The Who's Townshend Says 'I'm Not a Pedophile'

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
The Who's Townshend Says 'I'm Not a Pedophile'
Updated 2:32 PM ET January 11, 2003

By Sinead O'Hanlon

LONDON (Reuters) - British rock star Pete Townshend, guitarist with legendary band The Who, on Saturday admitted using a pay-per-view Internet child pornography site but denied he was a pedophile and said it was for research purposes.
The guitarist took the unusual step of issuing a public statement after a newspaper said police were investigating an unnamed music star as part of Britain's largest-ever operation against Internet pedophilia.

Gary Glitter didn't learn the first time he got caught?
In the lengthy statement, Townshend said he had paid to enter an Internet site advertising child pornography "purely to see what was there" as research to fight the crime.
"I am not a pedophile. I think pedophilia is appalling," he said in the statement which was distributed by a woman to reporters outside his home in Richmond, south London.
"On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. I did this purely to see what was there," he said.

(Yeaaaahhhh...riiiigght)
Townshend, 57, said he felt "anger and vengeance" toward those who found child pornography attractive, and said he believed he was sexually abused as a child but could not remember clearly what happened.
"To fight against pedophilia, you have to know what's out there," he said, adding that he was involved in an anti-pedophilia campaign that had fizzled out.

Is Townshend on some official committee convened to deal with this?
Townshend, who is married with children, had earlier left the house in a Mercedes car.
A spokesman for London police refused to comment on the matter, saying it did not talk about individual cases and was not able to confirm that police were investigating a rock star.

...
skipping boilerplate bio of the Who
...
The operation has resulted in more than 1,300 arrests nationwide, including 50 police officers and is partly based on information supplied by American law enforcement agencies.
Townshend said he could not remember the details of the sexual abuse he believed he suffered as a child, "but my creative work tends to throw up nasty shadows -- particularly in Tommy," he said, referring to the 1969 rock opera.
He said he predicted many years ago the Internet would "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 organizations...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."

Now stick that in yer friggin commercial.

Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Saturday, 11 January 2003 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Ugh, I knew that guy was no good.

original bgm, Saturday, 11 January 2003 21:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel sick. I really hope this isn't as bad as it looks.

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

it looks worse in this HUGE writing.

michael wells (michael w.), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

and the bold. amke it stop.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

make it stop now!

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

maybe now?

Tad (llamasfur), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)

?

Kim (Kim), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Erm...

Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:43 (twenty-two years ago)


Who's Next?

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I said WHO'S NEXT?

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:49 (twenty-two years ago)

ah, clever boy.

Kim (Kim), Saturday, 11 January 2003 22:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Townshend claims he was sexually abused as a child and has played a numer of benefits on behalf of abused children. apparently

Major Alfonso (Major Alfonso), Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:15 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a fine fine line here. The incidences of child sexual assault are far more common than most people would like to admit, and who the hell knows what kind of mental toll it takes on people, especially if it's been repressed? I'm not sure whether to give him the benefit of the doubt here; even if what he says is true, in terms of trying to come to grips with his past (and yes, it can apparently be shelved away in the back of your head for a long, long time), putting a child porn site on your credit card shows an amazing lack of judgement by any standard, and there are definitely far better ways to explore the potential of repressed memories than examining this type of material: just for one example, there's a pair of books by Laura Davis, Courage to Heal (for the survivor) and Allies in Healing (for the partner of the survivor). There's a ton of other good books out there in this vein, and the good news is that none of them require lawbreaking or vilification in the name of "research".

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:27 (twenty-two years ago)

It certainly puts those Keith Moon scenes in Tommy in a different perspective, doesn't it?

kate, Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Townshend says he told the police what he was going to do it beforehand, which should be easy to check. If that's true then there's no reason to think he wasn't just doing research. But it still makes him stupid. It's unlikely the police give license to members of the public to do this kind of stuff. I remember reading about some academic who got convicted of this kind of thing whose defence was also that it was research.

Also, as Sean points out, actually paying for the material is pretty dumb. No matter if he does deplore the abuse of children, his credit card has effectively funded it, hasn't it?

Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry 'bout the font, everyone.

Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:58 (twenty-two years ago)

This is God's punishment for continuing the last tour without John... and touring without Keith in general...

jm (jtm), Sunday, 12 January 2003 00:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmmm..."Rough Boys", indeed.

Joe (Joe), Sunday, 12 January 2003 00:43 (twenty-two years ago)

there's a pair of books by Laura Davis, Courage to Heal (for the survivor) and Allies in Healing (for the partner of the survivor)

Don't know about the latter book mentioned, but I do know that Courage to Heal was pretty notorious for statements such as "if you think you were abused, and your life shows the symptoms, then you were" and "Many women who were abused don't have memories, and some never get any. This doesn't mean that they weren't abused". I think (and hope) later editions removed these statements.

