That is such a sweet story about Josey. Thanks for posting it
Like I said, Roger is a very generous guy. There are so many stories like that about him. Before the VH1 concert, he arranged a surprise meeting with a disabled woman who was a lifelong fan. She sat up front at the show. At the end of Baba O'Riley, he usually tosses his harmonica into the audience but instead he handed it to her. At the end of the video of the show, you can see him bend down to say goodbye to her.
Roger's the one who really got the Teenage Cancer Trust going because he said the Who would never have had any success without teen fans.
Okay then.... that's either because he's innocent, or because he's Pete Townsend. But if he was cleared, I'll assume it's because he isn't guilty, and maybe it's not cool to call him pedophile Pete and suggest that he wants to have sex with the 7 year old? Maybe? (I know you didn't say - I mean the guy who called him a diddler).
The facts have been available for a long time but he does explain it more thoroughly in his memoir. The police examined his 11 computers and found that he'd never downloaded porn. No one ever brought accusations of abuse against him. 2 years later, a journalist found that the bank had never even processed Pete's credit card transaction.
But people have made up their minds about him and aren't interested in actually learning anything factual. Which is why I don't typically get into discussions about it. I've just noticed that the media now seem to seize on anything bad about him they can. Roger, on the other hand, is always portrayed as the total good guy: http://www.concordmonitor.com/doseetast ... -lucy-band. And Roger IS a good guy, who does tons of work for charity. Only thing, so does Pete. But nobody ever writes anything like that about him.
And I agree, it's inappropriate to call him a pedophile. He was never even charged with that, much less convicted, except in the press.
To be honest I don't know what to think about that whole thing, my mind sways back and forth on it. But since he accessed that site in '99, the fact they found nothing on his computers in '03 doesn't do much for me in proving his innocence. The computer he used could have been gone, or gotten rid of before the raid, because he knew about being named in the investigation prior to the authorities coming to his home.
I'm not saying he's guilty, and yes he was never charged with harming a child, and important distinction. But nothing really shouts innocent either. I'm not entirely versed on all the details, but the defenses I hear for him don't sound that concrete.
Some things don't add up to me, but that doesn't make him guilty.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
To be honest I don't know what to think about that whole thing, my mind sways back and forth on it. But since he accessed that site in '99, the fact they found nothing on his computers in '03 doesn't do much for me in proving his innocence. The computer he used could have been gone, or gotten rid of before the raid, because he knew about being named in the investigation prior to the authorities coming to his home.
I'm not saying he's guilty, and yes he was never charged with harming a child, and important distinction. But nothing really shouts innocent either. I'm not entirely versed on all the details, but the defenses I hear for him don't sound that concrete.
Some things don't add up to me, but that doesn't make him guilty.
When I said that the information had been around for a long time, it's because if anybody followed his blog on his old site petetownshend.com, they knew that he posted the essay telling about accessing the web site nearly a year before he was arrested. He was writing fairly often about the problem of children being essentially "sold" in third world countries to be used for pornography and that law enforcement, internet providers, and banks that issued credit cards were saying that they couldn't do anything about the exploitation of children. He was also frustrated that so many people seemed to regard porn as a victimless crime.
I was reading his blog at the time. He talked about plenty of other things but it was clear that this was a big concern to him. He reposted the essay after a friend who'd been sexually abused as a child committed suicide, saying that her death showed that what these children were going through wasn't victimless. When he posted the essay the second time, it came to the attention of law enforcement and he was arrested. As I understand it, the laws in England are such that someone is arrested and then investigated, unlike the U.S., where you're investigated and then arrested. The journalist who later investigated the credit card transaction and found that the bank had cancelled it was acting on his own.
For the people who think he got off easy because of who he is, the general consensus across the pond is that he was treated more harshly because he was a celebrity. Ten years later, his reputation hasn't recovered and I don't think it ever will. Anything positive he's done or will do is overlooked.
When Pete's memoir came out, I noticed that the reviews and interviews all seemed to focus on the arrest and a few other outrageous details. A lot of the book is very mundane stuff but I'm sure that wouldn't make for an interesting review.
I don't have some kind of blind loyalty to Pete. He says and does some really stupid things. But I think long time fans who were following his web site years ago plus the follow up news accounts have been aware of what happened for a long time. So in a way it' seems weird that so many people know so little about it but I guess if somebody's made up their mind, they're not going to go looking for the facts.
I really try to avoid the debates with people who are dead set in their beliefs. I'm fairly sure that I'm not going to change their minds.
To be honest I don't know what to think about that whole thing, my mind sways back and forth on it. But since he accessed that site in '99, the fact they found nothing on his computers in '03 doesn't do much for me in proving his innocence. The computer he used could have been gone, or gotten rid of before the raid, because he knew about being named in the investigation prior to the authorities coming to his home.
I'm not saying he's guilty, and yes he was never charged with harming a child, and important distinction. But nothing really shouts innocent either. I'm not entirely versed on all the details, but the defenses I hear for him don't sound that concrete.
Some things don't add up to me, but that doesn't make him guilty.
When I said that the information had been around for a long time, it's because if anybody followed his blog on his old site petetownshend.com, they knew that he posted the essay telling about accessing the web site nearly a year before he was arrested. He was writing fairly often about the problem of children being essentially "sold" in third world countries to be used for pornography and that law enforcement, internet providers, and banks that issued credit cards were saying that they couldn't do anything about the exploitation of children. He was also frustrated that so many people seemed to regard porn as a victimless crime.
I was reading his blog at the time. He talked about plenty of other things but it was clear that this was a big concern to him. He reposted the essay after a friend who'd been sexually abused as a child committed suicide, saying that her death showed that what these children were going through wasn't victimless. When he posted the essay the second time, it came to the attention of law enforcement and he was arrested. As I understand it, the laws in England are such that someone is arrested and then investigated, unlike the U.S., where you're investigated and then arrested. The journalist who later investigated the credit card transaction and found that the bank had cancelled it was acting on his own.
For the people who think he got off easy because of who he is, the general consensus across the pond is that he was treated more harshly because he was a celebrity. Ten years later, his reputation hasn't recovered and I don't think it ever will. Anything positive he's done or will do is overlooked.
