John Inman! "Was He Being Served...With a Teen Blowjob?"

The London Daily Fail could probably have headlined a piece about sitcom-poof John Inman GIVING blowjobs. Maybe some kind of cautionary article:

But it was another paper that created a more lurid story.

Well, something like that. The above may have been, er, Photoshopped.

Fact is, the British headlines today have either been "Terry Wogan Died" or "John Inman Got a Blowjob." I know, too bad it wasn't "Terry Wogan Died Getting a Blowjob." That's the way to go, especially if you're in your 70's.

Citizens are woebegone about Wogan, and it's easy to understand why. Based on the GooTube clips of him interviewing various celebs, Terry was, like Parkinson, a respectful, semi-witty bloke. Apparently he was all over the place as a quiz show host and presenter, and even got in a few good lines making fun of un-talented song contestants.

Guys like this become one of the family. They're usually replaced by somebody shittier. In America, Dick Clark was replaced by Ryan Seacrest, a metrosexual nobody. Clark radiated niceness. He wasn't a great wit, but he was genial. There's just no reason for Seacrest to have ONE show, much less dozens of them (or so it seems). So it is, that Wogan (and Parkinson) have been replaced by idiots like Woss and Graham "Crackers" Noughton.

One of the more unusual developments in 2016, is that Johnny Carson's old "Tonight Show" was bought for syndication by an obscure cable channel. You can't blame some for preferring Johnny to fat faggy James Corden, or the other new creeps. And why not watch Johnny talk to Richard Harris and other REAL stars, instead of Jimmy Fallon fawning at (c)rappers?

But I digress from the main point here, which is that aside from Wogan dying, the big news is that John Inman, long dead, is being accused of "sexual assault."

The media hype aside, this isn't anything vile or Savile, and it's no "assault." It's more like some idiot was naive or hoping to be given an acting job for a sex favor. Or is he hoping dozens of others will (ala Cosby) come forward and declare Inman had a henchman forcing addled straight guys to blow the boss?

It's a pathetic story coming out of Basil Fawlty-territory (was it HIS hotel?) Is this guy demanding money from Inman's estate? If so, it hurts his story. If it's just, as he says, "I put it away - buried it and made sure I didn't really think about it," then what's the problem? Confession is good for the soul? He wants the world to know that several times he blew this guy (willingly) but he's not gay (or stupid) then or now?

In a way this tale is similar to several Cosby women, who NOW insist they were used, and he was no gent, but at the time, they willingly went back to him again and again, usually on the hopes that the sex they traded would yield an acting job or some kind.

If you let yourself be coerced, then part of the blame is yours. Being wacky enough to go public at this late stage is almost as nuts as Bruce turning into Caitlyn.

Human nature being what it is (gullible, stupid victims, craven and nasty power brokers), we DO need reminders that there are users around. Too bad the high profile stories involve show people only. Rock stars are absolved because they're expected to be nasty and their victims are idiot groupies. What Inman allegedly did is something a school headmaster might do, or the owner of a big business, or even a Grimsby politician. Fact is, it could've been worse, because some users don't care if they use force. Inman wasn't one of those.

Fans of Inman are upset that his image is forever tainted (ala Cosby). His niece is complaining. I'm not sure if Inman's "husband" is dead or alive or not wanting to say anything about what is often typical promiscuous pervy homo behavior. IF I'M BEING HONEST, at 12 or 13 I knew what a homo was, and how to gracefully turn down a proposition from some semi-famous lech or walk away from a dodgy situation. The tabloids are ridiculous for calling this multiple blowjob affair a "sexual assault."

And while it's sad to say, it's also true that there's a NAMBLA element going on here. There are plenty of men who believe "boy love" is no big deal because they give these boys the sex they crave when girls that age refuse. It may take a promise or a little stern "it won't hurt" coercing to get things started, but hell, if every girl who felt humiliated after a blowjob went to the papers with it, there would be a line ten miles long outside the Mail and the Mirror.

No question about it, I could never watch "Are You Being Served" the same as before. But, then again, I watched about five minutes of that stupid show a few times about 10 years ago, and found it boring, loaded with stereotypical idiots, and not very amusing. In that regard it joined "Fools and Horses" and "Absolutely Fabulous" and dozens of others on my "no time to watch" list. Was it the WORST sitcom I ever saw? No, Minister.

When you've got a choice of reading "I'm now upset I gave a famous poofter some blowjobs over a month's vacation" or "mainstream interviewer dies," the obit is a lot more entertaining. Queer, but true.