BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 01:28 PM

The "research" thing is obviously the only defense he can muster at the moment.

Do you remember a few months ago, when Wynona Ryder said that her "Director" had TOLD her to shoplift at the store as part of "researching a film role"?

Poor Peter. I doubt very much if he's a dangerous sort, and it's simply all over for him no matter what happens now.

Oddly enough, saw "Peewee's big adventure" a few days ago...and what an inventive little git he was.....but in his case it's REALLY all over. Same with Jeffrey Jones, a really funny quirky actor, who was in "Ed Wood", the film I started a thread about yesterday. Not sure what to think.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST,(different one)
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 01:20 PM

The part in all this that just doesn't wash with me is WHY he paid to view what's there?

Isn't it enough to already KNOW or have a pretty good idea of what's already there? I just have a hard time with the "research" thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: okthen
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 12:47 PM

LEJ, that quote from a who song refers to the abuse done to him as a child. I would like to say I think Pete Townsend naive but innocent and wish him the best of luck extricating himself from this mess.He's no saint but he's nearer than the sinner he's being made out to be.
Bottom line, I think he's one of the "good guys" and we don't have enough of them to squander.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 10:18 PM

Down with the bed clothes
Up with the night shirt
Fiddle about, fiddle about...from Tommy

Makes you wonder, don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 09:14 PM

sound: under rug swept

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 06:04 PM

Well said, harpgirl! This GUEST needs a reminder:

Subject: Please Don't Copy-Paste Long Non-Music Articles
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 01:05 PM

Please remember that Mudcat is a Music Forum. We welcome discussion of all topics, but we give special emphasis to music.
If you wish to discuss other topics, you are welcome to post your own opinions. Please do not copy-paste the entire texts of lengthy non-music articles that are available elsewhere on the Internet - just post a link and summarize the article in your own words.

And, no, GUEST, the thread really is NOT about Townshend's music. Links and summaries would have sufficed.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 01:33 PM

I said that I would post no more to this, but I must clarify one thing: I have no where stated that I was in favor of Internet filters. I said that I was in favor of the decision to filter being made at the local level, NOT by outside parties -- such as the American Library Association, the ACLU, the Republican Party, the Democrats, the Tories, the Liberals, the Communists, the Socialist, the Libertarians, or the Women's Christian Temperance Union! Local authority, not something imposed upon from "above."

And folks, that's it. GUEST strikes me as an arrogant, opinionated, knee-jerk, and I won't deal with such an unthinking (and obviously uncomprehending) person again. Rant on, GUEST, I ain't a-gonna respond to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:36 PM

Same stuff is happening in the U.S. also. Paul Rubens was arrested in Florida for an act of "indecency" in an adult club several years ago. It ruined his career as far as his PeeWee Herman persona was concerned, though we would have continued to support him on that program. His was an adult mistake, not involving children. The latest charges against several men in Hollywood sound exactly like a witch hunt, with Rubens' name attached to a kid porn investigation just to get publicity, though it will probably be dismissed soon.

It's human nature to be attracted to these issues. I think the argument of "spiritual poverty" is a crock--people are interested in sex, religion or no. I agree with Spaw in his estimation of the "old fashioned" porn when compared to child porn. How do we raise our children to have what we consider a "healty" interest in sex? By making sure we don't telegraph that it ALL is nasty, and by being frank with them when they get up the nerve to ask questions. By being proactive and talking about these things ahead of time, and not being scandalized at how much they already know. The context is all around us. Use it now and hope for the best later.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 11:58 AM

It seems to me that an important distinction is being made in today's news reports. Townsend is claiming to be acting as a vigilante, and has cited the Internet Watch Foundation as one of the organizations whose efforts he is working on behalf of as a vigilante. They have now publicly denounced him.

Not surprisingly, just as we have seen here, his closest colleagues in the music industry are attempting to circle the wagons on his behalf. But the denunciation by the organization he claimed to be working on behalf of is pretty damning.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 11:53 AM

This will be the last article on the subject from me. Again, from the BBC today, I have excerpted the following article:

Sunday, 12 January, 2003, 15:44 GMT
Townshend 'wrong' over child porn

Who star Pete Townshend was "misguided at best" to view child porn on the internet, charities have said - although rock industry figures have supported him.
Mr Townshend admitted he had paid to see a child porn website, but insisted he had done so for research and was emphatically not a paedophile.

