Townsend and Child Porn?

[Checkmate]

Why ? One is an attempt to raise awareness of a problem, the other is an intentional attempt to commit a crime.

Both acts are facilitating and encouraging the actual crime, and the one doing so for even more illegal activities can claim the exact same thing as the one trying to expose it. You have no way of knowing what their actual intent is until they do it, not that it has anything at all to do with the crime of obtaining the illegal merchandise to begin with.

 

[Captaindemotion]

It is quite incorrect to say that Townshend was acquitted of this matter. He accepted a police caution for accessing child pornography. A caution is an admission of guilt - police will not administer one for any offence, however minor, unless the offender admits it.

Townshend claimed that he was on some one-man campaign to expose child pornographers and having gone onto a kiddie porn site, he then used his credit card to pay for a look at more extreme pics. Established and accredited anti-porn campaigners expressed dismay and surprise at such a course of action, pointing out that every penny paid towards purveyors of such material simply ensured an audience for it and guaranteed the abuse of another child.

Under UK law, the offence is of making or distributing an indecent image of a child. If you reproduce same at all, you are guilty of an offence. Even lawyers preparing a copy of evidence in such cases for their court hearings have to be careful.

Had PT been a man living in a council house and wearing a filthy mac rather than a rich rock star, I've no doubt that he would not have gotten off so lightly. I also had to laugh a few years later, when he and Michael Moore had a tiff, when the latter wanted to use 'Won't Get Fooled Again' for Farenheirt 9/11. Turning him down, Pete reckoned on his website 'I don't think a man with a camera can change the world the same way a man with a guitar can.' I was tempted to send him a query asking if that was the case, why didn't he just go onto the internet looking for songs about child abuse, rather than photos...?

 

[Haggis and tatties]

^^^Here here.

 

[Ryan]

he searched for it as part of his work to fight against it.

How the hell would purchasing child pornography accomplish that?

 

[Hermiod]

he searched for it as part of his work to fight against it.

How the hell would purchasing child pornography accomplish that?

Subsequent investigations have suggested that Townshend admitting doing something he did not do in order to avoid a long, drawn out court case.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Not so much 'subsequent investigations' as 'subsequent PR by Townshend' ...

 

[Hermiod]

^ Not so much 'subsequent investigations' as 'subsequent PR by Townshend' ...

At least one, performed by PC Pro magazine, was independent.

Your reaction is exactly what I'm talking about. Guilty until proven innocent assumptions. It's this simple - as long as Townshend or any other man is not found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers he is INNOCENT whether you like it or not.

It's people like you who make it impossible to separate real criminals from the falsely accused. It's people like you who have left us with people being falsely accused of rape going to jail and having their lives ruined just to improve conviction statistics.

 

[John Picard]

^ Not so much 'subsequent investigations' as 'subsequent PR by Townshend' ...

At least one, performed by PC Pro magazine, was independent.

Your reaction is exactly what I'm talking about. Guilty until proven innocent assumptions. It's this simple - as long as Townshend or any other man is not found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers he is INNOCENT whether you like it or not.

It's people like you who make it impossible to separate real criminals from the falsely accused. It's people like you who have left us with people being falsely accused of rape going to jail and having their lives ruined just to improve conviction statistics.

Ehhhh, I kind of equate what Townsend did with someone who got caught buying dope. "NO! I was merely trying to see how easy it was so I could caution others against it and as a warning so they can protect their kids!"

Let's be serious for a moment and consider that if he merely proved he could access it then that would be proof enough it was for research; however, completing the purchase of such offensive material is more than likely going to lead *ANYONE* to presume guilt.

 

[exodus]

^ Not so much 'subsequent investigations' as 'subsequent PR by Townshend' ...

At least one, performed by PC Pro magazine, was independent.

Your reaction is exactly what I'm talking about. Guilty until proven innocent assumptions. It's this simple - as long as Townshend or any other man is not found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers he is INNOCENT whether you like it or not.

It's people like you who make it impossible to separate real criminals from the falsely accused. It's people like you who have left us with people being falsely accused of rape going to jail and having their lives ruined just to improve conviction statistics.

He's Pete freakin' Townsend.
The man is known the world over by many people of importance. You mean to tell me this man couldn't go to the local police or find an anti-child porn association to get the same amount of "research" for this book and that his only option was to log onto an actual child porn site and pay for it, thus putting money in the pockets of those he claims he wishes to stop?

