IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
They seemed happy to play Sham 69 on the chart show this weekend although Jimmy Pursey was cautioned for an under age sex offence. So where exactly do the BBC draw their censorship line? Would SHAM 69 be allowed on Top of the Pops - as long as it wasn't hosted by Savile or DLT and doesn't include Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris?
But whether or not the horrid Pursey is a paedo or a pervert is trivial. The problem is - why do broadcasters consider playing his music fine yet playing Gary Glitter's (far better) records impossible? Why play The Who and not Jonathan King? Why wipe Jimmy Savile from the airwaves yet broadcast Hitler on a regular basis?
JK2006 wrote: But whether or not the horrid Pursey is a paedo or a pervert is trivial. The problem is - why do broadcasters consider playing his music fine yet playing Gary Glitter's (far better) records impossible? Why play The Who and not Jonathan King? Why wipe Jimmy Savile from the airwaves yet broadcast Hitler on a regular basis?
I took a violent dislike to Jimmy Pursey and cant remember why. It was something to do with the Walton Hop and him being an arse on (possibly?) the Kilroy show?
Do you remember what he did?
He popped up on the ghastly Ronson hatchet job TV show on me, amongst several other future criminals. "We always knew there was something dodgy about King" was approximately what he said, ignoring the fact that actually everyone thought HE was dodgy, befriending very young girls.
JK2006 wrote: He popped up on the ghastly Ronson hatchet job TV show on me, amongst several other future criminals. "We always knew there was something dodgy about King" was approximately what he said, ignoring the fact that actually everyone thought HE was dodgy, befriending very young girls.
Ah yes, that was it. I find the rush to declare "we all knew" absolutely repugnant.
I remember Jimmy Pursey desperately wanting to be a pop star, jumping up and down on a sofa without his shoes on. He had the worst, smelliest feet and unwashed socks of all time. I could never take him seriously after that (though some of the hits were very good).
No you've misunderstood. I'm saying the BBC and other media outlets SHOULD be playing all great music (or, in the chart and list shows, appropriate numbers) and not censoring the music they play because of the non musical activity of the artistes, let alone banning some and not others. It makes just as much sense (i.e. none) to ban Sham 69 because the singer had smelly feet as it would to ban an actor who had served time for murdering someone in the past. If actors do a good job, include them. If singers had hits, play them. If we discover that Elvis Presley or Frank Sinatra once broke the law, should we stop playing their music? No. Should nobody play The Beatles again because one member got busted for drugs? No. Should the Rolling Stones be banned as one member once broke the law? No. Should a Gary Glitter No 1 be ignored in a chart run down? No. Should Top of the Pops be blocked because the host later got smacked on the wrist for pinching a bad comedienne's bum? No. It's time the BBC grew up. And did not bow to sensationalist hacks (some just fresh out of prison themselves) preaching morality.
I know of one internet radio which still plays Gary Glitter. They played "I.O.U." the other day and the world didn't crumble to dust. I'd forgotten all about Sham 69 until I saw this post, but they never were very good.
And just as I write on this page another radio is playing Jerry Lee Lewis.
I think that music and any other art is a separate reality .. or should be.
Or am I too tolerant?
There are two Sham 69's - both at war. Which explains the statement made by 'the band'
Pursey left the band a few years back, and Dave Parsons recruited another frontman to sing Pursey's songs.
The about 5 years ago Pursey made up with Parsons, and Parsons 'split' the post-Pursey line-up to reform three quarters of the Sham 69 who scored half a dozen hits in 78/79.
However, the Sham 69 Parsons quit decided they were now Sham 69 so they recruited another guitarist and continued to tour as the 'official' Sham 69. I had the misfortune to see this 'official' sham Sham 69 3 years ago - basically a cheap 'Oi' covers band fronted by a tattooed Milwall supporter - looked like a bunch of arseholes to me.
Bit of a mess really. How very silly, fighting over the rights to the name of a band that had an 18 month chart lifespan.
But either way; like all hits, Sham69 should NOT be "banned" from radio just as Savile, Travis and others should not be "banned" from TV. This insane censorship must end.
JK2006 wrote: But either way; like all hits, Sham69 should NOT be "banned" from radio just as Savile, Travis and others should not be "banned" from TV. This insane censorship must end.
It is especially stupid when more than one person has the rights to the music so an innocent person is being punished too.
I'm currently thumbing through my collection of 90s magazines - an entire decade's worth of Q, Select & Vox, and Loaded & Mixmag 94-00. I'm not going to pretend everything in the garden was rosy then, but when reviewing what is culturally the very recent past through what was published and not now, it is astonishing just how much things have deteriorated. In terms of trusting the readers/consumers to be both intelligent and discerning and to understand the nuances of humour & irony. It was probably the apex of the lessons learned in the 60s, 70s & 80s and as such prudish ridiculous notions such as banning pop records or television shows were considered laughable in the main - the situation we have now was unimaginable to us unless it was cloaked in some apocalyptic conspiracy theory. My generation never had it so good in that sense, but were we also responsible for throwing it away by allowing ourselves to collectively be fattened up and blinded by greed and consumerism, effectively aiding the destruction of the liberal and cultured society we had grown up in?
The notion of retrospectively censoring pop music or harmless ephemeral television and radio is utter lunacy, and smacks not just of stupidity but of deliberate destruction.
Yesterday my friend who admins the TOTP Facebook page received death threats for posting a video with a 7 second link by Jimmy Savile. The irony of the offending link being a track called "All Out To Get You (all over nothing)" would no doubt be completely lost on the idiots
I don't agree with the censorship either, however I imagine Jimmy Pursey's crime must have been relatively minor if he got away with a caution. I wasn't even aware that he had this caution until I read this post, and I'm pretty clued up about these things so there wouldn't be that many complaints if he his shown.
Minor indeed (one of mine was placing a hand on the knee of a teenager - originally claimed to be 12 but proved and admitted to be over 16, who I had never met - who then ran out of my house and never saw me again. How minor can you get these days?).
It would that Jimmy's Sham rival ('Tim V') is also a keen subscriber to some of the looniest conspiracy forums, one of those who froths at the mouth about teachers eating babies in Hamstead McDonalds & light entertainers worshiping the devil.... what a tangled web. Poor old Pursey.
Forums 