When Pete's memoir came out, I noticed that the reviews and interviews all seemed to focus on the arrest and a few other outrageous details. A lot of the book is very mundane stuff but I'm sure that wouldn't make for an interesting review.
I don't have some kind of blind loyalty to Pete. He says and does some really stupid things. But I think long time fans who were following his web site years ago plus the follow up news accounts have been aware of what happened for a long time. So in a way it' seems weird that so many people know so little about it but I guess if somebody's made up their mind, they're not going to go looking for the facts.
I really try to avoid the debates with people who are dead set in their beliefs. I'm fairly sure that I'm not going to change their minds.
Well I'm not really dead set in my beliefs, nor am I trying to debate you (I'd love to hear something that definitively clears him), it just doesn't add up to me. Either way, nothing really convinces me he's guilty or innocent..
As for the reporting the stuff on his blog prior to the arrest, that was 2002, still a couple years later, and after the company that ran the website in question had been busted. One could say he was just trying to cover his ass. Once again, I'm not saying it means he's guilty, but it's not definitive proof of innocence either. He COULD have just written that stuff after the fact . Plus, it really doesn't gel with what he said about not reporting it to the authorities. He said he was afraid to report it to authorities at the time because he could get in trouble, but then he posts the stuff on his website.
As for the re-posting of "A Different Bomb" being what brought him to the attention of the police, that's not really what I read. When the Texas portal website was busted in '99, Pete's credit card info was found and turned over to UK authorities.
I'm just saying it's possible, given that it was public knowledge that the website people had been busted, that Pete could have been trying to cover his ass. There's nothing to prove that he did, but the stuff he did after the fact doesn't clear him either. If he had gone to the police or something, immediately, I would have little doubt of his innocence. As it stands I just don't know. I'm not a hardcore Who fan, but I enjoy their music enough that I'd like for him to be innocent.
Concerning the reviews, the press tend to focus on the outrageous stuff. When Keith Richards released his autobiography, the press focused entirely on him saying Jagger had a "tiny todger", as if the entire book were about Mick's penis. But that's just the media.
I'm not saying you have some sort of blind loyalty to Pete, but the stuff I've heard many Who fans say that point to his innocence, like posting "A Different Bomb", and nothing being found on his computers, both of which happened a few years after the incident, aren't really concrete to me. I have tried to search out the facts, and I know some (I haven't researched it tirelessly though I admit), and I find them pretty inconclusive. Perhaps I'm missing something.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
Pete Townsend recently spoke out and referenced his past allegations of child pornography in that article. This article was written when it was only rumored that he was involved in child pornography.
Question: Who is to blame for Pete Townsend downloading child pornography?
Statement Analysis gets to the truth.
Please note that we have covered Pete Townsend's prior statements denying accessing child pornography. When caught with child pornography, he said he purchased it for research sake. This article came out years ago as rumors surfaced that he was caught downloading pornography via the use of his credit card.
Prior analysis showed deception on the part of Townsend. Please note that most involved in child pornography report being sexual abused as a child and we are able to view the veracity of this allegation through their language.
Rock star Pete Townshend has admitted paying to enter an Internet site advertising child pornography but said he had done so "purely to see what was there".
The admission came in a statement released yesterday, which emphasised his "anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive".
The statement was distributed to reporters gathered outside his mansion in Richmond, south west London, after he discussed rumours that he is involved in a police investigation into child pornography.
The statement by The Who guitarist - idolised by fans since the 1960s - 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 web site) about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images on the Internet."
Townshend's statement went on: "I have been writing my childhood autobiography for the past seven years. I believe I was sexually abused between the age of five and six and a half when in the care of my maternal grandmother who was mentally ill at the time. I cannot remember clearly what happened, but my creative work tends to throw up nasty shadows - particularly in Tommy.
"Some of the things I have seen on the Internet have informed my book which I hope will be published later this year, and which will make clear to the public that if I have any compulsions in this area, they are to face what is happening to young children in the world today and to try to deal openly with my anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive.
Please note: in the subject's language, does he relate mental illness to being sexually abused as a child? Would such lead to suicide? When someone accused of something says "only the mentally ill would do that" or "only someone sick in the head would do that" they often will describe themselves, later, as mentally ill.
Please note the passive language "have informed my book" as passivity is used to conceal responsibility.
Please note that "hope" is weak and unless he tells us his book will be published, we cannot say it will be. This was his original claim when caught with child pornography. Most males caught with child pornography make one of three claims:
1. It got downloaded by itself (virus, someone sent it)
2. I am learning about it to protect children
The first claim is easily debunked, usually by volume, and by use of passwords and credit cards. When the first excuse is debunked, most all turn to the second claim, with slight variations, including "research" and "I have a niece who needs protection" and "I am a child advocate."
"I predicted many years ago that what has become the Internet would be used to subvert, pervert and destroy the lives of decent people. I have felt for a long time that it is part of my duty, knowing what I know, to act as a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC and Scotland Yard to build up a powerful and well-informed voice to speak loudly about the millions of dollars being made by American banks and credit card companies for the pornography industry.
Note the language he chooses including "pervert" the lives of "decent people"; regarding the millions, how would he know who is "decent" unless he is referring to himself. In his recent interview, he praised himself calling himself "genius" and other superlatives.
Note to act as a "vigilante" is "part" of his duty; what other duties does he have?
Note that in the organizations listed, Scotland Yard is listed last. SY claimed that Townsend was guilty in downloading child pornography.
Seek to enter into his language:
Note the guilty he vilifies:
It is not the makers of child pornography, nor is it the purchasers of child pornography:
It is the banks who issue the credit cards that are used by decent people to purchase child pornography.
This is the subject's direction of language; not the perpetrators against children, but the banks who profit from the high interest rates.
"That industry deliberately blurs what is legal and what is illegal, and different countries have different laws and moral values about this. I do not. I do not want child pornography to be available on the Internet anywhere at any time."
