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

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?

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.

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

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!'

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

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.)

Bad news for Pete: everything else.

(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."

say, that sentence is pretty good backwards, too

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?)

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.

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

Good advice for us all.

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.

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".

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

[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.

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

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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?!?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.