Joe (Joe), Sunday, 12 January 2003 00:49 (twenty-two years ago)

So Pete Townsend hasn't worked out that demand -> supply yet?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Sunday, 12 January 2003 01:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I've read Allies, not Courage, so can't comments specifically on that one; the copy of Courage we had has since been passed on. As for those two statements you list above, yeah, the first one seems a bit dicey. The second one could very well be bang on as long as it's not used as an excuse to force people who weren't abused into thinking that they WERE. For some people, the trauma of going through something like that can push the memories so far down they may not come back up again for a long, LONG time.

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Sunday, 12 January 2003 01:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I just read the article about this on the BBC site, and it's so sketchy and full of heresay wherein they report merely that other media outlets are reporting things, so this doesn't seem fair to discuss (specifically about Townsend I mean) until further info comes to light.

Kim (Kim), Sunday, 12 January 2003 02:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Shit, if I'd been sexually abused as a child, I might be curious about what exactly is going on with that child porn shit. That's kind of how I handle things - maybe most people wouldn't do that, but I do know of people who were raped or sexually abused who have a fascination with that stuff - it can give you a sense of control over things. People are gonna rush to judgment on this one - I think his explanation sounds credible.

Kerry (dymaxia), Sunday, 12 January 2003 02:25 (twenty-two years ago)

1990 “I know how it feels to be a woman because I am a woman. And I won’t be classified as just a man.”

i think the child abuse he can't remember sounds awfully convenient now, way of drawing sympathy.

keith (keithmcl), Sunday, 12 January 2003 06:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Kerry is OTM

Dr. C (Dr. C), Sunday, 12 January 2003 12:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I notice Townshend toured with Gary Glitter in the late 90s. Glitter played the part of a pompadoured rocker in the '96 Who tour. Perhaps they traded bubblegum cards -- and URLs.

There's a funny 1975 NME interview with Townshend where he talks about shedding tears after going to the Top of the Pops studio and seeing 15 year old girls screaming for the Bay City Rollers but not for him.

I'm just worried now for the posthumous reputation of Maurice Chevalier. I saw 'Gigi' on TV the other night, and when he sang 'Thank 'eaven for leetle girls' I was thinking sadly 'Watch out, Maurice, you can't do that on stage any more!'

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 12 January 2003 13:07 (twenty-two years ago)

By the way, if you click on this link your reputation will be ruined, your wife will leave you, your daughters will be taken into care, your name will be added to the Scum Register, and you will be hounded from country to country for the rest of your life until, a reviled and abused figure, you finally take your own life.

Go on, take a peek, you're really, really curious, aren't you?

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 12 January 2003 13:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm just worried now for the posthumous reputation of Maurice Chevalier. I saw 'Gigi' on TV the other night, and when he sang 'Thank 'eaven for leetle girls' I was thinking sadly 'Watch out, Maurice, you can't do that on stage any more!'

So you'd equate singing "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" with viewing explicit child pornography?

J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Sunday, 12 January 2003 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

My instinct on this is that he's telling the truth, but from a burden-of-proof perspective, isn't "I was doing it for research" just about the cheesiest excuse going?

mark p (Mark P), Sunday, 12 January 2003 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

So you'd equate singing "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" with viewing explicit child pornography?

I'm saying the sad thing is that nobody could now sing that song (Gigi dates from 1958) without worrying about accusations of pedophilia.

I like to think I could sing 'Thank Heaven For Little Girls' with 'the right' or 'a healthy' mix of smut and innocence ('Gigi' is nudge-nudge about the issue), but I could never be sure that there wouldn't be a witchhunt on the part of a public, or tabloids, or police -- people who simultaneously over-sexualize children and demonize those who over-sexualize them. (This little paradox might explain why 50 police officers are accused alongside Pete Townshend after Operation Ore.)

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 12 January 2003 15:38 (twenty-two years ago)

The tabloids have been surprisingly sympathetic towards Townshend today. But they are also making the old connections. A Sunday People article begins: "Wildman Townshend was once one of rock's biggest hell-raisers, caught up in a mad decadent whirl of booze, drugs and even GAY sex" (their capitalisation).

Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Sunday, 12 January 2003 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Good news for Pete: prurience will shift a lot of copies of his forthcoming autobiography.

Bad news for Pete: everything else.

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 12 January 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I knew what you were saying, M. I just wondered if you had really given some thought to what you were saying.