But the Internet Watch Foundation - whose aim is to eliminate child porn on the net - said Townshend was "incredibly foolhardy, naive and misguided" to enter such a website.

"It is wrong-headed, misguided and illegal to look at, or download, or even to pay to download paedophiliac material and if you do so, you are likely to go to prison," said vice chairman Mark Stephens.

He said Mr Townshend had admitted a criminal offence, and if he was prosecuted it would be for the court to decide his motives in doing so.

"What he has done is incredible naivety at best."

He said there were many authorities trying to combat porn on the internet, so individuals did not have to do "something illegal". to do so

"There are proper places to go, including the police. It is not something for people to undertake themselves," he said.

Children's charity NCH also warned people not to carry out their own research into child pornography on the internet.

No English court had ever accepted research as an excuse for possessing pornographic images, it pointed out.

[I have snipped the remainder of the article, as it is a verbatim reproduction of the above cited BBC article, to avoid unnecessary duplication]

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 11:25 AM

"The problem is when an accusation is made,or suspicion is raised,of involvement in viewing or perpetrating paedophilic acts,it forever leaves a question mark over the accused."

Townsend wasn't accused. He made a public statement of his own volition "to clear his name", yet he hadn't been officially accused of anything. He chose to respond to rumors circulating in the tabloids. He could just have easily handled this very differently, through a solicitor if necessary. It is pretty apparent that this is a man who is very confused, feels very threatened, and doesn't seem to be receiving very good counsel, if any, from those closest to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 10:50 AM

That's right harpgirl, this is a music forum, where many subjects get discussed. Pete Townsend is a hugely popular musician. Deal with it.

From BBC News today:

Sunday, 12 January, 2003, 13:15 GMT
Music figures back Townshend

Music industry figures have backed Who star Pete Townshend, after he admitted looking at child porn on the internet.
Mr Townshend said he had paid to see child pornography on the internet, but insisted he had done so for research and was emphatically not a paedophile.

DJ Paul Gambaccini said Townshend should be given credit for his frank admission - and said paedophilia was a subject that had concerned the star for many years.

But an internet watchdog said Townshend was "incredibly foolhardy, naive and misguided" to enter the website.

"You have to consider his background," Mr Gambaccini told BBC London.

"He himself says that he was abused as a child and indeed he went on the record about this in Tommy with the song Uncle Ernie...

"In other words, this is a subject which has concerned him for many, many years, and I therefore do trust him implicitly."

'Research purposes'


Music writer Rick Sky agreed, telling BBC Radio 5: "He's a very, very creative man who wears his heart on his sleeve.

"His argument is that he's been doing research on paedophilia and child pornography on the internet, and I do tend to believe him.

"He's written about this on his website and he's preparing a book about his own life which, he says, included severe child abuse as well.

"And he plays children's charities. It seems very unbelievable that he'd be involved in something like this."

Press agent Chris Hutchins, a neighbour and long-time friend of Townshend, said: "Pete is no paedophile, there's no question about that.

"Pete absolutely lives by his honesty. He's in a programme of recovery where to tell a lie could lead him back to a drink or drug problem.

"If Pete says that it was for his book, the book I know he's writing - and I know he was dealing with the painful issue of child abuse inflicted on him when he was a child - then that's true."

Mr Townshend said his web research was partly so he could act as a "vigilante" for bodies such as the Internet Watch Foundation, which aims to eliminate child porn from the net.

'Misguided and illegal'

But the IWF criticised his actions and said his explanation was no excuse.

Mark Stephens, a lawyer and IWF founder, said: "It is wrong-headed, misguided and illegal to look at or download or even to pay to download paedophiliac material and if you do so, you are likely to go to prison.

"If he was abused as a child, one feels sorry for him but it doesn't present anyone with an excuse for doing something illegal."

The star's admission came after the Daily Mail said a British musician was among those identified by a US police investigation for downloading child porn.

The Who guitarist, speaking from his home in Richmond, London, strongly denied being a paedophile and said police were aware he had studied child pornography.

The 57-year-old, who is married with children, said he was researching his possible abuse as a child for his autobiography.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: harpgirl
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 10:42 AM

...my dear GUEST. This is a music forum. I find your one person crusade to utilize this forum as your own personal platform to harangue the masses with your arrogant superiority on matters of morality to be a decidedly anti-social activity. Your motives for these repeated tirades are highly suspect.

