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

[Isabella]

Now there's someone whose music I'm not familiar with - though I am familiar with his legal woes.

Lol i do at least know his records which is an improvement

Some of his records were great back in there day

[video=youtube;UWa7V17n2no]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWa7V17n2no[/video]
was probably one of his most famous songs.

 

[southcitymom]

I object to pete playing as long as he's on a sex offender list. I think it send the wrong message.

Yes, I think Michael Jackson was a pedophile and I believe there isn't a pedophile out there that doesn't know it. Watching people excuse the obvious and defend the undefendable because a person is famous sickens me to the core. Yes, I felt the same when he was alive. Watching the media and his fans after his death....made my skin crawl. It send the wrong message to pedophiles and it sends the wrong message to child victims of sexual abuse and exploitation.

I wouldn't exactly say it leads to hero worship...there has to be a way to recognise a pedophiles positive contributions while still holding them accountable. Too many people refuse to believe a person is a pedophile because they made some sort of contribution. People don't tend to be completely and totally evil. The most successful pedophiles are respected and pillars of their communities, well liked and trusted. How else would they gain access to other peoples children? They present themselves as caring about children and children's causes.

Excellent response. This is something I have spent some time contemplating - as a very liberal minded person when it comes to the arts, but also as a person committed to the protection of our most innocent society members.

FWIW, I'm not sure if Michael Jackson or Pete Townsend are molesters, but certainly I agree that there's enough evidence out there for people to fairly feel that they are. That said, I own none of their music and never have, though I have enjoyed music from both of them from time to time - on the radio and what not.

I'm not sure where I stand on the giving PT a public platform even though he is on the sex offender list. As a general rule, I have some concerns about that list. In Pete's case, I wonder why he's on it when he wasn't convicted of anything, but I guess there could have been a plea bargain....it's just all very non-direct, you know?

 

[shannon2008]

Hmm..i can honestly say no its not a standard practice for them to be put on a sex register list. Its the first time i have EVER heard of it happening in this country without there being a court case. They arent put on there for no reason because of the social implications it entails and to be honest its not a list most people want to be on so...why agree to go on it if he had done nothing wrong.

When Paul Reubens charges were dropped here in the US in 2002, he still had to register as a sex offender for 3 years. It does happen, maybe it just happens to high profile cases like this.

I am not "hero-worshipping" anybody, and I'm not even that much of a fan of the Who. I am saying that it's not black & white, and none of us here have any right to persecute him any longer. None of us personally know him or what happened. It was 2003, he's not on the register any longer, he's not been caught doing anything else OR giving anyone any suspicions of doing things, all charges were dropped.

The Smoking Gun has a treatise that he wrote in 2002 (before the charges) on the pathway and availability of child *advertiser censored*:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/petetownshend1.html

 

[southcitymom]

Lol i do at least know his records which is an improvement

Some of his records were great back in there day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWa7V17n2no was probably one of his most famous songs.

Thanks - he is quite the showman and that tune is catchy!

 

[southcitymom]

When Paul Reubens charges were dropped here in the US in 2002, he still had to register as a sex offender for 3 years. It does happen, maybe it just happens to high profile cases like this.

I am not "hero-worshipping" anybody, and I'm not even that much of a fan of the Who. I am saying that it's not black & white, and none of us here have any right to persecute him any longer. None of us personally know him or what happened. It was 2003, he's not on the register any longer, he's not been caught doing anything else OR giving anyone any suspicions of doing things, all charges were dropped.

The Smoking Gun has a treatise that he wrote in 2002 (before the charges) on the pathway and availability of child *advertiser censored*:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/petetownshend1.html

UBM:

That's the thing. You'd think that if the authorities were really serious about the sex offender registry, things wouldn't be so murky. You can end up on that list for public urination, for heaven's sake....it just makes me wary - like they use it for some bargaining chip as opposed to being a real way to warn the public of real dangers.

I've always been of a mind to give Pete the benefit of the doubt about all this.

 

[Linda7NJ]

When Paul Reubens charges were dropped here in the US in 2002, he still had to register as a sex offender for 3 years. It does happen, maybe it just happens to high profile cases like this.

I am not "hero-worshipping" anybody, and I'm not even that much of a fan of the Who. I am saying that it's not black & white, and none of us here have any right to persecute him any longer. None of us personally know him or what happened. It was 2003, he's not on the register any longer, he's not been caught doing anything else OR giving anyone any suspicions of doing things, all charges were dropped.

The Smoking Gun has a treatise that he wrote in 2002 (before the charges) on the pathway and availability of child *advertiser censored*:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/petetownshend1.html

Paul Reubens was touching himself in a darkened adult movie theater, right?
IMO He never belonged on the list.

