Pete Townsend, any views?

[jessi]

Just wondering if anyone has any views on the Pete Townsend situation. Personally I felt very sad when I read over the weekend that he had been interviewed about looking at child pornography on the internet. I have to admit to thinking his story about it being for 'research purposes only', is questionable. Surely if he had heard or got info on this site he should have called the police rather than give his credit card details?

Well all I can say is, he is either INCREDIBLY stupid and niave (sp?) or he lying through his teeth.

I do normally believe in innocent until proven guilty...but I think whatever your motives, paying money to people spreading child pornography can only make the problem worse by increasing demand. I would have thought if he wanted to see exactly what you could see on child porn websites he need only have watched some of the recent documentaries on the subject, including the breaking of the Wonderland paedophile group. Even the censored images available were enough to give me nightmares. Or to have contacted the police in the guise of his charity. However, if this case makes it clear to people that, whoever they are, someone will find them and expose them if they pay for this stuff, that has to be good, doesn't it. Now it's time for the internet providers such as AOL etc to be much, much more proactive about seeking out these sites and closing them down.

It reminds me just a little of Winona Ryder's 'I was shoplifting to research a film role' defence.

If he wanted to get more information for research purposes I am sure that he wouldnt have needed too join a site to find this out. There must be loads on this subject on the internet from people that arent paedophiles that he could have accessed. What I also dont understand here is how he "thinks" he was abused as a child.. wouldnt someone know if they were?

Listening to a debate on this on R2 yesterday, and they had a speaker on there who has written a book about the threat of paedophilia. He was basically saying that, in all his research, he never once had to provide his credit card details on the net to obtain the stuff he needed for research purposes.
Heard also this AM that Mr Townshend has been arrested and charged with three offences - one of which is MAKING offensive material - how would he defend that?
Wander if his wife knew he was writing a book.

aloha, i agree with you about that recent documentary. i thought when we were watching it (not for very long - i couldn't bear it) - that every paedophile in the country must have been tuned in for kicks. even the "censored" images left very little to the imagination. it seemed very exploitative of the victims to me.

pete townsend - his explanation doesn't sound convincing to me, but innocent till proven guilty.

I find it hard to believe that he would use his credit card to access child porn sites purely out of research. You don't need to see these depraved images to know that they are there, what kind of research was he doing exactly? Sorry but his story simply doesn't add up. He may have been curious (he hasn't actually downloaded any images onto his pc), but that doesn't justify the fact that he was viewing innocent kids being raped and abused - and he PAID for it!!! Where did he think the money was going, the NSPCC?!

I bet this is just the tip of the iceberg, I shudder to think how many perverts there are out there!

I agree that PT was incredibly stupid to give his credit card details if this was really in the interests of "research" for his book. I also think bk is absolutely right to point out he only needs to have watched that incredibly distressing and explicit documentary to have seen what kind of images are being traded (and yes, I couldn't watch it either).
BUT if it is true that he was abused as a child himself then to me this says yet again that child abusers usually start out as victims themselves, and somehow society has got to find a way of helping these people so that the chain can be broken and innocent children can be protected. If Pete Townshend is a pervert then it's likely some other adult made him one many years ago.
Why didn't he go to the NSPCC or NCH, as someone else mentions here, and enlist their help in his research, given the circumstances. A big name like his could have given a lot of support to their campaigns. Like Jessi, I feel sad at the news, but think this large-scale campaign is proving very effective at identifying paedophiles. And anyone caught should expect to face the consequences.

Does anyone remember him announcing he was gay a few years back? I'm sure it was all over the news and papers. Or am I just imagining it? Whatever it's totally irrelevant to his situation now I know. I find his version of events deeply suspicious btw.

innocent until proven guilty BUT if you are doing research there are enough credible organisations I would have thought, that one could turn to and why would anyone other than the those in certain employment want to research such an awful subject?

I agree that it all smacks of a bit of spin in the way it's been handled. I can just imagine an "advisor" saying to him to own up to viewing a site before he's hunted out as it "looks better" and try to appear upfront about it. But, as I was saying to dh when we discussed this at the weekend, if he truely WAS researching a book and he'd only entered the site once, he'd have more than enough evidence at home to back him up.

What we also discussed was the group of friends that have come to his defence. I'm sure Jerry Hall, Roger Daltry et al, actually can't believe it of their friend that he would do this kind of thing - I'm sure we'd all hate to think of any of our own friends doing the same. However, it's not exactly something that he would boast about, so it would come as a complete shock to his friends as well. You'd feel sick wouldn't you, esp as a parent?

