pete townsend... (1 Viewer)

[ludwig_zwei]

What Ro said.

 

[spiritualtramp]

Originally posted by the66electric


P2PBSH

does that stand for pipe to pipe bushman?

 

[Ed]

There was a guy wandering around Grafton st. yesterday in a Tommy jacket getting some filthy looks. I reckon we'll find out how guilty pete townsend is when they open up his computer and find out how much porn he had, and how long he's been accumulating it, ot if he's been collecting it at all.

 

[Latex lizzie]

...the media have become alarmingly quiet on this today..all over the place yesterday...is that usually a sign of no fire?

 

[the66electric]

DBL

 

[pete]

This was mailed to me earlier by lee who was having a spot of bother posting it himself - it's from the Mike Watt mailing list:

Very little has been mentioned about the actual paper Pete wrote and published on his site 12 months ago. It was called "A Different Bomb" and was a decidedly anti-pedophilia piece. The link to the Adobe Acrobat document were removed months ago, but you could still reach reach it as late as last night. Pete's site appears to be unreachable now -- possibly because the servers have been removed by the police.

I have a copy of "A Different Bomb" at the office but not here at home. Intead, I'll forward an e-mail from Who biographer Dave Marsh. It contains many of the key quotes from "A Different Bomb."


Subj: Pete Townshend
Date: 1/12/03 12:34:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: (Dave Marsh)
To: (Dave Marsh)

When my friend Scott Pellegrino sent me this last summer, I couldn't figure out quite why I decided to save it. As it turns out, Pete was then forced to take the essay off his website for legal reasons. And now he is in a jam with the cops because of just what he is honestly discussing below.

The story here is NOT whether Pete Townshend is a pedophile, which is an asinine accusation. It is whether the American and British police have the right to defile the name of someone, without stepping forward with so much as a charge against him, just through slander and innuendo and filth.

It is about whether we live in a police state. I can think of about 1000 more important examples of the fact that we do. I can't think of a single clearer one.

**********************************

Excerpts from a writing by Pete Townshend contained in this email are below:

...There is hardly a man I know who uses computers who will not admit to surfing casually sometimes to find pornography. I have done it. Certainly, one expects only to find what is available on the top shelf at the news agents.

I make no argument here for or against 'hard' or 'soft' pornography. What is certain is that providers of porn feel the need to constantly 'refresh' their supply. So new 'victims' are drawn in every day -- customers and subjects. This is just as true on the Internet as it is in the world of magazines and video. However, what many people fail to realise is how -- by visiting their websites -- we directly and effectively subsidise pornographers. This is true whether we do so unwittingly or deliberately, out of curiosity or a vigilante spirit...

...The Guardian newspaper revealed that www.uksearchterms.com listed 'lolita' high on the list of the most searched words in the UK ('sex' is often No.1). It seemed to me that there was some hypocrisy going on. Who were all these people typing 'lolita' into their browsers? They were surely not all paedophiles. Perhaps they were simply curious of what they might find.

The terrible part is that what they found on the Internet will almost have certainly found them by return. It is not to suggest that every one of them was 'hooked' as soon as they found a porn site professing to display underage subjects, it is to say that because their visit was undoubtedly recorded by the site or sites in question, the pornographers who run those sites would have found validation and commercial promise for their activity. They would then have redoubled their efforts in that area.

Many porn sites use software triggers so that when a visitor tries to leave a site upon which they may have unwittingly stumbled, another similar -- or worse -- site immediately pops up. When they try to shut that site, another pops up, then another, then another, the content getting more and more extreme until their browser is solid with pornography and eventually will seize up as though choking on some vapid manifestation of evil itself. Thus it is that the pornographer's 'validation' is spawned at the same time. One site opened triggers another dozen or more -- all of which has been unwillingly 'visited.' If the visitor so much as click on a newly displayed page they may supply a record of their computer's unique address.

'Lolita' is obviously not a word to use carelessly when searching the Internet -- even if one happened to be studying Nabokov for a literature degree. In any case, the word itself is not of special significance: I had my first encounter with Internet paedophilia by mistake... ..., a film director friend, had made an extremely moving documentary about an American couple who adopted a Russian boy. As a charity fund-raiser (and, I suppose, vulnerable philanthropist to boot) I wanted to support the work of such orphanages and decided to see if I could-via the Internet -- find legitimate contacts to help. (I had tried many other methods and failed). The various words I used included 'Russia' and 'orphanages'. I used no words that could usually be taken to be sexual or lascivious, except -- perhaps ill-advisedly -- the word 'boys'.

Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man. The blazer on the page claimed that sex with children is 'not illegal in Russia.' This was not smut. It was a depiction of a real rape. The victim, if the infant boy survived,...would probably one day take his own life. The awful reality hit me of the self-propelling, self-spawning mechanism of the Internet.

I reached for the phone, I intended to call the police and take them through the process I had stumbled upon-and bring the pornographers involved to book. Then I thought twice about it. I knew I must NOT download anything I saw. That would be illegal. I spoke off-the-record to a lawyer. He advised me that I most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence.' So I did nothing.

