Consequently, the police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, issuing a statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." - wiki

Sorry... couldn't get past the lack of humor involved in wrongly calling someone a pedophile.

/Didn't click TFA, don't care.

eabod: Consequently, the police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, issuing a statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." - wiki

Sorry... couldn't get past the lack of humor involved in wrongly calling someone a pedophile.

/Didn't click TFA, don't care.

Came here to say the same thing. Pete Townshend is NOT a pedophile.

So his harddrive wasn't a pre-teenage wasteland?



/baba O'brother...that was bad!

Came for pics of Pete Townshend breaking his guitar over Abby Hoffmans head at Woodstock, left disappointed.


///guys are slippin

It's bad enough The Who have had that kind of nasty publicity, but to have those asshole Foo Fighters paying some lameass tribute...Jesus. How much do they need to suffer?

Roger Daltrey has inept stage presence?????


Subby you fail on a massive scale

Subby should DIAF for repeating accusations that were proven false [God, how long's it been already?] ago.

I'd be outraged by the fail in this headline, but I'm saving up for the elections this fall.

I'll give Townsend the benefit of the doubt, but ENTERING your CREDIT CARD info on a pedo site, on the "excuse" that you were molested yourself, and all this is "research" ?????


No one here can tell me, as much as a fan of Pete as you are, that you didn't feel slightly creeped out by the whole thing

It does *NOT* help that Ive never seen this guy pictured next to or holding a woman

That was RESEARCH man!


/off to research foobies

yeah "research"

/touch nose

Don't call Pete that.

My dad's favorite band.

Cagey B: eabod: Consequently, the police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, issuing a statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." - wiki

Sorry... couldn't get past the lack of humor involved in wrongly calling someone a pedophile.

/Didn't click TFA, don't care.

Came here to say the same thing. Pete Townshend is NOT a pedophile.

Then why is he a pedophile?

eabod: Sorry... couldn't get past the lack of humor involved in wrongly calling someone a pedophile.
Cagey B: Came here to say the same thing. Pete Townshend is NOT a pedophile.

There's no logical reason why Pete would frequent kiddie porn sites and amass a trove of child porn if he wasn't a pedo.

/I suppose Who fans don't have it quite as bad as Michael Jackson fans in denial.
//Was it a good touch?

I'm starting to catch on to why I don't get any greenlights. A, I don't use fark cliches, and 2, I don't write headlines that are inflammatory enough.

/Subby didn't fail, the MODS did
//whoa...how ironic is that?

Came here to say the same thing. Pete Townshend is NOT a pedophile

FARK IS NOT A SERIOUS WEBSITE.
Just a joke douchebags. Just a joke.

Why should I care?
Girls of fifteen
Sexually knowing
The ushers are sniffing
Eu-de-cologning
The seats are seductive
Celibate sitting
Pretty girls digging
Prettier women.


Magically bored
On a quiet street corner
Free frustration
In our minds and our toes
Quiet stormwater
My generation


Uppers and downers
Either way blood flows.


Inside outside. Leave me alone.
Inside outside. Nowhere is home.
Inside outside, Where have I been?
Out of my brain on the five fifteen.


On a raft in the quarry
Slowly sinking.
On the back of a lorry
Holy hitching.
Dreadfully sorry
Apple scrumping.
Born in the war
Birthday punching.


He man drag
In the glittering ballroom
Greyly outrageous
In my high heel shoes
Tightly undone
They know what they're showing
Sadly ecstatic
That their heros are news.


Why should I care?

pedophile? pedophile? that's an awfully big word for a 12 year old.

I understand that Fark is not a serious website.

Still, I'm waiting for someone to explain how calling someone a pedophile is funny.

Oh, wait. It's not.

botsects: eabod: Sorry... couldn't get past the lack of humor involved in wrongly calling someone a pedophile.
Cagey B: Came here to say the same thing. Pete Townshend is NOT a pedophile.

There's no logical reason why Pete would frequent kiddie porn sites and amass a trove of child porn if he wasn't a pedo.

/I suppose Who fans don't have it quite as bad as Michael Jackson fans in denial.
//Was it a good touch?

Do you even know what the particulars of the case were, dumbass?

Look, Pete Townshend may be a genius of the guitar and a master songwriter, but he's still a paedo. And that's just something we're going to have to live with.

There's no indication that he ever actually touched up a kid, though, so eh.

Subby is just frustrated because people are now opening their eyes to the overblown image of Led Zeppelin. Now he feels The Who should get theirs next.

One problem: they actually knew how to write a song. You know, a "song"? Not "seven minutes of wailing and recycled blues riffs"? You'll figure it out.

spacemanjones: Came here to say the same thing. Pete Townshend is NOT a pedophile

FARK IS NOT A SERIOUS WEBSITE.
Just a joke douchebags. Just a joke.

