Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LePaul on January 13, 2003, 02:30:45 PM
-
Arrested for child porn...
Article isn't clear...was he just "checking it out" or did he have a big ole stack of it?
Sad
-
He claims to be checking it out. it should be noted that he's well known for his stance on child porn - very much against it. he thinks he was sexually abused as a child and he wanted to see just what the pervos offer, to understand it better.
Or so he claims.
-
I wonder how he was caught.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
I wonder how he was caught.
AKDejaVu
Credit card info for folks who paid for porn, released from someone in Texas.
-
If he is so against child porn, why would he support the system of supply and demand by giving them money?
Sounds like a lame assed excuse from a paederast.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
If he is so against child porn, why would he support the system of supply and demand by giving them money?
Research! (according to him) Unrelated...but isn't he guitarist that "came out of the closet" a few years ago?
-
"(AP) - Rock star Pete Townshend of The Who has been arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, police said Monday. Scotland Yard announced that a 57-year-old man had been arrested on suspicion of making and possessing indecent images of children and of incitement to distribute indecent images of children. Police, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the suspect was Townshend."
Sounds like he was doing more than a bit of research, oh well, innocent until proven guilty.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
but isn't he guitarist that "came out of the closet" a few years ago?
Are trying to get me going?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Are trying to get me going?
do the full quote, thrawn, I said "Unrelated".
AKIron, here, you be the judge, jury, and executioner :D
(http://www.restorationfarms.com/hen.jpg)
-
That is sad, if true. I really respected him as a musician and even as a voice about the industry and its history.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
do the full quote, thrawn, I said "Unrelated
Sorry, me stoopid.
-
Yea...its one thing to stumble upon a picture that is like whoa...too young, delete delete delete...one of the work machines got a disturbing SPAM for "russian lolitas" or some thing with a picture of a naked kid..looked about 12 or so. But if one subscribes to a porn site that specializes in the stuff...that's a bit tougher to defend
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
...isn't he guitarist that "came out of the closet" a few years ago?
i don't think so rip- did he? i remember watching a 'rock-umentary' on queen or freddy mercury or something and they interviewed the who and they all seemed to be baggin' prettty hard on queen for being gay.
they asked entwhistle or townsend what they thought of the bassist from queen, they said right on the interview that they thought he was 'light on his loafers'. it was a riot, i don't think he's gay- maybe you're thinking of the singer from judas priest-
if he is being accused of 'making' porn, they probably have some good evidence - too bad, i liked that guy.
-
Ah, just answered my own question with a google search:
http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/gayfolks.html
Yep, he's the one.
-
I spent the whole day thinking Pete Townsend was someone else and was pretty bumbed about it. About 3 O'Clock I realized "Pete played for the Who... he's not who I was thinking of".... I was thinking he was Eric Clapton. I wasn't taking that well at all.
AKDejaVu
-
So Ripsnort, why bring his sexual orientation into this thread?
Or is it: He's gay, therefore he's a child molester? Or the other way round?
-
Originally posted by Wilfrid
So Ripsnort, why bring his sexual orientation into this thread?
Or is it: He's gay, therefore he's a child molester? Or the other way round?
You implied it, not I. I was just wondering if it was the same guy...was a few years back.
-
Gays and Child molestors... Both have been acceptable forms of sexual conduct depending upon time and culture - lets see how this statement pisses off everyone.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Gays and Child molestors... Both have been acceptable forms of sexual conduct depending upon time and culture - lets see how this statement pisses off everyone.
Not going to piss me off...because it is true.
Ancient Greeks had entire regiments of gay soldiers. The logic was that they would fight harder to protect their lovers in a battle.
Also..the ancient Greeks theorised that the purest form of love was between a man and a young boy.
-
Of course its true, thats why some are bound to pissed off. Imagine the implications of it...
-
Grunherz, what Curval wrote was not what you are now saying. He was not saying that gays are pre-disposed to be paedophiles. Most paedophiles can be described as heterosexual.
You are now spouting bollocks. Carry on.
-
No Ripsnort, you implied it by mentioning it twice in this thread.
And now you're doing equivalent of whistling innocently and walking away. "ME? *I* didn't say such a thing...."
-
Where did I even imply that... No BS explain how am "now saying"?
Or do you assume that because I'm an evil conservative or something?
-
Imagine the implications of it...
What was this supposed to mean then?
-
"Can you see the real me, preacher"
yes we do now Pete.
sad...
-
Moral implications about whats considered right and wrong. I doubt any of you who jump so quickly to defend homosexuality would ever defend peadophiles although it's clear that was just another accepted lifestyle choice depending on culture.
