The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3007871.stm
What a crock. Not only did he fully co-operate and own up to viewing a child porn website for research for a book (research which can be fully backed up with pages and pages of info), but he's had his name dragged through the mud for four months. He's on the sex offenders list for five years, for looking at a website, NOT being a paedophile, but looking at a website. Sure, it was stupid to give money to the company in the first place, but this is a man who has taken part in anti-child harm concerts and benefits and has spoken out on the subject numerous times.
This makes me very angry. He's a sex offender for looking at a website.
What a crock. Not only did he fully co-operate and own up to viewing a child porn website for research for a book (research which can be fully backed up with pages and pages of info), but he's had his name dragged through the mud for four months. He's on the sex offenders list for five years, for looking at a website, NOT being a paedophile, but looking at a website. Sure, it was stupid to give money to the company in the first place, but this is a man who has taken part in anti-child harm concerts and benefits and has spoken out on the subject numerous times.
This makes me very angry. He's a sex offender for looking at a website.
Page:
I thought that was a bit odd. Surely even if he didn't "download" (you mean save to his hard drive, Snuggs - download means to recieve the packets of information that make up the file), there would be traces left in either the web cache or temporary internet files.
If you delete out of the web cache, can it still be found? Not that I've done anything I shouldn't've :D
If you delete out of the web cache, can it still be found? Not that I've done anything I shouldn't've :D
Mr Snuggly wrote:
>the police found no evidence that he had, and found no
> trace of illicit material on his PC.
>
Guess his web cache wasn't storing graphics that day, either that or they didn't look very closely
>the police found no evidence that he had, and found no
> trace of illicit material on his PC.
>
Guess his web cache wasn't storing graphics that day, either that or they didn't look very closely
Just because he was in The Who. Come on.
I say 'was' because I think most of The Who are dead.
I say 'was' because I think most of The Who are dead.
The justice system in this world is total cack.
"As I made clear at the outset, I accessed the site because of my concerns at the shocking material readily 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."
Townshend quoted today.
And it doesn't make him a 'perv'. He wasn't looking at it to get off on it, I thought this was a glaringly obvious point but apparently not. This is a man who has had no history of ever looking at child porn before, the police found no evidence that he had, and found no trace of illicit material on his PC.
So, the policemen behind Operation Ore, when they were trawling through the ISP records and the details and the websites in the child porn cases - they would have had to have seen the sites in question. Does that make them 'pervs'? No, because they had another reason for doing so, like Townshend did. Admittedly they didn't make the same mistake as he did, which I've conceded.
I suggest you do a bit of research on Pete Townshend and his reasons for doing what he did, read up on the book he's been writing (since 95, this isn't a rubbish excuse), his claims that he believes he was abused when he was a child, his benefits for anti child-abuse charities. Do all that before calling him a 'perv'. That's one step away from shouting 'Paedo' at him in the street in my view.
Townshend quoted today.
And it doesn't make him a 'perv'. He wasn't looking at it to get off on it, I thought this was a glaringly obvious point but apparently not. This is a man who has had no history of ever looking at child porn before, the police found no evidence that he had, and found no trace of illicit material on his PC.
So, the policemen behind Operation Ore, when they were trawling through the ISP records and the details and the websites in the child porn cases - they would have had to have seen the sites in question. Does that make them 'pervs'? No, because they had another reason for doing so, like Townshend did. Admittedly they didn't make the same mistake as he did, which I've conceded.
I suggest you do a bit of research on Pete Townshend and his reasons for doing what he did, read up on the book he's been writing (since 95, this isn't a rubbish excuse), his claims that he believes he was abused when he was a child, his benefits for anti child-abuse charities. Do all that before calling him a 'perv'. That's one step away from shouting 'Paedo' at him in the street in my view.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
The only thing Townshend is guilty of is giving the website his credit card details.
---------
No, he's not a sex offender. But what's above is a kind of big deal. He paid money to a child porn website, who associated with forcing young children into pornography. Which kinda makes him a perv. And how right is it to look at child porn?
The only thing Townshend is guilty of is giving the website his credit card details.
---------
No, he's not a sex offender. But what's above is a kind of big deal. He paid money to a child porn website, who associated with forcing young children into pornography. Which kinda makes him a perv. And how right is it to look at child porn?
Yes he has, and he'll have to live with it. But I don't think people (and by people, I mean idiots) care if he did it or not, he'll no doubt get called 'Paedo' and 'Nonce' when walking down the street. I wonder how many people would even remember he was cautioned in a year's time if the paper's didn't refer to him as 'sex offender Pete Townshend'.
I pray they don't make another Gary Glitter of him.
I pray they don't make another Gary Glitter of him.
I personally feel no sympathy for the guy, as he made a stupid, stupid mistake and he's tarnished his name by what he's done. I'm not trying to label him as a nonce but he has made a mistake.
Silent Assassin wrote:
> How do we know he's not a sex offender? Yeah he says he isn't but i
> could go around saying i work for the pope!
Yeah, but you couldn't back that up with substantial evidence. I think it's thesmokinggun.com that has transcripts of the work on his book so far. Maybe I think about the phrase 'sex offender' in a different way to you, but to me, he's commited no offence other than funding the website (admittedly a stupid thing to do).
> You see people like to
> make things seem better than they are and if he was doing research
> then why did he pay for the images and then save them? Because that is
> a crime in it's self, actually downloading child porn.
But he didn't save anything, he didn't download anything and he didn't keep anything - police checked his PC and said they found nothing at all, he had no indecent images on his machine at all. I repeat, he is NOT a sex offender. He did a stupid thing, and is being used as an example by the police. Unfortunately he'll have to live with being labelled a 'sex pest' by people like the Daily Mail for five more years, and that makes me sad how a person's life can get ruined like that.
Does anyone know what happened to the website/company he visited? Are they still functioning?
> How do we know he's not a sex offender? Yeah he says he isn't but i
> could go around saying i work for the pope!
Yeah, but you couldn't back that up with substantial evidence. I think it's thesmokinggun.com that has transcripts of the work on his book so far. Maybe I think about the phrase 'sex offender' in a different way to you, but to me, he's commited no offence other than funding the website (admittedly a stupid thing to do).
> You see people like to
> make things seem better than they are and if he was doing research
> then why did he pay for the images and then save them? Because that is
> a crime in it's self, actually downloading child porn.
But he didn't save anything, he didn't download anything and he didn't keep anything - police checked his PC and said they found nothing at all, he had no indecent images on his machine at all. I repeat, he is NOT a sex offender. He did a stupid thing, and is being used as an example by the police. Unfortunately he'll have to live with being labelled a 'sex pest' by people like the Daily Mail for five more years, and that makes me sad how a person's life can get ruined like that.
Does anyone know what happened to the website/company he visited? Are they still functioning?
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Pete Townshend is obviously not a paedophile, it doesn't take four
> months of inquiry to find that out. Yet he is now labelled a sex
> offender. That's not justice.
>
> There are worse cases out there for the police to tackle, yet they
> seem to hold up Townshend's case as an example that they're doing
> their jobs.
>
I'm glad I'm not the only one here thinking that because Townsend is a celebrity, he has been made a scapegoat.
This really, really sucks.
> Pete Townshend is obviously not a paedophile, it doesn't take four
> months of inquiry to find that out. Yet he is now labelled a sex
> offender. That's not justice.
>
> There are worse cases out there for the police to tackle, yet they
> seem to hold up Townshend's case as an example that they're doing
> their jobs.
>
I'm glad I'm not the only one here thinking that because Townsend is a celebrity, he has been made a scapegoat.
This really, really sucks.
Page: