don't you think if some one like Pete Townsend was into child porn it would have come out before now think about it his reputation when the Who was big the party animal bad boy rep he had don't you think it would have come out back then

he may be guilty of bad judgement but of a crime something tells me not

BTW skipthisone even if he is guilty why burn the who albums if he is dose it make him any less talented or dose it make his music bad now and burning the albums dosn't do any good you paid for them they got there money and the funny thing about it is most of them after it they end up buying the ablums again in thge end

Ahhhhh, the wondeful Pixies Lynch mob is out again!

Ok... so what do we have?
* Media speculation? Yep.
* Rumours and supposition? Got them too.
* A society where the merest hint of paedophilia is cause for public stoning, and evidence is an added bonues? Yup, definitely got that.

And have we got:
* Witness statements, made under oath? I haven't seen them.
* Copies of the paedaphilic material allegedly wanked over? Nobody's shown me any.
* A defense statement from the accused, made under oath? I haven't seen one in any newspaper I've read.....

So until you have those, and until he has been found guilty of paedophilia by a court of law, you cannot possibly judge the man. However dubious Pete Townsend's excuse is, we do not know the full facts and it is not for us to decide if he should be thrown in jail, or even have his balls removed.

On the other hand, I've heard his music and therefore think he should have his balls chopped off and thinly sliced and fed to him with garlic and lemon juice.

But that's only my opinion :)

CasperTG

You forgot the Chianti.

I am not in any mob......

Townsend admitted to paying for membership to a porn site that promoted children. He was arrested but not charged. This is factual not gossip. It seems many others have been already and will be in the same boat he is in too. If a person does not have an interest in viewing child porn then why join a site, especially when it is illegal and morally revolting? If a person wanted to investigate the world of child porn and paedophilia there are many sites that are informative and cater to informing the public about this problem.....you dont have to buy a membership and see the pictures to do "research".

~just my opinion for what it's worth~

BUT I never liked him as a kid......he just made my skin crawl for some reason. :confused:

i've never had an urge to look at such. but i've joined a couple groups on yahoogroups that posted a pic or two and i reported them to yahoogroups and the groups were terminated. i try to do my part!

ALL paedophiles are mean degenerate bastards who believe what they feel towards children is just "natural"... these perverts pick out a victim very carefully and groom them gaining their trust until they begin to molest them and there is no cure for them because they hold this belief and they don't just pick one child to inflict their harm on. They are usually attracted to a specific age group and do not veer from that age group. From what I have read about Elvis, he was very busy with Ann Margret, Ursla Andress, Juliet Prowse and many other fully grown women. I have not heard he was involved with any other young females...other than Priscilla. When I was 16 I had a 28 year old chasing me but it was not the act of a paedophile.....I just turned his crank for some reason but he never once tried to do a damn thing to me. In fact he treated me with kid gloves and was respectful in every way. Does that make him one too??? I don't think so....maybe just momentarily misguided with his feelings due to his own immaturity and issues at the time.......oh boy enough ramblings from me I think!

Under UK law, the act of accessing an image onto your screen is classed as "making" it, or re-making it really. So Townsend isn't involved at the production end. But the media love to overuse the words Paedophile, abuser etc to improve the story.

It appears that Mr. Townsend like 7000 other UK residents and 14,000 US people, payed to see what they knew were paedophile images. These are pictures of any child under the age of 18, which covers an awful lot of ground. If we had first degree etc etc paedophilia, Townsend would be up for third degree.

These sites that show people under 18 advertise themselves as doing so in order to have a product for those that hold an interest in such......People knowingly enter these sites with full knowlege that what they are going to see is illegal.

Now why do people enter these sites if they don't want to see what the site is offering...that being underage children engaged in various sex acts etc..

I am of the adage that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.......usually is a duck or really has an interest in being one!

I run a treatment home for teen girls....some have been victims of these kind. Luckily there is no rating system for paedophilia. I wouldnt want to explain to my girls in my home that they shouldn't be so traumatized.....after all Uncle Chuckie was just a third degree paeophile who just liked see you naked......

I think that there is a difference between someone who physically and sexually abuses an eight year old and someone who has sex with a sexually mature but under eighteen child and again some one who looks at pictures of mature (physically) seventeen year olds.

I don't condone any of these acts and I am glad to say that none attract me in any way, though they do disgust me in varying degrees and this should be reflected in how the law deals with offenders.

I find it a double standard that it is legal to have sex with a seventeen year old, but if you look at a picture of this act you are a paedophile in the same group as baby-rapist and people want your eyes gauged out. This was the point about Elvis - he wasn't a paedophile for having sex with Priscilla at sixteen - but if he were still alive and looked at the pictures of it he would be. So looking at something is worse than doing it? Is it just me?

It's not just you. I also think it's unreasonable for it to be illegal to look at what's legal to do.

I can understand making it illegal to make such material--being in porno can come back to haunt one and the decision someone would make at 16 very well might not be what they would do in hindsight later. However, if such material was created in places with a younger age limit I just don't see the problem.

Also, I just don't see what's being a pedophile about it. That *USED* to be the usual age to pair off, females of that age are what we are wired to find most attractive. That's a very different issue than children!