Keep in I am not making any value judgement on either practice.
-
Pete is the one on the right ..
(http://www.vegas.com/shows/who.jpg)
shame, it'll color their music created years ago from now on ...
-
I think the difference Grunherz is that children are not consenting adults, particularly young children. I see nothing wrong with what consenting adults do behind closed bedroom doors. If two men or two women want to swap bodily fluids I'm fine with that. Doesn't bother me, doesn't impact the future of the world, much less important than the jerk who cuts me off in traffic of tosses a chewing gum wrapper out the window. Perhaps I'm just more comfortable with my hetrosexuality than some :)
With a child you have a tremendous difference in power, coercion and rape is really the accurate description for a pedophile.
Charon
-
A child cannot give consent - it is therefore statutory rape (below the age of 16 over here anyway).
-
Eagler..he's the one in the middle.
-
But thats just a moral decision we make now, just as we have decided homesxuality is OK again... Its a subtle point I'm trying to make about what behavior people hold acceptable..
-
Originally posted by Curval
Eagler..he's the one in the middle.
hehe my mistake that's rodger on the right :)
-
Ripsnort, is correct. A few years ago he announced he was bisexual.
Karaya2
-
But thats just a moral decision we make now, just as we have decided homesxuality is OK again... Its a subtle point I'm trying to make about what behavior people hold acceptable..
I can agree to the extent that not too long ago a much older man marrying a 15-17 year-old girl wasn't all that uncommon, or even eye-raising. Similarly, it wasn't more than a few hundered years before that when weddings of 13 or 12-year old girls were commonplace. Of course when you lived to be 30 to 60 years old, and death during childbirth was common, those were more survival-related mores.
I do see a distinction though, a pretty major one, when you start to get below puberty. That applied back then as well.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Similarly, it wasn't more than a few hundered years before that when weddings of 13 or 12-year old girls were commonplace.
Although it was common to have a child bride. The marriages weren't usually consumated until the bride was around 15 years old.
One notable exception was John Lackland and his child bride of 12 years old. Most people were pretty disgusted that he would have sex with a 12 year old girl, wife or not.
-
Ripsnort...I remember Pete coming out of the closet. He claimed he was a woman or some confused thing like that.
Your link to the gay listing was also a bit disturbing...
Hell, we knew that the Indigo girls, Ellen, Boy George was gay but I found a few surprises in there like...
Dave Navarro
Iggy Pop
Ani DeFrance
Dave's getting married to Carmen Electra and I thought that Ani had a husband of many years...confusing.
-
when child brides were all the rage, wasn't a life span about 50 years?
-
You were thought to be an old man at 40.
http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/Fertilit.htm
From a biological point of view, you would want the child brides body to deveolpe more, better chance of her and her babies surviving.
-
What are the facts?..What was he caught with?...:confused:
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
What are the facts?..What was he caught with?...:confused:
Apparently he paid for a child porn site based out of the US with a visa card. The account information was passed on to the authorities.
-
In 1999 a child porn site run by a couple named Reedy was busted by the feds in Plano I believe . They were convicted and sentenced Mr reedy to life i think. They then pulled the customer lists from what they could recover, judges, lawers politicians etc. etc. Part of that list was sent to Scotland yard where they recovered anouther 1700 names or so. And low and behold one of those credit crd acct no.s belonged to Mr Townsend. And the rest of the story you know.
RafBader
-
50 police officers were also busted in the sting.. maybe they were doin research too.. hehe WHO knows..of coarse like always the star gets all the attention from the media.. anyway i heard he didnt pay for it he just gave his credit card # up to verify his age and he didnt actually DL any but you know when you visit any webpage the stuff gets stored in your cache, is that the same as DL'n it?
-
Maybe he'll write a song about the ordeal...."Pictures Of Billy"
-
Here's another fella. Caught in UK, then caught again in Cambodia. Can you name him?
-
Gary Glitter... and I certainly don't want to be in his gang.
He got kicked out of Cambodia for child sex charges, but he has now gone back.
Mirge - according to British law, even looking at pictures is equivalent to downloading. This in turn is equivalent to producing the pictures in the first place.
-
Research?
Maybe.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/petetownshend1.html
-
Talkin bout my maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasturbation.
-
Q:How does Pete Townsend know when it's time to go to bed?
A:When the big hand touches the little hand.
-
Guys, read that link I posted before you convict him. His lifes been ruined even if he's proven innocent.
-
Did you hear about Pete Townsend running down to Sears? He heard boys' shorts were half off.
