pete townsend guilty or just stupid

[paul calf]

it has come out today that the who guitarist pete townsend a bit of a hero of mine has been frequenting child porn sites.


The admission came in a statement following claims that police are investigating internet child porn allegations.

A statement emphasised his "anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive."

The statement was distributed to media representatives gathered outside his home in Richmond, south west London.

It said: "I am not a paedophile. I have never entered chat rooms on the internet to converse with children. I have, to the contrary, been shocked, angry and vocal (especially on my website) about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images on the internet."

Townshend's statement concluded: "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. I did this purely to see what was there. I spoke informally to a friend who was a lawyer and reported what I'd seen.

"I have enclosed my website article about my friend Jenny who commit (sic) suicide because of sexual abuse she suffered as (a) child.

"I hope you will be able to see that I am sincerely disturbed by the sexual abuse of children, and I am very active trying to help individuals who have suffered, and to prevent further abuse."

Earlier, Townshend discussed rumours saying he was the rock star reported to be at the centre of a police inquiry into claims of the downloading of child pornography from the internet.

The Daily Mail reported that details of a musician, a household name on both sides of the Atlantic, had been passed to detectives dealing with an American pay per view porn ring.






i dont know about everyone else's opinions on this but for me he is either trying to limit the damge he has done to his career or is just plain stupid,once you get tarred with the peedo brush it sticks, and for someone of pete's standing to have been so naive is disasterous in my opinion.
we have to ask a few questions.
1)all decent human being's are 100% horified by the thought of children being abused and would rather scratch our eyes out than look at this filth and depravity,so why did pete feel the need to get his credit card out and look at this stuff?
2)why did pete not go public about the horrors of the sites before the newspapers could name and shame him?

going there just to see what was there story does not stick to me,i would never want to know what was there,and would certanly not pay to find out,i really hope pete is inoccent,but would never be able to listen to the who again if he was'nt.

[BadCoverVersion]

I sincerely hope that Pete has just been a bit foolish...but it certainly sounds dubious!!!

Why would somebody who claims to abhor paedophilia actually hand over his personal credit card details??? MONEY is just one of the contributing factors concerning the increasing amount of child-porn circulating the web.

How could the man be so idiotic???

Jesus Pete, I hope you're innocent mate...but I think you'll need to get yourself a bloody good lawyer!!!

[Psychocandy]

I'm not a huge fan of The Who but I do like their music. From a non-fan perspective Pete's defence looks paper thin. Thus far my opinion on the situation is definitely veering more in the direction of guilty rather than stupid. Even if he was just stupid...he's a bloody grown up and should as a result take responsibility for what I see as a particularly idiotic act. Giving your credit card details to those bastards in the name of curiosity is dumb beyond belief.

[Morgana]

Hmmm...being I haven't frequented Townshend's web site, I can't confirm that he truly has been very vocal against paedophelia, so I can't say for sure. If he IS on some sort of a one-man crusade against child porn then he definitely should've let people know beforehands he was about to do some questionnable "research". Since he didn't do that, I'd say his act was extremely stupid.

I'll wait until more facts come in from the investigation. Until then I'll consider his act as one of having exercised very poor judgement. If it turns out he truly is a paedophile, God help his soul. Because I certainly will be sickened to my stomach.

[free]

One way of looking at it is that IF he had told ppl he was doing this as "research", how many of them would've believed him, and police would have arrested him. In that instance, I can see how he would hold this info back. But, sadly, i DO believe that this is a cover, and, yes, he had better have some damn good lawyers.

[Big Pudge]

it says he went to the website, and told a lawyer everything he saw, if the lawyer story holds true, it should be easy as hell to conclude that Pete is innocent.,.. n no i dont think is idiotic of him or anything... he had to see.... he had to know what the horrors of the shit are, how bad it really is, how sickening the ppl out there r.

if sum1 hands u a briefcase n says "do not look in that briefcase no matter what, what is in there will disturb u for the rest of ur life... whatever u do DO NOT LOOK"

honestly... how many of u r either gonna look or think LOOOONG N HARD about looking!!

i believe he is innocent!

[Mick]

Originally posted by Big Pudge
it says he went to the website, and told a lawyer everything he saw, if the lawyer story holds true, it should be easy as hell to conclude that Pete is innocent.,..

