Should classical music be a more forgiving world than other forms of culture ?

[Barbirollians]

I was very surprised to hear on CD Review this morning Andrew McGregor saying a CD was a must buy and that it was conducted by Robert King .

From Mr King's own website it seems that his career has taken off again without much trouble despite his convictions for indecently assaulting boys as young as 12 in 2007 and his sentence of imprisonment of three years and nine months.

The way that the classical music world appears to have taken this in its stride whilst anyone convicted of a sexual offence of this nature in other forms of public life in particular sees their career end - I have to admit to finding rather disturbing .

These types of offences are not those that I find easy to say simply someone has served their time .Anyway I won't be buying any of his CDs not matter how much they are raved about .

[MrGongGong]

These types of offences are not those that I find easy to say simply someone has served their time .Anyway I won't be buying any of his CDs not matter how much they are raved about .

I do believe in rehabilitation
but do share your feelings about these kinds of offences

(and sadly there's more to come i'm afraid)

[cloughie]

Could be double standards on different BBC stations - I don't thing Gary Glitter or Jonathan King get much airplay on Radio 2!

[teamsaint]

Jonathan Rees Williams doesn't seem to be getting much rehabilitation within the music world....though his world is a rather more tricky one for rehabilitation than King's, I suppose.
Performances opportunities seem pretty thin on the ground for him, unless he isn't seeking them out.

[Petrushka]

I must admit to sharing Barbirollian's misgivings when I saw the new disc raved about on the Presto website but their concern, as well as CD Review's for that matter and rightly so in my view, is for the music: moral matters are not within their scope.

Not having followed the case, I'm not sure of the level of seriousness of King's misdemeanours, but for once I agree with Mr GG in believing in rehabilitation. If King is receiving medical and psychological help after having served his time and does not reoffend then I can see no reason to damn him for all eternity.

When all is said and done we can make our own choice whether or not to buy this disc.

[MrGongGong]

Could be double standards on different BBC stations - I don't thing Gary Glitter or Jonathan King get much airplay on Radio 2!

I think this is true
and there is a feeling of somehow "classical" music is different
would Radio 2 enthusiastically review a compilation CD of Gary Glitters back catalogue ?

[Barbirollians]

I must admit to sharing Barbirollian's misgivings when I saw the new disc raved about on the Presto website but their concern, as well as CD Review's for that matter and rightly so in my view, is for the music: moral matters are not within their scope.

Not having followed the case, I'm not sure of the level of seriousness of King's misdemeanours, but for once I agree with Mr GG in believing in rehabilitation. If King is receiving medical and psychological help after having served his time and does not reoffend then I can see no reason to damn him for all eternity.



When all is said and done we can make our own choice whether or not to buy this disc.

Pretty serious - three years and nine months .

[Pabmusic]

I'm slightly surprised by all of this. The fellow was sent to prison, served his sentence and has been released. Are we suggesting his punishment should continue for the rest of his life? Or that he should not be allowed to resume the sort of musical life he had (if he can resume it at all - getting back to some sort of normality is difficult enough)? Or that he should only be allowed to work at 'lesser' jobs? Or not work at all?

When we can accept a convicted murderer on prime time BBC TV in a popular soap opera (Leslie Grantham - 'Dirty Den'), I see no reason to object to this man.

[Nick Armstrong]

Could I sound a note of caution that only individuals known for certain to have been convicted of underage sex offences (or if clearly explained, other serious offences) should be named or referred to identifiably in this thread. Thanks.

[Pabmusic]

...if King is receiving medical and psychological help after having served his time and does not reoffend then I can see no reason to damn him for all eternity.

When all is said and done we can make our own choice whether or not to buy this disc.

There will be no medical intervention, but you are absolutely right in your last sentence.

[amateur51]

I'm slightly surprised by all of this. The fellow was sent to prison, served his sentence and has been released. Are we suggesting his punishment should continue for the rest of his life? Or that he should not be allowed to resume the sort of musical life he had (if he can resume it at all - getting back to some sort of normality is difficult enough)? Or that he should only be allowed to work at 'lesser' jobs? Or not work at all?

When we can accept a convicted murderer on prime time BBC TV in a popular soap opera (Leslie Grantham - 'Dirty Den'), I see no reason to object to this man.

I must say that I agree, Pabs

That length of sentence in prison where he would have been marked as a 'nonce' can hardly have been a walk in the park. He'll know that society does not approve of what he did, fair and square. He has a family to support him now and to remove his career too seems like setting him up to fail. If he was a garage mechanic would we feel this way?

My experience of a friend who was given the lightest sentence that the court could impose was that he was heavily supervised by probation and some other officials, such that he has to inform them each time he leaves the country for a holiday and he is still on the Sexual Offender Register. He accepts this as a consequence of his actions, his partner abd many friends have stood by him and he is slowly rebuilding his career in adult education but he has certainly been punished.