Moreover, I greatly resent having to wade through your tirades to enjoy some musical discusion day after day, and hour after hour. If you had any intention of behaving in a truly pro-social manner, you would long ago have given up your anonymity and declared yourself as a member of this online community.

Your views on war, sexism, racism, economics, pornography and all the many seven sins of humanity do not qualify you to go on a crusade to raise the consciouness of individuals utilizing this forum.

The mere fact that you would take this job upon yourself belies your psychopathy to me. I for one, will not participate in your debates. I may however, try to hound you away as I did last summer! I dislike you intensely, but as I said before, engaging with psychopaths always robs one of something: be it time, money, dignity, or whatever you can manage to steal from true humanity!    hg

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 10:41 AM

Townsend has now issued a written statement to the media, in follow-up to the first meeting he had with them at this home.

From CNN:

After giving an interview to members of the British press at his home in Richmond, south west London, on Saturday, The Who legend later issued the following statement to the media: (Full story)

"I am not a paedophile. I have never entered chat rooms on the Internet to converse with children.

"I have, to the contrary, been shocked, angry and vocal (especially on my website) about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images on the Internet."

It went on: "I have been writing my childhood autobiography for the past seven years. I believe I was sexually abused between the age of five and six and a half when in the care of my maternal grandmother who was mentally ill at the time.

"I cannot remember clearly what happened, but my creative work tends to throw up nasty shadows -- particularly in 'Tommy''

"Some of the things I have seen on the Internet have informed my book which I hope will be published later this year, and which will make clear to the public that if I have any compulsions in this area, they are to face what is happening to young children in the world today and to try to deal openly with my anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive.

"I predicted many years ago that what has become the Internet would be used to subvert, pervert and destroy the lives of decent people. I have felt for a long time that it is part of my duty, knowing what I know, to act as a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) and Scotland Yard to build up a powerful and well-informed voice to speak loudly about the millions of dollars being made by American banks and credit card companies for the pornography industry.

"That industry deliberately blurs what is legal and what is illegal, and different countries have different laws and moral values about this.

"I do not. I do not want child pornography to be available on the Internet anywhere at any time."

It concluded: "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. I did this purely to see what was there.

"I spoke informally to a friend who was a lawyer and reported what I'd seen.

"I have enclosed my website article about my friend Jenny who commit (sic) suicide because of sexual abuse she suffered as (a) child.

"I hope you will be able to see that I am sincerely disturbed by the sexual abuse of children, and I am very active trying to help individuals who have suffered, and to prevent further abuse."

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 10:00 AM

Cluin, as to the subject being introduced of being abused as a child, that was brought up by Pete Townsend in his remarks to the press, when he said he was abused as a child. So I am at a loss to understand why you thought discussing that was beyond the pale of reasonableness in this case.

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder how many of you actually read the article, and can distinguish what Townsend actually said, from your own internal dialogue about the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 09:51 AM

As a civil libertarian, I am opposed to the use of internet filters in schools and libraries.

As to "why the press published this story" first, any investigation of any sort of wrongdoing by public officials and law enforcement, as the story claims is the case here, the press has a duty to cover. Second, it appears that Pete Townsend went to the press himself, not the other way around. You don't get to have it both ways.

I too have said that Pete Townsend deserves to be treated fairly. But he has already received some privleged treatment because of his status as a pop star--he gained access to the press to "tell his side of the story" before he was officially linked to this investigation, and before any charges have even been made. I doubt that courtesy would have been given to any old suspect. Finally, as I've said repeatedly, Pete Townsend is innocent until proven guilty. However, he has already sought out the media to tell them he paid to view child pornography. Is what he did a crime? I certainly don't know, as I don't know what the investigation suspects him of doing, and nor does anyone but those close to investigation, and because I am not familiar with the current laws in Britain regarding the viewing of child pornography online (the laws are changing pretty quickly from country to country right now.

Now then, none of what I have said above is indicative of a lynch mob mentality. I haven't seen anyone here say we just thrown Pete Townsend to the lions. So I maintain that there is a fairly hysterical group of overly sensitive guys here about the subject, Pete Townsend, or both. It is ridiculous, considering the nature of Mudcat, to assume that this news wouldn't have been posted here and disgusted. But for some odd reason there is a handful of guys looking to shout down what has been an informed, thoughtful discussion.

