A contemporary recently said (I paraphrase), “I find it surprising that the media/public/neighbours all claim to be shocked by revelations that some politicians and celebrities have more skeletons in their closet than the average pathologist. We are mainly talking about the 70s to the 90s here - which in reality were not all that long after those swinging sixties whose excesses we seem to recall with such nostalgia.”
As he inferred, the world was different back then and indeed it was. I should know, for I’m old enough (sob!) to have lived as an adult from the early sixties onwards and thus have first-hand memory of those oft surprising years.
Whilst not in any way seeking to justify some of the deviations in the ‘Make Love Not War’ thinking of the 60’s/70’s, some of the allegations which are now coming out of the woodwork must make any civilised person really wonder just what the hell was going on.
However, as is usual with such situations, there is a natural and significant public reaction to the current scandals but I sense we should keep our minds open, lest today’s ‘revelations should turn into serious witch hunts – for it seems that a name has only to be mentioned in connection with someone’s recall and however tenuous that may be, accusations are made which develop exponentially and can sometimes have a potential to destroy families, people and reputations.
So, before we all get any further carried away, could I suggest that we just stop a moment and consider a few ingredients in this amazing recipe for behaviour. In so doing, I do not for a moment wish to deny any genuine claims.
Firstly, the culture was truly different in the 60s/70/80s - so let’s start with that. There was a continuation of the post war revolt against austerity and as is human, the pendulum perhaps went too far when it embraced all manner of outrageous behaviour. There was a great deal of alcohol, sex and drugs involved in the popular culture; not only by general youth at the parties, raves and festivals but it was also being openly indulged by stage and celluloid heroes from the music or film world – and on top of all that, certain prominent politicians were not unknown for their private excesses.
When impressionable youth see their new heroes behaving in a certain way, it usually encourages emulation and for instance, many people who’d never heard of the dreaded weed suddenly found it almost compulsory to get off their faces if they were to appear even remotely cool. Then there were the other and harder drugs like acid or speed and all the irrational exaggerations which they induced in the statutory hormonal needs of lustful young men, women and certain politicians.
Moving on, I have vivid memories of the queues of hysterical and sometimes very young females and others being physically fought off by police and minders outside stage doors, airports, stations and venues. Their knickers and bra’s festooned stages and their enthusiastically hopeful invitations were shrieked out in public at highly audible levels. My point here is that there was a sizeable element of youth only too willing to sacrifice itself to the sexual desires of both heterosexual and homosexual celebrities.
Considering the mores of that particular culture then, should we really be surprised that the grossly over-paid and frequently stoned or pissed sudden newcomers to such popular fame took full advantage in their dressing rooms both before and after their performances - and even, as has been claimed, during them? Let’s face it, many of them were also very young themselves and whilst I cannot condone it, most of their new-found habits may have been the reason for their behaviour - but certainly not the excuse.
The second ingredient relates to something a great deal more sinister and less open but something which I suspect, has always been with us throughout the centuries - but only through the explosive expansion of global communication is it now able to offer itself in such detail. I refer of course, to abuse . . . . . in the current context, sexual abuse.
Unlike the general situations mentioned earlier, true abuse is a one-sided aberration which may often be well disguised in certain cultures as acceptable and normal behaviour - matters like ‘arranged’ or under-age marriages, for instance – or the ‘over-familiarity’ of celebrities, be they political or otherwise. At one time these were glossed over, or ‘tolerated’ - but rightfully, no longer.
Any form of abuse is a gross affront to the concept of civilised living, particularly when it relates to sexual or other advantage being taken of those who may justifiably feel they’re reliant for future advancement upon the goodwill of their abuser.
Details of its embodiment in the context of Saville et al are well known, so I shan’t dwell further on them. Sufficient to say that I trust our legal system, and the investigating authorities which precede it, will justly deal with those allegations in an equitable manner.
As to those in my earlier category, who may be mistakenly presumed ‘less guilty’ by dint of their taking advantage of what was actively being offered to them - well, that’s perhaps another matter. It is entirely possible that many of their apparent ‘victims’ may well have been girls/boys who at the time, were more than willing to throw their knickers into the arena so to speak; but who now regret their youthful indiscretion and seek to assuage that regret by taking advantage of current events to retrospectively adopt the role of ‘victim’, rather than willing (if frequently under-age) participant.
All of it is indeed a daunting task for the relevant authorities, because not only is there often a considerable time lapse involved but the sheer number of allegations materialising on a daily basis could encourage thought that there may exist an element of those who cynically seek to take advantage of the situation - to the resultant disadvantage of genuine victims.
I categorically stress here that I should never wish to deny any genuine victims their right to redress - but I ask - who would wish to be one of those whose legal task it must be to differentiate between truth and opportunism?
