Did paedo Pete Townshend get away with it then?

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Did paedo Pete Townshend get away with it then?

What happened about Paedo Pete getting caught with kiddie porn on his PC and paying for these images then? Has he got away with it?

He said it was for research........

I think he was cautioned and put on the sex offenders register. He is now working as a PE teacher in Enfield.

Won't get fooled again

MattyH wrote

I think he was cautioned and put on the sex offenders register. He is now working as a PE teacher in Enfield.

"He has accepted the formal police caution which is like pleading guilty without going to court. He is now on the UK Peadophile register for 5 years."They spelt 'paedophile' incorrectly as well.Source.

Wahoo - the magic box....

We're having abit of a discussion about it here. Apparently lots of people believe his innocence. I'm not so sure myself. Getting placed on the sex offenders register is the damning bit.From Wikipedia.Child pornography vigilantismIn early January 2003, Townshend publicly acknowledged having used his credit card on a single occasion to obtain access to a commercial child pornography website. He stated that he had visited the site once while researching child abuse and child pornography on the Internet. Townshend made the admission after a story was illicitly leaked to a British tabloid newspaper that a single credit card transaction of a well-known rock star had been found amidst thousands of UK transactions recovered by "Operation Ore," a large anti-child pornography operation undertaken in the UK. Townshend made a statement identifying himself as the individual hinted at in the tabloid story. (No investigation was made of who leaked information known only by the police to the tabloid newspaper and no charges were ever brought for the illicit leak of classified information.)He stated that he had only viewed the site briefly as part of his research, that (in his opinion) he had not downloaded any images, and that he had not retained any images. Townshend also volunteered his willingness to fully cooperate with a police investigation. The Metropolitan Police arrested him on 13 January 2003 on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, making such images and inciting others to distribute such images[2]. The police duly searched his home and offices and confiscated a total of 14 of his computers, which were all returned several months later after a forensic examination had failed to reveal any evidence that Townshend had downloaded or possessed indecent photographs of children (thus indirectly acknowledging Townshend's claim that the computers contained not one single image of child pornography). In May 2003 the police formally cautioned Townshend, thereby making him subject to the requirement to notify police of his personal details (for a period of 5 years, the period defined as being appropriate to cautions and non-custodial disposals): this also means that his details will be held on the Violent and Sex Offender Register.Townshend claimed he was researching the subject of child abuse for his autobiography - and revealed that he had been sexually abused as a child by a mentally disturbed relation. He referred also to the commonly-known fact that he had written specifically about the topic in Tommy (whose protagonist was also sexually abused by a disturbed relation); indeed, two of the Who's earlier hit singles, "I'm a Boy" and "Happy Jack," dealt with child abuse either directly ("I'm a Boy") or by implication ("Happy Jack"). Townshend also stated that he had notified an anti-abuse group about the website immediately after encountering the site. This claim was confirmed in February 2003 when the anti-abuse group searched its email archive and discovered several emails from Townshend - sent at the time that he had claimed. The group released a statement to this effect. Townshend's claim was further reinforced by a document he had written and posted on his official website in January 2002 - a full year before the incident became public. The emails and his published warnings about the topic - predated Townshend's first awareness (in January 2003) that his name might publicly surface as a result of the Operation Ore investigation.In "A Different Bomb," Townshend forewarned that portions of the Internet represent a terrible danger because "they provide deviant material to deviant people." In March, 2004, Townshend was featured on a BBC television documentary in which he described his experiences as a result of the child pornography charges. He apologized for the incident and stated that he was so upset by the accusations made against him and the subsequent perceptions that he had briefly considered suicide. The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed. Please view the article's talk page. Incidentally, the law in England at the time of Townshend's transaction in 1999 explicitly outlawed the downloading of pornographic images, something that the police found no evidence of Townsend ever doing. But there had been no legal ruling in 1999 on the topic of what Townshend did do - which was to pay money to access a website that contained child pornography. The first legal ruling in England on this specific issue occurred in a case in 2001 - nearly two years after the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website. At that time - a judge ruled that a law passed in the 1970's in respect of the purchase of printed child pornography should be applied to purchases made on the internet. Irrespective of whether it was for prurient purposes or legitimate research. That ruling meant that anyone who had made any transaction at any time since the 1970's would have infringed the law - even though the person would have been unaware (till the 2001 ruling ) that the old law applied to internet purchases. Townshend might thus have been found guilty in 2003 of a technical infringement that occurred in 1999 of a law that neither he (nor anyone else in England) could have been aware was relevant to his activity prior to 2001.

