Should The Who (and Pete Townsend) be allowed to perform at the Super Bowl

New Posts

The charges were dropped because there were no child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 found on his computer.

The reason he had to register on the list was because his credit card was charged for the site.


And I found the article I mentioned before:
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/petetownshend/articles/story/5936782/pete_townshend_speaks_out

In January, the fifty-eight-year-old Townshend admitted accessing illicit photos while doing research for a memoir that would document his own abuse as a child. After a searching his home and seizing his computer, British investigators found that he hadn't downloaded any images to his computer, and dropped the charges against him. Townshend's name will, however, be placed on the national Sex Offenders Register for five years.
Click to expand...
I intend to work my way back to normality. As a result of all this ****, I've decided to greatly formalize the structure of my charity (Double-O) and the way I work with "survivors" -- so that in future my work is more well-known to everyone. I've kept my profile low in this area out of modesty I suppose, and it has worked against me. I am going to complete my autobiography, Pete Townshend (who he?). I put it down and did not plan to finish it until much later. But now I am going to push ahead until it is done. People need to read about my entire life to get a real picture of who I am. I hope to finish it by the end of the year. So it may come out next year sometime. I am also going to get up and play just as soon as I can.
Click to expand...
From thewho.com
Double O was started by The Who in 1976 to help Erin Pizzey fund her Chiswick Women's Refuges. It then became the first concert fundraiser for Nordoff-Robbins. In 1983 Pete Townshend took over Double O and performed concerts to support a large number of drug rehab charities, the Prince's Trust and Rock Against Racism, and a one-off show at London’s Dominion Theatre – The Snowball Revue – to further fund Pizzey’s work.

The Trust now runs as a private dispersal charity focussed more than ever on 'survival' of drug and alcohol damage, domestic violence, sexual abuse, music education, emergency relief for International disasters, and young people's prison reform. It has dispersed about £4,000,000 since inception, and been indirectly responsible for the dispersal of another similar amount through Double O Promotions, which channels a lot of Townshend- and Who-related activity.
Click to expand...
Obviously we can agree to disagree here, but I believe him. A man as massively famous as he is wouldn't just go right out and look up kiddie 🤬🤬🤬🤬 with his personal credit card for nefarious purposes and say "Ah ha, I dare you to catch me!" Pete knows exactly how famous he is.

It's standard practice for them to be put on the SO list for a few years even if the charges are dropped. I think it's a precautionary measure just in case something else happens to prove they aren't innocent. In this case, nothing has happened. His name isn't even on the list because 5 years in 2003 would have been last year.
 
Isabella said:
To be honest i dont get that at all. I am English and i dont understand if he was found to be not guilty of anything why he was placed on the Sex Offenders List. That generally happens after a conviction and to be put on there...would indicate they thought he had done something to deserve to be on there.


By the way because someone does a lot of charity work it doesnt mean they cant be involved in anything dodgy. Ie look at Gary Glitter ( if you guys know who he is).

Also even IF you are writing a book like there..there is really no need to join that site and look at little kids.
Click to expand...

Bingo....Often times a predator will hide out where his pray is.
What a better way to camouflage yourself just give to the children
and be right there with the kids to take what you want :(
Like teachers, priests... kind of like that...
Heck even Garrido registered a name of a school. (JC Dugard's Abductor)
 
This topic got me to thinking (and I hope this is not terribly off topic) - do those of you who think this artist (Pete Townsend) should not perform because of your concerns that he is a child molester also think that, say, Alice in Wonderland should be taken out of libraries and movie stores because Lewis Carroll was a pedophile?

I'm just interested in the mindset behind such a boycott.
 
shannon2008 said:
The charges were dropped because there were no child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 found on his computer.

The reason he had to register on the list was because his credit card was charged for the site.