Please note that banks do not have any say as to what a customer uses his credit card for. He vilifies the bank issuing the credit card in which the pedophile uses to purchase illegal and vile material.
Please note that he does not "want" child pornography to be available "on the internet"; but he does not tell us that he doesn't want child pornography to exist.
Why is Pete Townsend so angry at the bank that issued the credit card and not at the exploiters of children?
Why is Pete Townsend so angry at the credit card?
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.
Please note "on one occasion" does not say "only once."
Note that his statement begins with this "one" occassion but then puts the emphasis upon the use of a credit card.
Question: Would it matter how he accessed the site?
Answer: He was caught by tracing his credit card.
Note that the site "advertised" child porn; indicating what it would have.
Note he entered it to "see what was there" which had already been known since the site advertised child porn and this came first in his sentence, showing that he knew what was there.
Note "purely" is a sensitivity indicator regarding his motive.
Note the additional word "informally" in speech. This is a strong indication that he is being deceptive:
"a friend" not "my friend" who is a lawyer, with "lawyer" coming late. He "reported" what he had seen: that the advertisement was true. Does he want us to believe that he he needed to confirm that the advertisement of child porn was not "false advertising"?
The guilty need to deal with their guilt, and often do so by projecting their guilt elsewhere, either demonizing someone else. In this case, Townsend demonizes banks who issued the credit card which he used to access child pornography. Next, he turns to elicit sympathy for himself:
"I have enclosed my web site 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."
Note the need for him to say he is "sincerely" disturbed. This statement preceded the public disclosure of his involvement in child pornography.
The statement came after Townshend had earlier discussed rumours saying that 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. Yesterday's 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.
Earlier Townshend himself came to the door in a white dressing gown to explain he had studied child pornography for research into a campaign against it - and had told police what he was doing. The 57-year-old star said: "I am not a paedophile. I think paedophilia is appalling."
Please note that "I am not a paedophile" is not the same as saying, "I did not download child pornography"
Please also note it is in the present tense.
In dealing with pedophiles, skilled therapists convince those seeking help to allow them to be polygraphed by the therapist (or a hired polygrapher) where direct questions are asked:
Are you sexually attracted to children? and so on. This is often used in the early stages of therapy and is used to gauge the level of risk a pedophile poses to the community. It is not a treatment for pedophilia. When a subject willingly acknowledges sexual attraction to children, he will often agree to supervised contact with his own children, for example, rather than go to court to dispute it. Skilled therapists know that the subject will not be "talked out of" their sexual attraction, so they seek to minimize risk by polygraphing a willing subject, and setting boundaries (no computer use, no alcohol use, no going to parks, playgrounds, Little League games, and so on).
The Daily Mail said Scotland Yard officers were now investigating and deciding whether to make an arrest.
Townshend, who is married with children, said: "To fight against paedophilia, you have to know what's out there. "I've been in touch with Scotland Yard to tell them what I was doing. I have contacted them but no police officers have contacted me. "I am waiting for the police to talk to me but they haven't been round.
"I was worried this might happen and I think this could be the most damaging thing to my career."
Note" "I've been in touch" is passive; used to conceal responsibility. It is true, he has been "in touch" with Scotland Yard; as Scotland Yard has been "in touch" with him.
Note: "to tell them "what I was doing" is present tense. This is not "on one occassion" but ongoing. This is an admission of guilt.
Note that which is in the negative.
Damaging to his career; but nothing about the victims.
He said he was interested in adult porn, adding: "I've always been into pornography and I have used it all my life. "I'm going to talk to my lawyers to see what happens next."
Note the position of his words: he is into pornography and then "see what happens next" relating to lawyers. It is close to his "been into pornography."
Many experts believe that a process of desensitization takes place with pornography.
Asked if he had a message for his fans, or if he planned to make a statement, he said: "I am not a paedophile. I want to clear my name." He then closed the door and shortly afterwards drove off in a Mercedes, saying through the window: "I'm going to see my son. I've not been charged with anything. I've always been warned about campaigning about this. I'm hoping that this will go away."
Scotland Yard refused to comment. "We can't confirm that we are investigating a British rock star. We don't discuss individuals," said a spokesman. The Daily Mail said the name, credit card details and e-mail address of the star involved in the investigation were contained in a list of 7,000 people passed to British police by the US Postal Service after the pay per view service was smashed.
British police are conducting their largest ever investigation, codenamed Operation Ore, into online paedophilia and child pornography. About 1,300 people, including a judge, magistrates, dentists, hospital consultants and a deputy headmaster have so far been arrested.
Fifty police officers have also been arrested and eight of them charged with offences, including two officers involved in the investigation into the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. A spokesman for the National Criminal Intelligence Service said the files of anybody suspected of downloading pornographic material from the Internet were being sent to relevant police forces around the country for further investigation.
In 1999 disgraced pop star Gary Glitter was jailed for four months after indecent pictures of children were found on his laptop computer. Earlier this week the former glam rock star, real name Paul Gadd, was deported from Cambodia. In another case, singer, record producer and broadcaster Jonathan King was jailed for seven years in 2001 for sex attacks on five boys.
After reading this thread I started looking at the case again and came across this. As a long time Who fan i want to give Pete the benefit of the doubt but I have a hard time believing this was all done for research purposes.
After reading this thread I started looking at the case again and came across this. As a long time Who fan i want to give Pete the benefit of the doubt but I have a hard time believing this was all done for research purposes.
Wow, I tell myself I'm not going to get into this debate again but here goes.
What you posted isn't an article, it's an opinion from a blog. From reading it, it was clearly posted right after Pete's arrest more than 10 years ago and before he'd been cleared by police. So I'd consider it an opinion. It raises some valid points. It also goes after some really nitpicky things to prove the blogger's beliefs, for example how Pete says "a friend" rather than "my friend" or has referred to himself as a genius (wow, I'm so surprised that a hugely successful musician has a strong ego).
I agree with many of Satan's Futon's concerns. I asked myself a lot of the same questions. I was very troubled when Pete was arrested. I spent years as a rape crisis volunteer and know how sexual abuse affects children. I'm not willing to cut somebody slack because they're famous or I like their music.