None of us here has any control over the risks Mr. Townsend chose to take with his reputation and his career when he: 1) paid to view child pornography online with his personal credit card, and 2) chose to tell the media about it. He also had a choice to remain silent about this, until such time as he was named officially or not. If he is innocent of any crime or wrongdoing, why move pre-emptively, as some have suggested he did, and go public with this admission, when there is a very good chance he would never be named publicly?   There are things to be skeptical and cynical about here. Because one is skeptical and cynical about this story doesn't mean that a lynch mob mentality has taken root, or that people suggest civil rights be thrown out the window in order to better catch pedophiles.

Very little internet traffic is actually involved in child pornography and pedophilia, as some others have mentioned. However, the crimes involved with this activity continue to expand, and are now believed to involve the traffic of children in prostitution rings around the globe, illegal drug trade, assault, battery, slavery, racketeering, and all sorts of pretty awful stuff. It might not be a huge problem on the internet, but it certainly diminishes the seriousness of the actual crimes and victimisation of children involved to rise up and say in response to something like this "but what about us Joe Average Good Guy Porn consumers? what about OUR civil rights?"

Excuse me, but we aren't talking about Joe Average guys when we are talking about child pornography.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 07:46 AM

I have long wondered about the neutrality of the press. What point is served, other than fueling greed by catering to sensationalism, by printing this story? If there is guilt, let it be brought out in court.

As a public librarian who spent better than ten years as a system administrator; as someone who has designed, procured, installed and maintained networks and Internet access for public libraries, I have been more-or-less in the middle of the target in the debate on Internet filtering. Because of this, I have *deliberately* visisted pornographic websites on work time -- that is, the taxpayers paid my salary and for the hookup and equipment for me to do this. At no time, however, did I use any funds, either my own or the taxpayers', to enter these sites -- I only investigated the "free stuff."

I have seen sites which target such topics as necrophilia, masturbation, beastiality, pedophilia, sadism, masochism, copraphilia, and the rest of the long, sad litany. And these sites were usually broken down into what purported to be "gay" and "straight."

I noticed two things right off: first, no one's hair was ever disarranged and, second, that no one looked like they were having fun.

The result of this research was that I have no objections, either personally or professionally, to Internet filtering in the public library *as long as it is the decision of the local governing body and not imposed on the library from somewhere else*. I discovered that Internet filters aren't all that effective, but that some are better than others. And I reported these findings at two seperate library conferences.

Studies that demonstrate that abused children tend to grow up into abusers are useful, but we have to remember that a "tendency" or "likelihood" is not a certainty. There are many cases in history of abused children growing up to become absolutely wonderful adults (go look them up yourself if you are interested). I think that sometimes we put too little emphasis on what people can and do make of themselves.

Enough of this. The abuse of children or any helpless/unwilling creature is degrading of everyone's humanity. I don't like the death penalty, but I truly feel that there are some things which deserve the final "casting out" from society.

I will post no more on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 07:15 AM

And now we come back full circle. Thanks to alanabit, Cluin, and pict....You made a far better acase than I and thanks to Mac for completing the circle.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 07:06 AM

Lynch mobs and witch hunts are very scary things. They happen so easily, and they develop a momentum of their own. A couple of years ago in a tabloid fuelled spasm of that kind of thing in Wales, a paediatrician had to leave home to escape attacks purely because that prefix "paed" caused a misunderstanding on the part of the mob.

There's a certain mentality that seems to wish to leap into action in advance of knowing the facts, and in total disregard of "due process". You see it when some person accused of some offence is being taken for trial or whatever, and the crowd gathers and shouts and tries to overturn the van and all that kind of stuff. What's going on in the minds of the people like that? Getting some kind out of kick out of a situation where there is a socially accepted licence to mob?

And that old saw "No smoke without fire" - which is not actually true, as anyone who has ever walked out on a frosty morning knows when they breathe out.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: leprechaun
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 04:02 AM

Good point Cluin. The thread title was definely not written by someone who respects the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: alanabit
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 03:41 AM

Ditto to everything Cluin wrote above. Our anonymous guest has not initiated a debate about child pornography but about PETE TOWNSEND AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. It is a spiteful attack on a man by a faceless coward. I wonder how often lynch mob leaders gave their names?

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Cluin
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 01:10 AM

missing comma: should be "women too, rarely".

Makes a BIG difference.

comma added - joe clone

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Cluin
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 01:09 AM

No, GUEST, I don't have a theory on what causes men (occurs with women too, rarely) to become pedophiles. I never think about it very much, you may be surprised to learn. But you see, GUEST, I hate to see the victimization and shame of the (much more common than I would have thought) abused continue when it is put forth by so-called profiles and studies that all child-abusers were abused as children, so people can think,"There IS a link, you know. Well, Tom says he was abused. Better not let him near the kids." It wasn't said here, true, but it is a common observation whenever the topic is brought up. Same goes for religious repression or dietary reasons or literature or music or whatever else. I don't have a theory. But some people think they do.

And I'm so sorry, GUEST, for not including all the people who suffer injustice in the world in my rant when I "just came in here". I'm sorry, GUEST, for suggesting that people might be quick to judge someone guilty of pedophilia as soon as the suggestion is made (look at the title of this thread), even though you, GUEST, have already made it clear you think Townshend's given reason isn't good enough and an "aging pop star" is fair game for you to suggest he is an habitual user of child pornography because he got caught once.

I'm also sorry, GUEST, that I posted anything to this stupid fucking thread at all.

(For the record, I think child pornography is disgusting and wrong and any other negative adjective you want to apply to it. Sorry for being over the top with my emotionalism.)

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 11:27 PM

I think you are pretty damn over the top here Cluin. You are probably right, Pete Townsend likely will never live this down. Who's fault are you suggesting that is?

As to the contagion thing you are ranting on about, I have no clue what you are rambling on about, as you aren't making rational sense. Do you have some theory on what causes men to become pedophiles? Are you trying to tell us that child abusers haven't been abused as children? Just because some people have been abused as children, doesn't mean they all grow up and become child abusers, yet you are ranting as if that is what has been claimed here. No such claims are being made.

Now then, if men are repeatedly going to child pornography sites online, are you suggesting the government has no right to keep them under surveillance? If so, I would disagree completely. Child pornography is illegal for a reason. It is a real crime, with real victims.

I would feel much more sympathetic to your "cause" of civil liberties, if you were also screaming about the injustices of the US government illegally detaining Arab and Muslim men who are in this country legally and complying with the law now and then, rather than just coming in here to defend an aging pop star who has publicly admitted he has visited child porn sites online and paid for it with his personal credit card.

Again I ask, what civil rights of Pete Townsend's are being violated here? The answer is none. He has admitted to having gotten caught using his credit card to view child porn. Now, you can accept his reasons at face value if you wish. But to suggest that anyone who chooses to remain skeptical of the reasons he gave for paying to view child porn on the internet, must mean that they have utter disregard for civil rights and liberties, doesn't make any rational sense. You are reacting in an over-emotional way to this. There is no logic to the argument you present. I said he is definitely innocent until proven guilty. Let us all remember, no charges have been filed against him at this time. All we are talking about is a rumor of an investigation, and a man's confession to paying to view child porn online. But that is still a confession of wrongdoing, and we all know it, even though no charges have been filed.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 11:08 PM

I don't understand your point, Guest.

You say that being sexually abused as a child doesn't lead to becoming an abuser yourself (yes, I completely agree). But then you say all child abusers were abused as children. ??? So the abuse was a trigger setting off some latent aberrent abuser gene or something?

Then you say it's a learned behaviour. Learned from whom?... the abuser who initiated them into the wonderful world of child abuse? Or was it leaned from seeing an example of kiddy porn somewhere? So, like I said, you would consider it some sort of contagion, either from having experienced it or seeing a picture of it?

Either way, you can bet the mob-rule public will grab a hold of the wrong end of the stick the "profilers" and "experts" hand them and start looking for likely abusers "in our midst".

In which case, people who were abused as children better not tell anybody about it or else be looked on with suspicion as some sort of child abuse "time bomb" looking for its opportunity to go off later. Same goes for those people who might have seen a picture of a child naked at some time... bear-skin rug or baby-bath photos, anyone? Where is the line drawn?

And if you think I'm being facetious, think about how there are a lot of people willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater (so to speak), to be on the safe side where our children's safety is concerned. Catspaw expressed some very valid concerns above. People are ready to throw out all hard-won freedoms and civil rights when issues like this come up.

Look at how some people in this thread have already judged the Townshend incident as "suspicious" without knowing all the facts. Guilt by suspicion. He'll never live it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 10:49 PM

Can someone explain how Pete Townsend's civil liberties have been violated, when he has admitted paying for child pornography with his own credit card?

