To buy or not to buy ...

[Pabmusic]

...King could have likely made a living in music after his release in rather less high profile activities. He has put himself in the firing line.

So he's fair game, then?

For years the public adored/loved to hate 'Dirty Den' from Eastenders, a convicted murderer still serving his sentence. I suppose that's somehow considered OK in our strange, convoluted moral climate.

[MrGongGong]

Backstage at the Wigmore Hall the photo of mrKing was moved right up to the very top of the stairs next to the room the BBC use to relay concerts.
I'll see how far down it has come.

I think what is a little unsettling in this case is the way in which it appears that he has "supporters" who have "stood by him" and made it possible to continue his career after serving his sentence.
Rehabilitation is a good thing and people should be allowed to have a life after prison.
The contrast with mrGadd is most striking though.

(wiki: "These convictions effectively ended his long career and turned the once-popular entertainer into a prominent hate figure.")

[teamsaint]

So he's fair game, then?

http://www.for3.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=386931

For years the public adored/loved to hate 'Dirty Den' from Eastenders, a convicted murderer still serving his sentence. I suppose that's somehow considered OK in our strange, convoluted moral climate.

That's your phrase.
People with convictions often have their activities constrained, either legally or socially. If i get a drink driving conviction, the kind of work I do now is out of the question, even though legally I can do it, once the ban is served. King has chosen to return to high profile music. That is his choice but , there are going to be implications. He could have chosen a less high profile area to work in.

I don't disagree about our moral climate at all, and I think that dirty Den was fortunate indeed. But those with influence ( EG radio 3 ) need to think very carefully about their actions. More importantly a greater degree of consistency is vital. Glitter, Jonathan King and Jonathan Rees Williams seem to have got very different treatment from the media , and in professional life.

And for a straightforward personal opinion, I think for R King to be back on the concert Podium 2 years after being convicted makes him an exceptionally lucky man in that regard.

[Pabmusic]

That's your phrase...

Of course it is, but it did seem that was the underlying thought.

...lAnd for a straightforward personal opinion, I think for R King to be back on the concert Podium 2 years after being convicted makes him an exceptionally lucky man in that regard.

And I agree with you here, but not because he necessarily deserves to be out in the cold. (And just so that no-one mistakes my meaning, I don't really know much about Robert King other than his name.)

[french frank]

And for a straightforward personal opinion, I think for R King to be back on the concert Podium 2 years after being convicted makes him an exceptionally lucky man in that regard.

That might well be the nub of it. But feeling that he ought to have been in some way punished for life because other people have been doesn't seem the right way to achieve 'justice'.

The point is whether anyone, regardless of background, education, circle of friends &c., should be allowed to start again or not. If yes, in what circumstances?

[MrGongGong]

That might well be the nub of it. But feeling that he ought to have been in some way punished for life because other people have been doesn't seem the right way to achieve 'justice'.

The point is whether anyone, regardless of background, education, circle of friends &c., should be allowed to start again or not. If yes, in what circumstances?

Good point boss

An ex colleague of mine who had a breakdown and was subsequently imprisoned for downloading indecent material will never be allowed to continue what was the start of a very successful career writing music for children. And quite right, IMV. Even though it is a loss to art etc I think that to allow someone who is on the sex offenders register to work with children is a bit of a betrayal of trust. There are many ways of working in music, some become closed due to ones actions.
What seems to upset folks about King is that his "holiday" is described as a "setback".

Rehabilitation should be the aim. We have a lot to learn from the Scandinavians IMV

[Flosshilde]

Sadly, I think this is probably fairly accurate

I'm not sure that it is 'accurate', but as an opinion it surely has no place in a supposedly objective publication?

[teamsaint]

I'm not sure that it is 'accurate', but as an opinion it surely has no place in a supposedly objective publication?

Floss, I have tidied up the Wiki quote, as I think you may have read my comment as part of the quote. The way I quoted wasn't perhaps the clearest way possible.

[Flosshilde]

What doesn't seem to have been recognised in the original & subsequent posts is that Robert King isn't working as a solo performer, bust as the director of a performing group. So in boycotting recordings & performers one isn't boycotting, or sending a message to, RK, but to the people who form the King's Consort. Presumably they could have told him they didn't want to perform under his name or direction, but that could have had a considerable impact on their career (becoming known to audiences under their new name, for example), and they presumably believed that he had 'paid his debt to society' & wanted to continue to work with someone who's musicianship they believed in?

(second thoughts - does anyone know if there was any change in personnel in the Consort after the trial & conviction?)

[Flosshilde]

You're right, ts, I did - probably not helped by my reading it as quoted by Mr GG in his post, which I was responding to.

[MrGongGong]

You're right, ts, I did - probably not helped by my reading it as quoted by Mr GG in his post, which I was responding to.

Actually my response could be read the wrong way round
What I meant was that this

Now plenty of people looking at that, and seeing his Oxbridge background, might come to the conclusion that he has been more than somewhat protected by the system, and that peeople of his background, (Oxbridge,Classical music, successful) get off lightly compared to others like pop musicians, for example.

Was "probably fairly accurate"

[Flosshilde]

That's what I thought you meant, but at the time I didn't realise that it was ts's opinion & not part of the quote from wickipedia.

Now, before we go to far in analysing & explaining individual posts , what about my point that Robert King's post-conviction work is (mostly) as part of a group - ie the King's Consort - he ws associated with before the conviction, & that they appear to be quite happy to be associated with him & continue to work with him? & if they are, who are we to say that he (&, by association, they) should be boycotted?

[Bryn]

That's what I thought you meant, but at the time I didn't realise that it was ts's opinion & not part of the quote from wickipedia.

Now, before we go to far in analysing & explaining individual posts , what about my point that Robert King's post-conviction work is (mostly) as part of a group - ie the King's Consort - he ws associated with before the conviction, & that they appear to be quite happy to be associated with him & continue to work with him? & if they are, who are we to say that he (&, by association, they) should be boycotted?

A fair point, in my view. It is also worth recalling that, as reported by Matthew Westphal, "Judge Hezlett Colgan sentenced King to three years and nine months in prison, beginning immediately, and the conductor will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. The judge did not bar King from working with children in the future, however, citing the "radical change" in King's life (marriage and fatherhood) since the time of the offenses". A more recent ruling means that his 'lifetime' sex offenders registration may be reviewed in 2022.

[doversoul1]

Now, before we go to far in analysing & explaining individual posts , what about my point that Robert King's post-conviction work is (mostly) as part of a group - ie the King's Consort - he ws associated with before the conviction, & that they appear to be quite happy to be associated with him & continue to work with him? & if they are, who are we to say that he (&, by association, they) should be boycotted?

I am not absolutely sure so if someone knows this to be incorrect, please correct me.

I think this is an ensemble that was formed by some members of the Kings Consort after King’s conviction

http://retrospectensemble.com/

The group is still active but I have not looked into the movement of the members. I imagine it is extremely difficult for the musicians involved to dissociate themselves from King on moral grounds. Period ensemble is still a very small labour market.

[french frank]

I am not absolutely sure so if someone knows this to be incorrect, please correct me.

I think this is an ensemble that was formed by some members of the Kings Consort after King’s conviction
http://retrospectensemble.com/.

I seem to remember there was some dispute about the name - the King's Consort - of which Robert King claimed the 'copyright'. So the remaining members who wanted to continue under Matthew Halls had to change their name which they did, from the K's C to the Retrospect Ensemble..

Who exactly is involved with the 'New' King's Consort, how many of them were in the original group or whether it is an entirely new group with RK exercising his right to use the original name, I don't know.