(Since my day job involves working directly with children who have been raped by the "victims" of this supposed "witchhunt," I have something of a personal investment in it and should bow out of this thread before I get all emo and stuff.) I thought your comment was roughly equal to "oh no! PC! oh no!" which I think is a pretty played-out stance, especially with respect to child molestation, which (contrary to over-enthusiastic readings of Nabokov et al) isn't really something reliant on societal contextualization. If not for issues of client confidentiality I'd happily invite you to my workplace so that you might directly encounter the fruits of people having been real "nudge-nudge about the issue."

J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Sunday, 12 January 2003 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

"this witchhunt" above obviously not the one you imagine resulting from your imagined rendition of "Thank Heaven" but one whose ongoing existence is implied by the one you imagine

say, that sentence is pretty good backwards, too

J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Sunday, 12 January 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought your comment was roughly equal to "oh no! PC! oh no!" which I think is a pretty played-out stance

No, I don't think it's PC to over-sexualize children. I think it's hysterical in the classical psychoanalytical sense of that word. Both the abusers and the accusers (sometimes the same people) are hysterical. The last thing they are is politically correct, ie left-leaning. They're both, if anything, on the right: they tend to consdier human nature (including their own proclivities) evil, corrupt and debased.

child molestation, which (contrary to over-enthusiastic readings of Nabokov et al) isn't really something reliant on societal contextualization.

Here I don't really follow you. Is there any social phenomenon which is beyond social contextualisation? And do 'over-enthusiastic readings of Nabokov' really lead us to conclusions about context, ie to thinking about moral relativism? (Isn't 'Lolita' a study of the tragi-comedy of obsession, a portrait of hysteria, a tale of unrequited love?)

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 12 January 2003 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Is there any social phenomenon which is beyond social contextualisation?

Obviously "yes," there are dozens, but as I say I had better bow out of this thread; I must admit surprise at your only allowing one possible reading of Lolita since your fairly radical postmodernist position ("all social phenomena are matters of context") generally holds hands with "all texts are infinite play," or at least "texts generally contain several coexisting meanings," but lat be for now. Again I would encourage you to actually spend some time with abused children before holding forth about whether their suffering is simply a matter of perspective.

J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Sunday, 12 January 2003 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I just hope that this entire thing doesn't give demonics ammo for equating homosexuality w/ pedophilia, regardless of context (as Townshend had admitted he wasn't "100%" hetero before, in countless interviews). Not that it's like;y, but still...

I've really got to stop reading Ann Coulter. *sigh*

Vic (Vic), Sunday, 12 January 2003 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

John, to say that something is defined by its social context is not at all to dismiss the genuine pain and suffering it causes. And to be either a relativist or a post-modernist is not at all to be without moral conviction or a personal interpretation.

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 12 January 2003 17:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I've really got to stop reading Ann Coulter. *sigh*

Good advice for us all.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 12 January 2003 17:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Boycott Anne Coulter until she gets a tit job

dave q, Sunday, 12 January 2003 18:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Or a brain transplant

Vic (Vic), Sunday, 12 January 2003 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

certainly i disagree with momus' reading of Lolita, nabokov's trap being the reader feeling sympathetic with humbert humbert and thus becoming complicit in his morally questionable actions. contrary to what some may suggest, authorial intent is important. infinite play in meanings = meaninglessness.

as for the UK and child pornography, from my understanding it's rather a hot button hysterical issue gone as far as men who still live with their mothers being accused of being child molesters just because they live with their mothers.

jack cole (jackcole), Sunday, 12 January 2003 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, the issue is treated oddly.

Townshend says, "I am not a paedophile, but I did donate money to kid fuckers" and he's given the benefit of the doubt (I'm not saying he shouldn't be).

I wonder what would happen if he'd instead said, "It wasn't me, my credit card was stolen. But nevertheless I have to admit that I AM a paedophile. I can't help it, I have fantasies that involve kid fucking even if I'd never act them out".

Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Sunday, 12 January 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

He would probably suffer the same fate as this young man.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 13 January 2003 00:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I personally think bringing Nabokov into this conversation is anesthetized, and has little to do with the topic at hand, especially when the topic of Pete turned into a legitimate conversation of the phenomena of sexual abuse. Also, I'd like to bring up the topic of Ada or Ador considering however supercilious you'd like to be if people insist on staying on the topic of Nabokov. In this piece, Nabotov somehow tricks one's mind by luring it into an obsessive love story, instead of what it was, a blatant story on incest. In any other context it would be "disgusting" but through prodigious writing technique he strangles his butterfly arms around you, and transfers infatuation from the page to you. And I don't think reading Ada has ever made incest seem more excusable.

I would also like to excuse myself for what was the most backwards of arriving to my point. Very deplorable for an english scholar.

mallory bourgeois (painter man), Monday, 13 January 2003 01:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Well said.

Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Monday, 13 January 2003 01:34 (twenty-two years ago)

As one other said, Townshend's explanation is perfectly 'credible'. Why assume the worst?

Wouldn't the resources of law enforcement agencies be better employed tracking down those who perpetrate actual sex crimes against actual kids, rather than witch-hunting those who may have happened to look upon the forbidden images?

Mick, Monday, 13 January 2003 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

If Pete Townshend, guitarist for the Who, in his 20s and 30s, made it though the decades of 1965-1985 without ever consorting with a teenage girl, I'll eat my hat. The historically neutral moral ground of rockstardom is being rewritten as we sit. Besides Gary Glitter and a couple others I can't summon to memory, how many stars have actually been prosecuted successfully for "pedophilia" (I'm leaving out the doubtless millions of out-of-court settlements!)? Seems to me it was one of the most-vaunted perks of the game the whole time I was growing up, reading CIRCUS, HIT PARADER and CREEM. The magazines pretty much bear me out on this, am I wrong?

matt riedl (veal), Monday, 13 January 2003 17:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I saw something recently in either Bitch or Bust (I think it was Bitch) written by a teenaged girl who had been sent out to interview a major label band, and the band basically kept trying to get into her pants. Let me see if I can dig up the dirt.

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Monday, 13 January 2003 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Ph*l C*ll*ns would be even more classic.

Nicole (Nicole), Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:29 (twenty-two years ago)

"I think he can guess what's on child sex tapes" = the real tricksy moment in this entire argument, seeing as people who KNOW what are on child sex tapes are instantly placed in a suspect position (including, i might add, everyone engaged — SO THEY CLAIM!! — in shutting this world down... )

if i wanted to look at child porn, i'd join the obscene publications squad, where my excuse would be cast-iron and my ease-of-access very high

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:46 (twenty-two years ago)

what would he uncover in his 'research' that might change his stance towards the selling of child pornography? Would the need to find out the EXACT nature of these particular child porn videos really merit the risk of being caught performing such an act? Was there no official (reliable) channel he could go through to find out the nature of the material, without having to buy it and watch it? If the police hadn't wanted to question him, would he have announced to the public "I bought child porn in the interests of my research"? Would someone morally opposed to child porn contribute money to child-porn vendors?

Too many holes in his story for me to believe him, I'm afraid.

weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

"Was there no official (reliable) channel?" If you're *only* legally allowed to go through official channels, there's no way to test whether or not they're reliable. The Guardian piece that Kerry linked to is OTM on this.

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

the man linked to the matthew kelly case is tom paton - widely known to be into 'young trade'.

hmmmm - is this turning into a mccarthy witch hunt of 'known' gays in u.k. reminds me of something similar in operation child watch in london, ontario when i wsa going to university. they busted about every cruising homosexual.

doom-e, Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Why watch films at all when you can 'go through official channels', read the blurb on the back of the video box and make your decisions from there?

Also, the Bay City Rollers guy has been done for this sort of thing already, no?

dave q, Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

mark and dave - you're correct, but I still don't see the point in taking such a big risk to see the exact nature of some child porn. What I was wondering was, was there some way he could have got a physical description of what was on child sex tapes, without having to watch them himself? Did he check this out first, and frustrated with the lack of success, bought child porn himself?

weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm just waiting for someone to exhume joe meek and joe orton for questioning!

doom-e, Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't believe this thing, it's like a snowball. And it's only gonna get biggah. Some of the 'names' about to be busted beggar belief. I just wish I could list them here.

nb. Don't forget that Operation Ore is targetting repeat offenders - those who go back to the sites again and again.

Roger Fascist (Roger Fascist), Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

well i can't answer for q but "i have no idea" covers my position here: i guess i am objecting to the shutting down of townshend's response IN PRINCIPLE

if the police arrest me for a mugging in mile end and i say "it wasn't me i was flying concorde to nyc that day", then my use of that alibi is (possibly) dodgy, but that dodginess doesn't carry over to the airline pilot next to me in the identity parade

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, he did compare it to 'lines of coke', drugs are one of those things that you can read countless tracts by psychologists and scientists etc on but you still don't FEEL you're getting any closer to 'knowing what it's like' without doing it. (Problem then being that you've traded in the integrity of your perceptions [assuming such a thing exists] for the experience which leaves you at the beginning again - drugs might be OK metaphor for porn but not for actual abuse involving another person obv.) The abyss def. has a good look into you, but maybe some ppl feel it's ethically questionable to talk shit about said abyss before dropping a rock and listening for the kerplunk?