I was also puzzled why nobody seemed to talk about what he'd been posting on his blog for some time, encouraging people to get involved in preventing abuse. What he'd written there didn't strike me as someone trying to cover up his own predelictions but someone who was frustrated at how few people in power seemed to care about protecting kids.
When Pete was arrested, I think he explained himself very poorly. On the other hand, he does that a lot. Shortly before the arrest, the band continued with a tour after John Entwistle's unexpected death and didn't really explain that until the tour was nearly over. I can think of a lot of examples but I think that's one of the most egregious.
SF, I think Pete explains the whole incident and the events leading up to it fairly well in his memoir but it's a long read getting there. Many of the details are intermixed with other things until you get up to the actual point of the police investigation. I don't really recommend the book unless you're a diehard fan. I learned a lot of interesting things here and there but it's not great literature and 500 pages is a lot to wade through.
Probably the biggest factor for me is how many years have gone by with no one coming forward to say they were abused and no further accusations about using porn. I think it's safe to say that the police have kept tabs on him. I have a feeling if there was more to this we'd have heard about it by now.
OTOH I don't think this will ever die. This thread is a case in point. Pete gets cranky on stage for a moment and the whole issue is raised again.
I was also puzzled why nobody seemed to talk about what he'd been posting on his blog for some time, encouraging people to get involved in preventing abuse. What he'd written there didn't strike me as someone trying to cover up his own predelictions but someone who was frustrated at how few people in power seemed to care about protecting kids.
It can probably be viewed different ways. For instance it's not unusual for somebody to crusade against themselves out of self-loathing. Like the hardcore anti-gay politicians who turn out to be gay or get busted trying to solicit sex in an airport bathroom and the like.
SF, I think Pete explains the whole incident and the events leading up to it fairly well in his memoir but it's a long read getting there. Many of the details are intermixed with other things until you get up to the actual point of the police investigation. I don't really recommend the book unless you're a diehard fan. I learned a lot of interesting things here and there but it's not great literature and 500 pages is a lot to wade through.
I probably won't be reading it. I already read one biography on him in high school, "Behind Blue Eyes", which I have heard was kind of a hatchet job, but I don't remember anything too bad about it. Perhaps being a little asshole teenager, the things the author was trying to make him look bad with just made me like him more. Because I really liked his bad boy image. But one book was enough for me. I have bios of artists I like more than The Who laying around that I haven't gotten to yet. Maybe I'll read it one day, but no plans to at the moment, and I'm not a diehard.
Probably the biggest factor for me is how many years have gone by with no one coming forward to say they were abused and no further accusations about using porn. I think it's safe to say that the police have kept tabs on him. I have a feeling if there was more to this we'd have heard about it by now.
I'm not an expert on this type of thing, and maybe as a former rape crisis counselor you have a little more insight into it, but if kiddie porn were his thing, he might have not ever felt the need to practice the real thing. If it were his thing, perhaps the arrest served as a wakeup call and deterred him from that path before it progressed to the point that he actually practiced it. Same thing for not being caught accessing any more sites, could be he decided his freedom was more important to him than the pictures.
OTOH I don't think this will ever die. This thread is a case in point. Pete gets cranky on stage for a moment and the whole issue is raised again.
It probably never will. This type of thing rarely just goes away, it will probably always be a cloud over him. As I'm sure you agree, even with the Pete issue aside, this is the type of behavior society finds repulsive regardless of the individual. Also, people don't have a lot of faith in the justice system, so just being cleared isn't enough for everybody, OJ was cleared after all, and many others who were clearly guilty. A lot of people probably think that if he were completely 100% guilty he wouldn't have been made to register as a sex offender. Pete was the first to admit what he did was stupid and insane, we all make mistakes, but this is the type of mistake (and here I'm assuming it was just that) that people don't tend to forget. Assuming the story goes as he said, his "White Knight Complex" really bit him on the ass, and he has to live with it as we all have to live with our mistakes. Pete assumed nobody was trying to enforce these issues and that it was up to him, little did he know there was more going on than he realized and he ended up getting caught in the middle of the very thing he was supposedly championing. If his story is the truth, he handled it so very wrong. You don't try to improve airport security by trying to sneak a gun onto a plane to prove a point, or set a fire to prove how slow the local fire department is to respond. Even if his intentions were honorable, he fucked up the execution. And as you said, he didn't explain himself too well, which didn't give people a whole lot of reason to trust him.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
I agree. I wouldn't argue with anything you've said.
I also thought about the fact afterwards that Pete had crusaded for victims rights before his arrest and how it could have been his self-loathing. I'd be very impressed though if he'd been interested in child porn and dropped it because of his arrest. He clearly has an addictive personality and obsession with internet porn is sometimes referred to as an addiction. But if he hadn't reached that stage and was scared into avoiding it, I'd consider that a good thing, at least. Interesting you mention his "White Knight Complex"--the chapter in his book leading up to his arrest is called Black Days, White Knights.
I mentioned volunteering with rape crisis to say that sexual assault is a BIG deal to me and I couldn't stay a fan of someone I believed to be an abuser, no matter how good their music or how much it was part of my life. I used to think I was the biggest Who fan in the world. That was before internet message boards, when I started meeting people who went to more shows on one tour than I'd been to in my entire life.
I think Pete's memoir is tough to read because so much of it is so grim. Which is partly why I don't recommend it to most people. Too many descriptions of what an asshole he was when he was drunk or of all the beautiful women with whom he cheated on his wife. Also, enough descriptions of recording studios to drive me nuts! When I had trouble reading it, I took a suggestion and switched to the audiobook. Pete reads it and it's an entirely different work. He's an entertaining storyteller. He chuckles over funny things and imitates other people's voices. Having gotten through it, I don't plan to revisit it but I'd recommend the audio for anyone who's interested in the book.
question... (firstly, i have read & watched stories of the who in the old days where roger liked to fight) question is when pete was being a prick did anyone ever pop him in the fucking mouth and not just his band mates? seems to me that those who never get smack the fuck down grow up to be adult pricks, adult bullies & adult assholes because not one single person ever stood up to them & bloodied their lips & nose a few times.
so if pete was or still is this gigantic asshole (drunk or sober) is it because people allow him to be that way?
question... (firstly, i have read & watched stories of the who in the old days where roger liked to fight) question is when pete was being a prick did anyone ever pop him in the fucking mouth and not just his band mates? seems to me that those who never get smack the fuck down grow up to be adult pricks, adult bullies & adult assholes because not one single person ever stood up to them & bloodied their lips & nose a few times.
so if pete was or still is this gigantic asshole (drunk or sober) is it because people allow him to be that way?
