diamond
ONE love, blood, life
It doesnt look good.
i hope its not true.
DB9
i hope its not true.
DB9
Pete Townsend is in the news.
- Thread starter diamond
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Screaming Flower
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 11,961
i hope it's not true. either way it's sick that he paid for that garbage.
OP
OP
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
the thing thats a drag is..i mean isnt that the lamest excuse one could give, the excuse he offered?
bummer.
DB9
bummer.
DB9
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Only beat by David Westerfield's "I was collecting it to report it to the FBI"
pub crawler
New Yorker
does anyone have a link?
Never mind, found it.
Never mind, found it.
Last edited:
Screaming Flower
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 11,961
he was just arrested.
OP
OP
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
wow.
Screaming Flower
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 11,961
Entertainment - AP
Pete Townshend Is Arrested in Porn Case
5 minutes ago Add Entertainment - AP to My Yahoo!
LONDON - Rock star Pete Townshend (news) of The Who has been arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, police said Monday.
Scotland Yard announced that a 57-year-old man had been arrested on suspicion of making and possessing indecent images of children and of incitement to distribute indecent images of children.
Police, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the suspect was Townshend. He has not been charged with a crime, which would come later under the British legal system.
Townshend, 57, said Saturday he had used an Internet Web site advertising child pornography.
He made the admission after a newspaper reported detectives were investigating an unidentified British rock star for downloading child pornography.
Police said they arrested Townshend under the Protection of Children Act after executing two searches at a business and a home in Richmond, Surrey, the town outside London where he lives. They said they took computers from the home and were examining them.
Townshend was being held at a southwest London police station, Scotland Yard said.
Townshend said in his Saturday statement that he was not a pedophile and only used the porn site once while doing research for an autobiography dealing with his own suspected childhood sexual abuse.
Earlier Monday, a group of police officers arrived at Townshend's Richmond home, one carrying a plastic crate containing packaging to store potential evidence.
Townshend's arrest came as part of Operation Ore, a crackdown on people who view child pornography on the Internet.
British police have arrested 1,300 suspects as part of the sweep, including a judge, magistrates, dentists, doctors and a deputy school headmaster. Fifty police officers also have been arrested, and eight of them have been charged with offenses.
Operation Ore is the British arm of an FBI (news - web sites)-led operation that traced 250,000 suspected pedophiles around the world through credit card details they used to pay for downloading child pornography. The names of British suspects were passed on to police in Britain by U.S. investigators.
Townshend's friend, the model Jerry Hall (news), said Sunday he was an "avid supporter" of child welfare charities and had spoken at length about the dangers of child pornography on the Internet.
that's horrible.
Pete Townshend Is Arrested in Porn Case
5 minutes ago Add Entertainment - AP to My Yahoo!
LONDON - Rock star Pete Townshend (news) of The Who has been arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, police said Monday.
Scotland Yard announced that a 57-year-old man had been arrested on suspicion of making and possessing indecent images of children and of incitement to distribute indecent images of children.
Police, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the suspect was Townshend. He has not been charged with a crime, which would come later under the British legal system.
Townshend, 57, said Saturday he had used an Internet Web site advertising child pornography.
He made the admission after a newspaper reported detectives were investigating an unidentified British rock star for downloading child pornography.
Police said they arrested Townshend under the Protection of Children Act after executing two searches at a business and a home in Richmond, Surrey, the town outside London where he lives. They said they took computers from the home and were examining them.
Townshend was being held at a southwest London police station, Scotland Yard said.
Townshend said in his Saturday statement that he was not a pedophile and only used the porn site once while doing research for an autobiography dealing with his own suspected childhood sexual abuse.
Earlier Monday, a group of police officers arrived at Townshend's Richmond home, one carrying a plastic crate containing packaging to store potential evidence.
Townshend's arrest came as part of Operation Ore, a crackdown on people who view child pornography on the Internet.
British police have arrested 1,300 suspects as part of the sweep, including a judge, magistrates, dentists, doctors and a deputy school headmaster. Fifty police officers also have been arrested, and eight of them have been charged with offenses.
Operation Ore is the British arm of an FBI (news - web sites)-led operation that traced 250,000 suspected pedophiles around the world through credit card details they used to pay for downloading child pornography. The names of British suspects were passed on to police in Britain by U.S. investigators.
