John Moulden: I don't wish to open wounds on Ewan McColl or criticise him - his contribution to the music we love is vast and something we should all be grateful for. But surely with these giants - for that is what McColl is - such debate, such wanting a fuller picture is only natural, only healthy? I know there has been some unnecessary chipping at him on here, but there is also a lot of wanting to get a more rounded picture of the man. You get this with such large characters in all arenas - the likes of Winston Churchill in politics, Brian Clough in football, etc... No one is entirely good or without fault, and in discussing the faults along with the good are we not just engaging in honest debate/conversation?

As I say, this is a more general point rather than one relating to McColl. I love hearing Jim's recollections of the great man, but I do think discussing his flaws can be legitimate, if it is a genuine attempt for those who were more distant from him to get a more rounded picture of such a great figure. There's a balance there, I get that, and different people will have different beliefs as to where that balance lies. But we all have our flaws. We've all done things that are regrettable. That McColl's are still deemed relevant or noteworthy only reflects his stature in my mind. I don't think that all those discussing McColl along these lines are "dismissing the work and character of a person of achievement". How could anyone dismiss his work? For some it's as much a case of getting a fuller picture of a man they respect. If we canonise these people and wash away aspects of their character, aren't we doing them a disservice in a way?

Anyway, I'll just get back to reading stuff on here, and I will just take this opportunity to thank those such as Jim who bring such great figures such as Ewan McColl to life on these pages. This post was meant in good faith. I do hope it is taken as so.