I don't know about anybody else, but Roger famously knocked him out during the rehearsals for the 1973 Quadrophenia tour. But there was always a strong sense of competition and rivalry between the 4 original members.
I'm not friends with Pete ( ) so I don't know if the people around him allow him to act that way. He doesn't seem to have an entourage, if that's what you mean. I believe some of his friends staged an intervention to help him get sober. He seems to have longstanding friends of many years so I don't think people necessarily allow him to behave badly. And he may seem a rude onstage occasionally but it's nothing like he used to be.
Pete seems to do as many kind and charitable things as Roger does, he just never gets much credit. He oversees the Who's original charity, the Double O charity. I had a chance to witness a kindness before the VH1 concert. A group of about 50 fans met for a pre-party. We paid in advance for the room and a deli buffet. We also had a silent auction of Who items. Anything over our payments plus the auction was going to the family of Meg Fox, a fan who died of breast cancer a few months earlier. She left behind a husband and 4 children. Although she'd had insurance, the family still had to deal with medical bills.
So who showed up to our party? Pete. He only stayed a few minutes but he very graciously thanked us for helping Meg's family and told us what caring people we were. He autographed all the silent auction items, blew us a kiss and left. The whole thing lasted maybe 5 minutes but it was the high point of the trip for me.
I'd be very impressed though if he'd been interested in child porn and dropped it because of his arrest. He clearly has an addictive personality and obsession with internet porn is sometimes referred to as an addiction. But if he hadn't reached that stage and was scared into avoiding it, I'd consider that a good thing, at least. Interesting you mention his "White Knight Complex"--the chapter in his book leading up to his arrest is called Black Days, White Knights.
I only referred to it as his "White Knight Complex" because he referred to it as that in a story I read. So I'm not surprised he mentioned it in his book. It wasn't a lucky guess or anything.
As far as addiction goes, regardless of what it's to, people can reach their bottom (hopefully) and it can set them straight. I think a child porn charge would be a pretty hard bottom to hit. I personally used to be a pretty big druggie when I was younger, more than just smoking the occasional joint, I was pretty big into coke, acid, etc. I got high off something every day, I don't know if I was a full blown addict, but I had advanced beyond simple recreational/social use, I think it was a problem. Until I got popped with some coke and dropped all that shit, it scared the hell out of me, and caused me a lot of trouble. Until last year when I smoked a little grass on a couple of occasions I didn't touch anything stronger than alcohol for 12 years. That arrest was enough for me to drop it all overnight. Fear can be a strong motivator, I know from personal experience. Even after those couple of occasions I smoked, I didn't get back in the habit and dropped it again just out of fear of losing my job, or winding up with a rolled up bill up my nose again.
But those kind of things are different for everybody. Some people don't ever wake up. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he could give it up (once again, to those that haven't been reading the whole conversation, IF he is in fact guilty of doing it) given what happened to him. Some people don't have a bottom, some are deeper or more shallow than others.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
I only referred to it as his "White Knight Complex" because he referred to it as that in a story I read. So I'm not surprised he mentioned it in his book. It wasn't a lucky guess or anything.
Dude, nobody had to know that! Nothing wrong with taking a little credit once in a while!
But those kind of things are different for everybody. Some people don't ever wake up. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he could give it up (once again, to those that haven't been reading the whole conversation, IF he is in fact guilty of doing it) given what happened to him. Some people don't have a bottom, some are deeper or more shallow than others.
I know several people in recovery and I agree. Hitting bottom is different for each individual and people can make changes in their lives. Kudos to you for recognizing a problem and dealing with it. :thumbup:
Comments
Roger's the one who really got the Teenage Cancer Trust going because he said the Who would never have had any success without teen fans.
To be honest I don't know what to think about that whole thing, my mind sways back and forth on it. But since he accessed that site in '99, the fact they found nothing on his computers in '03 doesn't do much for me in proving his innocence. The computer he used could have been gone, or gotten rid of before the raid, because he knew about being named in the investigation prior to the authorities coming to his home.
I'm not saying he's guilty, and yes he was never charged with harming a child, and important distinction. But nothing really shouts innocent either. I'm not entirely versed on all the details, but the defenses I hear for him don't sound that concrete.
Some things don't add up to me, but that doesn't make him guilty.
I was reading his blog at the time. He talked about plenty of other things but it was clear that this was a big concern to him. He reposted the essay after a friend who'd been sexually abused as a child committed suicide, saying that her death showed that what these children were going through wasn't victimless. When he posted the essay the second time, it came to the attention of law enforcement and he was arrested. As I understand it, the laws in England are such that someone is arrested and then investigated, unlike the U.S., where you're investigated and then arrested. The journalist who later investigated the credit card transaction and found that the bank had cancelled it was acting on his own.
For the people who think he got off easy because of who he is, the general consensus across the pond is that he was treated more harshly because he was a celebrity. Ten years later, his reputation hasn't recovered and I don't think it ever will. Anything positive he's done or will do is overlooked.
When Pete's memoir came out, I noticed that the reviews and interviews all seemed to focus on the arrest and a few other outrageous details. A lot of the book is very mundane stuff but I'm sure that wouldn't make for an interesting review.
I don't have some kind of blind loyalty to Pete. He says and does some really stupid things. But I think long time fans who were following his web site years ago plus the follow up news accounts have been aware of what happened for a long time. So in a way it' seems weird that so many people know so little about it but I guess if somebody's made up their mind, they're not going to go looking for the facts.
I really try to avoid the debates with people who are dead set in their beliefs. I'm fairly sure that I'm not going to change their minds.
