Joan McAlpine: In the grey 70s David Bowie was just a paedophile

MOAN reflects on Joan McAlpine’s reflection on music legend and not so secret paedophile David Bowie. His predilection for groupie children should make everyone think again – particularly mothers with teenage daughters – Joan McAlpine excepted. Obviously:

"...thrilling splash of colour and danger." or predatory paedophile abusing his fame, position and power? Joan decides.

“…thrilling splash of colour and danger?” or predatory paedophile abusing his fame, position and power? Joan McAlpine MSP decides.

By Moan McVulpine Ground control to Major Joan

“Evil will triumph when good men do nothing” sermonised Joan McAlpine in her Daily Record column of 16th July 2014.

It was a roaster of a piece, full of hellfire and brimstone aimed straight at British establishment “corruption at its most base and evil form”.

Her withering contempt was aimed at the systemic covering up of child abuse by those in the higher echelons of power in Britain.

As diatribes go, it generated enough passion and heat to set fire to a soggy chip poke full of yesterday’s news.

Whether Joan actually believed it, or was just using it as a big Nationalist stick of moral indignation and self righteousness to beat Indy unbelievers over the head with, is a moot point. The subtext of her polemic was as transparently crude as the presentation of the subject matter – vote No and you’re voting for paedophiles.

Moan suspects Joan didn’t care – that it was written for effect – like most of her columns.

How else could you explain her eulogising of David Bowie as some kind of god of sexual emancipation for gay men when other, more threatening, skeletons were lurking in his closet?

Describing the moment when Bowie draped himself over Mick Ronson on Top of the Pops, Joan drooled: “I know lots of gay people whose lives were changed at that moment. A decade before, they would have got married and stayed in the closet. Now they had options.”

Really!

It may or may not have been true. For Joan it certainly was.

Moan wonders if Joan knows lots of paedophiles. Surely, by the same logic, Bowie provided “options” for them too when he deflowered 13 year old virgin groupie Lori Maddox and then proceeded to engage in a threesome with Lori and her 13 year old best friend Sable Starr in his Beverly Hilton Hotel suite.

Both girls were children. Bowie was a grown man abusing his fame, position and power. These antics were no secret in pop fan circles. Why didn’t Joan say anything – anything at all – about that “moment”?

After all, she admitted that with Bowie’s gay emancipation routine, “Bowie knew exactly what he was doing.”

Columnist Julie Burchill summed it up poignantly in the Spectator when she pondered: “under some circumstances, would you excuse, worship, deify a man who has knowingly had sex with children, if he had created music which you passionately believe made the world a better place? Or not?”

Joan appeared to answer that: “He was David Bowie. He was untouchable.”

Euurgh!

“Evil will triumph when good men do nothing” right enough.

NOT SO COMEDIC RELIEF

 

Advertisements

11 Comments

Filed under Moan McVulpine, Morality

11 responses to “Joan McAlpine: In the grey 70s David Bowie was just a paedophile

  1. Senior Moment

    Makes you wonder why she didn’t go into writing when the man was alive?
    It couldn’t be that she lacked the financial courage to face a libel case?
    I can but speculate

    • Like too many fangirls/boys out there, Joan’s just a self deluded apologist when it comes to Bowie.

      It’s just that that trait finds itself permeating every reach of her political career.

      Regards

  2. I’m always amazed at the huge amount of disgusting hate memes directed at “Westmonster” paedophiles amongst SNP and Indy followers circulating on Social media circles and yet there appears to be a complete denial of its existence in Scotland amongst the very same people circulating them. It’s almost as though tens of thousands of Scots have been deliberately groomed with Nationalist propaganda by SNP “Activists”to support such an idea yet SNP MSP’s themselves caused a bit of an outrage when 6 SNP MSP’s tried to pass a bill in Holyrood that would have meant Paedophiles from Rural areas would be helped to be housed into Scottish Urban areas to help give them anonymity. Needless to say it didn’t go done too well and was dropped when the MSP’s realised how career damaging it was likely to be for themselves. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-msps-cause-outrage-over-6541995#6RKwpe9w9E4WJj9B.97

  3. I’ll be honest. It’s a subject I prefer to avoid.

    Joan’s maudlin hypocrisy over Bowie was too much to take. I’m no fan of Julie Burchill, but at least she had the balls to be honest enough regarding her mixed feelings over Bowie’s repulsive antics.

    Regards

  4. Joan (I'm only dancing)

    Lori Maddox was actually 15 (and Sable Starr was “the same age”):
    https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie
    I’m not defending David Bowie’s actions; however, I expect you will want to correct your article, unlike Julie Burchill.*

    *not to mention not to mention lying nationalists, such as Stuart Campbell, Joan McAlpine, Alex Salmond & co.

    PS: See also Irvine Welsh’s Jimmy Savile parody in “Ecstasy” – if he knew about Savile’s behaviour, why didn’t he go to the police, rather than making money out of it?

    • Check the spelling of Maddox in that article. It says “Mattix”. If you check around, Maddox’s date of birth is given as 1960 and the incident with Bowie is dated at 1973. So, I’ll stay with what’s published. Though, Sable Starr’s date of birth is given as 1957, so she may have been a close to legal under-16.

      Regards.

      • Joan (I'm only dancing)

        “Apologies etc” for the length of this reply. I’ll tackle the issues in reverse order.

