This is everywhere now. Find all the stuff possible to take down the people you don't agree with and focus on that exclusively but overlook anything good or making sense in them and do the exact opposite for people you agree with.
We (meaning people in general) find it hard to deal with ambiguity. We want our heroes to be consistently heroic and our villains to be consistently villainous. This infantile state of mind poisons our politics.
I think he'll suddenly be a lot less cool if this turns out to be true...
But my first instinct is always to distrust the Mail. And I wonder why they couldn't have published this story while he was alive.
If you're popular enough you get a free pass. If you have Gary Glitter's level of fame you go down but if you're a world-bestriding superstar like Michael Jackson people look the other way.
The story doesn't originate with the Mail, but has been extracted by them from a new biography.
The same still applies to a new biography. If they waited until he was dead to publish these allegations, that's all they may be, allegations. The dead can't sue for libel.
Also, when you say "rape", do you actually mean non-consensual sex or do you mean it's technically rape because the girls were below the age of consent? Not that that makes it right, of course. It is still very wrong, but I do remember being 12 and sexual urges don't suddenly switch on after a girl's 16th birthday, so things may not be quite how the Mail is trying to portray them.
I mean technically rape because the girls were below the age of consent. It's what the law would call it.
I imagine the girls approached Bowie rather than the other way round, but even so...
As soon as the police investigate/confirm charges, I will change my stance... It takes a lot more than rumour for me to condemn someone.
I think this is rather more than rumour. I've seen an interview with a woman who says she was Bowie's lover at the age of thirteen.
From everything I have read, at least to describe him as a 'rapist' is a bit much... She appears perfectly happy with what transpired. Of course her age makes it sketchy, but I'm not going to hunt for victims where there appear to be none.
I've read quite a lot about this, as there was a flurry of articles/exposes at the time. She insists she was not raped by Bowie and that she should should be believed in precisely the same way that girls who insist they are raped should be believed.
I don't know if I agree; the prevailing attitudes at the time, which enabled the sexual crimes of the Yew Tree lot and thousands of others, also enabled Bowie to get away with his involvement with that girl without censure.
I had a sexual relationship with a man twice my age when I was 14 (and he thought I was 18). It was uncompromisingly consensual and continued after he discovered my age. I do not think there is much parity whatsoever between my experience with him and the experiences of the two girls, that I came to know very well professionally, who were victims of sexual exploitation in one of the cases involving Pakistani taxi drivers.
Fame - and the fact of it happening in the seventies - do not not mean that Bowie and Savile's actions have equivalence. Raping an 11 year old in a hospital bed is the not the same as having consensual sex with a 15 year old. It wouldn't be the same now.
In related showbiz gossip, the straight one out of Jedward may not have Bowie's talent, but his gentlemanly behaviour with a certain avid young groupie of his I once taught is to be stoutly applauded.
I hesitated over using the word "rape" but then I thought "well, that's what the law would call it."
I acknowledge that the law is a very blunt instrument.
Well done, Jedward.
When we make rules about human behaviour we need to apply them across the board- and not give people a fee pass because they're talented and famous.