Townshend's friend, the model Jerry Hall (news), said Sunday he was an "avid supporter" of child welfare charities and had spoken at length about the dangers of child pornography on the Internet.
that's horrible.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
It makes me vomit, I?m not going to comment on this.
Actual quotes on the net:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interests of setting people as straight as they can possibly be set on this matter, here are some excerpts from an email Dave Marsh circulated to his mailing list. I respectfully request that no journalist quote from this without obtaining consent from Pete Townshend.
Subj: Pete Townshend
Date: 1/12/03 12:34:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
When my friend Scott Pellegrino sent me this last summer, I couldn't figure out quite why I decided to save it. As it turns out, Pete was then forced to take the essay off his website for legal reasons. And now he is in a jam with the cops because of just what he is honestly discussing below.
The story here is NOT whether Pete Townshend is a pedophile, which is an asinine accusation. It is whether the American and British police have the right to defile the name of someone, without stepping forward with so much as a charge against him, just through slander and innuendo and filth.
It is about whether we live in a police state. I can think of about 1000 more important examples of the fact that we do. I can't think of a single clearer one.
**********************************
Excerpts from a writing by Pete Townshend contained in this email are below:
...There is hardly a man I know who uses computers who will not admit to surfing casually sometimes to find pornography. I have done it. Certainly, one expects only to find what is available on the top shelf at the news agents.
I make no argument here for or against 'hard' or 'soft' pornography. What is certain is that providers of porn feel the need to constantly 'refresh' their supply. So new 'victims' are drawn in every day -- customers and subjects. This is just as true on the Internet as it is in the world of magazines and video. However, what many people fail to realise is how -- by visiting their websites -- we directly and effectively subsidise pornographers. This is true whether we do so unwittingly or deliberately, out of curiosity or a vigilante spirit...
...The Guardian newspaper revealed that www.uksearchterms.com listed 'lolita' high on the list of the most searched words in the UK ('sex' is often No.1). It seemed to me that there was some hypocrisy going on.
Who were all these people typing 'lolita' into their browsers? They were surely not all paedophiles. Perhaps they were simply curious of what they might find.
The terrible part is that what they found on the Internet will almost have certainly found them by return. It is not to suggest that every one of them was 'hooked' as soon as they found a porn site professing to display underage subjects, it is to say that because their visit was undoubtedly recorded by the site or sites in question, the pornographers who run those sites would have found validation and commercial promise for their activity. They would then have redoubled their efforts in that area.
Many porn sites use software triggers so that when a visitor tries to leave a site upon which they may have unwittingly stumbled, another similar -- or worse -- site immediately pops up. When they try to shut that site, another pops up, then another, then another, the content getting more and more extreme until their browser is solid with pornography and eventually will seize up as though choking on some vapid manifestation of evil itself. Thus it is that the pornographer's 'validation' is spawned at the same time. One site opened triggers another dozen or more -- all of which has been unwillingly 'visited.' If the visitor so much as click on a newly displayed page they may supply a record of their computer's unique address.
'Lolita' is obviously not a word to use carelessly when searching the Internet -- even if one happened to be studying Nabokov for a literature degree. In any case, the word itself is not of special significance: I had my first encounter with Internet paedophilia by mistake...
..., a film director friend, had made an extremely moving documentary about an American couple who adopted a Russian boy. As a charity fund-raiser (and, I suppose, vulnerable philanthropist to boot) I wanted to support the work of such orphanages and decided to see if I could-via the Internet -- find legitimate contacts to help. (I had tried many other methods and failed). The various words I used included 'Russia' and 'orphanages'. I used no words that could usually be taken to be sexual or lascivious, except -- perhaps ill-advisedly -- the word 'boys'.
Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man. The blazer on the page claimed that sex with children is 'not illegal in Russia.' This was not smut. It was a depiction of a real rape. The victim, if the infant boy survived,...would probably one day take his own life. The awful reality hit me of the self-propelling, self-spawning mechanism of the Internet.
I reached for the phone, I intended to call the police and take them through the process I had stumbled upon-and bring the pornographers involved to book. Then I thought twice about it. I knew I must NOT download anything I saw. That would be illegal. I spoke off-the-record to a lawyer. He advised me that I most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence.' So I did nothing.
