# Pete Townshend: pedophile? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003 "2003-01-11T20:08:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![everton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/61 "2003-01-14T01:59:45Z")
Nobody on the SDMB is likely to have any information yet about what the police have discovered because they’ve only just begun to look themselves. [The latest news](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2651871.stm) (BBC 14 Jan, 01:17 GMT) is that he’s been released on police bail and hasn’t been charged with any offence yet. > [@](#): > > His solicitor John Cohen said officers had interviewed Mr Townshend for one hour and twenty minutes at Twickenham station, south-west London. > > He due to re-attend the station in late January. > > [Cohen said] “He has not been charged with anything and has been bailed to a future date when he may be required to answer some questions.” There’s a video link from the one I’ve posted repeating tonight’s 10 o’clock news account. It confirms that the charges could carry long jail terms, but don’t expect much by way of further development until Scotland Yard has had a chance to review the evidence they took from his house. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/62 "2003-01-14T02:05:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*On a related note, whatever happened in the Pee Wee Herman case? \*\* On December 19, Paul Reubens pleaded not guilty in a Los Angeles court to a misdemeanor charge of possession of material depicting an underage child engaged in sexual conduct. Pee-wee Herman was not charged, but offered his full support. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/63 "2003-01-14T02:39:46Z")
Yeah, the “suspicion of” procedural terminology could confuse some. “You’re not really charged, but we do think you’re involved in something horrible… let’s talk about it some more at month’s end.” As to some of the “suspicions”… “possesing” is pretty self evident: they believe he may have some somewhere. And there is the small detail that with web browsers, merely looking at, for instance, a “thumbnail” image index, can make a copy of the image briefly inhabit your “temp” directory, wherein the bits stay on your disk even after the filename goes away. So, whatever’s the truth of his motives, if there’s any on him PT was quite wankin’ ignorant on TWO aspects (legal AND technical) of how things go. “incitement to distribute” would be another way of saying you sought to see such images as someone else had, thus “inciting” them to “distribute” the images to you; paying for access would look like a definite incitement “making”… that’s trickier. It may not necessarily mean _producing it_ but include _copying_. As to “indecent images” – I would need someone with knowledge fo the differences of US and UK legal lingo, as “indecent” and “obscene” have some specific meanings that may vary from place to place and in many – in many US States the charge is just “_child pornography_”, no euphemisms about it. My “suspicion” is that one or more of the “suspicions” may be just part of the common tactic of throwing at everyone involved in any way every imaginable violation they may have incurred; in order to “sweat out” some of those involved, and to make sure _some_ charges make it past preliminary hearing. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/64 "2003-01-14T04:25:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lout \* > **I really don’t think that the Government goes after someone like Pete T if they aren’t pretty sure they can prove the case, with mountains of evidence.** They can’t possibly have mountains of evidence yet, since they’ve only just searched his place and probably haven’t finished (and possibly haven’t even begun) searching his computer yet. The police arrested him because, if nothing else, he’s publically admitted to visiting a child pornography site. I don’t think they could let a celebrity make a formal public statement like that and then _not_ arrest him. Now, I think most people who were guilty of some horrible, shameful crime wouldn’t go calling the police down upon their heads like that. They’d let the police come to them in their own sweet time, and meanwhile do their best to destroy the evidence. Since Townshend hasn’t done this I think he must truly believe that he’s done nothing wrong, although he may have violated the letter of the law. The only thing giving me pause is the thought that if Townshend were a secret kiddie porn fiend he might still be a decent enough man to feel shame about it and _want_ to be caught. With luck, examination of his computer will settle things one way or the other. I’d hate to see this thing dragged out. If he’s innocent this scandal shouldn’t be allowed to ruin his life, and if he’s guilty then they should throw the book at him as quickly as is reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/65 "2003-01-14T05:43:27Z")
I hope what you say is true, Lamia, but there is another possibility, which is that he was into child porn, realised that he was probably on the list of people who the police were going to investigate sooner or later, and so decided to come forward before he had to, in order to give his excuses more credibility. ---
