It’ll be interesting to see whether he publishes his ‘research’ and if so, will he cite the relevant site?
According to his own account (web posting from long before his arrest), curiosity was probably a factor. He mentioned that “lolita” is one of the top terms used in web searches in the UK, and all those people can’t be pedophiles. He urged others not to give in to such curiosity, as they’d likely be as upset by what they found as he was.
He wasn’t conducting a formal study or anything. He says he was looking into the subject of child sexual abuse/pornography because he believes he was abused as a child and because he is interested in charities that help abused children. The only thing he was ever planning to publish was an autobiography. Whether that book will ever see the light of day now I don’t know, but he’s been working on it for years so it would be a shame if he gave up on it or was dropped by his publisher.
It’s worth remembering that Townshend published a very powerful essay deploring child pornography (PDF file: “A Different Bomb”) a year before this whole flap erupted. It’s not like his explanation for his looking at these sites was an excuse he concocted once he got caught. On the other hand, the essay makes it uncomfortably clear that Townshend knew in advance just how unwise doing this “research” would be.
I agree, let’s see his “research.” Biffy makes an excellent point-if he knew how nasty it was ,what was he doing? It’s like “do as I say, not do as I do.”
Not sure about the Uk, but celebrities get a lot more slack in the US for indiscretions than John Q Citizen does. US Judges are often fans of the defendant; better yet, the police often are.
Again, the man never claimed to be doing a formal study. Read the “Differnt Bomb” essay linked to if you want to see the only available results of his research. They are, in summary, that child pornography is relatively easy to find on the Internet, and he found it sickening.
He knew how nasty it was after he saw it. Remember, according to both his own account and the police investigation, he did little more than glance at two or three sites. He did provide credit card information so he could access one of these sites, but he has been cleared of the suspicion of having actually downloaded anything.
More like, “I saw some child pornography on the Internet and it was awful; don’t go looking for it yourself, because it will upset you the way it did me.” And bear in mind that he did contact the Internet Watch Foundation.
Perhaps you should actually take a look at Townshend’s public statements and the information released by the police before you cast any more stones at him.
Gatopescado already made this point once and I’ve already responded to it. Repeating it won’t get you anywhere.
Lamia has already mentioned Gary Glitter, who was imprisoned on charges of possessing child porn on his computer and I can think of several other cases off the top of my head.
The presenter and pop impresario Jonathan King is currently in jail on underage gay sex charges, several football players you won’t have heard of have served jail terms for various crimes including underage sex, and another well-known TV presenter and actor was arrested live on stage in connection with the same inquiry as Pete Townshend. This man was released six weeks later after the police admitted they had no evidence against him.
I can easily think of Members of Parliament and a judge who are either in jail or have served jail terms recently on various charges. Celebrities do not routinely escape prosecution in this country simply because they are well known. What happens in the USA is of no relevance.