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: pict
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 10:40 PM

The problem is when an accusation is made,or suspicion is raised,of involvement in viewing or perpetrating paedophilic acts,it forever leaves a question mark over the accused.Once accused the doubt will remain in at least some peoples minds even if the accused is exonerated of any wrong doing,for a supposedly intelligent man Townshend has been very foolish and possibly worse,he really had no choice in todays climate but to pre-empt any possible allegations.

There are certainly malevolent people on the internet who are involved with all sorts of nefarious activities,but I am sure that they belong to a very small minority and I don't think that the general population should have to sacrifice their civil liberties because of the actual or (more importantly) alleged wrong doing of an aberrant minority.I'd prefer that the government let the general public have the benefit of the doubt,the alternative to the benefit of the doubt could lead the way to a society that none of us would be happy with.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 10:38 PM

Cluin, I haven't seen anyone here say that being sexually abused as a child automatically leads to one becoming an abuser as an adult. But the profile of convicted child abusers does include them having been abused themselves as children.

Men don't just suddenly start having urges to have sex with children out of the blue, and then act on those urges innocently. Nor do they wake up one day as adults, and decide to go looking online for pictures of men having sex with children out of the blue. These acts are learned behavior. The men who engage in this behavior have created a culture for such men, who live these secret lives everywhere in the world. Because of the internet, there has been an explosion in the amount of it available, and it has become a huge conduit for the racketeering and other crimes associated with pornography, prostitution, drugs, gambling, the whole shooting match. And that is true of all kinds of pornography, not just child pornography.

As long as the problems keep worsening, and that pornography culture keeps growing and feeding off the internet, I'm afraid we'll be seeing more and more of these busts/dragnets pulling in people we really aren't going to want to admit to ourselves are engaged in this sort of activity. These men are everywhere in our midst.

Like I said, I have no problem with adult erotica, and I'm very open minded about sexual morality. But only when it is actually related to sex, not victimisation, brutalization, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 09:50 PM

Oh for Christ's sake! Now in addition to the "experts" asserting that being a sexually-abused child leads to perpetuating child-abuse when you grow older, people had better keep quiet about not having a proper diet as they were growing up.

Otherwise they risk being judged in the kangaroo court of the media and all the righteously indignant out there who give anybody who's written a book on the subject time on a daytime talk show.

Can we all just agree that making child pornography is a crime against the helpless and use the law to go after those who produce it? Without applying all sorts of blanket censorship to the rest of the population who are innocent. Or are you afraid people are going to catch it be seeing one of the images by accident?

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: mg
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 09:33 PM

I volunteer at a camp for girls who have been sexually abused. Five year olds. It is impossible to comprehend. And this whole sick priest thing. And I am sure the more repressive you get, like the Catholic church I was raised in, the more stunted and perveted the sex stuff is. But total no holds barred is no good either. Perhaps there is a balance place. And all this diet stuff I have been reading aludes to the importance of the right fats in developing normal sexual adults...Dr. Mary Enig I think refers to it but doesn't get too specific...I wonder if there is this sort of connection.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: nutty
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:32 PM

Pressed the button before i'd finished.

And the most worrying aspect of the whole thing is how many teachers, social workers, policemen and the like are involved in this activity.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: nutty
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:29 PM

Let's be clear on this ........ these men are not innocently downloading images of children.
They are downloading images of children, as young as six months old, being abused in everyway you care to imagine.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:19 PM

I have absolutely no problem with eradicating all of it. period. No need to split hairs on this one... The widespread proliferation of porn and smut is largely due to spiritual poverty... like the creep who loads my e-mail account with xxx... there is no excuse for this...

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:04 PM

Sorry, I should be a bit more clear. By participants, I mean those who are being photographed or filmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:02 PM

Victimisation of the participants.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:01 PM

"adults performing and paying to see adult erotica on the web. None. But pornography I have a problem with, big time."

Sorry, the difference is.........?????

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:54 PM

No more than that even if you are entering the credit card details again, and again, and again, until it finally flags your credit card for inclusion in an investigation by government authorities?

I could well be wrong, but I'm guessing that if Pete Townsend is on a list given to the British authorities by the US authorities, he likely typed in his credit card details more than once.

Some of you seem to be forgetting the possibility that this site was set up as a government sting operation too.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST,Trevor
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:50 PM

I have gone out of my way myself, to find child pornography on the 'net.

I am not a paedophile, but as a net professional, was curious to find out how easy it was to do.

It is, if you know what you are doing, and which buttons to press, very easy to find some sickening stuff.

I think that putting credit card details into such a site is a little stupid, but probably no more than that.