I think that a heap of good can only come from this (the exposure of people in authority, not just Pete T). It's often said that paedophiles are so keen on the internet because it somehow validates what they do; it's a like a secret club where no-one is forced to be ashamed. Exposure of people who use these sites and therefore continue the circle of abuse will deter others, surely?

How many other people with families, jobs, etc are sh*tting themselves at the moment because they know their details are just waiting to be discovered by the investigators? Paedophiles don't look like scruffy old men in grey macs - it's like that advert on the TV shows - they're ordinary-looking people with real lives.

Even if PT is innocent, it's brought to light some very important issues.

I hope, hope, hope it was just extreme naivety on his part. Most men look at porn on the internet (although I realise he has not hidden behind that as an excuse). But it does make you wonder about the crap you get in your hotmail inbox. I imagine most people, when they first get a pc, out of naivety, look at these emails at first. How many, out of curiosity, take it a little further and give a credit card number to get more info? Who knows what images you may then get?

If he's innocent, his stupidity was giving a credit card number.

The problem is Moomin, that research isn't actually a defence - the act of downloading the stuff is a crime. Still - he hasn't been charged which is good.

I must say though that the thing that shocked me most was the fact that they sent 18 police officers round to his house. Now child porn is a serious crime and I agree that arresting the users as well as the suppliers needs to be done, but they're carrying on as if people who download pictures (however nasty) were muderers. I mean, for crying out loud didn't those officers have more important things to be doing? It does not take 18 officers to search a house, even a big one. I think they (and the media) have blown the whole thing out of proportion.

Maybe there is hope after all, apparantly he asked the police to check his computer and maintains he only visited the site once only. He is going to be so hated if they check his computer and find he's lying, so lets hope he's not. I love this operation they are doing, I think its great that all these perverts are going to be getting a knock on their door any day now.

there was an article in the Evening Standard last night about how he'd posted something on his own website (now deleted apparently) which defended certain people who'd been 'falsely accused' of being a paedophile (they reckoned it alluded to Glitter, who appeared in one of Townshend's shows a few years back...there was a picture of them together just to underline what they REALLY meant!)

Glitter's been arrested in Thailand hasn't he? He was up to his old tricks again there. How can anyone say that Glitter was innocent when it was all over his pc? Or did PT post that when it wasn't known?
I know I shouldn't do this, but I have always found Jimmy Saville to be very creepy in that area. I was watching something about pop families on TV recently, and Coleen Nolan said that when she was 14 and performing on TOTP, JS was all over her - it showed a clip too! I'll bet there are loads of celebs who think they are above the law as far as that is concerned. Look at the Rolling Stones, Bill Wyman was dating Mandy Smith when she was only 15 and married her at 16 when he was about 60! Dirty old men!

And now Matthew Kelly is being questioned on suspicion re: young boys...does anyone else think this is becoming like the Communist witch hunts in history (from the 1950s in the US) or is it really a case of no smoke without fire?

Rhubarb,
yes, Jimmy Saville gives me the creeps too ... I live quite near to him and have seen him several times in my favourite pizza restaurant with 2 or 3 very young blondes in tow - disgusting or what!?

justsaw this joke (sorry it is a bit tasteless)

"Dear Barry and Robin.

Sorry to hear about your loss. I would be happy to look after the
kids while you are at the funeral.

Yours

Pete Townsend.

Totally agree about Jimmy Saville.

Just posted something like this on the Kelly thread, but I totally disagree this is a McCarthyite witch-hunt. These are men who prey on children and enjoy their rape and sexual torture. They are just as bad as murderers in my opinion. They kill children from the inside out. All the campaigners in the field say that paedophilia is a widespread phenomenon which up to now has gone on undetected. Now, at last these evil men (most of them are men) are finally getting their punishment. Glitter was using little girls for many decades before he was caught. I feel no sympathy for Townshend. He's an intelligent man. He must have realised that by paying the purveyors of child pornography he was helping to ensure that more children (even babies, god help us) would be raped and tortured for the pleasure of evil men. He was part of creating a demand. And there is a difference between just looking and downloading. What on earth would you do that for? Personally I can't think of a single more important thing for any police officer to do than to catch a paedophile and at the same time send out a message to all other paedophiles - 'We know who you are. Be afraid. And if you are thinking of doing this, think again. We will find you and destroy your life.' This kind of publicity is a vital part of their work.

We were having a discussion at work last week about PT. One person in particular was having a hard time understanding what I was saying, which was this. If he was writing his autobiography, why did he feel he needed to pay to look at child pornography on the internet. Surely he know's enough about his own life, without looking at these sites. What questions about his own life could possibly be answered by his actions.

This is an issue which I am very passionate about, as some of you may know from another thread. As far as I am concerned one visit to such a site is one visit too many!! Research or not.