        As the main subject of your article is the moronic Joan McAlpine, the glaring error in her piece is that, while homosexuality had been decriminalised in 1967 in England & Wales, it was still illegal in Scotland in 1972. Indeed, appallingly, it remained a crime until 1981 [and 1982 in Northern Ireland]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decriminalisation_of_homosexual_acts

        Therein lies the truth about the ‘Scottish values’ which McAlpine espouses. Perhaps this was simply a mistake on her part or perhaps she did not want to remind readers that her party is funded by the homophobic tax-avoider Brian Souter.

        To be fair, it is possible that McAlpine was not aware of the underage sex you refer to. The first I knew of it was when I read the interview with Lori Mattix, which @FleetStreetFox tweeted after Bowie’s death. Being a fan of much of his work (albeit much younger than McAlpine), I was very disappointed.

        I normally regard your website as a reliable source of information on the duplicity of separatist propagandists and had visited it to read about the fake Reverend’s latest antics. I was taken aback when I read your article about Bowie; it appeared that you had based your article on the link you provided, which itself was based on the interview with Lori Mattix where she stated that the underage sex began when she was 15.

        As you hold others to account – rightly – I thought I should suggest you correct your article. However, you seem to be an expert on the revolting “baby groupie” scene (which I have now read up on) so you might be right.

        Nevertheless, it seems to me to be poor journalistic ethics to rely on hearsay/unsubstantiated allegations, without providing evidence. I would assume that Lori Mattix’s personal testimony is correct (although she might be lying).

        Incidentally, I copied the name Lori Maddox from your article but she is referred to as Mattix in the interview and in Julie Burchill’s article. She is referred to as both Mattix and Maddox in online sources – this appears to be her instagram account: https://www.instagram.com/lorimattix/

        Meanwhile, her date of birth is stated here http://www.stryder.de/rest/Groupie_Central_Lori_%20Maddox.html as being in 1958 but that might be wrong. One could contact her at her shop, though I do not want to bother her.

        To reiterate, I am in no way seeking to defend Bowie or the other musicians of the time involved with the “Star” magazine groupies. Sex with a 15 year old is utterly reprehensible and 13 would be even worse; it is astonishing that such behaviour should be ‘celebrated’ in song (eg: “Thirteen” by Big Star).

        That said, I think it is perhaps a little hysterical to describe Bowie as a “predatory paedophile”. Whilst the law is clear, making him a nonce, technically – the age of consent in California is18 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#History_of_California_laws – he does not appear to have used violence or threats, unlike the worst offenders.

        Of course, legal consent cannot be given below the age of consent, plus intoxication and a degree of persuasion appear to have been involved. Yet, I would distinguish such behaviour from “predatory”/aggressive/coercive paedophilia, speaking as a victim of unwanted harassment by a paedophile teacher myself (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/pervert-teacher-loses-jail-appeal-977551#vUwXMjkjuPT00QY7.97).

        [There is a debate about the ‘agency’ of groupies and potential ‘slut-shaming’ by moralising writers. However, I will leave that to others.]

        All this begs the question, should one still listen to Bowie’s music? I’ve never been fond of Michael Jackson’s work so found it hard to understand how his fans could overlook his actions…perhaps things aren’t quite so black or white.

        Yours sincerely.

      • Star struck children getting the chance to have all of the attention of a pop star heaped on them is exploitation by the pop star no matter how you look at it. I used to be a fan of Julie Burchill until she stopped being controversial and just became bitter. But I would never doubt her interpretation of events given her NME pedigree and background. What you seem to have reduced the argument to is semantics and hair splitting details. Check any of the Moan McVulpine pieces and you’ll find that they’re deliberately hyperbolic. Bowie had under age sex with two star struck under-age girls. You only have to commit paedophilia once to be a paedophile – predatory or otherwise – for evermore. And Bowie certainly never went to his grave apologising for it. That makes Macalpine both a hypocrite and apologist for paedophilia in my eyes. Ho hum.

  5. Jorge

    Ok. This is a very old story that was completely dismissed at the time. But now, like Lazarus, it comes back to life. Why? Who’s the predator here? Bowie isn’t known to have lived the life of a paedophile, so something strikes me as funny. It’s not exactly normal for paedophiles. Even his supposedly “gay” life wasn’t that gay after all. Forget it. The man was definitely not a paedophile, nothing in his life save for a fishy testimony tells us that. So, please, respect the great artist and human being that he obviously was and let go of the gossip. “He didn’t go to the grave apologising”… Well, I wouldn’t apologize for something I hadn’t done either! Unless I were an American president. In that case, I actually tried it (but didn’t inhale).

    • Julie Burchill was a NME journo of high renown who knew her stuff, despite what she degenerated into. If she says Bowie had sex with under age girls I don’t see any reason to disbelieve it. As for the story being “dismissed at the time”, that means nothing. A few quotes from an authoritative source – even from the time – might change my mind. Until then, you sound like a fanboy apologist.

      Regards.

      • Jorge

        Right… I’m a fan, yes, but definitely not a “fanboy”. I know my arts and my history and my life lessons well. Calling me a “fanboy” is one of the oldest fallacies ever. I’ve also been a journalist. So, I’d like to recommend one particular book that I think you might enjoy reading: Umberto Eco’s Numero Zero. Greetings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s