Cool. Give me your real name so I can start telling people on the internet that you're a pedophile. It'll be a laugh riot.

As noted Pete is NOT a pedophile. Roger had AWESOME stage presence. I will agree that John and Keith are 2 dead rock stars. So subby is half a douche for giving us a half of a correct headline correct headline

botsects:

"There's no logical reason why Pete would frequent kiddie porn sites and amass a trove of child porn if he wasn't a pedo."

Um.....

After an investigation that lasted nearly four months, police in London cleared Pete Townshend yesterday on charges that he downloaded child porn from the Internet. Computer equipment seized by officials from Scotland Yard at the time the Who guitarist's arrest in January failed to turn up any illicit downloads, police said. Investigators did confirm that Townshend had accessed a site containing such images in 1999; as a result, he was listed on a national register of sex offenders.

"From the very beginning," Townshend said in a statement, "I acknowledged that I did access this site and that I had given the police full access to my computers. As I made clear at the outset, I accessed the site because of my concerns at the shocking material available on the Internet to children as well as adults, and as part of my research toward the campaign I had been putting together since 1995 to counter damage done by all kinds of pornography on the Internet, but especially any involving child abuse."

1) It was a site. Not site(s).
2) After 4 months of investigation by police, no illicit images were found to be downloaded.
3) Pete wrote to the Internet Watch Foundation to complain of the aforementioned website several months before any public knowledge of him accessing the site.
4) Townshend has long been a crusader against the abuse and exploitation of children, and was writing a book concerning the topic before the allegations were made. This would support his admittedly stupid decision to research the topic by looking at the aforementioned website..

But hey, don't let something as inconsequential as facts get in the way of making an ass of yourself.

And subby needs to go fornicate himself with an iron stick.

I Like Bread: Subby is just frustrated because people are now opening their eyes to the overblown image of Led Zeppelin. Now he feels The Who should get theirs next.

One problem: they actually knew how to write a song. You know, a "song"? Not "seven minutes of wailing and recycled blues riffs"? You'll figure it out.

wow. good catch. subby was obviously trying to divert attention from Led Zeppelin with this headline. BUT WE ARE ON TO HIM AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO FOCUS OUR RAGE ON LED ZEPELLIN!!1!

/not really
//ramble on...

Cagey B: botsects: eabod: Sorry... couldn't get past the lack of humor involved in wrongly calling someone a pedophile.
Cagey B: Came here to say the same thing. Pete Townshend is NOT a pedophile.

There's no logical reason why Pete would frequent kiddie porn sites and amass a trove of child porn if he wasn't a pedo.

/I suppose Who fans don't have it quite as bad as Michael Jackson fans in denial.
//Was it a good touch?

Do you even know what the particulars of the case were, dumbass?

I DO! I DO!

THE FACTS:

1- he admitted to the police to accessing certain kiddie site

2- he admitted entering his credit card info on at least one of those site

3- he claims it's research (and yes, that "book" he was "researching" was abandoned, BTW)


4- He was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years


THE QUOTES:

(those are actual real pete townsend quotes):

"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.

"I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me."



PS, dont get me wrong Im a *HUGE* WHO fan, but the facts are still sending a creepy chill up my spine

But doesnt take away from the music, I dare anyone to find a more dynamic bass/drum section
and PETE wrote almost everything

HappyHarryHardOn: It does *NOT* help that Ive never seen this guy pictured next to or holding a woman

Now you have:



That's his girlfriend, the British songwriter Rachel Fuller.

And, once again: Pete is NOT a pedophile. Link (new window)

And about DALTREY:

Pete does the guitar-windmill, throwing himself everywhere on stage, the rhythm section is blazing, Keith is an animal, drums like a maniac...

and Roger? He twirls his mike around and sings like a girl

yay

HappyHarryHardOn: Cagey B: botsects: eabod: Sorry... couldn't get past the lack of humor involved in wrongly calling someone a pedophile.
Cagey B: Came here to say the same thing. Pete Townshend is NOT a pedophile.

There's no logical reason why Pete would frequent kiddie porn sites and amass a trove of child porn if he wasn't a pedo.

/I suppose Who fans don't have it quite as bad as Michael Jackson fans in denial.
//Was it a good touch?

Do you even know what the particulars of the case were, dumbass?

I DO! I DO!

THE FACTS:

1- he admitted to the police to accessing certain kiddie site

2- he admitted entering his credit card info on at least one of those site

3- he claims it's research (and yes, that "book" he was "researching" was abandoned, BTW)


4- He was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years


THE QUOTES:

(those are actual real pete townsend quotes):

"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.

"I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me."