[Keraulophone]

Barbirollians: "For reasons mentioned in the thread on Platform 3 I won't be buying a CD conducted by Robert King."

I hadn't noticed your post on P3 when I put mine up on CDR, Barb. I'm inclined to agree with MrGG, Petrushka and Pab above, although the two threads (re NYCGB & CE from Bramdean) that I contributed to on this unsavory topic, both swiftly closed down, incidentally, did attest to my position on such matters.

Some may agree with you that: "These types of offences are not those that I find easy to say simply [?] someone has served their time. Anyway I won't be buying any of his CDs no[t] matter how much they are raved about". It's clearly up to the individual to weigh these heavy issues.

[Lateralthinking1]

McGregor's just lost a listener for all time and one who supported him before. This is not a classical music issue. It is a BBC issue. Of all the people that they could have promoted instead, they chose him and in the current climate. A letter to the Culture Secretary will be written this afternoon asking for the matter to be considered by those investigating how the BBC is "putting its house in order". Others are entitled to discuss the merits of the music just as they are to discuss Savile purely in regard to his significant contribution to radio broadcasting and Jonathan King's "Entertainment USA" on BBC2, the latter presumably to be broadcast very soon. Perhaps he will stand again for Parliament as the Royalty candidate in Richmond on Thames and be elected.

The feeling that I have gained in the last month is that moral equivocation in these matters is predominantly among the high brow but then that could be a trend because of greater choral activity, prep schools and icy cold parentage. Had I realised that the matter had been a fundamental component of Radio 3, and it now appears to be, I doubt I would have bothered with it. I'd have rather stayed with people who concentrate their minds on normality, knowing right from wrong, and are superior in that sense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6720213.stm.

[ahinton]

McGregor's just lost a listener for all time and one who supported him before. This is not a classical music issue. It is a BBC issue. Of all the people that they could have promoted instead, they chose him and in the current climate. A letter to the Culture Secretary will be written this afternoon asking for the matter to be considered by those investigating how the BBC is "putting its house in order". Others are entitled to discuss the merits of the music just as they are to discuss Savile purely in regard to his significant contribution to radio broadcasting and Jonathan King's "Entertainment USA" on BBC2, the latter presumably to be broadcast very soon. Perhaps he will stand again for Parliament as the Royalty candidate in Richmond again and be elected.

The feeling that I have gained in the last month is that moral equivocation in these matters is predominantly among the high brow but then that is probably a trend because of greater choral activity, prep schools and icy cold parentage. Had I realised that the matter had been a fundamental component of Radio 3, and it now appears to be, I doubt that I would have bothered with it. I would much rather stayed with people who concentrate their minds on normality, knowing wrong from right and are superior in that sense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6720213.stm.

I'm sure that Mr McGregor will somehow manage to live without that one fewer among his tally of listeners for as long as it takes to replace him with another.

Whilst in no wise seeking to dilute the gravity of those offences with which King was charged, the fact that he was convicted of all but one of them does not necessarily mean that he was guilty as charged (miscarriages of justice are not unknown, after all), although I presume that the likelihood is that he was indeed guilty as charged; that said, unless you believe that his sentence was unduly lenient (and it almost sounds as though you do indeed believe that it should have been life without parole), he is surely no different to any other convicted criminal in being free to re-enter society once his sentence has been completed. Would you seek to bar from all professional activity all convicted criminals who have been handed a custodial sentence and advocate the undermining of their efforts to try to regain their lives once their sentences have been served? If not, why would you take against Mr King and not all other ex-prisoners?

Your efforts to link his case with that of Savile do that part of your argument that you describe as "a BBC issue" no favours; Savile was at one time on BBC's books whereas King wasn't - and Savile's sexual misdemeanours are now thought to have spanned almost six decades, which is as long as if not longer than King has been alive.

I presume that, had you been in a position of sufficient power in the 19th century, you'd likewise have sought to bar organisations from mounting performances of Wagner on account of his alleged conduct, but just consider the case of Roslavets who, not only during a large part of his active life as a musician but also for decades after his death, was treated more abominably by his political "masters", their henchpersons and those afraid of countering them than was Shostakovich - and the persecution, which began some years before Shostakovich came under Soviet fire, continued to some degree even after the fall of the Soviet Union. You may not consider his case to be analogous to that of Mr King, but I mention it nevertheless as a salutary reminder that, whilst you would appear to advocate undermining King's career for the foreseeable future, those in authority in the Soviet Union continued to do so for Roslavets for almost half a century after his death; is that a civilised or in any other sense morally justifiable manner in which to behave?

[Barbirollians]

I was trying to draw attention to the apparent rehabilitation by Radio 3 of a convicted offender against children as distinct from those in popular culture .

I am aware that Mr King pleaded not guilty but he was convicted of offences involving more than one boy , the youngest was 12 and he was sentenced to three years and nine months .

I do find the suggestion that this is a must buy , pretty insensitive and inappropriate . I very much doubt that a Gary Glitter new album would be treated in the same way !