Pete Townshend

Here's something to think about. I'm not judging. This has nothing to do with his guitar playing skills. He was recently dismissed of charges of having had hundreds of pictures of child pornography on his computer. He says he was abused as a child and those pictures helped him do research.

Personally, I stumbled accidently upon child pornography about 10 years ago: it's the most disgusting, sickening thing I've ever seen in my life and I truly hope never to see that again. So I do find his reason a bit lame and doubtful.

Then again, I wasn't abused as a child, so perhaps it really did help him. I don't know. But it's thrown a lot of doubt in my mind about the character and I now find it extremely difficult to admire the man.

A bit like after Cat Stevens said "death to Salmon Rushdie", only I find this even more pernicious.

Anyway, as I said, I'm not judging, I'm asking what do you guys and gals think: does this cast a shadow on your admiration for the guy or are you able to set the issue aside?

My thought is that if there was any thing to this he would not have been let off the hook that easy, law enforcement types love to get there hands on cases like this and if there was any, they would have made a case against him. No one has seen these pictures( not that we would wan't to) so we don't really know the nature of them and I'm not willing to beleive every thing i hear or read in the news sources. Who are we going to believe, FOX NEWS, Nancy Grace? But thats another rant :lol:
I have put some thought into this , and you have a good point but i think at this time there in not much to this. The man is a great guitar player, but i don't know him and he may be a real creep for all i know,its ok to respect and love someone for what they do ( play guitar, race cars, ect) but they are not God ( or a higher power) so what I'm trying to say is AVOID HERO WORSHIP, Pete puts his pants on same way we do!! :wink:

Sorry if i strayed a bit!!--the dog

The US law enforcement agencies have tarred dozens of people with the child pornography brush, only for it to come out that two policeman had given untrue statements.
The police were investigating a website, allegedly linked to child pornograph. The two had been given the job of searching the site. They made a statement that the first thing you see, when you land on the site, is a link to a paid child pornography site. The site also stored details of credit card payments made via the main site. Everyone on the list was tarred with being a child pornographer (I believe that Pete Townsend was amongst those listed).

Two years on and British police were in the process of preparing a case, only to look again at the site. They discovered that the link to the child porn was hidden away somewhere, well away from casual view. Apart from a very few, who had actually used the child pronography site, the overwhelming majority were law abiding citizens, who had bought totally legal goods, through the site. Yet a lot of them carry the stigma of being accused of child pornography, caused by 2 policemen who did not tell the truth.

As has already been said, if the police thought they had a chance of bagging a famous person, they'd jump at it.

The Smoking Gun website had info on the arrest and Pete's defense and he struck me as convincing. The other thing to bear in mind is that the British standards for arrest and prosecution on this charge apparently require less evidence than U.S. cases. I'm convinced that he must have been innocent -- and relieved that he is.

I wasn't commenting on the standards for arrest, but rather that two incompetent cops had sullied the names of a whole load of innocent people, simply by claiming that anyone who went to the site was there for the child porn, which they weren't. It was only when one of them gave evidence in a case that he had to admit to only ever having seen that link once in all their investigations!

What dumb cops and greedy media can do to a man's reputation. :cry:

I wasn't commenting on the standards for arrest, but rather that two incompetent cops had sullied the names of a whole load of innocent people, simply by claiming that anyone who went to the site was there for the child porn, which they weren't. It was only when one of them gave evidence in a case that he had to admit to only ever having seen that link once in all their investigations!

What dumb cops and greedy media can do to a man's reputation. :cry:

I wasn't defending the cops -- sorry about that. I had read the issue about standards for arrest in a Rolling Stone article and found it interesting. It all reminds you a bit of Sgt. Pilcher or Pilchard (can't recall his name exactly) and the drug busts in London of the 60s, doesn't it?

Greybeard, Pete acknowledged that he had used the child pornography website, and that it was just for research purposes? So whether the link was hard to see, or whatever, does it really make a difference?

I don't really care, this just seems weird now. The man has a few issues with his sexuality, and has for many years, but he wasn't convicted of any crimes. All of this is greatly over shadowed by his work with charities and his musical accomplishments.

to me he is pete of the Who. when i pop in behind blue eyes all i hear is great great Who song. could care less what the guy does in his free time. personally don't think he's like that, but i don't listen to the Who and go. "that ol' Peter is one sick mother" i think, damn that guy can play a good guitar line

Yes, I know he admitted visiting sites, but what we hear (and this is what you'll remember in 20 years) is what comes out through police and media sources. Accusation and arrest are always big in the media. Retractions, admissions of error/stupidity, etc., don't make it big in the press - it's not good quota-building material (nor is it good for the huge egos of media personalities). How many retractions/apologies from newspapers have you seen on the front page? Only the ones where one paper is gloating over another that is having to print one. I've always said that, if I was a big name, that a paper had libelled, I would demand, as part of the restitution, that the paper print their apology/retraction/admission in exactly the same form as their original, libellous piece (same banner headlines, same lurid writing style, etc.).

Abused people have all sorts of issues and, sometimes, odd ways of working them out. As Townsend's case got dropped so decisively, the police must have known that they had no hope of a successful prosecution, so I'll let it rest there as well.

I know it must be kinda off topic but....

With all the stuff that's recently happened with Michael Jackson, what would that do to his image, if he came out next month, with another album. Did the whole trial, kill off the majority of his fans, and would make his next CD a flop?

I'd never even felt close to buying a jackson record, but if I'd ever buy one it would be his next record, just as a statement. He was totally and completely cleared of all charges, including those in less recent past, and he is an innocent man. Simple as that.

As for Pete, no idea. Pornography is a very flexible legal term and until I really now what happened for which reaons I am neutral.

Michael Jackson's image was pretty well tarnished before this trial. While the trial hurt him a little more, it wasn't that much more.

I haven't followed the Townshend thing at all so I really can't comment on that. But I will say that dealing with one's own abuse by viewing abuse to others is not dealing with it at all, it will only make it worse.

I'd never even felt close to buying a jackson record, but if I'd ever buy one it would be his next record, just as a statement. He was totally and completely cleared of all charges, including those in less recent past, and he is an innocent man. Simple as that.

Without judging anyone, let me point out that innocence/guilt is a legal concept in US criminal courts which often bears a loose relationship to moral or civil innocence, culpability and responsibility. The US criminal court system errs on the side of the defense in order to avoid wrongfully convicting those who did not commit crimes, despite some evidence that seems to indicate guilt (though falsely).

Also MJ's recent trial did not determine his criminal guilt or innocence in past matters.

The prosecution brought in evidence of child abuse from the early 90s case. None of them remained standing in court, and he was eventually cleared of all charges, which wouldn't have happened if there was strong evidence to prove his guiltyness. Pretty much all of the people brought forward by the prosecution eventually admitted MJ never did anything. he 'appeared' innocent to me and won the case in a unique and complete way. I usually don't care about 'stars', btu I really feel sorry for Mr. Jackson.

Same here. They wanted his money, the jury knew that. How would 50 million dollars help with trauma or any of that garbage. Proposterous, haha.