I mentioned this shocking Internet experience to a few people close to me. It became clear very quickly that some people I spoke to thought that if I had searched using the right words, my exposure to that terrible image would not have occurred. It might be strange to hear that I was glad I found it. Until then, like my ostrich-like friends, I imagined that only those who communicated on the Internet using secret codes, private chat-rooms and encrypted files would ever be exposed to this kind of image. But I learned through this accident that such images are 'freely' available through the machinery of common search engines and User-Groups, and are openly available for sale through subscription via credit card. I was then concerned that there would be those 'provider's of paedophilic porn who felt the need to regularly 'refresh' their supply of images, as is the pornographic 'norm.' It is a chilling thought isn't it?...

...On the Internet, vigilante groups and individuals work obsessively both to trace and block certain porn sites and to offer -- through 12 Step programmes for sex-addiction-probably the only way out for some ensnared by addiction to what the Internet has to offer.

Undermining all this good work, the ISP I use allows access to User Groups by using the term 'alt' as a prefix. In '*******' (a popular search engine) it is possible to reach a questionable array of offered sex sites with very few keystrokes, and without actually typing a single word. The pathway to 'free' paedophilic imagery is -- as it were -- laid out like a free line of cocaine at a decadent cocktail party. Only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist. Those vigilantes who research these pathways must open themselves up to Internet 'snoops'. Many are obviously willing to take the risk. They believe the pathways themselves must be closed.

Offending sites must be totally and completely eradicated from the Internet. If that is not possible, they must be openly policed by active and obstructive vigilantes -- not just 'snooped' by government agencies and police...

...What is certain is that the Internet has brought the sexual abuse of children into the open. It is not 'respectable' or 'acceptable' at any level of society. It is simply in the open...

...Booze and drugs are here to stay. But it must be time to do something more concrete to stop the proliferation of questionable pornography that seems so readily and openly facilitated by the Internet. Another danger is this: I think it must be obvious that many children are becoming inured to pornography much too early and -as I have demonstrated -- the Internet provides a very short route indeed to some of the most evil and shocking images of rape and abuse.

The subconscious mind is deeply damaged and indelibly scarred by the sight of such images. I can assure everyone reading this that if they go off in pursuit of images of rape they will find them. I urge them not to try. I pray too that they don't happen upon such images as did I, by accident. If they do they may like me become so enraged and disturbed that their dreams
are forever haunted."

 

[kstop]

Fully essay here

 

[Latex lizzie]

..wow sounds like he was fairly passionate, could it be a smoke screen though? fairly evil if it is...

 

[Speed Racer]

Jesus! Sounds kinda credible after all, I'd like to hear more from Pete Townsend on his writing and researching. Because it would be terrible if this ruined his reputation and he was actually innocent. Still though, in the eyes and minds of many tabloid readers it looks like the damage may already have been done.

 

[Hector Grey]

hi-larious.

 

[Latex lizzie]

mmm

 

[Speed Racer]

Originally posted by Hector Grey
hi-larious.

Dude! This is no laughing matter. Think on.

 

[Hector Grey]

Originally posted by Speed Racer
Dude! This is no laughing matter. Think on.

ah but it is. utterly.

 

[Speed Racer]

Originally posted by Hector Grey
ah but it is. utterly.

Think of the CHILDREN! Won't you please think of the CHILDREN!!!

 

[Hector Grey]

Originally posted by Speed Racer
Think of the CHILDREN! Won't you please think of the CHILDREN!!!

the children, yeah, grand. it's tough. it's tough on kids all over the world, it really is. it's makes baby jesus cry.

but the rest of this... well, that's just hi-larious.

 

[Speed Racer]

Originally posted by Hector Grey
the children, yeah, grand. it's tough. it's tough on kids all over the world, it really is. it's makes baby jesus cry.

but the rest of this... well, that's just hi-larious.

............ah sure........y'know

 

[the pope]

he could be innocent, its possible that a man can be that stupid. anyway he said he paid to enter a porn site which had peado stuff on it, not a peado porn site.

however its disturbing how this is so enjoyed by the media, as the suns, notw's, and stars lap up this with glee.
there was eight pages on it in the sun a few days ago...

 

[Pantone247]

Originally posted by the pope
he could be innocent, its possible that a man can be that stupid.

he is not innocent, he looked at child porn, he acsessed these sites with his credit card. Thats a crime Its as simple as that. Wether he did it to get his rocks off or to research his book, it doesn't matter, he commited the crime. fact.

 

[Hector Grey]

Originally posted by Pantone247
he is not innocent, he looked at child porn, he acsessed these sites with his credit card. Thats a crime Its as simple as that. Wether he did it to get his rocks off or to research his book, it doesn't matter, he commited the crime. fact.

nice on drac. you show these lefty puffs.

 

[Latex lizzie]

..I saw an interveiw with a convicted paedo and as the police were searching his flat he agreed to be filmed, his flat was a total kip and he had this really smug air about him..he said that the way in which the sun and gutter press report on cases of abuse really gets them off while they are doin time! he said that most convicted abusers in prison read these papers as a sort of method of gratification..nice one sun etc..

..p.s. They found loads of stuff in that guys appartment and he was arrested amnd let out on bail, later that week he hung himself. Leading to the theory that maybe these people have a medical condition that needs help rather than their nuts cut off.