Taipan wrote

What happened about Paedo Pete getting caught with kiddie porn on his PC and paying for these images then? Has he got away with it?

he never had kiddie porn on any of his 14 PCs - read the report you yourself posted the facts didn't get in the way of you damning him i see

Sounds innocent to me.

zzzak wrote

Sounds innocent to me.

Why blight his reputation with a formal caution then? If the Police believed him surely they would have just taken no further action?

zzzak wrote

Sounds innocent to me.

Yes but zzzak you are a pedofile. As you never tire of telling us, you're 72 and date 19 year olds. If that's not pedophillia then australia isn't populated by racist rednecks.

so basically, if he hadn't admitted to using his credit card, he would never had been cautioned and would not have been put on the register.Surely, if he was using the images for his own 'enjoyment' he would of denied everything. His story sounds about right to me

Taipan wrote

Why blight his reputation with a formal caution then? If the Police believed him surely they would have just taken no further action?

Because he had entered that nether-world but once and therefore chose the proffered option.

Taipan wrote

Why blight his reputation with a formal caution then? If the Police believed him surely they would have just taken no further action?

it looks like they tried pretty bloody hard to get him for it with searches of his house and removal of 14 PCs (14! - christ i work in computers and fix them and even i don't have that many!) a lot more effort than you put in before labelling him 'paedo pete' and spouting complete untruths about the guy pretty low dave to be honest he sounds innocent to me and i thought so at the time - the only mystery is why he didn't fight it more

Papercup wrote

it looks like they tried pretty bloody hard to get him for it with searches of his house and removal of 14 PCs (14! - christ i work in computers and fix them and even i don't have that many!)

They did that to everyone arrested in operation ore/

Sorry but people like that have no right to live news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4599524.stm

Papercup wrote

it looks like they tried pretty bloody hard to get him for it with searches of his house and removal of 14 PCs (14! - christ i work in computers and fix them and even i don't have that many!) a lot more effort than you put in before labelling him 'paedo pete' and spouting complete untruths about the guy pretty low dave to be honest he sounds innocent to me and i thought so at the time - the only mystery is why he didn't fight it more

In my house the eldest kids have one each, the youngest has an old laptop, I have a laptop and my main PC. That's 5.14 PC's for a musician? Depends if he has a recording studio - probably most run on PC software...

Papercup wrote

it looks like they tried pretty bloody hard to get him for it with searches of his house and removal of 14 PCs (14! - christ i work in computers and fix them and even i don't have that many!) a lot more effort than you put in before labelling him 'paedo pete' and spouting complete untruths about the guy pretty low dave to be honest he sounds innocent to me and i thought so at the time - the only mystery is why he didn't fight it more

Unfair with the thread title, it depends on your point of view? I dont think he is innocent though and hence my calling him that. If you have the right to defend him I have the equal right to condemn him and it looks like the law agreed with me.If he was blameless why the caution etc. As you say why not fight it, its not like he couldn't afford to? It sounds to me like the Police couldn't make a water tight case and the CPS wouldn't go for it knowing the expensive Briefs they would be up against.

[QUOTE=yellowseven48]Sorry but people like that have no right to live Neither do window lickers who pronounce on who should live or die. Anyway, James Blunt is the only man on the planet who should die a slow, painful, and violent death that is webcast to all internet users.

Taipan wrote

Unfair with the thread title, it depends on your point of view? I dont think he is innocent though and hence my calling him that. If you have the right to defend him I have the equal right to condemn him and it looks like the law agreed with me. If he was blameless why the caution etc. As you say why not fight it, its not like he couldn't afford to? It sounds to me like the Police couldn't make a water tight case and the CPS wouldn't go for it knowing the expensive Briefs they would be up against.

You said he was caught with kiddie porn on his machine and he wasn't. 'It sounds to me like' - what do you know about it? Nothing past what you have read on the internet and made the rest up, even spouting blatant untruths just to make your shaky point. If the police 'couldn't make a water tight case' out of a house search and the examining of 14 PCs its pretty doubtful there was one there at all, past what he admitted to. If he was serious about being a paedo they would have found something and he wouldn't have used his credit card, with his famous rock star name on it, to join this one site. Only one site? No other sites at all and nothing found in his house or his PCs? Convince me Dave, please. No-one else here seems to doubt him and most seem to find his explanation utterly reasonable so why do you have a problem with him?

