The Who (band)

[FuckOffGroundhog]

Does anyone know why The Who are still playing concerts? I thought after Saville we were collectively becoming less accepting of sexual abuse against children? Have we just conveniently forgotten about Pete Townshend paying for child sex abuse images thing because they play a good tune? Or do people believe it was really "research"

People seem to accept it when it's artistic or athletes they actually like. Have you noticed that? I mean no one is petitions for a Gary Gltter come back are they? They just literally ignore it when someone has a bit of talent.

I think what might be considered to make him different is his utter contrition (and no reoffending, total compliance with conditions when in the SRO) his own history of suffering sexual abuse, and his subsequent work with the charity Double O and general public profile speaking out.

I disagree he has been utterly contrite. I don't believe anyone (especially with a history of sex abuse) looks up rape images of children for research. He has said he has apologized for "researching" in that way.

I mean even Saville did loads of charity and public service announcements to teach children about "stranger danger" etc. I don't think those things really make up for it

I think people have forgotten haven't they?

I guess it was before the recent set of scandals
He was "only" looking at images rather than hands-on abuse himself
The press didn't go to town on it so people forgot?

Or maybe like Polanski people admire him and want him to continue and so are willing to overlook

Probably a combination of stuff.

What about Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith?

SardineQueen you are right. I went to Sticky Fingers once, and then read about Mandy Smith, and dear god, I will never go again.

I did not know about Mandy Smith, that's vile.

I thought there had never been any further allegations about Pete Townshend.

He was also cleared of possessing images of child abuse, as none were ever found on any device of his. The only thing found against him was one £7 transaction to the ORE website, which he admits and for which he was cautioned (?) and had 5 years on SRO.

If you're referring to my post 10:11:01. I am saying he has referred to himself as having a history of being abused. And I don't think someone who has that history would think it acceptable to pay for images of sex abuse.

Yes it is vile isn't it.

It's massively disappointing the rest of the band are prepared to share a stage with him but it doesn't surprise me given the number of partners and family members who are prepared to overlook a conviction for child sex offences and indeed seem keen to sweep all that messy stuff under the carpet.

I was referring to the comparison to Savile, which I don't think is right in this case. And I would have expected the police to have found abuse images if he had downloaded any (for it's pretty difficult to get rid of all signs of them short of destroying the computer) and then it would have been a prosecution, not a caution wouldn't it?

I have no idea what a victim of abuse may or may not do on their personal journey. Some of the lyrics in Tommy are pretty dark, and of course that was years before his caution.

Plus there's the whole "well it was different in the 70s/80s" argument thing.

Different for the men in that they were allowed to get away with it maybe. Not different in that these things were genuinely AOK a couple of decades ago.

Sorry that was about Bill Wyman.

I was just talking about this the other day with DH. I thought and hoped that because of Saville, Townsend would be reinvestigated.

I saw that Gary Glitter is using the same excuse as Townsend at the moment. He's on trial and said he'd looked up images as he had been abused as a child and he was really sorry. He even cried in court.
bastard

I have been quite surprised by how low key the Gary Glitter trial has been so far. Very little media coverage

Gary Glitter had been imprisoned for his offences.

They found 4,000 images, didn't they?

Childhood abuse can be a factor in all sorts of actions as an adult, but I think it's wrong to say that because some are serious repeat offenders, all must be.

Gary Glitter has served time for child sex offences hasn't he. I thought he was widely accepted as an active paedophile. And I imagine that's why not much coverage (I haven't seen any didn't know there was a trial but haven't been looking). Because everyone knows he's a paedophile who has abused children overseas.

I've seen the Glitter trial on the news, but it may have been our local one, I can't remember. He's charge wi rate and indecent assault on young girls

Link if anyone wants to read.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31015347

Yes, I realise he's widely acknowledged as an active paedophile but it just feels odd that there's not more interest in covering the case given the recent high profile coverage of men like Savile, Harris and Hall.

Guess Glitter being old news is just not quite sensational enough

I think it's that everyone knows he's a paedophile so where's the news IYSWIM.

The big stories are around men who are being accused of stuff for the first time.

I can understand that TBH. Not saying it's right but I can understand it.

Sorry for typos