Drugs are also another thing that some ppl don't ever IMAGINE they're going to get caught (much less prosecuted) for either, which is another issue, or maybe it isn't

dave q, Thursday, 16 January 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Child porn is one of those things like gun violence which you're not likely to change your mind about absolutely (i.e. you'll still think it's bad) but which research might well change your mind about how to stop it, who to target etc. Totally valid and sensible questions like "Is Operation Ore the best way of stopping online paedophilia?" become harder to answer without access to some information about what the sites are actually offering.

So for instance qns I might want to know the answers to and don't might be:

- are the sites offering actual child porn or just teasing the buyers, a la phone sex lines?
- are the sites simple one-way transactions (site <--> user) or do they have a community element?
- is the material onsite being freshly and originally produced by the site creators for profit or is it being produced by 'amateurs' (i.e. paedophiles abusing children for pleasure who then send it in/sell it on)?
- is there any evidence that non-paedophilic photographs of children are finding their way onto these sites for sexual purposes (i.e. do the scares over nativity play photos/kids in the bath etc. have any basis in reality)?

I can't think of any way to answer these apart from asking one of the people involved in policing the material, or looking myself. The people policing the material surely know, but they're also committed to running/supporting a large-scale police operation and their answers are likely to reflect that. There seems to be precious little independent information about the stuff out there.

I do NOT think that a rock star and his credit card and confessional memoirs is in any way helpful in answering anything - this post is just to suggest that the "well why did he need to look at the site" argument is flawed in my eyes.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 16 January 2003 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Here's another story from a Texas newspaper that gives more details.

Kerry (dymaxia), Thursday, 16 January 2003 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Perhaps this is slightly off-topic, but should possession of it be legalised, but the creation/profiteering/funding of it remain criminalised? Is it possible to defend the concept of an 'illegal image', especially in the days of digital transmittion. If one of these messages had a 1x1 image embedded, we would be charged with making it, yes?

[This was kind-of inspired by a discussion on kuro5hin.org where, amongst other things, a man described how he is currently being investigated for possession of a single image he had deleted almost half a decade ago].

Whoops, some of this is covered in the Guardian article, must remember to read next time.

a, Thursday, 16 January 2003 19:51 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not inconceivable that Townshend a) feels very strongly that paedophilia is wrong and b) is in its thrall. For instance (to continue with the drug analogy) I have a friend who ran a needle exchange clinic while he was himself an active IV heroin user. In fact that seems like the most likely scenario here. Sorry if I'm just restating, this is a very long thread.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 16 January 2003 21:36 (twenty-two years ago)

You know, I think a lot of the fear on these issues involves not censorship but a fear of accident, basically, which that "lines of coke" phrase sort of hints at: I get the feeling a weird sense of paranoia develops that a little "what's this link?" or "it didn't specify under-18" could suddenly and irrevocably ruin someone's life. And I get the feeling this idea has some currency, as in every case like this authorities really go out of their way to stress that they only go after those who make deliberate purchases (or, as someone said in this case, make lengthy and repeated visits). All of which gets countered by stuff like that one-image story above: after all, if someone dropped by this thread and image-linked something we all could, against our will, technically wind up in possession of something illegal. (Or, similarly: I'd always understood that bestiality porn wasn't legal, at least in this country, and yet I once got spam for it -- with image -- apparently from ILX email harvesting.)

I really do think this is a large part of why people fret.

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 16 January 2003 22:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Surprised not more discussion on the implications of 'real' pics vs photoshopped shit (also what's yr take on ppl being arrested for possession of pencil drawings they've done themselves, as has happened occasionally in US & Canada)(Online access erratic at moment, more later)

dave q, Friday, 17 January 2003 07:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah I asked about that up there mr q......I don't have an answer to my own question though (as usual).
The same 'distinction' could be made wrt other kinds of violent/pornographic imagery that we deem offensive.
(Does anyone know if there is any distinction presently made in UK/US law between recorded vs created images?
I would guess there isn't - because isn't fictional writing of this nature also deemed illegal under the present laws?)

Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Friday, 17 January 2003 10:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Duh, I guess it would depend on whether offensive material was produced for sale, or was for distribution to others - were the cases ref'd above free from this aspect?

Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Friday, 17 January 2003 11:07 (twenty-two years ago)

By making possession as opposed to manufacture/distribution of images illegal you up yr conviction rate massively and most people don't understand how you can get the pics by accident (it doesnt even have to be embedded/via a cache either - quite possible to be downloading legal porn and discover its something nasty, oops too late hello inspector knacker) - so the current crackdown is a very visible 'doing something about it' but as ever it's going after the users not in general the dealers. I'm sure many of the users are very unpleasant people and some may well be doing other terrible and illegal things but my suspicion is the global trade in c.p. will be dented not a jot by Operation Ore. Previous operations IIRC have focussed on the real nasties - rings where you have to provide n unseen new photos in order to get access - but these are much smaller scale and labour-intensive.