Was Live 8 part of his community service?

He admitted guilt but argued that he was doing it for the right reasons. I happen to believe him, but he was "guilty" hence the caution. I assume he didn't fight it on the grounds that in the eyes of the law he was guilty.

Papercup wrote

You said he was caught with kiddie porn on his machine and he wasn't. 'It sounds to me like' - what do you know about it? Nothing past what you have read on the internet and made the rest up, even spouting blatant untruths just to make your shaky point. If the police 'couldn't make a water tight case' out of a house search and the examining of 14 PCs its pretty doubtful there was one there at all, past what he admitted to. If he was serious about being a paedo they would have found something and he wouldn't have used his credit card, with his famous rock star name on it, to join this one site. Only one site? No other sites at all and nothing found in his house or his PCs? Convince me Dave, please. No-one else here seems to doubt him and most seem to find his explanation utterly reasonable so why do you have a problem with him?

At the beginning of the thread I was under the impression they did find images on his PC, when I found they didn't I posted the link to where I found that out. I'm quite happy to correct any wrongs about him and did so without any prompting. According to the Vh1 site and some others he was caught after paying to access one site but admitted to also accessing other free sites. How many kiddie porn sites does he need to research for the chapter on his child abuse that he had no notes on to back the claim up?You're right, this was an extensive investigation which at the end of which he was formally cautioned and placed on the sex offenders register. Thats innocence?? You may think so. I think not. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Mine is the same one as the Polices.

yellowseven48 wrote

Sorry but people like that have no right to live news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4599524.stm

Your right, people like the couple in your link dont deserver to live, but making a comparison between them and Pete Townshend is wrong. They are not the same at all.

CBRSticky wrote

Your right, people like the couple in your link dont deserver to live, but making a comparison between them and Pete Townshend is wrong. They are not the same at all.

It's wrong cos it seems Townshend has never been convicted.

Ducati Pete]It's wrong cos it seems Townshend has never been convicted.[/quote] You'll need to point out what that means to Taipan as he seems confused. He has stated (1) 'the law agrees with me' which it does not, and that (2) 'my opinion is the same as the police' which it isn't. (1) 'The law' cautioned him and placed him on the register when he admitted using his card to access a site from which he downloaded no content. A full investigation into this wielded no further evidence. That doesn't seem to agree with calling him a paedo, or lying about imagined content on his PC. (2) The police don't have opinions. If any police have stated opinions about this please feel free to point me to them. The police carried out a very thorough investigation and found nothing to proceed with, as repeated ad infinitum. No opinions for you to claim agreeance with.

Taipan wrote

At the beginning of the thread I was under the impression they did find images on his PC, when I found they didn't I posted the link to where I found that out. I'm quite happy to correct any wrongs about him and did so without any prompting.

So at the beginning of this thread you had that little idea about it and couldn't be arsed to find out that you just made some stuff up? Sound about right? After that, you post a link to some real facts. That constitutes admitting you were wrong does it? Is that 'correcting wrongs'? No it isn't wrote

According to the Vh1 site and some others he was caught after paying to access one site but admitted to also accessing other free sites. How many kiddie porn sites does he need to research for the chapter on his child abuse that he had no notes on to back the claim up?

More than one, which is perfectly reasonable. He only paid for one and a reasonable explanation for that is that he had looked at the free ones and most likely found them rubbish and samey (like most free porn sites of any kind are) and needed to see a pay site to compare them with. Makes perfect sense to the sensible among us.

Taipan wrote

You're right, this was an extensive investigation which at the end of which he was formally cautioned and placed on the sex offenders register. Thats innocence?? You may think so. I think not. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Mine is the same one as the Polices.

Sure; as innocent as many, many people. He ADMITTED going to the sites; that is enough to mean a formal caution and placing on the register. That is all it takes under our well-meaning but draconian laws on the subject. If he had one iota of content on his PC he would have been convicted because that is the point of law. It wouldn't have taken much to find it on his 14 PCs, would it? I would almost guarantee that most men on here, while having a look at lame-o porn sites, came across enough to get them the same punishment; you will always see content of girls of a questionable age; its a selling point for these sites ('lolita' porn). As soon as they admit to doing it, even in an open and honest way, they end up in the same boat as Petey. Who can say that in their porn collection there is not one picture of a girl who looks a bit young? Townshend is no more a paedo than the average porn collector.

