hang on, jimmy WHO!?!?

(i once encountered JP at a book launch; he was pleasant enough, despite his red leather trousers, until another writer arrived with small daughter in tow — daughter got restive with all these goofy adults, JP noticed, took it on himself to become the child's private clown-show for abt an hour, while the writer got to talk to grown-ups, and just rest. Sham 69 were, erm, not my favouries gp by some way, but that was a kewl thing to do...)

(also, back of the JR piece, what role did King have the careers of Carter the Unstoppable Sex Machine? Was no depravity too low for this devil-man?)

((just noticed in the above a rather unintended implication re Pursey's erm proclivities: NOPE! NONONO! He was a PUNTER as a young teen at the Walton Hop, and told JR how wild it actually was/seemed back then, to essex teendom. As a semi- retired popstar he was highly entertaining to a small bored girl in her dad's presence NO SUSPECT MOTIVES ATTACHED))

Pursey was also on ITV news the day the story broke - they had wobbly vid footage of a young(ish) JP manning the decks at the disco, while King was lurking in the b/g like a sinister svengali sex beast. They also had modern interview footage with Mr. Hersham Boy himself, looking v. good actually. But not v. punk at all.

Have always wondered if JK did not exaggerate how much he actually had to do w/launching the careers of Genesis, 10CC etc. - but yes, am puzzled as to why he would want to claim responsibility for Carter, of all things. (Was that TV show where they biffed 'Pip' Schofield up the bracket produced by King, or something - certainly the only thing they'll ever be remembered for...)

Thought it was an excellent piece by Ronson, esp. the way it hinted that British pop music is essentially a gay invention - Ronson could just as easily have mentioned Joe Meek, Brian Epstein, Kit Lambert, Tom Watkins etc. as Larry Parnes and Simon Napier-Bell.

but wasn't the implication Parnes/N-Bell shagged the talent, then signed em hurrah? Meek & Heinz maybe (but was Heinz "the talent"); Epstein and Lennon probably (but that was Lennon playing mindfuck); Watkins — er, how guid's yer lawyer?

Erm, FANCIED the talent - shagged is course a private matter between the particular parties concerned and none of my business(he says nervously, trying to extricate himself from the legal bovver Mark S may be dragging him into!)

this is a mclaren trope also of course: punX as boyband-jailbait! Didja ever see those pix of the pistols costumed as abused-waif rentboys, andrew? (and later Annabel Lwin, of course!) (tho mclaren was a gennleman natch)

There was a very famous court-case in the early 70s, I remember reading it in the papers in my school library aged c.12, about this guy called Roger [ferget], who set up a freelance runaway-haven which was sort of a front for him abusing them: even at the time, even in the Daily Mail, I remember there was a v.complex dialectic in the evdience (poss not how I wd have described at at 12) between the surviving mutual fondness of abuser and victims (many of whom were ay of course: that's why they'd run away in the first place). Yes it was statutory rape and manipulative abuse, but for some of the victims, Roger [xx] was also something like the first adult who'd ever shown them sustained interest and kindness. (Like I say I was 12: I may well not have taken in some more awful aspect; I do remember thinking — ie at the time — that the law was being unfair)

king of course = fuXoR partly cuz he said he'd make em famous = big crappy lie

what a lot of self-hatred must have been slooshing rd that body: he was FAR FROM hideous as a young man

ay = gay

I read it in turns with other ILE mavens and lurkstresses while in the Paris-London Cafe, N London. Addled hungover brain missed first mention of Pursey then say surname, ha ha I wonder if that's Jimmy Pursey OH MY GOODNESS.

Re Carter - it's Ronson sarkily claiming JK's involvement with (paraphrase) "many of the major pop movements of our time" including Carter USM. Heated debate ensued with Pete, London's top Carter fan, horrified at his favourites' connection with the evil pop beast. (OK horrified a bit strong). Anyway he claimed that JK had extensively bigged up CUSM in his Bizarre column at the time.