Trevor

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:44 PM

Morality isn't so much the issue for me, as the harm done to victims of the crimes committed to create pornography and in conjunction with the commission of harmless, nor is it a victimless crime. Pornography of any kind isn't wrong because it's about sex, because that isn't what it's about. Adult erotica is about sex. Pornography is about victimisation. It is wrong because it victimises people who perform the sex acts, are beaten on film/video as part of it, who are working in conjunction with pornographers running prostitution rings, drug rings, etc.

I have absolutely no problem with adults performing and paying to see adult erotica on the web. None. But pornography I have a problem with, big time.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:32 PM

I'm glad that something is being done about immoral online sex stuff... whatever kind of perversion it may be... I hope Pete is innocent, cause I've aways liked him... Pedophilia is completely disgusting... Yuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:28 PM

"Having his credit card details in the list could mean just that he'd typed in the credit card details as a way of having a look at the site"

Ah McGrath. Since Townsend didn't come out and say the credit card was stolen, or my kids were doing it, I think this does cast some suspicion on him, especially because he admits to having gone to the site for a look-see. That is how the game works. You pays your money, you gets your peeps.

The fact is, he didn't just suddenly decide he would "come clean" for no reason. Somehow, he was tipped off that he is among those being investigated. So what does he do? Claims he was doing "research" for an anti-porn cause. Mmmhmmm. Pardon some of us for being somewhat skeptical here, McGrath.

And it isn't just the tabloids at this point. The BBC is reporting it. That does make the possibility that these are serious charges, a bit more likely I would think. Not that the BBC is omnipotent (as they proved with appalling bad journalistic standards exhibited in the writing and editing of the article). But they do carry a bit more credibility in society's eyes than the tabloids.

As I said, Townsend is most definitely innocent until proven guilty. But the fact that he himself tried to move pre-emptively in a damage control effort does raise clouds of suspicion, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: boglion
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:28 PM

Give him the benefit of the doubt - he's always been a straight-talking right-on bloke.

I hope he can clear his name.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:01 PM

There's no need to jump in, in advance of a clearer indication of the facts.

What seems to have happened is that Pete Townshend's name was on a list of people who have given their credit card details to a porn site featuring child porn.

The list has been passed to the police in Britain by the authorities in the USA who had got hold of them and they are investigating. And someone seems to have leaked the story to the tabloid press, who have gone to town on it, but because of the laws haven't included the actual name.

Obviously the name would come out soon enough, especially in these Internet days, so Pete Townshend has pre-empted matters by going public with his version of the story.

Having his credit card details in the list could mean just that he'd typed in the credit card details as a way of having a look at the site, not necessarily that he'd been subscribing to it.
And he's said that is the case, and that he'd done so out of a wish to find out what was in the site, and with a view to attacking child pornography and child abuse.

I think it'd be quite wrong to leap to any judgements about this, because we just don't know the truth. There's nothing intrinsically implausible about that explanation. That doesn't mean it has to be true either. Anyone who gives their credit card details to anyone they don't trust is acting very stupidly, and by definition you can't trust the kind of people who'd be running a child porn site. But people do stupid things all the time, including good people.

But demonising Pete Townshend on the basis of what has come out so far would be quite wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 06:59 PM

I'm fully aware of the threats to civil liberties posed by government surveillance. But I'm not going to allow that awareness--and my political activism against it happening--to cloud my judgment about this sort of crime.

Now, rest assured I fully believe Pete Townsend to be innocent until proven guilty--and I do mean proven guilty legitimately. To use an example of what I mean by that, one need only look to the actions of outgoing Illinois Governor Ryan. Innocent people are wrongfully convicted of heinous crimes all the time. So I assure you catspaw, my standards are much higher than most peoples' who are just interested in incarcerating and/or torturing and killing any old black man, or pervert, or whatever for the crime, to make either themselves feel safe, or to satisfy the cry for blood from the victims' loved ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 06:32 PM

Not going to disagree, but civil rights in this country are under their biggest attack in 50 years so I would not say that anyone is safe anymore. It all depends on what is read into something and by whom.....Did you catch the CNN....forget it........too long anyway.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 05:52 PM

I'd say the time for your concern about your civil rights online passed about 20 years ago. IMO, it is a pretty naive man who would believe that repeatedly visiting child porn sites (I don't think anyone who has gotten to them "accidentally" once or twice has anything to fear) doesn't carry the risk of being surveilled online by government authorities. Same for online prostitution, violent and sadistic pornography, and all of those murky areas where at least some of the people invovled are being victimised.