PS, dont get me wrong Im a *HUGE* WHO fan, but the facts are still sending a creepy chill up my spine

But doesnt take away from the music, I dare anyone to find a more dynamic bass/drum section
and PETE wrote almost everything

See GibbyTheMole's post above.

emotionalwench

thanks for the pic, seriously its somewhat reassuring

CAGEY b and gibby the mole

ok, that thing about him complaining about the site ahead of time is also SLIGHTLY reassuring


still, he should have known better. And doing this kind of research, i mean, what kind of info did he expect he was going to gather from a porn site? That bugs me... and Im not dragging pete through the mud. trust me, I wouldnt be here if I didnt absolutely worship these guys

Let's get away from the lame inaccurate portrayal of Pete Townshend as a pedophile and talk about how awesome it would be to see this tribute show with an excellent lineup.

Why do all the really cool one-off shows happen on the West coast????

Cagey B: Do you even know what the particulars of the case were, dumbass?

Yes I do. I also know that two British MP's went to the exact same site for "research" too.

Basically, he claimed he was doing research. I realize that he was "cleared" of possession and the authorities released statements saying that he was free to move along. The fact is that he used his CC to pay for kiddie porn and access a site => he's in the sex offender registry.

I know that that sex offender registries are liberal in that it takes very little to get entered into a registry. (In some states, a 17 y/o having sex with a 16 y/o will net you a sex offender "Facebook" profile.)

But holy shiat, I don't think someone needs to use a personal CC to get their hands on THIS kind of research assuming that they actually are fighting for a worthy cause. He could've bypassed using a credit card and accessing the info from his home computer and approached an institution or non-profit with access to desired materials.

It's kind of like downloading classified military documents from an unscrupulous source. He more than deserved to get punished.

So sure he got cleared, but can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't purveying kiddie porn for his own leisure? Not to mention, he can pretty much buy off any politician, police force he wants.

Let's say he isn't a pedophile, do you think that with his money he couldn't sweep this under the carpet?

So please, enlighten this "dumbass."

GibbyTheMole: 1) It was a site. Not site(s).
2) After 4 months of investigation by police, no illicit images were found to be downloaded.
3) Pete wrote to the Internet Watch Foundation to complain of the aforementioned website several months before any public knowledge of him accessing the site.
4) Townshend has long been a crusader against the abuse and exploitation of children, and was writing a book concerning the topic before the allegations were made. This would support his admittedly stupid decision to research the topic by looking at the aforementioned website..

But hey, don't let something as inconsequential as facts get in the way of making an ass of yourself.

1. Fair enough.

2. I didn't know this. Please give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but I don't know what that means with the vague "We didn't find any images to have been downloaded."

This isn't vagueness on your part, but I'd be interested in seeing the actual police statement. I don't see how he could access the site without caching copies and downloading images (even if passively).

While this may seem small, I think it's definitely relevant. I also don't know if their definition of "didn't download" means (e.g. there weren't any images when they searched, or they can verify that he didn't download images in batches by checking server logs, or they can verify that he never backed up the images he acquired passively.

3. I think he had also purportedly written an article on his site. That does support his case more along with the fact that he has been a critic of child abuse for a long time now. However, for generalizations, just because you're an anti-[insert cause] activist doesn't mean that you don't partake in [insert cause]. There are tons of self-righteous people that have been busted.

I can't,however, for sure say that Pete's prior work wasn't legit as I don't know.

botsects: Let's say he is isn't a pedophile, do you think that with his money he couldn't sweep this under the carpet?

/whoops

therumblefish: Why do all the really cool one-off shows happen on the West coast????

I think a few 10's of thousands of people who attended 1-off shows at Madison Square Garden might want to talk to you

Others have said it, but I will pile on:

Some FARKERS are farking stupid. Pete Townshend is not a pedo. If anything, he did more than most so-called law-abiding citizens would have done in that case. He alerted police HIMSELF about what he had done.

Most people, especially most Farkers, would have just backed away and hoped that it all blew over.

And subby is a frigging idiot about Daltrey as well.


I would be interested to see what the Lips do in this tribute. The others? Not so much.

Massive amount of fail in this farking stupid submission submittard.

I'll give Townsend the benefit of the doubt, but ENTERING your CREDIT CARD info on a pedo site, on the "excuse" that you were molested yourself, and all this is "research" ?????

Indeed. It's not research unless you are using someone else's credit card.

botsects: So please, enlighten this "dumbass."

You didn't know the particulars of the case. You were shown to be wrong several times in this thread. Either by reading the other posters comments, or by googling it, you recited what you dug up/read. How do I know? Because you wrote this earlier:

botsects: There's no logical reason why Pete would frequent kiddie porn sites and amass a trove of child porn if he wasn't a pedo.

This was you shooting your mouth off about something you knew nothing about. So here's your enlightenment: use the Google before you say something stupid. Next time you won't look like an imbecile.

botsects:
So sure he got cleared, but can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't purveying kiddie porn for his own leisure?