Well I'm not really dead set in my beliefs, nor am I trying to debate you (I'd love to hear something that definitively clears him), it just doesn't add up to me. Either way, nothing really convinces me he's guilty or innocent..
As for the reporting the stuff on his blog prior to the arrest, that was 2002, still a couple years later, and after the company that ran the website in question had been busted. One could say he was just trying to cover his ass. Once again, I'm not saying it means he's guilty, but it's not definitive proof of innocence either. He COULD have just written that stuff after the fact . Plus, it really doesn't gel with what he said about not reporting it to the authorities. He said he was afraid to report it to authorities at the time because he could get in trouble, but then he posts the stuff on his website.
As for the re-posting of "A Different Bomb" being what brought him to the attention of the police, that's not really what I read. When the Texas portal website was busted in '99, Pete's credit card info was found and turned over to UK authorities.
I'm just saying it's possible, given that it was public knowledge that the website people had been busted, that Pete could have been trying to cover his ass. There's nothing to prove that he did, but the stuff he did after the fact doesn't clear him either. If he had gone to the police or something, immediately, I would have little doubt of his innocence. As it stands I just don't know. I'm not a hardcore Who fan, but I enjoy their music enough that I'd like for him to be innocent.
Concerning the reviews, the press tend to focus on the outrageous stuff. When Keith Richards released his autobiography, the press focused entirely on him saying Jagger had a "tiny todger", as if the entire book were about Mick's penis. But that's just the media.
I'm not saying you have some sort of blind loyalty to Pete, but the stuff I've heard many Who fans say that point to his innocence, like posting "A Different Bomb", and nothing being found on his computers, both of which happened a few years after the incident, aren't really concrete to me. I have tried to search out the facts, and I know some (I haven't researched it tirelessly though I admit), and I find them pretty inconclusive. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Question: Who is to blame for Pete Townsend downloading child pornography?
Statement Analysis gets to the truth.
Please note that we have covered Pete Townsend's prior statements denying accessing child pornography. When caught with child pornography, he said he purchased it for research sake. This article came out years ago as rumors surfaced that he was caught downloading pornography via the use of his credit card.
Prior analysis showed deception on the part of Townsend. Please note that most involved in child pornography report being sexual abused as a child and we are able to view the veracity of this allegation through their language.
Rock star Pete Townshend has admitted paying to enter an Internet site advertising child pornography but said he had done so "purely to see what was there".
The admission came in a statement released yesterday, which emphasised his "anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive".
The statement was distributed to reporters gathered outside his mansion in Richmond, south west London, after he discussed rumours that he is involved in a police investigation into child pornography.
The statement by The Who guitarist - idolised by fans since the 1960s - 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 web site) about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images on the Internet."
Townshend's statement went on: "I have been writing my childhood autobiography for the past seven years. I believe I was sexually abused between the age of five and six and a half when in the care of my maternal grandmother who was mentally ill at the time. I cannot remember clearly what happened, but my creative work tends to throw up nasty shadows - particularly in Tommy.
"Some of the things I have seen on the Internet have informed my book which I hope will be published later this year, and which will make clear to the public that if I have any compulsions in this area, they are to face what is happening to young children in the world today and to try to deal openly with my anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive.
Please note: in the subject's language, does he relate mental illness to being sexually abused as a child? Would such lead to suicide? When someone accused of something says "only the mentally ill would do that" or "only someone sick in the head would do that" they often will describe themselves, later, as mentally ill.
Please note the passive language "have informed my book" as passivity is used to conceal responsibility.
Please note that "hope" is weak and unless he tells us his book will be published, we cannot say it will be. This was his original claim when caught with child pornography. Most males caught with child pornography make one of three claims:
1. It got downloaded by itself (virus, someone sent it)
2. I am learning about it to protect children
The first claim is easily debunked, usually by volume, and by use of passwords and credit cards. When the first excuse is debunked, most all turn to the second claim, with slight variations, including "research" and "I have a niece who needs protection" and "I am a child advocate."
"I predicted many years ago that what has become the Internet would be used to subvert, pervert and destroy the lives of decent people. I have felt for a long time that it is part of my duty, knowing what I know, to act as a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC and Scotland Yard to build up a powerful and well-informed voice to speak loudly about the millions of dollars being made by American banks and credit card companies for the pornography industry.
Note the language he chooses including "pervert" the lives of "decent people"; regarding the millions, how would he know who is "decent" unless he is referring to himself. In his recent interview, he praised himself calling himself "genius" and other superlatives.
Note to act as a "vigilante" is "part" of his duty; what other duties does he have?
Note that in the organizations listed, Scotland Yard is listed last. SY claimed that Townsend was guilty in downloading child pornography.
Seek to enter into his language:
Note the guilty he vilifies:
It is not the makers of child pornography, nor is it the purchasers of child pornography:
It is the banks who issue the credit cards that are used by decent people to purchase child pornography.
This is the subject's direction of language; not the perpetrators against children, but the banks who profit from the high interest rates.
"That industry deliberately blurs what is legal and what is illegal, and different countries have different laws and moral values about this. I do not. I do not want child pornography to be available on the Internet anywhere at any time."
Please note that banks do not have any say as to what a customer uses his credit card for. He vilifies the bank issuing the credit card in which the pedophile uses to purchase illegal and vile material.
Please note that he does not "want" child pornography to be available "on the internet"; but he does not tell us that he doesn't want child pornography to exist.
Why is Pete Townsend so angry at the bank that issued the credit card and not at the exploiters of children?
Why is Pete Townsend so angry at the credit card?
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.
Please note "on one occasion" does not say "only once."
Note that his statement begins with this "one" occassion but then puts the emphasis upon the use of a credit card.
Question: Would it matter how he accessed the site?
Answer: He was caught by tracing his credit card.
Note that the site "advertised" child porn; indicating what it would have.
Note he entered it to "see what was there" which had already been known since the site advertised child porn and this came first in his sentence, showing that he knew what was there.
Note "purely" is a sensitivity indicator regarding his motive.