**Author:** ![everton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/66 "2003-01-14T06:07:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Princhester \* > \*\*I hope what you say is true, Lamia, but there is another possibility, which is that he was into child porn, realised that he was probably on the list of people who the police were going to investigate sooner or later, and so decided to come forward before he had to, in order to give his excuses more credibility. \*\* But it wasn’t a last-minute decision on his part to admit an interest in child pornography - he’s been publicly slamming it for years. **lout** : Since we’re supposed to be fighting ignorance, it’s probably worth pointing out that prosecutions of private citizens are not carried out by the government. In any case, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Pete Townsend or Joe Public, the police will have felt obligated to arrest him based upon what he’s already admitted to, which does not constitute “mountains of evidence”. What evidence there is will emerge from the investigation. ---
**Author:** ![lout](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@lout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lout)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/67 "2003-01-14T12:11:06Z")
everton: if “prosecutions of private citizens are not carried out by the government,” who does prosecute private citizens? Who is set to prosecute Pete Townsend? Other private citizens? I sort of doubt that Pete would have publically admitted to anything if he didn’t realize that he was in grave danger of being arrested. Therefore, I don’t buy the explanation that he was arrested based on those admissions, but only time will tell. ---
**Author:** ![longjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/65b543/32.png) [@longjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/longjohn)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/68 "2003-01-14T13:00:04Z")
Zorro, Fair enough. But it would be a pity if the spposed tendencies of two ex-ministers - for which Tony is not responsible - were used by the media as sticks to beat him with, rather than any of the seriously questionable positions he has taken or supported. J. ---
**Author:** ![everton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/69 "2003-01-14T13:04:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lout \* > everton: if “prosecutions of private citizens are not carried out by the government,” who does prosecute private citizens? Who is set to prosecute Pete Townsend? Other private citizens? The police. > [@](#): > > I sort of doubt that Pete would have publically admitted to anything if he didn’t realize that he was in grave danger of being arrested. Therefore, I don’t buy the explanation that he was arrested based on those admissions, but only time will tell. [This story on the _Independent’s_ site](http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/deborah_orr/story.jsp?story=368076) reminds us that Townsend was not arrested until the tabloid press broke the news that he was indeed the “famous musician” unearthed by Operation Avalanche. > [@](#): > > _from the article_ > Certainly the police do not seem to be in any great hurry to help him on his way there. After all, it was he himself who contacted them when he read about Operation Avalanche, and its little sister investigation in Britain, Operation Ore. They did not concern themselves too much with his confessions then. The police did not consider him to be of any great risk to the public and were prioritising other lines of enquiry until his public statements. He contacted them first, they responded some time later. ---
**Author:** ![lout](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@lout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lout)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/70 "2003-01-14T13:18:20Z")
1. police don’t “prosecute.” Prosecutors do. 2. both police and prosecutors are employees of the government. ---
**Author:** ![everton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/71 "2003-01-14T13:23:35Z")
We don’t live in a police state. The police are not the government, nor is the Crown Prosecution Service (who are not yet involved anyhow). The government employs lots of people, none of whom are members of the government. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/72 "2003-01-14T13:35:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lout \* > \*\*everton: if “prosecutions of private citizens are not carried out by the government,” who does prosecute private citizens?. \*\* Umm… bit of problem with the common language here, folks: In the USA, and a large number of presidentialist-system republics, “government”= “the state”. This is what **lout** is referring to. It includes the police and the prosecutors (separate entities, within executive branch) AND the courts (judiciary branch separate and distinct from the investigative agencies). In the UK, the Commonwealth and a large number of parliamentary-system republics, the “Government” means specifically the Cabinet and the Majority of Parliament. This is what **everton** is referring to. **everton** , **lout** was not claiming Tony Blair was going after Townsend nor that the Police are members of Parliament. He’s saying the _institutions of the state_, in a generic sense, carry out prosecutions. OK? ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/73 "2003-01-14T13:37:57Z")