I mentioned this shocking Internet experience to a few people close to me. It became clear very quickly that some people I spoke to thought that if I had searched using the right words, my exposure to that terrible image would not have occurred. It might be strange to hear that I was glad I found it. Until then, like my ostrich-like friends, I imagined that only those who communicated on the Internet using secret codes, private chat-rooms and encrypted files would ever be exposed to this kind of image. But I learned through this accident that such images are 'freely' available through the machinery of common search engines and User-Groups, and are openly available for sale through subscription via credit card. I was then concerned that there would be those 'provider's of paedophilic porn who felt the need to regularly 'refresh' their supply of images, as is the pornographic 'norm.' It is a chilling thought isn't it?...
...On the Internet, vigilante groups and individuals work obsessively both to trace and block certain porn sites and to offer -- through 12 Step programmes for sex-addiction-probably the only way out for some ensnared by addiction to what the Internet has to offer.
Undermining all this good work, the ISP I use allows access to User Groups by using the term 'alt' as a prefix. In '*******' (a popular search engine) it is possible to reach a questionable array of offered sex sites with very few keystrokes, and without actually typing a single word. The pathway to 'free' paedophilic imagery is -- as it were -- laid out like a free line of cocaine at a decadent cocktail party. Only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist. Those vigilantes who research these pathways must open themselves up to Internet 'snoops'. Many are obviously willing to take the risk. They believe the pathways themselves must be closed.
Offending sites must be totally and completely eradicated from the Internet. If that is not possible, they must be openly policed by active and obstructive vigilantes -- not just 'snooped' by government agencies and police...
...What is certain is that the Internet has brought the sexual abuse of children into the open. It is not 'respectable' or 'acceptable' at any level of society. It is simply in the open...
...Booze and drugs are here to stay. But it must be time to do something more concrete to stop the proliferation of questionable pornography that seems so readily and openly facilitated by the Internet.
Another danger is this: I think it must be obvious that many children are becoming inured to pornography much too early and -as I have demonstrated -- the Internet provides a very short route indeed to some of the most evil and shocking images of rape and abuse.
The subconscious mind is deeply damaged and indelibly scarred by the sight of such images. I can assure everyone reading this that if they go off in pursuit of images of rape they will find them. I urge them not to try. I pray too that they don't happen upon such images as did I, by accident. If they do they may like me become so enraged and disturbed that their dreams are forever haunted."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrested and charged with suspicion of MAKING images, possessing them and enticing to distribute.
He's fucked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is gonna get ugly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following quote from www.thesun.co.uk
Cops can come and get me
By DOMINIC MOHAN
Showbiz Editor
Townshend said he had received support from star pals
including David Bowie, Jerry Hall, Bob Geldof and
Bono.
Actual quotes on the net:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interests of setting people as straight as they can possibly be set on this matter, here are some excerpts from an email Dave Marsh circulated to his mailing list. I respectfully request that no journalist quote from this without obtaining consent from Pete Townshend.
Subj: Pete Townshend
Date: 1/12/03 12:34:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
When my friend Scott Pellegrino sent me this last summer, I couldn't figure out quite why I decided to save it. As it turns out, Pete was then forced to take the essay off his website for legal reasons. And now he is in a jam with the cops because of just what he is honestly discussing below.
The story here is NOT whether Pete Townshend is a pedophile, which is an asinine accusation. It is whether the American and British police have the right to defile the name of someone, without stepping forward with so much as a charge against him, just through slander and innuendo and filth.
It is about whether we live in a police state. I can think of about 1000 more important examples of the fact that we do. I can't think of a single clearer one.
**********************************
Excerpts from a writing by Pete Townshend contained in this email are below:
...There is hardly a man I know who uses computers who will not admit to surfing casually sometimes to find pornography. I have done it. Certainly, one expects only to find what is available on the top shelf at the news agents.
I make no argument here for or against 'hard' or 'soft' pornography. What is certain is that providers of porn feel the need to constantly 'refresh' their supply. So new 'victims' are drawn in every day -- customers and subjects. This is just as true on the Internet as it is in the world of magazines and video. However, what many people fail to realise is how -- by visiting their websites -- we directly and effectively subsidise pornographers. This is true whether we do so unwittingly or deliberately, out of curiosity or a vigilante spirit...
