Should The Who (and Pete Townsend) be allowed to perform at the Super Bowl

New Posts

Wise Old Owl

Wise Old Owl

Retired WS Staff & Founding member of AFKBPOFPOPL
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
13,866
Reaction score
2,312
Wasn't sure where this story belonged, here or in the Parking Lot - mods please move if appropriate.

In a nutshell:

Some group is trying to not only ban The Who from their Super Bowl performance but to not allow Pete Townsend into the country at all. It stems back to an investigation a few years back with Townsend and online child *advertiser censored*.

Now, I haven't done enough research to form my own opinion yet - however, Townsend was never charged and everything was dropped. For what that is worth.

Here's the article:

Ban the WHO's Pete Townshend from the Super Bowl?

> Posted by Barbara Hijek on December 28, 2009 11:25 AM
What???

No Pete at the Super Bowl on Feb. 7?

The Who is supposed to headline, but Pete Townshend, one of the rowdy rockers, has caused a problem.

In 2003, he was arrested in London on charges of suspicion of possessing child *advertiser censored*.
At the time he issued a statement saying he'd paid to enter an Internet site advertising child *advertiser censored* "purely to see what was there" as research to fight the crime. He was cleared of possessing pornographic images of children but still was placed on a national register of sex offenders in England.


http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/new...g/2009/12/should_the_whos_pete_townshend.html


I look forward to the respectful discussion I know all our sleuthers will have.
 
He's a crime fighter in his spare time?

:waitasec:

Sounds like a self serving statement

Sounds to me like some sort of plea agreement was made..............
 
I remember when this happened. I always felt like it was a poor excuse for having child *advertiser censored* on your computer.

I'm not sure how I feel about The Who performing at the Super Bowl.
 
DA**IT!!!!! I love the Who. But in my mind I just can't get past those charges.
 
If I remember correctly, at the time of the occurrence he also stated that he was writing a book which included admission of the abuse he suffered as a child at the hands of someone he knew (maybe a relative).

He very well could have been doing some sort of research so he could write something logical about the progression of child abuse from his time to modern times. We don't know.

Wikipedia said:
Although best known for his musical compositions and musicianship, Pete Townshend has been extensively involved in the literary world for more than three decades, writing newspaper and magazine articles, book reviews, essays, books, and scripts.
Click to expand...

What we do know is that he hasn't done anything since. And given that and his extensive charity work (including Amnesty International), I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt this time and chalk it up to a very, extremely dumb idea for book research.

Wikipedia said:
Townshend has been an active champion of children’s charities. The debut of Pete Townshend’s stage version of Tommy took place at San Diego’s La Jolla Playhouse in July 1992. The show was earmarked as a benefit for the London-based Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy Foundation, an organization which helps children with autism and mental retardation.
Townshend performed at a 1995 benefit organized by Paul Simon at Madison Square Garden's Paramount Theatre, for The Children’s Health Fund. The following year, Townshend performed at a benefit for the Bridge School Benefit, a California facility for children with severe speech and physical impairments with concerts organized by Neil Young each year. In 1997, Townshend established a relationship with Maryville Academy, a Chicago area children’s charity. Between 1997 and 2002, Townshend played five benefit shows for Maryville Academy, raising at least $1,600,000. His 1998 album A Benefit for Maryville Academy was made to support their activities and proceeds from the sales of his release were donated to them.
As a member of The Who, Pete Townshend has also performed a series of concerts, beginning in 2000, benefitting the Teenage Cancer Trust in the UK, raising several million pounds. In 2005, Townshend performed at New York’s Gotham Hall for Samsung’s Four Seasons of Hope, an annual children's charity fundraiser, and donated a smashed guitar to the the Pediatric Epilepsy Project.[24]
Click to expand...
 
He clicked on the site to see what was there? Huh? Maybe he was doing research for his book. I really don't know what to think - whatever his excuse. Well...I just hope we don't get fooled again....
 
Gypsy Road said:
He clicked on the site to see what was there? Huh? Maybe he was doing research for his book. I really don't know what to think - whatever his excuse. Well...I just hope we don't get fooled again....
Click to expand...
LOL Gypsy...good one! Let settle it and invite U2 to play
icon10.gif
 
Interesting that this should come up so recently. Myself and quite a few fellow WS members just today were checking out a questionable website to see it should be reported.

I'd be pretty annoyed and insulted if someone was accusing/charging me with child *advertiser censored* related crimes when I really do have a perfectly good reason for checking out this site. Not to mention the fact that it makes me personally ill and would be horrified if people thought I would look at it for my own enjoyment.

I guess I'm not sure what to think about this.
 
NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. JMO. I think you should add a poll.
 
SWAG1959 said:
Wasn't sure where this story belonged, here or in the Parking Lot - mods please move if appropriate.

In a nutshell:

Some group is trying to not only ban The Who from their Super Bowl performance but to not allow Pete Townsend into the country at all. It stems back to an investigation a few years back with Townsend and online child *advertiser censored*.

Now, I haven't done enough research to form my own opinion yet - however, Townsend was never charged and everything was dropped. For what that is worth.

Here's the article:

Ban the WHO's Pete Townshend from the Super Bowl?

> Posted by Barbara Hijek on December 28, 2009 11:25 AM
What???

No Pete at the Super Bowl on Feb. 7?

The Who is supposed to headline, but Pete Townshend, one of the rowdy rockers, has caused a problem.

In 2003, he was arrested in London on charges of suspicion of possessing child *advertiser censored*.
At the time he issued a statement saying he'd paid to enter an Internet site advertising child *advertiser censored* "purely to see what was there" as research to fight the crime. He was cleared of possessing pornographic images of children but still was placed on a national register of sex offenders in England.


http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/new...g/2009/12/should_the_whos_pete_townshend.html



I look forward to the respectful discussion I know all our sleuthers will have.
Click to expand...

To be honest i dont get that at all. I am English and i dont understand if he was found to be not guilty of anything why he was placed on the Sex Offenders List. That generally happens after a conviction and to be put on there...would indicate they thought he had done something to deserve to be on there.


By the way because someone does a lot of charity work it doesnt mean they cant be involved in anything dodgy. Ie look at Gary Glitter ( if you guys know who he is).

Also even IF you are writing a book like there..there is really no need to join that site and look at little kids.
 
Laece said:
Interesting that this should come up so recently. Myself and quite a few fellow WS members just today were checking out a questionable website to see it should be reported.

I'd be pretty annoyed and insulted if someone was accusing/charging me with child *advertiser censored* related crimes when I really do have a perfectly good reason for checking out this site. Not to mention the fact that it makes me personally ill and would be horrified if people thought I would look at it for my own enjoyment.

I guess I'm not sure what to think about this.
Click to expand...

Why were you guys doing this and not just reporting it to Innocent Images at the FBI? What if all of your IP's have been captured because LE is looking at it already???:waitasec:
 
believe09 said:
Why were you guys doing this and not just reporting it to Innocent Images at the FBI? What if all of your IP's have been captured because LE is looking at it already???:waitasec:
Click to expand...

We weren't really sure whether it should be reported, where it would be reported, if it was fake/fantasy site, etc. And if LE is already looking at it, they can clearly see some of the IPs match those that are doing the reporting. Or they can be directed to our conversations on this site about that thread, which also included our discussions regarding WHY we were checking out/reporting the site, and also involved moderators directing us as to what we should do. Shouldn't be that difficult. We aren't all a bunch of perverts, we were trying to do the right thing. I'm sure this has happened to other people, too. Hence the nature of this thread.
 
Laece said:
We aren't all a bunch of perverts, we were trying to do the right thing. I'm sure this has happened to other people, too. Hence the nature of this thread.
Click to expand...

However Townsend paid to join the site where these images were at. He didnt just happen to stumble on a picture. He actually became of a member of a *advertiser censored* site despicting pictures of kids :(
 
Gypsy Road said:
He clicked on the site to see what was there? Huh? Maybe he was doing research for his book. I really don't know what to think - whatever his excuse. Well...I just hope we don't get fooled again....
Click to expand...

It wasnt a case of just clicking on the site. He actually joined to become a member and paid to do so..
 
believe09 said:
Why were you guys doing this and not just reporting it to Innocent Images at the FBI? What if all of your IP's have been captured because LE is looking at it already???:waitasec:
Click to expand...

Then they will never be invited to appear at the Super Bowl!
"Laece and the Sleuthers"?
 
On reading up some more about this to refresh my memory Townshend was given a police caution for paying to join a site that had pictures of children being abused and was put on the sex register at the same time as being given the caution.

Being put on the Sex register would stop him being allowed to work in a lot of different jobs here OR with children. Personally i dont think someone on the register should be able to perform at the Super Bowl but..im not American so...


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article78212.ece
 
No, they're British. They have their own football.
 
Isabella said:
On reading up some more about this to refresh my memory Townshend was given a police caution for paying to join a site that had pictures of children being abused and was put on the sex register at the same time as being given the caution.

Being put on the Sex register would stop him being allowed to work in a lot of different jobs here OR with children. Personally i dont think someone on the register should be able to perform at the Super Bowl but..im not American so...


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article78212.ece
Click to expand...


Well, I'm American and happen to agree. No, he shouldn't preform.
 
I wasnt picking on people doing research, but there are all kinds of ways to do research imo that do not involve getting too deep into a fantasy/fake/possibly child *advertiser censored* site. Just a word of caution that is all.

O/T but a sleuther here discovered a missing child on a social networking site and a google search of the name brought up a *advertiser censored* site. The links were sufficient to send to Innocent Images-the sleuther did not do any further research as she might have been participating, albeit unwittingly, in the exploitation.

In this case, Townsend joined a site that was known to carry images of children being raped. Period. He used his own credit card. He presented a number of reasons for doing it which are, imo, immaterial. Simply paying for the site was encouragement for the monsters who broadcast this material to continue doing it. Again JMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 72 more.
Total: 1,449 (members: 73, guests: 1,376)

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
1,376
Total visitors
1,449
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,786
Messages
17,958,873
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top