:eek: Nah, telling a lawyer about it doesn't mean feck all. It's just someone he employs, and anything he tells him has to be held in strict confidence anyway, doesn't it? If I go tell my lawyer (if I had one) that I'm going to download some child pr0n, that'll make it OK? I think not.

n no i dont think is idiotic of him or anything... he had to see.... he had to know what the horrors of the shit are, how bad it really is, how sickening the ppl out there r.

It's child pornography. It has pictures of young children being abused and explicit photos taken of them against their will so some sick bastards can get off on it. I don't have to go to such a site to work this out. And using a credit card to give money to the people who take the pictures is both disgusting and BLOODY STUPID.

if sum1 hands u a briefcase n says "do not look in that briefcase no matter what, what is in there will disturb u for the rest of ur life... whatever u do DO NOT LOOK"

honestly... how many of u r either gonna look or think LOOOONG N HARD about looking!!

:rolleyes: Oh come on. He must have known what was at the site, everyone knows what filth is there. Or should we ALL be looking at child porn just to confirm our suspicions about how disturbing we think it will be? Again, no.

i believe he is innocent!

Well he's admitted he's guilty of looking at child porn, which is illegal. Of course there are some people who have to look at it in a professional capacity - child protection agencies and the police etc, but I don't think it covers musicians.

[paul calf]

Originally posted by Big Pudge
it says he went to the website, and told a lawyer everything he saw, if the lawyer story holds true, it should be easy as hell to conclude that Pete is innocent.,.. n no i dont think is idiotic of him or anything... he had to see.... he had to know what the horrors of the shit are, how bad it really is, how sickening the ppl out there r.

if sum1 hands u a briefcase n says "do not look in that briefcase no matter what, what is in there will disturb u for the rest of ur life... whatever u do DO NOT LOOK"

honestly... how many of u r either gonna look or think LOOOONG N HARD about looking!!

i believe he is innocent!

pudge i really hope you are right,and i know what you mean about the briefcase,but the question is would you pay to look in a briefcase even if you knew it would make you feel sick.i don't think most people would and reading todays papers pete is looking in bad shape he says "i think i was abused as a child"now either he was or he was'nt ,did he need to look at this stuff to make up his mind whether he was or was'nt i dont really understand that quote.but i really do hope it is all an inoccent mistake,because this man is a legend and one who we don't want to see fall in such a disgusting way.

[Mick]

Originally posted by free
One way of looking at it is that IF he had told ppl he was doing this as "research", how many of them would've believed him, and police would have arrested him.

I doubt they would have arrested him for that. If he was to go to the police and explain his circumstances they could have helped him. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have suggested he downloads porn, though.

In that instance, I can see how he would hold this info back.

Well if he did go to them and explain, he would either have someone deal with him (social services or something), or be told not to do anything; in which case he wouldn't be in any bother.

But, sadly, i DO believe that this is a cover, and, yes, he had better have some damn good lawyers.

I think it's a cover, also, but really, he should get down for this regardless. If he's dumb enough to use his credit card to pay for child pornography, for whatever reasons, he's got to take whatever punishment is deemed necessary. If his "I was just doing it for research, I think I may have been abused" patter gets him off with it, then it'll make a complete mockery of the judicial system.

[Nate6]

I think it is unfair to make any judgements until we know more about the situation. His defence is paper-thin, and it was stupid of him to put his credit-card number over the internet to buy child porn in the first place, but he did admit to it. I don't know, I want to hear more first....

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Mick
everyone knows what filth is there.


Maybe in your circle of friends, but this statement is far from true.







Child porn is the fucking cocaine of the new millenium. It's really runined quite a few people that I've liked - Jefferey Jones, Pee-Wee, and now Townsend. This is a sick, sick epidemic, and unlike cocaine, the victims spread much further, and it's not fun for the disco.


Webmasters need to monitor this sort of activity.

[Mick]

Maybe in your circle of friends, but this statement is far from true.

:rolleyes: So just what the hell do you think is there?

Child porn is the fucking cocaine of the new millenium.

Can't say I agree with that at all. Cocaine's not something I'd want to try myself, but I could see why some people could want to take it. I get what you're saying about how it can ruin people, but you need to be an extremely sick person to want to look at child porn, I don't think the same thing applies to taking cocaine.