-
According to the BBC, Mr Townsend has published a paper on child pornography.
Innocent until proven guilty remember? And in criminal cases, it's proven beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Girlfriend:"Pete,the newspapers are saying you are a pedophile..?"
Pete Townsend:"Pedophile?...That's a rather long word for a five year old to say.."
-
A Different Bomb
By
Pete Townshend
January 2002
For 'Cloud'
Part 1
This past week a friend of mine committed suicide. She was a forty-something actress, recovering from alcoholism. Although I am a recovering alcoholic myself I knew her best
through my work as a fund-raiser for treatment for those needing alcohol and drug rehabilitation. We first met about seven years ago. One day, in an open counselling session at which adult men and women of all ages were present, she suddenly revealed her central issue. From as early as she could remember, as an infant girl she had been sexually abused on a regular basis by her father, and in his presence by several of his friends.
At first, she referred to her father as a 'priest'. Later she revealed that these were members of some kind of religious cult. A charity with which I am involved paid for her to go for treatment for depression at The Priory last year. She was greatly improved when she came out. Partly I think because her story was believed. She had felt safe, and various innovative new therapeutic techniques promised to help her further. She became a day patient.
Within a few weeks she started to slide again, pleading to be allowed to go back in for further live-in treatment. There were no further funds available to pay for this. After a month or two, emotionally speaking she was back where she had started: at a rockbottom.
Her friends endured an oscillating love-loss relationship with her. She was funny, honest, energetic and smart. But she was often desperate for affection, attention and help.
As a result she could be exhausting. For all of us who helped her, including several women who themselves experienced similar sexual abuse as children, her suicide was both a tragedy and an act of brutal insanity. What pushed this woman to the brink was not self-obsession - though God knows she enjoyed her share, like any individual ensnared in alcohol or drug addiction - it was the fact that she discovered her father was in a new relationship and had access to some young children.
It seems then that the greatest terror for an adult who remembers sexual abuse is the thought that other children might suffer as they did.
In my writing in the past - especially Tommy - I have created unusually unmerciful worlds for any infant characters. I am often disturbed by what I see on the page when I write - never more so than when I draw on my own childhood. Some people who were abused in their childhood have written to me to say how much they identify with the
character of Tommy. But what is powerful in my own writing, and sometimes most difficult to control and model, is the unconscious material I draw on. It is what is unconscious in me that makes me scream for vengeance against my friend's abusers, rather than an adult understanding of what went wrong.
I remember no specific sexual abuse, though when I was young I was treated in an extremely controlling and aggressive way by my maternal grandmother. This is not
unusual. It might be described by some as insignificant. Almost everyone I know experienced similar stuff at some time or other - many friends experienced more extreme
'abuses' and have no obvious adult vices as a result.
On the issue of child-abuse, the climate in the press, the police, and in Government in the UK at the moment is one of a witch-hunt. This may well be the natural response triggered by cases like that of my friend who committed suicide. But I believe it is rather more a reaction to the 'freedoms' that are now available to us all to enter into the reality of a world that most of us would have to admit has hitherto been kept secret. The world of which I speak is that of the abusive paedophile. The window of 'freedom' of entry to that world is of course the internet.
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 newsagents. 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. 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. Vigilante campaigners I have contacted on the internet tell me that many porn sites that claim to feature underage subjects do not - in fact - do so.
Many that are 'genuine' do feature much the same content on the inside as they do on their free pop-up pages that litter search engines. So why do these pornographers bother
with us at all? They can't be getting rich. Why can't they remain secret?
As someone who runs a 'commercial' website of my own I am fully aware of how direct the avenue is between the provider and the user of any internet site. I am also
aware - as are most people today I think - of how easy it is to trigger the attention of an internet service provider (ISP) when certain 'buzz-words' are used in a search. These are, in effect, words - or combinations of words - that alert attention at the ISP.
This first came to my attention when in 1997 a man who had briefly worked for me was arrested in the UK for downloading paedophilic pornography. I was cautious of
openly condemning him. He had performed in one of my musicals and was a popular figure in the soft-pop pantomime of the UK music scene. When he went to trial, the buzzword
that the newspapers kept reprinting - that he had allegedly used in his regular internet searches - was 'lolita'. A few weeks into the trial The Guardian newspaper revealed that http://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. They may have been vigilantes. I'm fairly certain that in most cases 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 alidation 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 you try to leave a site upon which you may have unwittingly stumbled, another similar - or worse - site immediately
pops up. When you try to shut that site, another pops up, then another, then another, the content getting more and more extreme until your 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 you have unwillingly 'visited'. All of which will have a record of your computer's unique address.