...The Guardian newspaper revealed that www.uksearchterms.com listed 'lolita' high on the list of the most searched words in the UK ('sex' is often No.1). It seemed to me that there was some hypocrisy going on.
Who were all these people typing 'lolita' into their browsers? They were surely not all paedophiles. Perhaps they were simply curious of what they might find.
The terrible part is that what they found on the Internet will almost have certainly found them by return. It is not to suggest that every one of them was 'hooked' as soon as they found a porn site professing to display underage subjects, it is to say that because their visit was undoubtedly recorded by the site or sites in question, the pornographers who run those sites would have found validation and commercial promise for their activity. They would then have redoubled their efforts in that area.
Many porn sites use software triggers so that when a visitor tries to leave a site upon which they may have unwittingly stumbled, another similar -- or worse -- site immediately pops up. When they try to shut that site, another pops up, then another, then another, the content getting more and more extreme until their browser is solid with pornography and eventually will seize up as though choking on some vapid manifestation of evil itself. Thus it is that the pornographer's 'validation' is spawned at the same time. One site opened triggers another dozen or more -- all of which has been unwillingly 'visited.' If the visitor so much as click on a newly displayed page they may supply a record of their computer's unique address.
'Lolita' is obviously not a word to use carelessly when searching the Internet -- even if one happened to be studying Nabokov for a literature degree. In any case, the word itself is not of special significance: I had my first encounter with Internet paedophilia by mistake...
..., a film director friend, had made an extremely moving documentary about an American couple who adopted a Russian boy. As a charity fund-raiser (and, I suppose, vulnerable philanthropist to boot) I wanted to support the work of such orphanages and decided to see if I could-via the Internet -- find legitimate contacts to help. (I had tried many other methods and failed). The various words I used included 'Russia' and 'orphanages'. I used no words that could usually be taken to be sexual or lascivious, except -- perhaps ill-advisedly -- the word 'boys'.
Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man. The blazer on the page claimed that sex with children is 'not illegal in Russia.' This was not smut. It was a depiction of a real rape. The victim, if the infant boy survived,...would probably one day take his own life. The awful reality hit me of the self-propelling, self-spawning mechanism of the Internet.
I reached for the phone, I intended to call the police and take them through the process I had stumbled upon-and bring the pornographers involved to book. Then I thought twice about it. I knew I must NOT download anything I saw. That would be illegal. I spoke off-the-record to a lawyer. He advised me that I most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence.' So I did nothing.
I mentioned this shocking Internet experience to a few people close to me. It became clear very quickly that some people I spoke to thought that if I had searched using the right words, my exposure to that terrible image would not have occurred. It might be strange to hear that I was glad I found it. Until then, like my ostrich-like friends, I imagined that only those who communicated on the Internet using secret codes, private chat-rooms and encrypted files would ever be exposed to this kind of image. But I learned through this accident that such images are 'freely' available through the machinery of common search engines and User-Groups, and are openly available for sale through subscription via credit card. I was then concerned that there would be those 'provider's of paedophilic porn who felt the need to regularly 'refresh' their supply of images, as is the pornographic 'norm.' It is a chilling thought isn't it?...
...On the Internet, vigilante groups and individuals work obsessively both to trace and block certain porn sites and to offer -- through 12 Step programmes for sex-addiction-probably the only way out for some ensnared by addiction to what the Internet has to offer.
Undermining all this good work, the ISP I use allows access to User Groups by using the term 'alt' as a prefix. In '*******' (a popular search engine) it is possible to reach a questionable array of offered sex sites with very few keystrokes, and without actually typing a single word. The pathway to 'free' paedophilic imagery is -- as it were -- laid out like a free line of cocaine at a decadent cocktail party. Only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist. Those vigilantes who research these pathways must open themselves up to Internet 'snoops'. Many are obviously willing to take the risk. They believe the pathways themselves must be closed.
Offending sites must be totally and completely eradicated from the Internet. If that is not possible, they must be openly policed by active and obstructive vigilantes -- not just 'snooped' by government agencies and police...