And I found the article I mentioned before:
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/petetownshend/articles/story/5936782/pete_townshend_speaks_out

From thewho.com
Obviously we can agree to disagree here, but I believe him. A man as massively famous as he is wouldn't just go right out and look up kiddie 🤬🤬🤬🤬 with his personal credit card for nefarious purposes and say "Ah ha, I dare you to catch me!" Pete knows exactly how famous he is.

It's standard practice for them to be put on the SO list for a few years even if the charges are dropped. I think it's a precautionary measure just in case something else happens to prove they aren't innocent. In this case, nothing has happened. His name isn't even on the list because 5 years in 2003 would have been last year.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Most hide in plain sight!

Research my butt!!!! I've researched sex crimes against children for YEARS! I've written papers on the subject. Never once, did I ever feel the need to whip out a credit card and join a child 🤬🤬🤬🤬 website to learn a damn thing. Once in awhile, I would stumble onto a questionable website, I wouldn't go clicking around....I simply reported it.
 
shannon2008 said:
It's standard practice for them to be put on the SO list for a few years even if the charges are dropped. I think it's a precautionary measure just in case something else happens to prove they aren't innocent. In this case, nothing has happened. His name isn't even on the list because 5 years in 2003 would have been last year.
Click to expand...

Hmm..i can honestly say no its not a standard practice for them to be put on a sex register list. Its the first time i have EVER heard of it happening in this country without there being a court case. They arent put on there for no reason because of the social implications it entails and to be honest its not a list most people want to be on so...why agree to go on it if he had done nothing wrong.

As for no images being found on his pc. According to an article i read tonight it was in 1999 that he joined this site. It was 2003 when arrested and apparently he didnt have the same pc then ...so ofc the images wouldnt have been on his pc unless he was a serial downloader.
 
southcitymom said:
This topic got me to thinking (and I hope this is not terribly off topic) - do those of you who think this artist (Pete Townsend) should not perform because of your concerns that he is a child molester also think that, say, Alice in Wonderland should be taken out of libraries and movie stores because Lewis Carroll was a pedophile?

I'm just interested in the mindset behind such a boycott.
Click to expand...


That fact ruined it for me, however...I do think it has literary merit. Much like Michael Jackson's music....
 
southcitymom said:
This topic got me to thinking (and I hope this is not terribly off topic) - do those of you who think this artist (Pete Townsend) should not perform because of your concerns that he is a child molester also think that, say, Alice in Wonderland should be taken out of libraries and movie stores because Lewis Carroll was a pedophile?

I'm just interested in the mindset behind such a boycott.
Click to expand...


In my opinion..the books arent hurting anyone and were written a long time ago. He is long dead and isnt a danger to children or anyone else so why withdraw the books now?

I personally dont think someone like Townshend should be hero worshipped i guess.
 
shannon2008 said:
The charges were dropped because there were no child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 found on his computer.

The reason he had to register on the list was because his credit card was charged for the site.


And I found the article I mentioned before:
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/petetownshend/articles/story/5936782/pete_townshend_speaks_out

From thewho.com
Obviously we can agree to disagree here, but I believe him. A man as massively famous as he is wouldn't just go right out and look up kiddie 🤬🤬🤬🤬 with his personal credit card for nefarious purposes and say "Ah ha, I dare you to catch me!" Pete knows exactly how famous he is.

It's standard practice for them to be put on the SO list for a few years even if the charges are dropped.
I think it's a precautionary measure just in case something else happens to prove they aren't innocent.
In this case, nothing has happened. His name isn't even on the list because 5 years in 2003 would have been last year.
Click to expand...

Why would massively famous mean anything at all?
A disorder of any kind can hit anyone rich poor, famous, religious, non believer...
Disorders have no boundaries.
Now if my credit cards were hit on a 🤬🤬🤬🤬 site, I would fight it.There may be no evidence
on his computer. but that is not the end.
I know it is hard to believe some things about people whom we like, it is unbelievable.
and sometimes it is just bad luck, because he can be innocent.
Lots of guys don't do computer, they like to look at real live stock. Why would he have such
charges and not dispute them.