He is innocent .The reason being is that the police,etc would have been flat out to find evidence, and would have loved to charge such a high profile rock star.They probably found some minor point of law to justify the expense.Pete probably accepted this rather than continuing to attract our hysterical gutter press interest.

The man a fucking legend not like that sick cunt gary glitter

Papercup wrote

You'll need to point out what that means to Taipan as he seems confused. He has stated (1) 'the law agrees with me' which it does not, and that (2) 'my opinion is the same as the police' which it isn't. (1) 'The law' cautioned him and placed him on the register when he admitted using his card to access a site from which he downloaded no content. A full investigation into this wielded no further evidence. That doesn't seem to agree with calling him a paedo, or lying about imagined content on his PC. (2) The police don't have opinions. If any police have stated opinions about this please feel free to point me to them. The police carried out a very thorough investigation and found nothing to proceed with, as repeated ad infinitum. No opinions for you to claim agreeance with. So at the beginning of this thread you had that little idea about it and couldn't be arsed to find out that you just made some stuff up? Sound about right? After that, you post a link to some real facts. That constitutes admitting you were wrong does it? Is that 'correcting wrongs'? No it isn't; its posting some stuff by someone else. I have yet to see you admit you were wrong about making that crap up at the start of the thread. Posting something that proves you wrong is not the same as admitting you were wrong. More than one, which is perfectly reasonable. He only paid for one and a reasonable explanation for that is that he had looked at the free ones and most likely found them rubbish and samey (like most free porn sites of any kind are) and needed to see a pay site to compare them with. Makes perfect sense to the sensible among us. Sure; as innocent as many, many people. He ADMITTED going to the sites; that is enough to mean a formal caution and placing on the register. That is all it takes under our well-meaning but draconian laws on the subject. If he had one iota of content on his PC he would have been convicted because that is the point of law. It wouldn't have taken much to find it on his 14 PCs, would it? I would almost guarantee that most men on here, while having a look at lame-o porn sites, came across enough to get them the same punishment; you will always see content of girls of a questionable age; its a selling point for these sites ('lolita' porn). As soon as they admit to doing it, even in an open and honest way, they end up in the same boat as Petey. Who can say that in their porn collection there is not one picture of a girl who looks a bit young? Townshend is no more a paedo than the average porn collector.

He went on kiddie porn sites. To what extent we don't know. We do know it was enough, despite all his wealth and the massive legal clout that could muster, to get a formal caution and be placed on the sex offenders register. If the Police believed him, why on earth would they have pushed for that? It doesn't make any sense! I can't begin to imagine the paperwork Townshends Lawyers threw at them to prevent this. Yet they didn't succeed? I think the formal caution and placement on the sex offenders register was simple plea-bargaining and misconstrued damage limitation. I believe Townshend had to accept that or risk the full extent of his involvement coming out.If Townshends intentions were above board and genuine, the Police would more likely have applauded his efforts than take the course of action they did! It just does not add up. The Police were quite happy to call a press conference and publicly acknowledge Matthew Kelly's innocence. Ok different charges but it shows the Police recognise the damage even an investigation can cause a public figure and are prepared to set the record straight.As a public figure, Townshend needs to, and should have, cleared his name. It makes no sense what so ever to not do so? Who in their right mind would accept what he has if they were genuinely innocent? I would have bankrupt myself if need be to clear my name of such a repulsive crime(s). He has more than enough money to take on the CPS.If Townshend, or his fans, aren't happy about talk about him in this light, then he has only himself to blame for that.

paedo pete

FFS Taipan take a day off mate, you don't have to download pictures to access them. This vermin paid a fee looked at children getting raped, jerked his flacid cock to the images on the site without downloading a fucking thing. Then when he had finished he shat his pants, probably did a search on how internet paedos are caught, then went about trying to cover his tracks. What made this puke worse was that he tried to claim himself as a victim. I hope he burns in hell !!!

One comment that he made was "I could never abuse a child, I was abused myself and nobody who's gone through that would ever do it to anyone else"... Which was quite amusing considering the statistical link between abused and abuse. What "research" was he doing, was what i wondered. "I wonder if this website has pictures of kids being sexually abused? Wow, it does! Who'd have thought?"

I'm looking forward to reading the book he was researching or have I missed it?

Log in or register to post comments