...What is certain is that the Internet has brought the sexual abuse of children into the open. It is not 'respectable' or 'acceptable' at any level of society. It is simply in the open...
...Booze and drugs are here to stay. But it must be time to do something more concrete to stop the proliferation of questionable pornography that seems so readily and openly facilitated by the Internet.
Another danger is this: I think it must be obvious that many children are becoming inured to pornography much too early and -as I have demonstrated -- the Internet provides a very short route indeed to some of the most evil and shocking images of rape and abuse.
The subconscious mind is deeply damaged and indelibly scarred by the sight of such images. I can assure everyone reading this that if they go off in pursuit of images of rape they will find them. I urge them not to try. I pray too that they don't happen upon such images as did I, by accident. If they do they may like me become so enraged and disturbed that their dreams are forever haunted."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrested and charged with suspicion of MAKING images, possessing them and enticing to distribute.
He's fucked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is gonna get ugly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
following quote from www.thesun.co.uk
Cops can come and get me
By DOMINIC MOHAN
Showbiz Editor
Townshend said he had received support from star pals
including David Bowie, Jerry Hall, Bob Geldof and
Bono.
Last edited:
bonoman
Refugee
You know it is total bullshit to do this to anyone. They havent even charged him and his name is now smacked up againist the wall and labeled guilty.
I hope to God this isnt true but for them to give names without charging him is total bullshit. I pray he proves his name and sues the shit out of the police and give all moneies to child porn prevention.
This makes me mad.
I hope to God this isnt true but for them to give names without charging him is total bullshit. I pray he proves his name and sues the shit out of the police and give all moneies to child porn prevention.
This makes me mad.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Screaming Flower said:
You're joking......huh? He got busted? Damn! This is so weird.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
bonoman said:
Me too.
BAW
The Flower
bonoman said:
I see where you're coming from and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he issued a statement about the accusations before the police released any names. The authorities only confirmed it was him after he talked about publicly.
bonoman
Refugee
well if that is the case then alright...but i am still pissed...
OP
OP
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
well i will reserve judgement for a while, until all the facts are in.
my concerns are-
why does he have 5 computers in his house down-loading all kinds of sick shit.?
why didnt he so it in a controlled environment?
w credible witnesses ect?
db9
my concerns are-
why does he have 5 computers in his house down-loading all kinds of sick shit.?
why didnt he so it in a controlled environment?
w credible witnesses ect?
db9
Last edited:
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
diamond said:
I'm sure we'll find all of this stuff out.
CampbellMSU
The Fly
i know that in the yahoo! news article ( i believe they extensively use reuters for a lot of foreign news) they mentioned the musical "tommy" "in which the main character was sexually molested by his uncle."
it's almost as if they are insinuating that he got off on that, and that tommy should point towards townshend's issues.
i hope it isn't true. sometimes we want to do soemthing right, but don't get witnesses or anything. remember, sin is tempting, even the most vile, disgusting things, and he's only human, no matter how well he plays the guitar.
it's almost as if they are insinuating that he got off on that, and that tommy should point towards townshend's issues.
i hope it isn't true. sometimes we want to do soemthing right, but don't get witnesses or anything. remember, sin is tempting, even the most vile, disgusting things, and he's only human, no matter how well he plays the guitar.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
As a long-time Who fan, I'm aware that Townshend uses many of his life experiences for themes in his music. I hate it that he's getting the shaft because of stuff he's created. I really love this music and I hope the cops and others bug off him soon. I quite honestly don't think he's done anything wrong. I can't prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, of course, I just don't think so. Maybe I'm too biased.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
So, according to yahoo, Eminem must be a mass murderer.
To point out that creations have to do with the actual life of an artist is disgusting, in this case.
And pushes censoring quality on a whole new level.
I don?t know Pete personally.
To point out that creations have to do with the actual life of an artist is disgusting, in this case.
And pushes censoring quality on a whole new level.
I don?t know Pete personally.
Last edited:
verte76 said:
Couldn't agree more... but like WhenHipHopDroveTheBigCars (long enough moniker) said, I don't know Pete personally either, so my judgement of character is based on his public image. Hope everything works out for him personally, so that the Who can go on tour again.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I hope the Who can get back to touring soon, too.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U2 Live From Sphere - Final Show SiriusXM stream
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