Tom (Groke), Friday, 17 January 2003 11:32 (twenty-two years ago)

"the global trade in c.p. will be dented not a jot by Operation Ore"

And why do you think this is Tom? The only logical reason if this proves the case would be because the demand is so high. In which case cracking down on those whose credit cards provide funds to fuel the supply seems reasonable enough to me (as I mentioned above, Ore is said to be specifically interested in those using the site on multiple occasions). I agree about the 'visibilty' aspect you mention but I am also beginning to wonder if we are all guilty of underestimating the extent of the problem.

Roger Fascist (Roger Fascist), Friday, 17 January 2003 11:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Well like I say it's a suspicion I have - I don't know enough about child porn to say for sure. But my understanding is that the Operation Ore logic goes:

"Cutting off customers = putting dealers out of business = no more child porn."

This is assuming that the people who make child porn are crims who will just switch their trade to something else - dog porn maybe. I'm not convinced this is the case - I suspect that the people running c.p. sites collect the stuff and distribute it at least as much as they make it. I'd guess private individuals making and trading it, and also people trading the huge bank of existing images (since once a photo is taken and scanned it is potentially immortal) accounts for a huge amount of the trade. Trading rings are also, as Operation Ore demonstrates, safer than paying for the material.

It all depends on who is producing c.p.. If it's criminals, OO will help a lot. If it's paedophiles, I don't think OO will help much because they dont care as much about profit.

I don't think Operation Ore is a bad thing, or that possessing child porn shouldn't be a crime - I do wonder whether it's the most efficient way of tackling the roots of the c.p. problem.

I also think that fines are a much better way of prison for dealing with child porn buyers/owners - putting them in jail costs more, cuts them off from society and increases the likelihood that the only people who'll socialise with them are paedophiles - a recipe for repeat offending and more serious involvement.

Tom (Groke), Friday, 17 January 2003 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

My understanding is much CP is manufactured and distributed by paedophiles rather than crime syndicates. And all research into any type of pornography attests to the addictive nature of its study and acquisition. A common feature of police raids on paedophiles is the meticulous cataloguing of the material and the sheer vastness of the collections uncovered. Despite its heavy handed sensationalism, OO I believe may act as a deterrent since one of the biggest problems facing society is that many paedophiles, even when they are caught, do not believe they have committed a crime. I think I am right in saying that research suggests that the majority of paedophiles are not ‘curable’, either via the penal system or through clinical and psychological rehabilitation. Until society as a whole finds a way to overcome this problem, perhaps deterrent is the only means to control its spread. And though I like the idea of fining convicted paedophiles Tom, as you suggest yourself, it is likely that they are not going to be bothered about cost, so long as they remain able to continue to indulge their obsession.

Roger Fascist (Roger Fascist), Friday, 17 January 2003 12:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Apparently, the Smoking Gun website has a copy of the paper Townshend has written about child porn/paedophilia..... and it'll make you think.
After reading it, I'm convinced he's innocent.

russ t, Friday, 17 January 2003 13:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I mentioned fines because it strikes me as a good means of generating additional resources, for the police or for children's/victim's charities. Putting paedophiles, particularly ones who haven't graduated from voyeurism to avuse yet, in direct contact with other ones on a sex offender's ring is a recipe for disaster I reckon. The basic qn for me is - what should be done about people who fantasise about children but don't directly abuse them? Severe punishment won't stop the fantasies and will increase the resentment/alienation that helps accelerate a desire to abuse.

I still don't think OO will act as a deterrent - people who want/need the material will get it through other avenues: they already know it's illegal after all, even if they don't think it's 'wrong'.

Another thing that occurred to me - in the states Kevin Mitnick was forbidden to use computers while serving the terms of his hacking sentence. A potential parole clause for OO suspects, perhaps?

Tom (Groke), Friday, 17 January 2003 13:03 (twenty-two years ago)

here's the Smoking Gun webpages with Townshend's report:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/petetownshend1.html

russ t, Friday, 17 January 2003 13:06 (twenty-two years ago)

"what should be done about people who fantasise about children but don't directly abuse them?"

Well, what's the line? Is it OK to pay money to people to provide images to aide your fantasies? Its a big fucking question, and I agree that our prison system is not going to help anyone except a few politicians and police statisticians.

Yeah, maybe you're right that OO's impact will be negligable. I was hoping I suppose that the fear of being caught and 'exposed' might be enough to stop paedophiles following their desires (the panopticon premise). But then suppression of a genuine desire, no matter how heinous, is likely to lead to destructive outpour...

