Peter Freestone

What is your opinion of him? Do you like that he does these Q&A evenings or do you feel he's using Freddie to make money?

I've always been a bit unsure about him after seeing him appear on that seedy documentary 'Freddie's Lovers' and he made a comment saying "Freddie's cock was huge", however he seems to be respectful of Freddie when doing these events from what I've seen on Youtube.

There is a market for what Peter Freestone offers. Many fans want to get to know more about the lesser known aspects of Freddie's life, and Freestone caters for this. He obviously gets paid to do so, but at the end of the day he is helping to keep Freddie's memory alive, and he is not doing any harm to Queen or Queen's reputation.

I personally would not feel like I was realising my full potential if I spent the autumn of my life living off fans' craving for more knowledge about a dead rockstar's life, but Freestone manages to do it in quite a respectable fashion, so I don't think there's anyting wrong with that.

I agree with you regarding his comment of "Freddie's Love". But we all say stupid things sometimes. In his case, he happened to say it in camera. Something like that should not determine our view of the man - as you say, he seems to greatly respect Freddie's memory in most of the things he does.

That said, I do think he goes overboard sometimes. Some time ago he was offering private dinners with small groups of fans (~3-4 fans), where he would basically be paid quite handsomely to sit with them, have dinner, and talk about Freddie. I thought that was a bit cynical of him.

I read his blogs,"Ask Phoebe", the last blog from March of this year, he writes interesting things although some things are repeating.
Unfortunately, I didn't read his book.I watched some documentaries and footage on You Tube.I was surprised that he say that in "Freddie's Love" but it's not that terrible.

Does he do it for money is not really important to me.I think his work keeps the memory of Freddie and that's good.

About private dinners with small groups of fans,if there were no interested fans for it, he couldn't have taken the money for it, did he?

If you get the opportunity, do read his book. Is it interesting and full of anecdotes about life in Garden Lodge and on travels. There is a chapter which, upon first reading, I found quite dull, describing very intrinsically the interior of Garden Lodge, but on a second reading it is very insightful.

I guess he is kind of the equivalent to Paul Burrell, Princess Di's butler, but is far more respectful to the memory of Freddie.

He got 500.000 GBP after Freddie died. That's about 1 mil these days. (http://inflation.stephenmorley.org/)

He once told in an interview that after Freddie died he was so depressed / sad / etc he spent it all on poker nights filled with champagne and blow. Huge mistake of course but he's always been very honest about his mistakes.

Met Peter a few times and he always seemed very honest and respectful when talking about his former employer as well.

This combined with his honesty about himself and how he wasted the money Freddie gave him I cannot feel any antipathy for the man. He was clearly not in a very healthy place after Freddie died, had struggles coping with the new reality of Freddie being dead (as had many people including Brian, John and possibly Roger as well.)

So.... If he got himself together and is able to make a living without harming anyone I cannot see why people wouldn't be happy for him. I'm sure Queen productions ltd wouldn't have hired him if they'd be thinking otherwise.

Had the pleasure of meeting Peter in person a handful of times - he's awesome.

People willingly give him the money, so there's nothing wrong with that.

I've met Peter three times in person between 2005 to 2011. He is a lovely chap, and between him and Gary I find I actually appreciate their soft spoken style. I'll never forget the time in particular when we discussed about the recording of the "Victory" demo, finding out for the first time Peter played "bass drum" on that demo using MJ's bathroom.door! My mind was a bit blown.

I personally find him cringeworthy. The dinner thing made that worse. I respect that people are okay with him making money from Freddie's memory, but I just don't think it's right, and is a bit slimy tbh. Sometimes I wish I wasn't as cynical and more tolerant, but I can't help how I feel.

I personally think Freddie would have laughed at Peter's comment about his anatomy, there are more cringe worthy things in Hutton's book that were inappropriate to say. The person I that rubs me the wrong way is Peter Straker. To me, he seemed like a huge leech to Freddie. When he started showing up at the Q&A's, I lost interest in them.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

People willingly give him the money, so there's nothing wrong with that.[/QUOTE]

Nothing to do with Peter Freestone, but that argument is pretty shoddy. People willingly give con men, televangelists and hired assassins money - doesn't make their lines of work any less reprehensible.

Completely different cases:

- People willingly giving money to con-men are being tricked into it. They expect something different.

- People willingly giving money to televangelists are just morons.

- People willingly giving money to hitmen are committing a crime.

People willing Freestone money to hear what kind of loo paper Frederick used are getting what they paid for, are not committing a crime and are using their money for what they want. Nothing wrong with that.

You are now adding nuance to your argument that was not there earlier. I'm not equating PF giving talks with hiring a hitman, but the argument that you made is, and I quote in full, "[p]eople willingly give him the money, so there's nothing wrong with that." - to make it slightly more explicit: *if* people *willingly* give money, *therefore* the person receiving the money is doing *nothing wrong*. I point out that this argument is fallacious with counterexamples of people willingly giving money, and whether that makes them "morons" is beside the point entirely, if it is "committing a crime" then that is exactly the point of my argument, and whether people expect something different when giving money to a con-man depends on the situation. All that is still besides the point, which is that the argument you put forward is far too broad. There is nothing wrong with PF giving his talks, but it is not so that if people willingly pay for something that automatically makes it right.

I'm on PF's side fully. Whatever his motives, it must be great to discuss that time of his life with people who are eager to hear about it.