It's really runined quite a few people that I've liked - Jefferey Jones, Pee-Wee, and now Townsend. This is a sick, sick epidemic, and unlike cocaine, the victims spread much further, and it's not fun for the disco.


Webmasters need to monitor this sort of activity.

The only webmasters that can stop it are the webmasters of the sites themselves, and the only way they are going to stop is if there is no market for it - and giving these people money certainly doesn't help.

[Big Pudge]

i hear what u all r sayin... i agree that actually PAYING to see the stuff is pretty fucking stupid.

but ill be honest:

one time i was over my friends house (this was like a year or 2 ago) and he was downloading sum porno, and it completed and he turned it on, and it was a 9 year old getting fisted..... the fact that 1) sum ppl can actually sit back, whip IT out, and just start to rub one out to that is pure NASTY, and 2) the fact that ANY BODY could do that to a fucking child, it still disturbs the shit out of me to this day
(needless to say we quickly deleted that shit from his computer)
so what im saying is i have absolutely no sympothy for the type of ppl who do those kind of things, whether they film it, star in it, or just simply watch it and enjoy it. (and those bastards on kazaa need to start fucking labeling their shit a lil better)

but in Petes case, i think 1) not knowing whether or not he was sexually abused as kid or not... thats like.. O CMON DUDE! how the fuck can u not know?? maybe when u were that age and it happened, u pry werent sure, but by the time u reach like 20-30 u have to know if sumptin foul was done to u.

i agree paying to look at the pics was stupid as shit (which i guess contradicts my previous statement, but i guess what mick said made me change my views on how retarded this dude really is)

BUT

i do not think he is a child pornographer who gets off to this stuff, i dont think he is THAT type of dude!!

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Mick
[B]
:rolleyes: So just what the hell do you think is there?

there are lots of people who have no idea what is there. I was pretty shocked after having the displeasure of seeing rotton.com I'm sure you know lots of people that had never heard os or seen some of the things that are out there. I don't understand why you rolled your little emoticon eyes.


Can't say I agree with that at all. Cocaine's not something I'd want to try myself, but I could see why some people could want to take it. I get what you're saying about how it can ruin people, but you need to be an extremely sick person to want to look at child porn, I don't think the same thing applies to taking cocaine.


Look, it was a metaphore, right? I didn't mean it as some kind of retort. My overall theme is that child porn is an epidemic, right? Clearly I am saying "down with child porn!" It is trippy of you to rebuttle my stance against child porn.


The only webmasters that can stop it are the webmasters of the sites themselves, and the only way they are going to stop is if there is no market for it - and giving these people money certainly doesn't help.


right on!

[Grebdron]

I would think that if it comes out that he paid to view ONE site, then he is probably being honest. But if there is a bunch of kiddie shit on his computer, that's a different story.

It's a little premature to crucify him at this point.

[Mick]

Rock star Pete Townshend has been arrested by police following a search of his home after he admitted viewing images of child pornography on the internet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2651871.stm

I can't see his excuses holding any weight if this goes to court. He certainly got no decent reason for having the stuff at his home....

[Dixiecup]

I posted something similar to this on Celeb Gossip, but this is where it needs to be!

My feeling is that if he was sexually molested as a child, there is no 'thinking' about it- he would know, and wouldn't need to go to a fucking kiddie porn website to 'investigate' further into the matter.

I'm a WHO fan, but the fact of the matter, (and if I am wrong, I hope to be proven so!) is that he is just a pervert who thought that he was invisible on the web, and could do what he pleased, and got caught.

Research is one thing, but this guy isn't fucking Geraldo, or Diane whatshername with the Gorillas- he didn't need to go there.

[paul calf]

i am beginging to believe that pete is both stupid and guilty of the things he is accused of,some of the things he is saying are definatly not helping to prove himself inoccent or make the public think he is wrongly accused i still hope its all a mistake but am fearing the worse now.
Townshend, 57, said: “On the issue of child abuse, the climate in the Press, the police and in Government in the UK is one of a witch-hunt.”

He claimed innocent men were being wrongly convicted on child pornography charges because the police were “over-zealous”.

And he blasted officers for “snooping on customers downloading illegal pornography” instead of simply blocking access to the websites.