BTW, the charges he was taken into custody under are IIRC, the standard charges for this type of case, and will be changed or dropped depending on evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Andy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aeb1de/32.png) [@Andy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/74 "2003-01-14T13:57:18Z")
**JRDelirious** , my feeling is that it’s very important to recognise that politicians play **no part** in the legal process (or, ideally, should not) and the use of generic rather than specific language can cloud this position. The CPS of the UK is not a government or political body. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/75 "2003-01-14T14:21:34Z")
My stance: I don’t care if you’re doing research or if you’re just curious and want a peek, if you register your credit card number with a kiddie porn website, YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE ABUSE. Fuck you, Pete. For putting money in some twisted, psychopath’s pocket so he can go find more little kids to abuse. Fuck you, too, for perpetuating the misguided notion that homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/76 "2003-01-14T14:26:49Z")
**JRDelirious** is correct, however, in identifying the source of the confusion. The CPS is, for lack of a better word, a public and publicly-funded body. It is not a private organization. As pointed out, the US courts are (at least in theory) completely separate from the political process, but as a public body are considered a branch of the government. It’s a matter of definition. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/77 "2003-01-14T16:15:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JRDelirious \* > \*\*Yeah, the “suspicion of” procedural terminology could confuse some. “You’re not really charged, but we do think you’re involved in something horrible… let’s talk about it some more at month’s end.” > > As to some of the “suspicions”… > > “possesing” is pretty self evident: they believe he may have some somewhere. And there is the small detail that with web browsers, merely looking at, for instance, a “thumbnail” image index, can make a copy of the image briefly inhabit your “temp” directory, wherein the bits stay on your disk even after the filename goes away. So, whatever’s the truth of his motives, if there’s any on him PT was quite wankin’ ignorant on TWO aspects (legal AND technical) of how things go. > > “incitement to distribute” would be another way of saying you sought to see such images as someone else had, thus “inciting” them to “distribute” the images to you; paying for access would look like a definite incitement > \*\* “Incitement to distribute” could also mean that he had Peer-to-Peer programs (for example, KaZaA) installed that could be used to distribute the files. Perhaps if there are files they are in the “My Downloads” (or whatever) directory that the P2P program shares. > [@](#): > > \*\* > “making”… that’s trickier. It may not necessarily mean _producing it_ but include _copying_.\*\* As you mentioned earlier, making could be just copying as a new file has been created. You can then extend this to browser cache, so just by browsing and viewing onlien you are actually creating. I actually erad an interesting thing on a video games forum. There have been claims that some paedophiles use Sega Dreamcasts to browse for porn for precisely this reason. There is no cache so no local copies are made. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/78 "2003-01-14T16:27:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Fuck you, too, for perpetuating the misguided notion that homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand. I think I missed something. Did he say something to the effect? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/79 "2003-01-14T16:36:04Z")
Legal question. Do the cops actually have to find images of kiddie porn on his computers for a successful prosecution? Is the credit card evidence enough? The latter may show intent to break the law, but surely the intent is not a crime. If the police do have to come up with the goods on the computer then it doesn’t take much of a prophet to predict they’ll be clean. He had ample warning to use one of the myriad programs out there which will eliminate anything incriminating. On another tangent; are there degrees of wickedness in child porn. Is lusting after girls of 13 or 14 just as reprehensible as salivating over prepubescence? If he were guilty of the former, is he as repugnant to decent folk as if he were guilty of the latter? ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003/80 "2003-01-14T16:44:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aldiboronti \* > **If the police do have to come up with the goods on the computer then it doesn’t take much of a prophet to predict they’ll be clean. He had ample warning to use one of the myriad programs out there which will eliminate anything incriminating.** Only if he knew that he had to use such software. Most people think that “delete” does just that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-townshend-pedophile/148003.md?page=5)