Note the additional word "informally" in speech. This is a strong indication that he is being deceptive:
"a friend" not "my friend" who is a lawyer, with "lawyer" coming late. He "reported" what he had seen: that the advertisement was true. Does he want us to believe that he he needed to confirm that the advertisement of child porn was not "false advertising"?
The guilty need to deal with their guilt, and often do so by projecting their guilt elsewhere, either demonizing someone else. In this case, Townsend demonizes banks who issued the credit card which he used to access child pornography. Next, he turns to elicit sympathy for himself:
"I have enclosed my web site 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."
Note the need for him to say he is "sincerely" disturbed. This statement preceded the public disclosure of his involvement in child pornography.
The statement came after Townshend had earlier discussed rumours saying that 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. Yesterday's 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.
Earlier Townshend himself came to the door in a white dressing gown to explain he had studied child pornography for research into a campaign against it - and had told police what he was doing. The 57-year-old star said: "I am not a paedophile. I think paedophilia is appalling."
Please note that "I am not a paedophile" is not the same as saying, "I did not download child pornography"
Please also note it is in the present tense.
In dealing with pedophiles, skilled therapists convince those seeking help to allow them to be polygraphed by the therapist (or a hired polygrapher) where direct questions are asked:
Are you sexually attracted to children? and so on. This is often used in the early stages of therapy and is used to gauge the level of risk a pedophile poses to the community. It is not a treatment for pedophilia. When a subject willingly acknowledges sexual attraction to children, he will often agree to supervised contact with his own children, for example, rather than go to court to dispute it. Skilled therapists know that the subject will not be "talked out of" their sexual attraction, so they seek to minimize risk by polygraphing a willing subject, and setting boundaries (no computer use, no alcohol use, no going to parks, playgrounds, Little League games, and so on).
The Daily Mail said Scotland Yard officers were now investigating and deciding whether to make an arrest.
Townshend, who is married with children, said: "To fight against paedophilia, you have to know what's out there. "I've been in touch with Scotland Yard to tell them what I was doing. I have contacted them but no police officers have contacted me. "I am waiting for the police to talk to me but they haven't been round.
"I was worried this might happen and I think this could be the most damaging thing to my career."
Note" "I've been in touch" is passive; used to conceal responsibility. It is true, he has been "in touch" with Scotland Yard; as Scotland Yard has been "in touch" with him.
Note: "to tell them "what I was doing" is present tense. This is not "on one occassion" but ongoing. This is an admission of guilt.
Note that which is in the negative.
Damaging to his career; but nothing about the victims.
He said he was interested in adult porn, adding: "I've always been into pornography and I have used it all my life. "I'm going to talk to my lawyers to see what happens next."
Note the position of his words: he is into pornography and then "see what happens next" relating to lawyers. It is close to his "been into pornography."
Many experts believe that a process of desensitization takes place with pornography.
Asked if he had a message for his fans, or if he planned to make a statement, he said: "I am not a paedophile. I want to clear my name." He then closed the door and shortly afterwards drove off in a Mercedes, saying through the window: "I'm going to see my son. I've not been charged with anything. I've always been warned about campaigning about this. I'm hoping that this will go away."
Scotland Yard refused to comment. "We can't confirm that we are investigating a British rock star. We don't discuss individuals," said a spokesman. The Daily Mail said the name, credit card details and e-mail address of the star involved in the investigation were contained in a list of 7,000 people passed to British police by the US Postal Service after the pay per view service was smashed.
British police are conducting their largest ever investigation, codenamed Operation Ore, into online paedophilia and child pornography. About 1,300 people, including a judge, magistrates, dentists, hospital consultants and a deputy headmaster have so far been arrested.
Fifty police officers have also been arrested and eight of them charged with offences, including two officers involved in the investigation into the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. A spokesman for the National Criminal Intelligence Service said the files of anybody suspected of downloading pornographic material from the Internet were being sent to relevant police forces around the country for further investigation.
In 1999 disgraced pop star Gary Glitter was jailed for four months after indecent pictures of children were found on his laptop computer. Earlier this week the former glam rock star, real name Paul Gadd, was deported from Cambodia. In another case, singer, record producer and broadcaster Jonathan King was jailed for seven years in 2001 for sex attacks on five boys.
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/1 ... e.html?m=1
After reading this thread I started looking at the case again and came across this. As a long time Who fan i want to give Pete the benefit of the doubt but I have a hard time believing this was all done for research purposes.
What you posted isn't an article, it's an opinion from a blog. From reading it, it was clearly posted right after Pete's arrest more than 10 years ago and before he'd been cleared by police. So I'd consider it an opinion. It raises some valid points. It also goes after some really nitpicky things to prove the blogger's beliefs, for example how Pete says "a friend" rather than "my friend" or has referred to himself as a genius (wow, I'm so surprised that a hugely successful musician has a strong ego).
I agree with many of Satan's Futon's concerns. I asked myself a lot of the same questions. I was very troubled when Pete was arrested. I spent years as a rape crisis volunteer and know how sexual abuse affects children. I'm not willing to cut somebody slack because they're famous or I like their music.
I was also puzzled why nobody seemed to talk about what he'd been posting on his blog for some time, encouraging people to get involved in preventing abuse. What he'd written there didn't strike me as someone trying to cover up his own predelictions but someone who was frustrated at how few people in power seemed to care about protecting kids.
When Pete was arrested, I think he explained himself very poorly. On the other hand, he does that a lot. Shortly before the arrest, the band continued with a tour after John Entwistle's unexpected death and didn't really explain that until the tour was nearly over. I can think of a lot of examples but I think that's one of the most egregious.
SF, I think Pete explains the whole incident and the events leading up to it fairly well in his memoir but it's a long read getting there. Many of the details are intermixed with other things until you get up to the actual point of the police investigation. I don't really recommend the book unless you're a diehard fan. I learned a lot of interesting things here and there but it's not great literature and 500 pages is a lot to wade through.
Probably the biggest factor for me is how many years have gone by with no one coming forward to say they were abused and no further accusations about using porn. I think it's safe to say that the police have kept tabs on him. I have a feeling if there was more to this we'd have heard about it by now.