, Townshend also said: “There is hardly a man I know who uses computers who will not admit to surfing casually sometimes to find pornography. Certainly I have.”

The star has admitted logging on to child porn sites but insists it was only done as research for a book.

[Grebdron]

I also heard a quote from him likening the availability of free child pornography on the internet to a line of cocaine laid out in front of you at a decadent party.

Looking bad for ole Pete.

[CheekyShepherd]

Unfortunately, our Pete is guilty as fuck.

If you pay to download "material" from these filthy sites, that's the way it is - GUILTY.

He may say that it was for research purposes, but surely an intelligent fellow like Pete would have received legal advice and/or police permission before going ahead.

[Dixiecup]

I think the question of the day is- Should the Gov'mt get the filth the broadcasts the shit first, or the slimy old bastard pedophiles who pay to see it?

I think Petty boy is guilty as hell. Here's something interesting- there is a device called a Plethsmograph, (I know I misspelled that!) and it is more or less, (and for lask of better definition,) a lie detector for a mans dick. A monitor hooks little conductor thingys to a mans penis, (like a lie detector,) and then shows the individual pictures of males/females of all ages, to gage what it is that he becomes aroused to.

How do I know this? My Mom works in the legal field, and this is (or was) commonly used.

If he is innocent, he ought to have one done and show the results. I said the very same thing about Wacko Jacko when his accusations came up.

Just my two cents.

[paul calf]

Originally posted by Dixiecup
I think the question of the day is- Should the Gov'mt get the filth the broadcasts the shit first, or the slimy old bastard pedophiles who pay to see it?
Just my two cents.

well i think if you take away the slimy old bastards who pay to veiw these sites then the people who run them will have no audience to cater for,but they all deserve to be banged up and kept away from decent people.

[Mick]

Can't say I agree with that at all. Cocaine's not something I'd want to try myself, but I could see why some people could want to take it. I get what you're saying about how it can ruin people, but you need to be an extremely sick person to want to look at child porn, I don't think the same thing applies to taking cocaine.


Look, it was a metaphore, right? I didn't mean it as some kind of retort. My overall theme is that child porn is an epidemic, right? Clearly I am saying "down with child porn!" It is trippy of you to rebuttle my stance against child porn.


Ok, sorry for any misunderstanding :) Looking back on what I said, though, that'd be my reply to Pete's ludicrous comments.

Townshend's paper, which he once posted on his official web site, also notes that 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."

Eh? I wouldn't say I was particularly strong willed or uncurious, and whilst I'd be at my leisure to search the web for child porn, I've certainly never wanted to. I'm sure no normal* person would. What a muppet he really is. He's been surrounded by lawyers for the last few days, surely he could have contacted one before writing such drivel.

[Dixiecup]

The sad fact is, he is just another sick old bastard who get's his jollies watching little innocent children. Sick, Sick, Sick.

So, I say do the crime, do the time. Even though this opens a whole debate as to weather just 'viewing' it makes one a pedophile or not, my feeling is that one wouldn't view it, at all, period unless one got some form of arousal out of it. I takes more than morbid curiosity to go to one of those sites.

Besides, I think, (and remember this is only my wee little, humble opinion,) paying to see it is a precusor to more darker things. As they say, most serial killers start off torturing small animals. Drug users graduate to harder stuff. Naturally, there are always exceptions to the rules, but for the most part...

[Big Pudge]

what exactly IS child porn???

i mean like if i have a picture of my 17 year old gf butt ass naked... am i in possession of Child Porno???

what if i have a tape of me and my 17 year old gf having sex... am i in possession of child pornography??

(considering i am 18)

now im not saying i have these things (i aint denying either...) but it is a question i have!

[Dixiecup]

Well, according to the laws that govern our States, yes, you would be indeed doing something wrong. Wait till she's eighteen! lol...Seriously, that's the law, and Townsend violated it.

For instance, when you watch a porno video. (not that I ever have. lol...) at the end, it clearly states that all of the uh, 'actors' are over the age of 18, and gives the address of where the records are kept. Traci Lords was the obvious exception of that rule, and I think that's where the stiffer, (yeah, bad pun,) laws resulted from.

In Pete's case, we are talking about a guy that set out to view kiddie porn. Not a 17 1/2 yr. old fooling around, where it's just a semantics thing.

[Morgana]

I found this excerpt of a Pete Townshend essay at another music forum. I've read it, and I'm still not sure what to think. I don't want to be pig-headedly skeptical, a part of me thinks he's guilty. But then another part of me still wants to wait and see what the police digs up. I think you kids in the UK are updated faster, so if you can keep me informed I'd appreciate it.

"...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 ww.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 code, 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."

[Grebdron]

I'd like to believe all that, but I don't. Like I said before, if it is true that there is only one occurance of kiddie porn on his computer, then I'd believe him. But his comments about the "terminally uncurious" being the only ones who could lay off looking do not speak well for him.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Big Pudge
what exactly IS child porn???

i mean like if i have a picture of my 17 year old gf butt ass naked... am i in possession of Child Porno???

what if i have a tape of me and my 17 year old gf having sex... am i in possession of child pornography??

(considering i am 18)

now im not saying i have these things (i aint denying either...) but it is a question i have!

I think the law in the UK (which is what will be applied to Townshend's case, obviosuly) considers pictures or pseudo-pictures of persons under 16 years old to be classed as child porn. Distributors of the pornography, ie websites, have to use models" over 18 years old, though

What's the legal age for sex where you are, Pudge? I'd imagine the age for that would be the same as the porn becomes legal.

[Morgana]

Originally posted by Grebdron
But his comments about the "terminally uncurious" being the only ones who could lay off looking do not speak well for him.

Yeah, I agree. Comments such as this incriminate him more than absolve him.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Grebdron
I'd like to believe all that, but I don't. Like I said before, if it is true that there is only one occurance of kiddie porn on his computer, then I'd believe him.

I think he already stated he visited the site (the one he paid for) three or four times. I'd imagine it will be easy enough to find out how far into the site he's gone. Some officeress was on the news here saying the cases should be judged on their individual merits, and sentenced accordingly, but great bolshy yarblockos to that. "Well, your honour, I'm just a bit of a paedo just now"..... hmm....

Light punishments for most crimes don't act as a deterant a lot of the time, so for something of this nature it'd just be bloody useless. If someone's been sniffing around child porn, they've obviously got some serious problems that a "don't do that again, or you'll be off to the big barry place" kind of warning isn't going to solve. Anyone downloading child porn is a danger to society as far as I'm concerned, and it shouldn't matter if they've got 1 image or 200GB worth.

It's got exactly fuck all to do with curiousity, so there is no excuse. Downloading child porn isn't something you just try, so once they've started, chances are they'll keep downloading it and/or move onto carrying out the abuse themselves.

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.

Wether or not he deliberately downloaded the images, if they're in his cache then he's downloaded them while he's been looking at them, so yeah.

But his comments about the "terminally uncurious" being the only ones who could lay off looking do not speak well for him.

Agreed. All this says to me is that he thinks this is "normal" behaviour for a lot of people, which suggests he's a bit fucked up. What the hell is he thinking about with comments like that?

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Mick
[I think he already stated he visited the site (the one he paid for) three or four times. I'd imagine it will be easy enough to find out how far into the site he's gone.Whether or not he deliberately downloaded the images, if they're in his cache then he's downloaded them while he's been looking at them, so yeah.


Glad we mostly agree, Mick. I think he intimated that he only went there once. That's the impression I got. He went there once, tried to leave, and a dozen other windows popped up, each more horrific than the last. That IS easy to check on, and I'm sure they will.

Not looking good for old Chester Townshend.

[Dixiecup]

It's not looking good for old Chester Townsend.
Bahahaha! I couldn't have said it better, Greb! Seriously, that could very well have happened. However, I still have a problem with the whole 'research' thing...

[Mick]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Glad we mostly agree, Mick. I think he intimated that he only went there once. That's the impression I got. He went there once, tried to leave, and a dozen other windows popped up, each more horrific than the last.

Sorry, I've been taking information about this from various different sources and it probably isn't too clear. The site with all the pop-ups was the one he accidently found whilst searching for a site about Russian orphans. This then made him so angry that he gave some money to another paedo site so he could research; he's admitted to visiting the pay-site 3 or 4 times to help him write his autobiography.

Ignorance, stupidity, research and curiousity don't form a reasonable defence, so if they find anything I'm sure he'll go down.