Will Ed's favorite band be BANNED from the Super Bowl?

on2legs

Looks like a movement to ban Pete Townsend from performing at the Super Bowl is gaining steam...

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/12/29/who- ... uper-bowl/

Wasn't this settled already?

Should we even care?

LloydXmas

I hate super bowl half time shows. For me they serve as extra time for me to leave the party and get home in time for the 2nd half.

Either way, some people have too much time on their hands. These people need to get a life

Gary Carter

Yes this was settled years ago and he was proved not guilty. He was using the child porn for a project he was doing on the dangers of child porn. Pete donates a lota money to childrens charities.

helplessdancer

whats is sad is people love to dwell on the negatives and they wont ever look past what the fucking media says. the media sensationalizes print/words to sell for moeny. truth or not

i loathe even responding to this thread and giving it anymore negative coverage :evil:

jecica

Don't most people realize that when you hear the band The Who, the first thing we think of isn't child porn charges? I don't see anyone protesting The Pianist. I dislike special interest groups.

12345AGNST1

I didn't even know he had a record for that... WTF?

LloydXmas

Maybe the religous right should worry about this instead

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/loca ... e=Facebook

PureandEasy

Jesus Christ, are you fucking kidding me?

People need to research shit before they get on their high horses.

This is such a non-issue and was resolved years ago.

Man this just pissed me off.

redeye

yea that shit is history, it cant be hung over his and the bands head, at the end of the day the guy was proved innocent, period

jimed14

All these people did is make more and more people think about child porn.

As stated above, no one thinks of child porn when it comes to The Who.

People who actively find shit to be angry about because they have nothing better to do would better serve this world by working soup kitchens or habitat for humanity or something of the like ... something positive.

If this somehow works, if The Who are replaced, I'd love it if PJ took over their spot and changed it up on the organizers and played only Who songs on stage ... I hope whomever was chosen in that scneario does that actually.

theboxerorthebag

this is stupid. And it was resolved years ago. Find something better to do with your time people!

MisterEtake2

metsfan wrote:

Yes this was settled years ago and he was proved not guilty. He was using the child porn for a project he was doing on the dangers of child porn. Pete donates a lota money to childrens charities.

If an average joe gets busted for child pornography and claims he was using it for research purposes, do the charges get dismissed? Just asking.

Being that he wasn't proven guilty, there's no reason the Who shouldn't perform at the Superbowl. It will be very amusing to see the sixteen year olds rock out to songs they never heard in their lives. According to someone on the field for Springsteen last year, if you're on the field, you can't even hear the band.

BinFrog

MisterEtake2 wrote:

If an average joe gets busted for child pornography and claims he was using it for research purposes, do the charges get dismissed? Just asking.

That's been my view all along. I think a lot of people are quick to not want to think he did it because he is, well, Pete Townsend. Just because he is a rock star who writes amazing music and apparently donates a lot of money to children's causes, does not mean he is without fault. I'm sorry, but in my mind a situation in which a guy whose CREDIT CARD info was found on a child porn investigation, and then claims he was using the info for research, doesn't add up. I am not saying he is innocent or guilty, but if he truly was doing research, then he is ridiculously stupid for not alerting the authorities first and organizing it.

dreamweaver

that guy has little to no class...

jimed14

dreamweaver wrote:

that guy has little to no class...

:?:

Brisk.

didnt know about this!

Is is true???

dreamweaver

jimed14 wrote:

dreamweaver wrote:

that guy has little to no class...

:?:

the guy who wrote the article is a p.o.s.

PureandEasy

BinFrog wrote:

MisterEtake2 wrote:

If an average joe gets busted for child pornography and claims he was using it for research purposes, do the charges get dismissed? Just asking.

That's been my view all along. I think a lot of people are quick to not want to think he did it because he is, well, Pete Townsend. Just because he is a rock star who writes amazing music and apparently donates a lot of money to children's causes, does not mean he is without fault. I'm sorry, but in my mind a situation in which a guy whose CREDIT CARD info was found on a child porn investigation, and then claims he was using the info for research, doesn't add up. I am not saying he is innocent or guilty, but if he truly was doing research, then he is ridiculiusly stupid for not alerting the authorities first and organizing it.

Well that's just it, BinFrog, HE DID NOTIFY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO ACCESSING ANY SITE, it was another agency sting that resulted in his arrest - along with a large number of other individuals. After all was said and done there was no evidence otherwise to indicate any wrong doing.

Again, if people didn't jump to conclusions . . .

jimed14

dreamweaver wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

dreamweaver wrote:

that guy has little to no class...

:?:

the guy who wrote the article is a p.o.s.

ok ... wasn't sure who you were referring to.

Poncier

Maybe the Eagles can make it to the Super Bowl and Donova McNabb can get injured late in the NFC title game, forcing Michael Vick to start...and while the Patriots and Eagles battle inside the stadium, the animal rights protesters can take on the kiddie porn protesters outside.

MisterEtake2

"Well that's just it, BinFrog, HE DID NOTIFY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO ACCESSING ANY SITE, it was another agency sting that resulted in his arrest - along with a large number of other individuals. After all was said and done there was no evidence otherwise to indicate any wrong doing."

Do you have a link to anything that says he notified the authorities? Nothing mentioned about it in Wikipedia.

BinFrog

PureandEasy wrote:

Well that's just it, BinFrog, HE DID NOTIFY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO ACCESSING ANY SITE, it was another agency sting that resulted in his arrest - along with a large number of other individuals.

Source?

Eliot Rosewater

metsfan wrote:

Yes this was settled years ago and he was proved not guilty. He was using the child porn for a project he was doing on the dangers of child porn. Pete donates a lota money to childrens charities.

From what I recall he wasn't "proven not guilty". They just didn't press charges and he was given a warning.

But wasn't he supposedly doing research to write a book about it or something? If that's the case, it's been years now. Where's the fuckin' book?

The guy wrote and performed some great music. That doesn't make him infallable. My opinion is that he's probably a sick fuck. There is absolutely no reason to have possession of that garbage. He did. And then he got off the hook somehow.

And donating to kids charities could possibly be a way to deal with guilt.

Just my opinion. I could absolutely be wrong. But I think it makes sense.

PureandEasy

This all came out years ago when this was all resolved so no I don't have a link.

I'm a huge Townshend fan so obviously I was following the whole story.

They raided his home, took 3 computers and found NOTHING - no images, no downloads, nothing. If he was into kiddie porn, there would be something there.

And the only reason he was put on a list for five years was because it is mandated by law in England that anyone arrested must be put on the list - for a period of time.

All of this was out there when he was resolved of any wrong doing.

Some people just tend to forget that stuff, and focus on the negative.

DavieB

The thing I love most is the fact that this story hasn't been brought up for years, made even more apparent by how little people in this thread know.

All I can say is that if The Who were performing at a Super Bowl-esque event in ANY other country in the world than America, this whole issue never would have been brought up. And that's NOT a dig at Americans in general, I do apoligise, just the witch-burning, finger-pointing few that try to ruin any major event. There's controversy about everything.

All I can say is good luck Peter & Roger, I bet they f***in' rock the place.

PureandEasy

BinFrog wrote:

PureandEasy wrote:

Well that's just it, BinFrog, HE DID NOTIFY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO ACCESSING ANY SITE, it was another agency sting that resulted in his arrest - along with a large number of other individuals.

Source?

The source is my memory, from all those years ago, I'm not making this stuff up - it was all put out there over the course of the investigation. I'm sure if I cared enough to satisfy all the naysayers here, I could find it, but quite frankly, I don't feel the need to do that, especially after all this time.

It blows my mind that it's even an issue any more.

as I said, i'm a huge Townshend fan and followed this story very closely, going so far as to write to Pete about it. He immediately wrote me back and thanked me for my support.

and for poster who said something to the effect of him donating to children's charities, possibly out of guilt, the Who have a history of supporting children's charities, long before any of this came out.

Jeff Murray

jimed14 wrote:

All these people did is make more and more people think about child porn.

As stated above, no one thinks of child porn when it comes to The Who.

People who actively find shit to be angry about because they have nothing better to do would better serve this world by working soup kitchens or habitat for humanity or something of the like ... something positive.

If this somehow works, if The Who are replaced, I'd love it if PJ took over their spot and changed it up on the organizers and played only Who songs on stage ... I hope whomever was chosen in that scneario does that actually.

That would be great!

iamdirtyfrank

i'm not a who fan but i also don't hate townsend i just lost all respect for the guy. but here's a question for ya, where's the book he was researching for? i rest my case. just because there was no downloaded photos doesn't mean he wasn't looking at the stuff. why would he even need to look at the stuff for research?
i work for the criminal records bureau in england and i have spoke to people through our customer services dept who have done less and been punished more. i care deeply about the job i do in helping children and vulnerable adults feel safe so i've got no time for him.

his status in the world got him a get out of jail free card in my opinion. if gary glitter (70's uk glam icon) was arrested in england and not singapore he would have been let free aswell because of who he is.

Evacuation Rules

BinFrog wrote:

I am not saying he is innocent or guilty, but if he truly was doing research, then he is ridiculously stupid for not alerting the authorities first and organizing it.

He did report the site, but not to the authorities who were already watching the site, so they didn't know.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

My opinion is that he's probably a sick fuck. There is absolutely no reason to have possession of that garbage. He did. And then he got off the hook somehow.

He didn't have possession of ANYTHING, genius. That's why he got "off the hook".

iamdirtyfrank wrote:

his status in the world got him a get out of jail free card in my opinion. if gary glitter (70's uk glam icon) was arrested in england and not singapore he would have been let free aswell because of who he is.

Gary Giltter was in clear possession of child porn and he actually fucked a child. Comparing him to Pete is about as ignorant as you could possibly get.

PureandEasy

Evacuation Rules wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

I am not saying he is innocent or guilty, but if he truly was doing research, then he is ridiculously stupid for not alerting the authorities first and organizing it.

He did report the site, but not to the authorities who were already watching the site, so they didn't know.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

My opinion is that he's probably a sick fuck. There is absolutely no reason to have possession of that garbage. He did. And then he got off the hook somehow.

He didn't have possession of ANYTHING, genius. That's why he got "off the hook".

iamdirtyfrank wrote:

his status in the world got him a get out of jail free card in my opinion. if gary glitter (70's uk glam icon) was arrested in england and not singapore he would have been let free aswell because of who he is.

Gary Giltter was in clear possession of child porn and he actually fucked a child. Comparing him to Pete is about as ignorant as you could possibly get.

thank you for backing me up on this

people are going to form their opinions based on whatever . . I could tell people till I was blue in the face that there was no basis surrounding this, and it wouldn't matter, they'll think what they want

musicismylife78

metsfan wrote:

Yes this was settled years ago and he was proved not guilty. He was using the child porn for a project he was doing on the dangers of child porn. Pete donates a lota money to childrens charities.

even more than that, he posted about the website the day he visited it, on his blog. If he was some kind of jerk like that, why would he openly post about it like that?

Further the UK press have suggested that some idiot was taking credit card info and that Pete never visited any site like that at all, in other words, he admitted on his blog to visiting a site, he never in fact visited.

I support Pete.