 

[shannon2008]

I already mentioned it in another post, but in 2003 he had to register for 5 years. That would have been in 2008. It's now almost 7 years (he was charged in January, don't remember when he had to register).

 

[Linda7NJ]

UBM:

That's the thing. You'd think that if the authorities were really serious about the sex offender registry, things wouldn't be so murky. You can end up on that list for public urination, for heaven's sake....it just makes me wary - like they use it for some bargaining chip as opposed to being a real way to warn the public of real dangers.

I've always been of a mind to give Pete the benefit of the doubt about all this.

Absolutely!

In NJ it actually states the crime.

 

[Isabella]

Excellent response. This is something I have spent some time contemplating - as a very liberal minded person when it comes to the arts, but also as a person committed to the protection of our most innocent society members.

FWIW, I'm not sure if Michael Jackson or Pete Townsend are molesters, but certainly I agree that there's enough evidence out there for people to fairly feel that they are. That said, I own none of their music and never have, though I have enjoyed music from both of them from time to time - on the radio and what not.

I'm not sure where I stand on the giving PT a public platform even though he is on the sex offender list. As a general rule, I have some concerns about that list. In Pete's case, I wonder why he's on it when he wasn't convicted of anything, but I guess there could have been a plea bargain....it's just all very non-direct, you know?

We dont have plea bargains here firstly. The police files go to CPS and they will decide what action if any is to to be taken. We cant plea like you guys do. He wasnt convicted BUT he was cautioned and well..people who are considered to be innocent arent generally given a caution even. Part of his punishment so to speak ( the caution) was to go on the se register. The concerns i have about the sex register is for if a 17 yr old slept with a 15 yr old and didnt know she was 15 but thats not even remotely the case here.

 

[Isabella]

When Paul Reubens charges were dropped here in the US in 2002, he still had to register as a sex offender for 3 years. It does happen, maybe it just happens to high profile cases like this.

I am not "hero-worshipping" anybody, and I'm not even that much of a fan of the Who. I am saying that it's not black & white, and none of us here have any right to persecute him any longer. None of us personally know him or what happened. It was 2003, he's not on the register any longer, he's not been caught doing anything else OR giving anyone any suspicions of doing things, all charges were dropped.

The Smoking Gun has a treatise that he wrote in 2002 (before the charges) on the pathway and availability of child *advertiser censored*:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/petetownshend1.html

Yes...but thats America and not here. Like i said you generally go on the list AFTER being convicted here.

 

[southcitymom]

Absolutely!

In NJ it actually states the crime.

Yeah - I know some states do state the crime and some don't. The crime should definitely be stated for someone to wind up on that list!

 

[panthera]

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....

(bolding mine)

When it was announced they'd be playing at the Super Bowl ~ in Miami ~ I thought how cool is that since that song is used as the theme for CSI: Miami!!!

My opinion is give him the benefit of the doubt and let them play.

 

[shannon2008]

Paul Reubens was touching himself in a darkened adult movie theater, right?
IMO He never belonged on the list.

No that happened in the 80's.

In 2002 a man that owed him a sum of money in a business deal called the police and said he possessed child *advertiser censored*. The "*advertiser censored*" he claimed Reubens possessed was the infamous Rob Lowe sex tape (among other celebrity memorabilia) and some art prints and muscle magazines from many many years ago.

The judge dropped the charges because none of so-called teens in the magazines would even be alive today, and therefore judged that it was art. Reubens admitted to having an adult erotic art collection but nothing with children in it, and was adamant that he would never harm any child. Reubens is, from all I've read, an obsessive compulsive hoarder who even keeps old grease cans, and his purchaser testified that he would buy this erotic art in bulk lots and often without anyone knowing what all was in the lots until it was sent to Reubens and unpackaged.

Even though the judge sided with him and dropped the charges, he was still required to register for 3 years without any contact with children w/o parental supervision. I really do think that that is a precautionary measure of some sorts.

 

[Isabella]

Even though the judge sided with him and dropped the charges, he was still required to register for 3 years without any contact with children w/o parental supervision. I really do think that that is a precautionary measure of some sorts.

I dont know how it works there but having just read this..IF someone is put on a sex register without a trial it means " there under a serious risk of sexual offending".

 

[Linda7NJ]

No that happened in the 80's.

In 2002 a man that owed him a sum of money in a business deal called the police and said he possessed child *advertiser censored*. The "*advertiser censored*" he claimed Reubens possessed was the infamous Rob Lowe sex tape (among other celebrity memorabilia) and some art prints and muscle magazines from many many years ago.

The judge dropped the charges because none of so-called teens in the magazines would even be alive today, and therefore judged that it was art. Reubens admitted to having an adult erotic art collection but nothing with children in it, and was adamant that he would never harm any child. Reubens is, from all I've read, an obsessive compulsive hoarder who even keeps old grease cans, and his purchaser testified that he would buy this erotic art in bulk lots and often without anyone knowing what all was in the lots until it was sent to Reubens and unpackaged.