The parole clause suggestion is interesting but how the fuck can you enforce that? It smacks of the kind of useless rhetoric peddled by desperate authorities who want to look like 'something is being done, the problem is under control', you know? It seems to me that the marriage of contructive rehabilitation with the need to stem paedophilia is a long way from being a reality.

Roger Fascist (Roger Fascist), Friday, 17 January 2003 13:16 (twenty-two years ago)

The Townshend doc is interesting but I have two questions. If it is 'so easy' to find child porn, why was his credit card used to access one of the sites, and how many times did he visit the site? I geuss, as his lawyer strangely said, "it will emerge."

Roger Fascist (Roger Fascist), Friday, 17 January 2003 13:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Now then, now then, who is next up for a surprise 3am visit from knacker I wonder?

Roger Fascist (Roger Fascist), Friday, 17 January 2003 17:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I just saw and taped Townshend's "Rough Boys" video on VH1 Classic Rock last night. Surprised they've been playing it.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 17 January 2003 22:25 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...
Here's an update on this story.

Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 3 February 2003 17:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Ok, ok, but Townshend's only one of the people in the sweep. What has developed with the other ones, we'll never know because the media is only interested in having the celebrity hog the spotlight.

bflaska, Monday, 3 February 2003 17:49 (twenty-two years ago)

three months pass...
and so he isn't. he never was. bloody hell.

CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Thursday, 8 May 2003 04:11 (twenty-two years ago)

But if he's been given a caution and put on a sex offenders register, surely that means that officially he's been found GUILTY?

sb, Thursday, 8 May 2003 07:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm glad someone's raised this again because several aspects of it have been puzzling me greatly.

As I understand it, Pete Townsend has actually admitted to much if not all of what he's been accused of. If this is so, why would he be let off with a caution rather than taken to court - and what sort of message do we think this sends out to other paedophiles and would-be paedophiles?

Also, I am reliably informed that the laws in this country are still not quite draconian enough for anyone to be put on the Sex Offenders Register unless and until they've been taken to court and found guilty.

The only possibilities that occur to me are that either:

1. the media's got it all wrong, the police / DPP can't pin anything on him - or at least not enough to make it worth the trouble and cost of a court case - and therefore he isn't actually going to be recorded on the sex offenders register at all.

OR

2. Mr Townsend's lawyers have managed to do some sort of deal whereby he avoids getting a criminal record which might have prevented him from ever working overseas again. In which case:
a) when was this two tier justice system introduced (rhetorical question, obv., it's ALWAYS existed) and
b) why does our legislature's concern that children may be at risk from Mr Townsend (thus making it necessary that he be included on the Sex Offenders Register) apparently only extend as far as protecting children who are resident in the UK and not those overseas?

Anyone got any thoughts / insights?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Thursday, 8 May 2003 08:39 (twenty-two years ago)

My understanding is that Townshend had confessed to paying to join the site but that there was no evidence he'd downloaded anything. Either he didn't or (perhaps more likely) was careful to remove any trace of having done so. The police seem to have concluded that, based on these facts, they could have secured a conviction for only a minor offence and that it wasn't worth the trouble and cost to the taxpayer, especially since they can still caution him and put his name on the Sex Offenders Register. This doesn't look like a double tier justice system to me (in fact I suspect the police would have loved to land a big fish like Townshend).

Whether this is a fair punishment for paying the initial fee to obtain access to that kind of internet site is open to debate. But I don't think Townshend has been treated with undue leniency as the law stands.

ArfArf, Thursday, 8 May 2003 08:55 (twenty-two years ago)

...surely his best line of defense now would be to PUBLISH this apparent 'report on child abuse' he has been preparing for several years. It must be quite a hefty document.....

Then, and only then, maybe, people will make their own minds up.

russ t, Thursday, 8 May 2003 09:04 (twenty-two years ago)

".... especially since they can still caution him and put his name on the Sex Offenders Register."

But CAN they? As I said above, I have been reliably informed that people CAN'T be put on the Sex Offenders Register unless and until they've been tried and proven guilty.

If they CAN then this raises ENORMOUS human rights issues, doesn't it?!?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Thursday, 8 May 2003 09:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess they could put him on the register because he admitted his crime. If he'd maintained he hadn't even used the site then they'd have had to take him to court and get a guilty verdict before he could be placed on a sex offenders register (he admitted paying to access the site illegally, and one punishment for accessing such sites includes being put on the register, regardless of whether he maintains it was not for sexual gratification or not).

sb, Thursday, 8 May 2003 09:29 (twenty-two years ago)

But even if that is so (which incidentally is completely contrary to what I've been assured is the case by a qualified Social Worker), if his crimes are of sufficient magnitude that he represents a threat to children thus necessitating that he should be recorded on the Sex Offenders Register then surely he should be taken to court and converesely if what he's done is so minor that all that's need is a caution then surely it's completely inappropriate to record him on the Sex Offenders Register?