Don't want to risk the civil rights violations? Then don't go to the sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 05:45 PM

Personally, I wasn't talking about the rights of convicted criminals. I'm more concerned with the rights of Joe Average, like all of us here. And the issue doesn't have to be kiddie porn, but what can the government check on and what do they deem to be illegal?

I am not defending pedophiles......or communists, fascists, or anything else.....Just the rights involved in holding a belief. Don't get confused because we think that pedophiles are the lowest scum....and they are....just remember to think what might be next in line for government spying.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 05:25 PM

Unfortunately, it looks like people here who are polarized on this issue are already over-reacting to this news.

First, I couldn't believe how badly the quality of information was in the original post when I read it--it seemed very badly written, particularly the way it lacked in a lucid journalistic narrative of event. But before dismissing it completely as an internet hoax doing the rounds of the music forums, I had a look at the BBC News website it cited. Shockingly enough, the article here is cut and pasted verbatim, and the quality of reporting is as bad there as it looks here.

This reporter is leaping all over the map, there is no linear series of events one can follow, the contexts of remarks by Townsend seem non-existent, and the source of the information that leaked his name to the press isn't even mentioned. Now, if I am not mistaken, due process works about the same here in the US as it does in Britain, and investigations usually don't divulge the names of only one of what appears to be numerous suspects unless there is an intention to take the suspect into custody, and the suspect is still at large. The article is rife with rumours, innuendos, and sensationalist reports.

For instance, I went to the Pete Townsend website, where the article said Townsend claims to have evidence of his anti-child porn crusading, and there was no such thing there (that I could find anyway). Also, the quotes from Townsend say nothing about what this "crusade" against child porn and paedophilia was called, who it involved, etc. Then there is mention of Townsend's involvement in adult pornography. And his claim to have been abused as a child. Well, anyone who is familiar with this sort of case, knows that a history of abuse as a child, combined with an adult fascination (obsessive compulsion?) with pornography, are virtually always a part of the profile of the perpetrators in these cases.

So, while one never wants anyone, including celebrities, tried in the court of public opinion, much less by yellow journalists (and I note this is a large industry in Britain), the fact that this story is being reported by the BBC does, in fact, lend it some credibility to it. Especially in light of the broader investigation involving other notable British citizens who, for some unknown reason, aren't named in this article, despite the fact they are high visibility suspects too--including a judge, police officers involved in high visibility police investigations, and other community leaders.

To make it worse, Pete Townsend himself idiotically is talking to the press (himself? through an agent? solicitor?) giving statements that appear, at least on the surface, to be contradictory.

I think this may end up being a big story, but I can't say that the BBC News has distinguished itself in the reporting of it thus far. I note it is one the entertainment news page, and not the front page, as I would have expected a case of this potential magnitude (involving government and law enforcement officials especially).

As to the civil rights issue, when one commits a crime, is caught, prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to serve time, probation, do community service, or whatever, one often loses at least some civil rights as a result of the commission of the crime. If, in fact, a case is proven against any of these men, and they are found guilty, then they will almost certainly lose some civil rights as a result of it. Convicted criminals always do, and there is no conflict there, regardless of the potential sensationalism surrounding these sorts of crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: Mudlark
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 03:43 PM

I agree, Mary. Much as I value "civil rights" I think the word "rights" has to be respected as well, and the sick people who perpetuate child pornography have invalidated their rights.

I finally instituted a spam filter program from my server because I was getting so many disgusting come-ons for such miserable stuff, including incest and worse. If someone solicited me in the street with this shit I'm sure they could be arrested...at least I HOPE they could be arrested.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Townshend a Child Fondler?
From: mg
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 02:41 PM

I have no problem at all with the civil liberty of being able to see child abuse eroded. Hope it happens soon.    When I was at the University of Washington I got this spam for creating your own pornography out of a child's picture. I used to delete the ones about naked nurses etc. but I passed this on to the provost. Why is it legal? Why aren't sites shut down? Surely there must be laws. When I was a school counselor in Maine there was concern that in the next county over there was child pornography going on. The police were watching it. I just heard rumors, but I was very concerned about some of our very vulnerable (and stupid at times) teens and even children getting trapped in it... an d for the record I have no trouble at all with the death penalty for people who do awful things to children or other unwilling parties.

mg