I am not sure what happened; this is the first I have heard of this.

All I say is if he is not into little boys he needs to clear his name completely.
 
Isabella said:
In my opinion..the books arent hurting anyone and were written a long time ago. He is long dead and isnt a danger to children or anyone else so why withdraw the books now?

I personally dont think someone like Townshend should be hero worshipped i guess.
Click to expand...

So do you object to Pete playing because you think it will lead to more people worshipping someone like him or because you think children will be in danger? - or both?

If you felt like Michael Jackson was a molester, did you feel the same about him performing when he was alive?

Do you think it leads to hero worship of a dead author when their books and poems are part of almost every child in the world's library?

You don't have to answer these questions - I'm not spoiling for a debate, just genuinely curious.
 
southcitymom said:
Thanks, Linda. Do you think Pete's music has artistic merit?
Click to expand...


Yes.

I am pretty liberal when it comes to respecting artistic expression of all kinds. I don't have to like or enjoy it to respect it. By yes, I used to be a Who fan....I also used to be a Michael jackson fan...............I can't enjoy either one anymore.
 
southcitymom said:
So do you object to Pete playing because you think it will lead to more people worshipping someone like him or because you think children will be in danger? - or both?

If you felt like Michael Jackson was a molester, did you feel the same about him performing when he was alive?

Do you think it leads to hero worship of a dead author when their books and poems are part of almost every child in the world's library?

You don't have to answer these questions - I'm not spoiling for a debate, just genuinely curious.
Click to expand...


Oh Boy about Michael Jackson I dont know. I was a massive fan when i was younger and then all the stories came out..and i didnt know what to think. To be honest i guess i thought he was guilty but since hes death im not so sure although i cant get m y head around the way he lived. But no...i didnt think he should be performing with children because..i just think children shouldnt be put at risk.

As for Lewis Carroll i dont know...im not sure the kids worship someone who died a century ago. I think most kids just like his books.

As for Townshend i just think someone like him shouldnt glorified basically.
 
How about Gary Glitter? Does he have artistic merit?
 
southcitymom said:
So do you object to Pete playing because you think it will lead to more people worshipping someone like him or because you think children will be in danger? - or both?

If you felt like Michael Jackson was a molester, did you feel the same about him performing when he was alive?

Do you think it leads to hero worship of a dead author when their books and poems are part of almost every child in the world's library?

You don't have to answer these questions - I'm not spoiling for a debate, just genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

I object to pete playing as long as he's on a sex offender list. I think it send the wrong message.

Yes, I think Michael Jackson was a pedophile and I believe there isn't a pedophile out there that doesn't know it. Watching people excuse the obvious and defend the undefendable because a person is famous sickens me to the core. Yes, I felt the same when he was alive. Watching the media and his fans after his death....made my skin crawl. It send the wrong message to pedophiles and it sends the wrong message to child victims of sexual abuse and exploitation.

I wouldn't exactly say it leads to hero worship...there has to be a way to recognise a pedophiles positive contributions while still holding them accountable. Too many people refuse to believe a person is a pedophile because they made some sort of contribution. People don't tend to be completely and totally evil. The most successful pedophiles are respected and pillars of their communities, well liked and trusted. How else would they gain access to other peoples children? They present themselves as caring about children and children's causes.
 
Linda7NJ said:
Yes.

I am pretty liberal when it comes to respecting artistic expression of all kinds. I don't have to like or enjoy it to respect it. By yes, I used to be a Who fan....I also used to be a Michael jackson fan...............I can't enjoy either one anymore.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Linda - that makes sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 120 more.
Total: 687 (members: 121, guests: 566)

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
566
Total visitors
687
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
625,651
Messages
18,507,571
Members
240,827
Latest member
The Flamazing Finder
Back
Top