MovieChat Forums > Pete Townshend Discussion > What heppened to his pedophilia ''resear...

What heppened to his pedophilia ''research''?


About a decade ago, he did some online ''research'' and was arrested?

reply

Police raided his house, confiscated his computers, subjected them to a forensic analysis for four months, found no illegal images, and subsequently gave Pete Townshend a caution, which is a UK legal term for a formal alternative to prosecution in minor cases. Pete Townshend's one-time access of the website did not fit the profile of pedophile, and leant credence to his explanation, hence the caution.

reply

Yes, interesting question.
He must have had some result to publish from his research.
I bet the whole scientific and sociological communities are holding their breath to know such illuminating results.

Like how many wanks it took him on average.

reply

He regretted his actions, but admittedly his explanation ("I was doing research into how many British banks were complicit in funnelling the profits from pedophile rings") was extremely dubious. At best, he was an idiot for doing such research on his own, even if he believed the police were somehow complicit in covering up pedo rings.

You DON'T stop people downloading child abuse imagery, *by* downloading child abuse imagery (at least not as a private citizen, as opposed to an officer of the law acting in that very capacity).

It's unfortunate. I don't know how to think of him, speaking as a fan of The Who and much of Townsend's solo work. Then again, he doesn't seem to be regarded/treated as a pedo by the press, and it's clear that he hasn't committed any other acts that fit the profile of a child abuser.

reply

I have to say, I am not a fan.
AND he looks like a total pedo. If I were casting a film about a pedophile, he would be my first pick.

I don't know if he got a "pass" from the media on the basis of his "contributions" to music, or if he actually has been cleared of all accusations because he was innocent.

reply

He accessed a child porn site once. Don't get me wrong. I think that's abhorrent. But there was no reason for the police to believe, on further investigation, that he was an active pedo/child abuser.

"Authorities could not prove that the website accessed by Townshend involved children, and no incriminating evidence was found on his personal computer."

reply

[deleted]

We'll see the results of his "research" right about the same time OJ, in his relentless search, finds the "real" killer.

reply

πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

reply

The police raid fiasco killed any hope of him doing any legitimate work on the issue, if that was ever what he was doing. But he had already published an essay on his website over a year before the allegations broke. It was called "A Different Bomb" and dealt explicitly with the availability of child pornography on the internet. A child abuse organization also came forward in his defense to say that he had been in touch with them over the preceding years.

The whole reason the story broke was because of Operation Ore. Pete's name was on the list due to his one-time access of a website, but people with one-time access were not the focus of prosecutions. Unfortunately for Pete, he was a celebrity, so a shady cop spotted his name and subsequently shopped the story to a British tabloid. With the allegation now public, the police were forced to act, and they did, confiscating his computers and subjecting them to a four month forensic investigation. The investigation turned up zero evidence, so police gave Pete Townshend a "caution" for his admission of the one-time access of the website, which may or may not have ever had any images of child abuse on it.

Is he guilty? I don't know. No one has ever come forward to accuse Pete Townshend of abusing them. His one-time access of a website doesn't fit the profile of a pedophile, which is why the police wouldn't even have pursued him if the tabloids hadn't gotten wind of it. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

reply

But do you think his accessing the site in itself is terrible and makes him guilty and all that?

reply

I think it was terribly stupid. Anyone who clicks on stuff like that is creating some measure of demand for such content, so it's not good however you look at it. Leave it to law enforcement.

reply

Stupid and inappropriate yes but is it also terrible and unforgivable, given what we know?

P.S. On the internet sites, some users have expressed strong negative opinion on him for that. Others rushes to his defense. Who was right though? Also, on one Guardian web site, there was a (moderator?) who outright openly said like that that people dislike victims as much as abusers, like an overall COMMON PROBLEM issue as opposed to, however wrong and unpopular, few cracked apples here and there, and the whole issue and situation was a bit too much. So even if Pete Townshend is no p...phile and no child molester overall, and the fact that he cancelled his payment etc, does that make him a bad person and whatnot and even more than that, nearly 25 years now since that incident, can he be forgiven?

reply

Considering he's enjoyed a great deal of professional success since then, even receiving the extremely prestigious Kennedy Center Honors, it seems he has indeed been largely exonerated and forgiven.

reply

Did he also not know or at least suspect that doing something like entering his card details onto such a site is in itself, for one, illegal?

reply

I bet he did. But the law for the rich...?

reply

Does THAT in this case really have anything to do with it?

reply

Rich people also get prosecuted and jailed for whatever crimes they are found guilty of committing.

reply

Many times not - look at the many cases where, it appears, the wealthy escape justice.

Connor McGregor after he smashed that coach window with a bin, Will Smith for slapping/hitting Chris, for example?

reply

I don't consider the Will Smith incident compared to some other stuff to be that serious in and of itself, so even if via him being rich it means he can get lesser punishment (and didn't Chris Rock provoke him by however unintentionally saying something about his ill wife?), it doesn't matter much to me.

reply

Assault is assault no matter what Chris Rock said.

reply

Well, I'm not saying its completely acceptable but still... And I'm not denying WHAT it is etc.

I'm just saying that type of incident compared to many others out there is not THAT extreme or strongly unforgivable irrespective of law and dictionary definition. And plus for some of these matters there can be a fine administered yes for those who can afford it, obviously rich celebrities just HAPPEN to be those that CAN afford it, but for SOME matters and RIGHTLY so, there is no fine that can be paid etc to avoid imprisonment by virtue of the common legal system.

reply

We all got hit and punched and sometimes DID the punching, call it assault all you want etc and reference legal issues and what "someone, rich or otherwise, have SAID" and none of us were millionaires and even if people knew about it we didn't always get into legal trouble for it either. So I wouldn't hold the Will Smith example as a particularly strong one of people getting away JUST because they have money.

reply

That's why he got the caution. It's no small thing. He was basically on probation for five years or so. And considering the headlines alone had him contemplating suicide, it's not like he was unpunished. Actually, in this case, it's an example of unequal justice in the opposite direction than what you think. If he was some nobody, the police wouldn't have bothered with him. One-time access of a website isn't what they were interested in. The fact that he was rich and famous is exactly why he was investigated. A dishonest cop leaked his name to the tabloids for a personal payday, forcing the police to act on a case that didn't really meet their threshold for investigating.

reply

FAIR ENOUGH. :)

reply

So was the police and media WRONG morally for how they handled it? There are some people who still feel Townshend should have been jailed for it.

reply

The media response was egregiously wrong for most of it. The police were forced into that situation and responded accordingly and I think fairly. The police officer who leaked his name to the press, however, was probably the most morally wrong of anyone involved. I believe he was fired, and deservedly so.

reply

And to an extent then as well, Mr Townshend basically fell into hot water, figuratively speaking, as a result.

reply

Also, no big deal of course, but in the opening line of this thread in the OP, there is a small spelling mistake, meant to say what 'happened' not "heppened".

reply

As Nessa said, where's the book?

reply

RE - https://www.amazon.com/Who-Am-Memoir-Pete-Townshend/dp/006212725X

reply

[deleted]

Who are "Gavin and Stacey", some cops?

reply

It's a British sit com

reply

Was altering my reply but deleted by mistake

reply

So what did you really mean by "where's the book?", help me understand please.

reply

In the sitcom, Nessa says she was friends with Pete Townsend but he done some unsavory things, she says all I can say is Pete "wheres the book"

reply

Do you now understand

reply

Sort of, I think I kinda do.

reply

If not watch the series gavin and stacey, you'll love it

reply

I have vaguely heard of it before but never properly watched it, I bet Tarantino's a fan of it.

reply

Lol, doubt it

reply