties, where it appears very young girls were in the clubs he ran or was a bouncer/DJ at. Of course, given his "interests" he may have been encouraging them but I dare say there were a number of under age kids of both sexes going to whatever nightlife was around at the time. The more things change the more they stay the same.
I guess so. I don't really have much experience of clubs at that level - the ones we played in were usually adjuncts to a pub to allow them to keep open longer. We did play a few larger venue s but we were always well down the bill :)

Honestly, as far as we were concerned I just don't think it occurred to us that any of the ladies we met might have been under age. I suppose the difference is that looking back maybe some pop stars had a habit of seeking out under age girls amongst the fans, and they are I guess in a middle position between 'made a mistake' and 'professional pre-pubescent paedophile'.

I realise all of the above are against the law but to be honest we never though much about the law in those days or we wouldn't have made use of the range of , er , 'stimulants' we used. Now - and for many years - I've had a healthy respect for the law, but back then not so much.
 

Ogdred Weary

Sooner than expected.
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,032
Likes
3,213
Points
159
I guess so. I don't really have much experience of clubs at that level - the ones we played in were usually adjuncts to a pub to allow them to keep open longer. We did play a few larger venue s but we were always well down the bill :)

Honestly, as far as we were concerned I just don't think it occurred to us that any of the ladies we met might have been under age. I suppose the difference is that looking back maybe some pop stars had a habit of seeking out under age girls amongst the fans, and they are I guess in a middle position between 'made a mistake' and 'professional pre-pubescent paedophile'.

I realise all of the above are against the law but to be honest we never though much about the law in those days or we wouldn't have made use of the range of , er , 'stimulants' we used. Now - and for many years - I've had a healthy respect for the law, but back then not so much.
What sort of time period were you playing gigs?
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,883
Likes
4,402
Points
159
What sort of time period were you playing gigs?
1972 in a pub band. Joined a serious band in I think 1976 but we had musical differences in '77 so I went back to the pub band - finished with them in 1980 - marriage, child etc. But I've gigged occasionally since - last time about 3 years ago. No groupies now though :)
 
Last edited:

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
2,951
Likes
4,148
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
"If Michael Jackson's heritage included at least one 'white' relative in the past few generations, then some European genes will have been passed on through him and it is entirely possible that one of his children with a 'white' woman could indeed look 'white'. He may indeed be her genetic father."

The claims that actor Mark Lester is the biological father are rather more plausible.
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
6,409
Likes
3,512
Points
259
"If Michael Jackson's heritage included at least one 'white' relative in the past few generations, then some European genes will have been passed on through him and it is entirely possible that one of his children with a 'white' woman could indeed look 'white'. He may indeed be her genetic father."

The claims that actor Mark Lester is the biological father are rather more plausible.
Michael's siblings had quite white-looking kids. And Mariah Carey is African-american, and doesn't really look it. Basically some people of mixed black and white parentage look really white.
 

Victory

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
260
Likes
417
Points
64
Location
London
Mariah Carey is mixed race, as we Brits call it, or Biracial, as Americans call it.
Her father's family is African American and Hispanic, her mother's family is Irish.
She looks pretty much as her heritage would suggest.
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
6,409
Likes
3,512
Points
259
Mariah Carey is mixed race, as we Brits call it, or Biracial, as Americans call it.
Her father's family is African American and Hispanic, her mother's family is Irish.
She looks pretty much as her heritage would suggest.
And Michael Jackson's kids are also mixed race.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
2,951
Likes
4,148
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
And Michael Jackson's kids are also mixed race.
By no stretch of the imagination is this a "mixed-race" woman. There is no resemblance whatsoever to Michael Jackson. She looks exactly what a daughter conceived by Debbie Rowe and Mark Lester ought to look like: IMG_0574.JPG
 
Top