It was obvious to me (though obviously not to the rest of the country) while the man I knew was on trial, that 'lolita' is not a word to use carelessly when searching the internet - even if one happened to be studying Nabokov for a literature degree. So I had
my first encounter with internet paedophilia by accident.
Ethan Silverman, a film director friend, had made an extremely moving documentary about an American couple who adopted a Russian boy. As a charity fundraiser (and, I suppose, 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 and my experience was anything to go by, 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. With someone on trial who had once been connected with me - however loosely - I spoke off-the-record to a lawyer instead. He advised me to do nothing. He advised me that I most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence'. So I did as he advised. Nothing.
cont...............
-
I mentioned my own internet experience to a few people close to me. The trial of the man who had been in my musical was on everyone's agenda. It became clear very
quickly that some people I spoke to were sceptical of me. I think they 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 porn. But I learned through this accident that such images were 'freely' available through the machinery of common search engines and User-Groups, and openly available for sale through subscription via credit card. I was then concerned that there would be those 'providers' of paedophilic porn who felt the need to regularly 'refresh' their supply of images. It is a chilling thought isn't it? Even so, I found myself wondering whether that thought brought fears for me that were, perhaps, quite out of proportion with reality:
maybe I was stirring my own subconscious memories; maybe I was just being pompous.
Now my friend has joined a long line of suicides who were sexually abused as children, and I feel I must speak up.
Since 1997 I have been attempting to prepare some kind of document with respect to all this for wider publication. My feeling is that if internet service providers (ISPs) can be
enlisted by the police and other authorities to 'snoop' and provide information about customers downloading illegal pornography, they could just as easily filter search terms -or better yet, practice combinations of such search terms on a regular basis and then block specific site names. Many ISPs do such work. It is part of their regular housekeeping. But the pornographers are rich, determined, and - in the area of under-age pornography - criminal. Banned sites are replicated, renamed and replaced in days.
Why am I suddenly writing this today? My friend who committed suicide was the victim of an active but secret ring of paedophiles. They are still at large today. Only those who knew my friend, and believed her story, feel any urge to speak up against her abusers. But we have no proof. It is frustrating, but for her, at least, the pain is over.
Meanwhile, on the internet, vigilante groups and individuals work tirelessly and 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.
It has all gone public now. The ISP I use allows access to User Groups by using the term 'alt' as a prefix. In 'Google' (a popular search engine) it is possible to reach a questionable array of offered sex sites with very few key-strokes, 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 open
themselves up to internet 'snoops'. Many are willing to take the risk. They believe the pathways themselves must be closed. They 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.
I understand the police believe that snooping on the internet might lead them to active paedophiles - their philosophy being that it is the ones who are secret who do the damage. In the case of my suicide friend I would have to agree. However, in other countries children are not so precious. Brazil, Russia and Thailand all have well-known
and tragic orphanages and street-children problems, and these countries probably provide source material for many sites.
In my work fund-raising in the field of drug and alcohol rehabilitation I have come across hundreds of individuals from the UK and Europe whose problems have been triggered by childhood abuse. Not always, but often, the abuse is sexual. Sometimes it is quite minor, but even in those cases - for some reason - spectacularly damaging. Not all
addicts and alcoholics are victims. They are, perhaps, a minority. But among those afflicted by addiction abuse is terribly common. In some cases, what is so distressing is
how little it takes. For me, a few minor incidents seem to have created a dark side to my nature which thankfully emerges only in creative work like Tommy. It is not statistically true that all abusers of children were once themselves abused. That can happen, but often - as in the case of my suicide friend - abuse is part of a reward system of power conferred from one adult person to another. But among pornographers only validation and cash matter. 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.
Many returning from my friend's funeral had wanted to punch her father who was present. But they restrained themselves. Many present were recovering alcoholics. They are not given to witch-hunts. They are wary of hypocrisy. But given the chance, many of them would have told their own stories about what was done to them by abusers sodden with drink or numb with drugs, and possibly what they themselves did 'under the influence' that was equally reprehensible. But if abusers and their accomplices are not necessarily victims of abuse, and not necessarily men, then they are also not necessarily drunk or drugged. 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(1).
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
paedophilic 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.
(1) Software to filter out and block porn at home is often too complex and sweeping to do the job, or too
feeble. At the moment, it's all we have. I recommend CyberPatrol - http://www.cyberpatrol.com - it isn't easy to
set up, but it is powerful. Once it is running it begins to make the internet feel a much friendlier and safer
place for our children