Posted December 28, 200915 yr Child advocacy groups are blasting the NFL's choice of The Who as the Super Bowl XLIV halftime show. Why? Because Pete Townshend was convicted of possession of child porn in the UK in 2003, and registered as a sex offender from 2003 through 2008. They say that by U.S. immigration law, he shouldn't even be allowed to enter the United States (and why he was allowed for the Kennedy Center Honors in 2008 mystifies the same groups; they protested that, too). And under Florida Statute 775.21, he must register as a sex offender even if his status as a sex offender elsewhere has elapsed. The commentary article above states that the NFL may want to reconsider, especially since child advocacy groups will likely go after them and all their sponsors if they do not rectify the situation. Personally I don't know the exact nuances of INS law as it relates to admitting convicted sex offenders, but certainly they wouldn't have given Pete Townshend special treatment and let him in the country in flaunting the law, would they?
December 28, 200915 yr As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after acknowledging a credit card access in 1999 to the Landslide website alleged to advertise child pornography.[26][27][28] He stated in the press and on his website that he had been engaged in research for A Different Bomb (a now-abandoned book based on an anti-child pornography essay published on his website in January 2002) and his autobiography, and as part of a campaign against child pornography.[29] The police searched his house and confiscated 14 computers and other materials, and after a four-month forensic investigation confirmed that they had found no evidence of child abuse images. Consequently, the police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, issuing a statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." In a statement issued by his solicitor, Townshend said, "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me."[30] As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years.[31][32] A later investigator stated that he was "falsely accused".[33] After obtaining copies of the Landslide hard drives and tracing Townshend's actions, investigative journalist Duncan Campbell wrote in PC Pro Magazine, "Under pressure of the media filming of the raid, Townshend appears to have confessed to something he didn't do." Campbell states that their entire evidence against Townshend was that he accessed a single site among the Landslide offerings which was not connected with child pornography. [34] However, as of October 2008, Townshend had taken no appelant action regarding the caution.
December 28, 200915 yr I hate how law is so by-the-books. For example... the whole concept of statutory rape. "Well TECHNICALLY you are 4 months apart so in that window you are a rapist for having sex." But not only in cases like such... it applies to everything. Like knowing that a terrorist is a terrorist but not having a search warrent. Yep. Just let him carry out his terrorist plots because you dont have a search warrent.
December 29, 200915 yr I hate how law is so by-the-books. For example... the whole concept of statutory rape. "Well TECHNICALLY you are 4 months apart so in that window you are a rapist for having sex." But not only in cases like such... it applies to everything. Like knowing that a terrorist is a terrorist but not having a search warrent. Yep. Just let him carry out his terrorist plots because you dont have a search warrent. There would be much greater problems if such laws were flexible, especially given the already subjective nature of our legal system. It's better this way.
December 29, 200915 yr I hate how law is so by-the-books. For example... the whole concept of statutory rape. "Well TECHNICALLY you are 4 months apart so in that window you are a rapist for having sex." But not only in cases like such... it applies to everything. Like knowing that a terrorist is a terrorist but not having a search warrent. Yep. Just let him carry out his terrorist plots because you dont have a search warrent. There would be much greater problems if such laws were flexible, especially given the already subjective nature of our legal system. It's better this way. Why because the average Joe moron would complain? I will agree to disagree here...
December 29, 200915 yr The problem isn't that the laws are enforced too rigidly, it's that some of the laws and punishments are too severe. most are actually...and i get the feeling the judges, lawyers, and etc. of this country would like to keep how much they make under tight wraps...so that the system stays the way it is...pot users in jail, rapists in church and pfizer pumping out all sorts of drugs that actually kill people...the legal system in this country is a joke...a very, very ill mannered joke
December 30, 200915 yr The problem isn't that the laws are enforced too rigidly, it's that some of the laws and punishments are too severe. Don't tell me that you're one of those who believe in the strict interpretation of the Libertarian platform. . . The part that says it's no business of the federal goverment(FBI) to disrupt the operations of organizations like NAMBLA....the Man-With-8YOBoy-Love-Is-OK-Association. The part that says the FBI shouldn't be fighting child pornography.
December 30, 200915 yr Author If he was falsely accused, why wouldn't he appeal this? Is he mistaken that his guilty plea is the end of it, regardless of his actual guilt? Or will this pressure finally convince him to take action?
December 30, 200915 yr If he was falsely accused, why wouldn't he appeal this? Is he mistaken that his guilty plea is the end of it, regardless of his actual guilt? Or will this pressure finally convince him to take action? For the same reason why Michael Jackson claims to have settled out of court. He wanted to move on and it was probably a longer battle that he had a less a chance of winning had he gone the other way (this is all regardless of the truth, which nobody really knows.).
December 31, 200915 yr The point Im trying to make is that a guilt plea or a settlement does not necessarily represent the truth... sometimes it's just the best option. You can have your own opinion on the matter at that... I'm not arguing anyones case here... just saying that it's certainly a possibility.
December 31, 200915 yr If he was falsely accused, why wouldn't he appeal this? Is he mistaken that his guilty plea is the end of it, regardless of his actual guilt? Or will this pressure finally convince him to take action? Because as I understand it, he was guilty of trying to have viewed a child pornography website that was part of a sting but he supposedly was looking at it for research on a paper he was writing regarding child abuse. So he was guilty of trying to access child porn but was given a warning due to no other possession of child pornography and a somewhat viable motive. Pete Townshend is a great musician and The Who are probably my favorite band but this case always seemed a bit suspicious to me.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.