OTOH I don't think this will ever die. This thread is a case in point. Pete gets cranky on stage for a moment and the whole issue is raised again.
It can probably be viewed different ways. For instance it's not unusual for somebody to crusade against themselves out of self-loathing. Like the hardcore anti-gay politicians who turn out to be gay or get busted trying to solicit sex in an airport bathroom and the like.
I probably won't be reading it. I already read one biography on him in high school, "Behind Blue Eyes", which I have heard was kind of a hatchet job, but I don't remember anything too bad about it. Perhaps being a little asshole teenager, the things the author was trying to make him look bad with just made me like him more. Because I really liked his bad boy image. But one book was enough for me. I have bios of artists I like more than The Who laying around that I haven't gotten to yet. Maybe I'll read it one day, but no plans to at the moment, and I'm not a diehard.
I'm not an expert on this type of thing, and maybe as a former rape crisis counselor you have a little more insight into it, but if kiddie porn were his thing, he might have not ever felt the need to practice the real thing. If it were his thing, perhaps the arrest served as a wakeup call and deterred him from that path before it progressed to the point that he actually practiced it. Same thing for not being caught accessing any more sites, could be he decided his freedom was more important to him than the pictures.
It probably never will. This type of thing rarely just goes away, it will probably always be a cloud over him. As I'm sure you agree, even with the Pete issue aside, this is the type of behavior society finds repulsive regardless of the individual. Also, people don't have a lot of faith in the justice system, so just being cleared isn't enough for everybody, OJ was cleared after all, and many others who were clearly guilty. A lot of people probably think that if he were completely 100% guilty he wouldn't have been made to register as a sex offender. Pete was the first to admit what he did was stupid and insane, we all make mistakes, but this is the type of mistake (and here I'm assuming it was just that) that people don't tend to forget. Assuming the story goes as he said, his "White Knight Complex" really bit him on the ass, and he has to live with it as we all have to live with our mistakes. Pete assumed nobody was trying to enforce these issues and that it was up to him, little did he know there was more going on than he realized and he ended up getting caught in the middle of the very thing he was supposedly championing. If his story is the truth, he handled it so very wrong. You don't try to improve airport security by trying to sneak a gun onto a plane to prove a point, or set a fire to prove how slow the local fire department is to respond. Even if his intentions were honorable, he fucked up the execution. And as you said, he didn't explain himself too well, which didn't give people a whole lot of reason to trust him.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I also thought about the fact afterwards that Pete had crusaded for victims rights before his arrest and how it could have been his self-loathing. I'd be very impressed though if he'd been interested in child porn and dropped it because of his arrest. He clearly has an addictive personality and obsession with internet porn is sometimes referred to as an addiction. But if he hadn't reached that stage and was scared into avoiding it, I'd consider that a good thing, at least. Interesting you mention his "White Knight Complex"--the chapter in his book leading up to his arrest is called Black Days, White Knights.
I mentioned volunteering with rape crisis to say that sexual assault is a BIG deal to me and I couldn't stay a fan of someone I believed to be an abuser, no matter how good their music or how much it was part of my life. I used to think I was the biggest Who fan in the world. That was before internet message boards, when I started meeting people who went to more shows on one tour than I'd been to in my entire life.
I think Pete's memoir is tough to read because so much of it is so grim. Which is partly why I don't recommend it to most people. Too many descriptions of what an asshole he was when he was drunk or of all the beautiful women with whom he cheated on his wife. Also, enough descriptions of recording studios to drive me nuts! When I had trouble reading it, I took a suggestion and switched to the audiobook. Pete reads it and it's an entirely different work. He's an entertaining storyteller. He chuckles over funny things and imitates other people's voices. Having gotten through it, I don't plan to revisit it but I'd recommend the audio for anyone who's interested in the book.
so if pete was or still is this gigantic asshole (drunk or sober) is it because people allow him to be that way?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I'm not friends with Pete (
Pete seems to do as many kind and charitable things as Roger does, he just never gets much credit. He oversees the Who's original charity, the Double O charity. I had a chance to witness a kindness before the VH1 concert. A group of about 50 fans met for a pre-party. We paid in advance for the room and a deli buffet. We also had a silent auction of Who items. Anything over our payments plus the auction was going to the family of Meg Fox, a fan who died of breast cancer a few months earlier. She left behind a husband and 4 children. Although she'd had insurance, the family still had to deal with medical bills.
So who showed up to our party? Pete. He only stayed a few minutes but he very graciously thanked us for helping Meg's family and told us what caring people we were. He autographed all the silent auction items, blew us a kiss and left. The whole thing lasted maybe 5 minutes but it was the high point of the trip for me.
That's me in profile on the right.
I only referred to it as his "White Knight Complex" because he referred to it as that in a story I read. So I'm not surprised he mentioned it in his book. It wasn't a lucky guess or anything.
As far as addiction goes, regardless of what it's to, people can reach their bottom (hopefully) and it can set them straight. I think a child porn charge would be a pretty hard bottom to hit. I personally used to be a pretty big druggie when I was younger, more than just smoking the occasional joint, I was pretty big into coke, acid, etc. I got high off something every day, I don't know if I was a full blown addict, but I had advanced beyond simple recreational/social use, I think it was a problem. Until I got popped with some coke and dropped all that shit, it scared the hell out of me, and caused me a lot of trouble. Until last year when I smoked a little grass on a couple of occasions I didn't touch anything stronger than alcohol for 12 years. That arrest was enough for me to drop it all overnight. Fear can be a strong motivator, I know from personal experience. Even after those couple of occasions I smoked, I didn't get back in the habit and dropped it again just out of fear of losing my job, or winding up with a rolled up bill up my nose again.
But those kind of things are different for everybody. Some people don't ever wake up. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he could give it up (once again, to those that haven't been reading the whole conversation, IF he is in fact guilty of doing it) given what happened to him. Some people don't have a bottom, some are deeper or more shallow than others.
I know several people in recovery and I agree. Hitting bottom is different for each individual and people can make changes in their lives. Kudos to you for recognizing a problem and dealing with it. :thumbup: