Paedo-Pop? Page 2

(For those who daren't click) it's just a mildly amusing take on Oscar Wilde's proclivity for consensual sex with young men that wouldn't offend if sung by someone else.
Looks like Jonathan has achieved his aim of winding people up with his unrepentance.
EDIT:
To be clear, I think JK is a shit to bring stuff like this out with no regard for his victims' feelings. However, I think you play into his publicity-seeking hands by reacting as above. It's not 'Paedo-Pop'. Had the song been on 'Not the Nine O'Clock News', it would have been happily replayed for 25 years.

Quote: JohnnyD @ May 15 2008, 8:44 AM BST

(For those who daren't click) it's just a mildly amusing take on Oscar Wilde's proclivity for consensual sex with young men that wouldn't offend if sung by someone else.
Looks like Jonathan has achieved his aim of winding people up with his unrepentance.
EDIT:
To be clear, I think JK is a shit to bring stuff like this out with no regard for his victims' feelings. However, I think you play into his publicity-seeking hands by reacting as above. It's not 'Paedo-Pop'. Had the song been on 'Not the Nine O'Clock News', it would have been happily replayed for 25 years.

View original

I think it is Paedo-Pop. Perhaps I'm missing something, but he's a convicted paedophile who's just released a pop song about buggering boys. The Oscar Wilde references and stupid wigs don't change that.

Quote: Perry Nium @ May 15 2008, 10:11 AM BST

I think it is Paedo-Pop. Perhaps I'm missing something, but he's a convicted paedophile who's just released a pop song about buggering boys.

View original

Don't just get angry. Listen to the lyrics. He's using the term 'boys' the way zooo and many others have used it dozens of times; just meaning 'males'. He specifically says in the song, "as long as they're not too young". Apart from the word 'boys', there is not the slightest hint, indication, or insinuation that he literally means those under the age of consent. As JohnnyD says, he's trying to get people worked up and to cause controversy, and has chosen his words very carefully in order to maximise that annoyance potential. Which has worked, evidently.

And regarding the point that he should have thought of his victims, remember that he still protests his innocence and believes that he was jailed for crimes he did not commit, so why should or would he?

Quote: Griff @ May 15 2008, 10:16 AM BST

There's a fascinating (and disturbing) account of the Jonathan King trial in Jon Ronson's excellent book Out Of The Ordinary.

View original

Do go on...

G'wan, give us the jist! I'd never heard of the man until he was freed, so am interested to hear who comes of worse in Ronson's account of it.

Quote: Aaron @ May 15 2008, 10:33 AM BST

And regarding the point that he should have thought of his victims, remember that he still protests his innocence and believes that he was jailed for crimes he did not commit, so why should or would he?

View original

Yes. Apparently, he's now realised he was in America at the time of one of the offences. When he's proved his innocence at the European Court, I shall unreservedly apologise for calling him a shit. Until that time, I'll let the British judicial system colour my prejudices!

Quote: Griff @ May 15 2008, 10:38 AM BST

I think it's fair to say Johnathan King doesn't come off too well.

View original

Having never seen him come off, I can't answer that

Agree with Aaron here, as King himself points out in the comments to the video on YT that the opening line "You've got to have consent" means that the 'boys' referenced in the song must be over legal age because minors can't legally consent. Add to that Aaron's highlighting of the line about not being too young.

On the converse, King is not an idiot, and he's not going to incriminate himself so publicly especially when appealing to the European courts; and his lyrics and replies to the YT comments (yes, it seems the YouTube poster is answering in the first-person) reflect that caution.

So it isn't paedo-pop if we look at it from a purely lyrical sense. But from the aspect that it is sung by a convicted paedophile (whether protesting innocence or otherwise) with deliberate ambiguity in the title then it is fair to say that it is tasteless pop of the feeblest kind.

I admire his courage for standing up for his nature. He is what he is and knows he can't change it.

Losers give up in the face of mob vengeance and/or falls from societal grace; winners keep on keeping on.

When there is a person surrounded by stone-throwing unconscious cretins, I step in and defend his right to exist as he is---perceived flaws and all.

It's too bad he did not simulate buggering a teddy bear.

On the one hand, he's an underage kiddie buggerer. On the other hand, he's Jonathan King.

He's going to hell, no matter what, isn't he?

Yep!
I remember him before this all happened and everyone hated him already. Just for being a weird looking twat.

Before it all went wrong for him, I didn't mind him, especially on that magazine show he did looking at American culture. I thought that was quite watchable.

I hated him for an entirely unfair reason.
His lip annoyed me.

He always made incredibly crap pop songs didn't he? This one's nothing new.

It's really catchy though.

That pop bastard.

(I'd never heard of him until he was released, so have no preconceptions either way.)

If none of this had happened he'd probably be a reality judge on a show like X-Factor or Britain's Got Talent. I agree about the lip, though.

Well we've covered three pages with it so in his eyes that's probably a victory.

Got to love the chorus:

There's nothing wrong with,
Buggering boys,
As long as he's doing,
What he enjoys.
Don't startle the horses,
Or make too much noise,
But there's nothing wrong with,
Buggering boys.
There's nothing wrong with,
Buggering boys.

C'mon zooo, gay acceptance! That song is actually everything you believe in!