I don't know what the man's done or not done, but a little logic and consistency in the way our laws are operated would be nice, don't you think?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Thursday, 8 May 2003 10:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I've just been accepting Press reports that he is being put on the Sex Offender's Register. I'd guess that the BBC etc are less likely to have got this wrong than an individual social worker. The principle that for certain minor crimes you can be found guilty without going to court, by admitting (or not contesting) the charge and accepting the prescribed punishment is pretty well established - driving offences spring to mind. I can't see any lack of logic or consistency here.

ArfArf, Thursday, 8 May 2003 10:18 (twenty-two years ago)

"I'd guess that the BBC etc are less likely to have got this wrong than an individual social worker."

Your faith in our media is certainly touching, if somewhat misplaced imho.

"The principle that for certain minor crimes you can be found guilty without going to court, by admitting (or not contesting) the charge and accepting the prescribed punishment is pretty well established - driving offences spring to mind."

If you are recorded on the Sex Offenders Register this means that you are considered to be a potential risk to children - I would hardly describe that as a minor matter (and I'm sure you wouldn't)!

In any case, receiving a caution and chosing not to turn up in court to collect a fine and a few points on your driving licence are entirely different things. Just because you choose not to turn up in court does not mean that you aren't duly tried and found guilty in absentia.

You will also get a police record as a result of your driving offence whereas cautions do not form part of your permanent record.

The Sex Offenders Register on the other hand is actually MORE visible (at least within the UK) than your police record.

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Thursday, 8 May 2003 10:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Of course in many ways Pete Townsend's celebrity status means that, unless he could go to court, prove his innocence of all charges and be completely vindicated (and quite likely not even then) he's going to effectively be on the Sex Offenders Register in the minds of most people in this country anyway, so in this respect I guess you're right that he probably doesn't have much more to lose from agreeing to have his name put on the Register officially than most nonentities like you or I would have from not turning up to contest a motoring offence.

If he gets a police record 'though, that's going to seriously damage his livelihood. Hence why I suspect some deals may have been made and some rules conveniently bended.

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Thursday, 8 May 2003 11:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I would assume that entry onto the SOR is automatic if you've committed certain types of crimes. Those types of crimes tend to indicate that you're a danger to children. But being on the SOR indicates 'having committed the sort of crime that people who are a danger to children commit', not 'is a danger to children'.

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 8 May 2003 12:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought that he wasn't on any sex offenders register, but instead was on a list of people who accessed a site in Texas.

Kerry (dymaxia), Thursday, 8 May 2003 13:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, sorry - I just read the news article. He's on the register now, which doesn't seem fair.

Kerry (dymaxia), Thursday, 8 May 2003 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

"Your faith in our media is certainly touching, if somewhat misplaced imho."

OK, we'll see who turns out to be right, the BBC or your social worker friend.

"If you are recorded on the Sex Offenders Register this means that you are considered to be a potential risk to children - I would hardly describe that as a minor matter (and I'm sure you wouldn't)!"

What I meant was that Townshend has accepted that he is guilty of an offence meriting a caution. In that sense the law regards it as a minor offence. The point about this kind of procedure is that it to some extent shifts the burden of proof or presumption of innocence: you are in effect guilty unless you take active steps to demonstrate your innocence, by disputing the charge in a court of law. Our society has taken the view that this is acceptable in the case of minor but not serious offences. Whether you or I agree that this particular offence is minor is a different matter.

My understanding (again from the despised media, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt) is that Townshend WILL have a criminal record.

ArfArf, Friday, 9 May 2003 10:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Nope. He has a warning which means that during five years they will watch him/

nathalie (nathalie), Friday, 9 May 2003 11:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Fwiw I think I discovered what's really going last night in The Sun of all places (I don't make a habit of reading it, honest, I was just stood there waiting for my takeaway and there it was on the counter....)

Anyway, it seems that in addition to accepting the caution (read "as part of the deal") Mr Townsend has also agreed to plead guilty to the relatively minor offence of (I'm paraphrasing here) encouraging the production of child porn by paying to obtain it.

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Friday, 9 May 2003 11:22 (twenty-two years ago)

(oops, part of my message seems to have disappeared into the ether...)

Hence he _will_ be tried (even if he doesn't have to turn up in court because he's pleading guilty) and (presumably) _will_ be found guilty, so that he _does_ get a police record, which in turn will mean that he _can_ be places on the SOR.

Whether that's enough of course is another question altogether.

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Friday, 9 May 2003 11:26 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.