There was a very famous court-case in the early 70s, I remember reading it in the papers in my school library aged c.12, about this guy called Roger [ferget], who set up a freelance runaway-haven which was sort of a front for him abusing them

That would probably have been Roger Gleaves (aka 'the Bishop of Medway').

Hi Mark, I was at the hand of an abuser when I was a young girl and believe you me that I couldn't stand him. Nothing is fair when it comes to abuse. I was placed in a middle class fosterhome by a MTL Agency. I'll tell you something about that time of my life. I did tell his mother what he was doing to us. He denied it and I got beaten and beaten and threatened that if I told anyone it would get back to her and I would be in for double. I can identify with anyone who has been raped and abused. Gale

Yep, I believe it was 1990 while King was doing Bizarre and he did a full page spread on "The Best Band In Britain" - it being Carter USM. We are talking old school Radio One period here as well where this music was not getting any mainstream exposure (you may say for good reason) so a full page piece in the Sun ould be quite impressive and useful. They did start selling serious numbers of records after this (though they would probably say not because of it) - but it allowed pop savvy King to claim them as his own.

throw away the key!

Okay, so I know it's been said before, but I still find it extremely difficult to comprehend how not a single one of JK's cronies felt a sufficient twinge of conscience to blow the whistle on his despicable activities. The fact there's been a cover-up of monstruous proportions here is irrefutable. Suspicions were raised about JK as far back as 1976 [see latest Private Eye, P.2], yet there were no follow-ups whatsoever on this lead.

If this were anywhere near approaching an ideal world, Mr King wouldn't be the only one facing a substantial spell in the slammer. Anyone who assists in constructing the wall of silence that permits such abusive practices to continue should be just as guilty as the perpetrator.

Okay, so I know it's been said before, but I still find it extremely difficult to comprehend how not a single one of JK's cronies felt a sufficient twinge of conscience to blow the whistle on his despicable activities.

From reading the Guardian article, I got the impression that he was simply one among many in his circle of cronies that was doing this sort of thing so that no-one ever saw it as despicable. I never got the impression that anyone around JK (aside from the victims and the prosecution, obviously) thought there was anything wrong being done.

there's always been a don't-shop-yr-mates ethos in the entertainment industry: becuz yr small boy is my spliff/kickback whatever

it's an unspoken unlicensed zone: everyone bound by mutual complicity, even though actual scale of crimes — and "fashionability" of crimes too — varies between the minds of the complicit. However actual specifics of what JLK was up to, i can easily imagine close friends being in denial — why WOULD they know? Giving a 14-yr-old a ride in a car is *not* tantamount to raping him: absent complaints from victims to cronies (tho why wd they complain to cronies?), cronies can easily live in denial, tell emselves yes JK likes company of young teens fnar fnar, no he does nothing over-the-line to em, or we'd have heard by now.

Of course the factor that ensures their silence is the fear of being labelled queer (not eg some army of hired goons threatening violence if you tell). JK can also end up kidding himself that his victims actually enjoyed cuz i. they came back after the first time; ii. they never said different.

I'm not arguing against the wrongness, just the idea that there has to be a FULLY INFORMED cover-up here. Cuz the logic is Satanic Abuse logic: there is no evidence => the conspiracy is wider than you can possibly imagine.

Which in analysing the psychology of criminals, is precisely what you'd expect. Criminals have a tendency to associate with others of the same ilk, because it helps them to justify and therefore internally legitimise their behaviour. Otherwise, the strain on their conscience would make it impossible for them to continue.

And I saw precisely that pattern developing in the Guardian article - King starts off with outright denials/ridiculing his victims' claims, and later changes tack by adopting justifying/legitimising arguments. That to me was incredibly revealing.

Yes Mark, in addressing your observations I agree that there wasn't necessarily a fully informed cover-up, although I would contend that those who were not fully informed only remained that way by burying their own heads in the sand.