Cafe owner thinks its alright to sexually abuse underage boys. TRIGGER

[Archnut]

Found this whilst researching a book and screenplay;

I havent got my head round this one as yet. Im glad the experience of his abuse didnt affect him like it has obviously affected me. The more I think about this the more angry Im getting. Im not going to resort to name calling. I obviously lack his good fortune, parental guidence and mental ability to cope and I resent that. Who am I referring to? None other than New York foodie Keith McNally of Balthazar, Pastis and Pravda fame

Who obviously thinks its OK to bugger underage boys.

But he left Britain partly because he loathes the way the British care so much about where you come from. And it only takes a question about his background to launch him on a tirade: 'I have a very uneasy and ambivalent attitude towards England. There's a side to it that I find petty and squalid and class-ridden. And to me it's symbolised by the archaic and totally hypocritical judicial system.

'The Jonathan King case. He got seven years, and for what? For touching the private parts of 15 year-old boys! To me that's a draconian sentence. Draconian. Fifteen year-old boys are not angels. Half of them are bashing in the heads of other football fans, the other half are masturbating all day. Eight, nine, 10, 11 - that's totally different. And all of it happened 30 years ago.

'I was one of those boys. I went back to his apartment when I was 16 or 17. Big deal. Nothing much happened. What I remember most was that he was quite erudite and very, very witty. If he was going to get seven years it should be for his bad music - but touching boys: who cares? 'I'm surprised by those people who came forward saying they've been affected by him for the rest of their lives. I had that experience with him, and nothing was forced. I haven't suffered in any way at all. I really think I've benefited from those few visits over to his house. He's a very funny guy.'

After this, both because of the content of what McNally has said, and the vehemence with which he's said it, it is rather difficult to get back to restaurants. 'I'm sorry,' he apologises. 'I could go on about this all day. It did me no harm. If anything, the opposite.'

But even without the digression, McNally wouldn't be a particularly easy interviewee. He avoids meeting my eyes for at least half an hour. He prefers to answer questions with a joke. He fends off questions with a heavy irony that I want to warn him - except I'm not sure he'll take it kindly - doesn't work in print. It is hard, initially, to warm to his jerky way of speaking and apparent lack of interest in his career.

The Full article can be found here:

https://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,9950,770690,00.html

I think the statement

He avoids meeting my eyes for at least half an hour. He prefers to answer questions with a joke, speaks volumes. This is a man who is in total denial.

Regards
Archnut
And all that was left was hope

 

[DannyT]

This sure is an interesting question.

I suppose it all comes down to how one defines abuse.

I was reading a while ago about a culture (can't remember where, but I think tribal Africa) where parents sometimes stroke their baby's privates as a means of quieting them when they are screaming. It seemed very non-sexual in it's approach. Here we would call that abuse, right?

I guess I just wonder about some of these things and feel we've gone way too far (in America at least) in our definition. I'm a teacher, and when I taught high school it was illegal for me to put an arm around someone who was crying, or to pat a shoulder when someone did well. No human contact allowed. To me that's really scary.

What do other people think?

One other thing just came to mind. It didn't seem like the guy was saying it was OK to abuse 15 year olds, more that he didn't think his own experience was abuse. That seems fair to me.

Danny

 

[Lloydy]

Archnut
as I scrolled down and read your post I read that bit about He avoids meeting my eyes for at least half an hour. He prefers to answer questions with a joke, and thought exactly the exactly the same thing you do.

He's sailing up the Egyptian river !

Dave

 

[Leosha]

What an arrogant basterd. Oh well, if he can feel quite well now after his experiences, good for him (I doubt it is true). I happen to think it IS a big deal. It is a shame his opinion is in print and mine isn't...yet.

leosha

 

[outis]

Maybe it does come down to "how does one define abuse?" I don't see why Mc Nally seems to believe he knows what happened to the other boys, for instance. It's possible that for some reason, King did not abuse him. By his (Mc Nally's) own declaration, that's the truth. He's entitled to his own denial (Hey, he denied!) but that doesn't give him the right to claim the others didn't suffer abuse.

Thanks,

Joe