Doesn't that really sound in anyway logical too you?

 

[Hermiod]

^No, it sounds like a stupid thing to do. Doesn't make him a child abuser.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I've never called him a child abuser. He is, however, guilty of downloading or replicating child porn, which, rightly or wrongly, is an offence in the UK. He's accepted a caution for this offence and in doing so admitted his guilt.

You're quite wrong to say that I make the assumption of guilty until proven innocent. I come at this sort of thing, as with any allegation of criminal activity, with an open mind. But I found his explanation totally unconvincing, for the reasons set out by exodus. And once he accepted the caution, that confirmed his guilt for me.

He could have contested the case at court - he has the money to hire expensive lawyers. However, he obviously knew that a jury of his peers would find his explanation unconvincing and so opted for the caution, thus avoiding the risk of an actual conviction and possible jail sentence. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

 

[exodus]

^No, it sounds like a stupid thing to do. Doesn't make him a child abuser.

He used a credit card and gave money to those that do.
That makes him a willing accessory in child abuse.

I'm sure if he went to the police or anti-child porn association first, they'd be more than willing to have someone as high profile as Townsend on their side. It gives such a red flagged issue more importance and more financial backing to put an end to it.


...but no, he hid away in his home and used a credit card to pay and futher incourage child pornographers.

 

[Hermiod]

You're quite wrong to say that I make the assumption of guilty until proven innocent. I come at this sort of thing, as with any allegation of criminal activity, with an open mind. But I found his explanation totally unconvincing, for the reasons set out by exodus. And once he accepted the caution, that confirmed his guilt for me.

That's just it, you don't get a say. Neither do I. Once we start presuming guilt as you are doing here, we are on a very slippery slope.

It's not up to Townshend to prove his innocence, it's up to the CPS and the Police to prove his guilt. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

[Trekker4747]

I've never called him a child abuser. He is, however, guilty of downloading or replicating child porn, which, rightly or wrongly, is an offence in the UK. He's accepted a caution for this offence and in doing so admitted his guilt.

You're quite wrong to say that I make the assumption of guilty until proven innocent. I come at this sort of thing, as with any allegation of criminal activity, with an open mind. But I found his explanation totally unconvincing, for the reasons set out by exodus. And once he accepted the caution, that confirmed his guilt for me.

He could have contested the case at court - he has the money to hire expensive lawyers. However, he obviously knew that a jury of his peers would find his explanation unconvincing and so opted for the caution, thus avoiding the risk of an actual conviction and possible jail sentence. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

Recieving a citation for doing something to avoid to publiicty and exposure of a more drawn-out procedure doesn't make one guilty. Townshend has admitted no guilt and has not been shown to be guilty in any system of law.

You're judging him and convicting him in your mind based on little to nothing to go on.

 

[exodus]

Who doesn't know going on a child porn site is against the law?

Who doesn't know child porn is a zero tolerance policy with law enforcement?

Townsend admitted he broke the law by accessing the site.

 

[Trekker4747]

Who doesn't know going on a child porn site is against the law?

Who doesn't know child porn is a zero tolerance policy with law enforcement?

Townsend admitted he broke the law by accessing the site.

Uhhh no. That's not the way the law works.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Accepting a caution is an admission of guilt, just as much as entering a guilty plea in court. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the criminal justice system can tell you that. It doesn't matter what you or I think. He is now officially guilty of an offence in the eyes of the law.

But as exodus says, when you pay money to view an image of a child being abused, you contribute to the abuse of children. That is an undisputable fact.

 

[exodus]

Who doesn't know going on a child porn site is against the law?

Who doesn't know child porn is a zero tolerance policy with law enforcement?

Townsend admitted he broke the law by accessing the site.

Uhhh no. That's not the way the law works.

Right, confessing you broke the law isn't an admission of guilt.

 

[Trekker4747]

Accepting a caution is an admission of guilt, just as much as entering a guilty plea in court. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the criminal justice system can tell you that. It doesn't matter what you or I think. He is now officially guilty of an offence in the eyes of the law.

There's a such thing as "no contest" which is neither an admission of guilt or a plea of innocence.

But as exodus says, when you pay money to view an image of a child being abused, you contribute to the abuse of children. That is an undisputable fact.

This part is undisputable, sure.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Actually, in the UK, there is no such thing as 'No contest'. It's an American concept.