That's backwards, of course. It's not necessary to prove he WASN'T doing something.

Apparently subby knows nothing about rock and roll and even less about "The Who".

So unfunny I wonder if subby is secretly Dane Cook.

botsects:

"I'd be interested in seeing the actual police statement."

I would too, actually.

"I don't see how he could access the site without caching copies and downloading images (even if passively)."

Well, it would be possible... For instance, if a website were all text until they got your credit card info, and only THEN, could you gain access to any illicit images. In this case, there would be no illicit images on the computer.

My guess, (though who knows, other than Pete?) is that Pete Googled something else, ran across the illegal site, and really wanted to know if it were true that such horrible things could actually exist. He clicked the link without really weighing the consequences, and then even went so far as to put the credit card info in, (stupid!) maybe without seeing even a single image. Remember, Google indexes unsecured images. An illegal site like that probably would keep those secured so they wouldn't pop up in a Google search for something else. Maybe after putting the credit card info in and seeing text hyperlinks describing the disgusting images, he likely freaked out, closed his browser, & thought "holy shiat, what did I just do?!?!"

Yeah, it was really bad judgement. Maybe he was under the influence, or just not thinking... Who knows? But I believe the above scenario is very plausible.

Pete's a smart guy, but I doubt he possesses computer skills good enough to thwart computer forensic guys. If the stuff was there, they'd have found it.

Anyway, sorry if I sounded a bit coarse, but when someone is found by police to be innocent, that should be the end of it. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Peace,
Gib :-)

dmax: That's backwards, of course. It's not necessary to prove he WASN'T doing something.

Ahh! I wasn't sure what you were saying at first.

I think it's a fair question to ask and the only person that definitively knows the answer to this is Pete Townshend. I "think" I see what you're saying (i.e. A court of law isn't trying to determine if someone wasn't breaking the law but instead determine if they in fact broke the law. But in the process of determining whether or not someone broke the law, both questions are answered to the extent of the court's investigation.)

I'm asking the question from a post-case perspective, and I don't think that it's unfair. I think that you might be taking my comments out of context, but I also apologize for not making my point more clear.

Cagey B: botsects: So please, enlighten this "dumbass."
You didn't know the particulars of the case. You were shown to be wrong several times in this thread. Either by reading the other posters comments, or by googling it, you recited what you dug up/read. How do I know? Because you wrote this earlier:
botsects: There's no logical reason why Pete would frequent kiddie porn sites and amass a trove of child porn if he wasn't a pedo.
This was you shooting your mouth off about something you knew nothing about. So here's your enlightenment: use the Google before you say something stupid. Next time you won't look like an imbecile.

My original post was kinda tongue-in-cheek. After all, this is Fark.com. I didn't expect a scathing backlash from diehard Who fans or individuals who felt very strongly about the case.

But I've gotta admit, you've got a nice ad hominem attack going there. I'd rather you spoke with facts directly refuting what I said in my later comment. You make your case, I make mine, and I hope that I would be open-minded, humble enough to give serious consideration to your points, but that never happened. If you read my later post, I address the technicalities of my original post, but you would've seen that had you actually RTF-thread.

TBH,I have a lot of respect for GibbyTheMole and others who don't just spam "OMFG PETE TOWNSHEND != CHILD MOLESTER. THAT'S IGNORANT." They actually bring something to the table and because of them, I'm more sympathetic to Townshend.

GibbyTheMole: My guess, (though who knows, other than Pete?) is that Pete Googled something else, ran across the illegal site, and really wanted to know if it were true that such horrible things could actually exist. He clicked the link without really weighing the consequences, and then even went so far as to put the credit card info in, (stupid!) maybe without seeing even a single image. Remember, Google indexes unsecured images. An illegal site like that probably would keep those secured so they wouldn't pop up in a Google search for something else. Maybe after putting the credit card info in and seeing text hyperlinks describing the disgusting images, he likely freaked out, closed his browser, & thought "holy shiat, what did I just do?!?!"

I could also foresee this scenario. I doubt he'd have the tech savvy to hide info and cover his footprints. I'm sure that he could get in touch with people to do so also, however, his computers were seized.

GibbyTheMole: Anyway, sorry if I sounded a bit coarse, but when someone is found by police to be innocent, that should be the end of it. That's the way it's supposed to work.

You're right. I'm just MMQB'ing to an extent in the court of public opinion where double jeopardy is "possible." I was thinking about throwing in this comparison earlier but I figured it'd be too Godwin-ish or out-of-place, but it's kinda like reviewing the OJ case.

He was acquitted (a la "if the glove doesn't fit...") but I'll be damned if everyone and their mother DOESN'T think he did it.

Among the worst fark headlines ever.

Coolest Who Cover Ever:

Link (new window)

FetusAGoGo: OX

Link (new window)/sorry if no clicky