Even though the judge sided with him and dropped the charges, he was still required to register for 3 years without any contact with children w/o parental supervision. I really do think that that is a precautionary measure of some sorts.

I had forgotten all about that! Thank you!

 

[shannon2008]

I dont know how it works there but having just read this..IF someone is put on a sex register without a trial it means " there under a serious risk of sexual offending".

Reubens was on trial. He was charged in 2002 and went to trial in 2004, and the charges weren't dropped until 2004.

Also, even if that is the reason the they had PT register it doesn't mean that he absolutely will offend. Which is basically exactly what I have been saying...it's a precautionary measure because they already got themselves into a suspicious situation.

 

[Isabella]

Reubens was on trial. He was charged in 2002 and went to trial in 2004, and the charges weren't dropped until 2004.

Also, even if that is the reason the they had PT register it doesn't mean that he absolutely will offend. Which is basically exactly what I have been saying...it's a precautionary measure because they already got themselves into a suspicious situation.

However that was in the States and not here. Its two different countries. Your absolutely correct it doesnt mean he WILL offend but that they think there is a serious chance he will which to me suggest thats the police did not believe his version of what happened at all.

 

[Isabella]

By the way something else to consider...he AGREED to go on the sex register when he went back to be cautioned. To go on the sex register isnt something done lightly. He could have refused the caution and said he wanted to go to court and fight being on the sex register for 5 years. He chose NOT to do so...even though this could have cleared the rumours against him,

 

[shannon2008]

Keep in mind that he was under the advisement of a lawyer at the time, and the lawyer was the one who told him not to report any of the websites he looked at to the police. PT says he was intent on calling the police until the lawyer told him he should not.

The same lawyer could just as well have advised him that it would be better to just take the 5 years on the list with no charges, than the expense of a battle in court and a further assault on his reputation.

Many celebrity lawyers are good at pointing out what looks best in court but it usually ends up looking awful in the court of public opinion. It wouldn't have been the first time a lawyer gave bad advice to someone in the public eye that turned out to be a bad idea. But a lot of people will take a lawyer's word and do exactly what they say.

The lawyer should never have told him not to report it in the first place. If he had reported it, PT wouldn't have been in the situation he's in now.

(Not to say that it's all the lawyer's fault, because PT did use a credit card on the website. And maybe it's because he knows he did this and shouldn't have that he accepted being put on the list.)

Keep in mind that just about anyone of us here that visit suspicious websites in the interest of research, whether it be a site like this or drug/terrorism/etc.-related, could have this same exact thing happen to us. Heck, just by visiting this site alone with all it's keywords relating to crime could raise eyebrows to some less-knowledgable LE somewhere. Most of us would not dare use a credit card at any of these sites, but just by having our IP's logged there we could be put in an embarrassing situation.

 

[Isabella]

Keep in mind that he was under the advisement of a lawyer at the time, and the lawyer was the one who told him not to report any of the websites he looked at to the police. PT says he was intent on calling the police until the lawyer told him he should not.

The same lawyer could just as well have advised him that it would be better to just take the 5 years on the list with no charges, than the expense of a battle in court and a further assault on his reputation.

Many celebrity lawyers are good at pointing out what looks best in court but it usually ends up looking awful in the court of public opinion. It wouldn't have been the first time a lawyer gave bad advice to someone in the public eye that turned out to be a bad idea. But a lot of people will take a lawyer's word and do exactly what they say.

The lawyer should never have told him not to report it in the first place. If he had reported it, PT wouldn't have been in the situation he's in now.

(Not to say that it's all the lawyer's fault, because PT did use a credit card on the website. And maybe it's because he knows he did this and shouldn't have that he accepted being put on the list.)

Keep in mind that just about anyone of us here that visit suspicious websites in the interest of research, whether it be a site like this or drug/terrorism/etc.-related, could have this same exact thing happen to us. Heck, just by visiting this site alone with all it's keywords relating to crime could raise eyebrows to some less-knowledgable LE somewhere. Most of us would not dare use a credit card at any of these sites, but just by having our IP's logged there we could be put in an embarrassing situation.

The problem is because Townshend said it was all the lawyers fault and that he wanted to do this doesnt mean its true. Yes any of us could go to a suspicious site BUT we do not use payment to make sure we get onto sites that look "dodgy".

I personally find it hard to believe any lawyer would tell there client its better to go on the sex register list than to try and clear your name. Especially someone like him. Townshend accepted a caution. If your innocent you do NOT accept cautions and nor do you go on a sex register. If innocent and your lawyer really did suggest that the logical thing would be to go for a second opinion. Not forgetting that he would have had a decent lawyer who could have cleared his name in court...IF innocent.