pete Townsend = child molester
OMG…. rock and roll might loose it's choir boy image after this!
Hmmmm…..<P>Maybe a double bill later in the year with The Who and The Vienna Choir Boys. 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Veranda">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Bombay Doors:<BR><B>I guess he won't be able to make the big Bee Gees/Who</B> reunion tour then? Drat!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That tour is scheduled to go on with the remaining Clash/Beatles members…<BR>
I just watched Quadrophenia and was inspired to wear one of my Who shirts, I guess I still will, whatever. My dad says that Pete thinks he might have been molested when he was 5 or 6, he says part of 'Tommy' is about that. I wouldn't disown the Who just yet.
To write anybody's name in the world = child molester is a awful thing unless you're sure the man is guilty. And all indications are the man is not guilty. Imagine what any of us would feel like if we were accused of that and yet we knew we were Not guilty. The poor guy if he is innocent is being done the worst injustice you can imagine!!
Tough boys<BR>Running the streets<BR>Come a little closer<BR>Rough toys<BR>Under the sheets<BR>Nobody knows her<BR>Rough boys<BR>Don't walk away<BR>I very nearly missed you<BR>Tough boys<BR>Come over here<BR>I wanna bite and kiss you<P>I wanna see what I can find<BR>Tough kids<BR>Take a bottle of wine<BR>When your deal is broken<BR>Ten quid<BR>She's so easy to find<BR>Not a word is spoken<BR>Rough boys<BR>Don't walk away<BR>I'm still pretty blissed here<BR>Tough boy<BR>I'm gonna carry you home<BR>You got pretty pissed dear<P>Gonna get inside you<BR>Gonna get inside your bitter mind<P>Rough boys<BR>Don't walk away<BR>I wanna buy you leather<BR>Make noise<BR>Try and talk me away<BR>We can't be seen together<BR>Tough kids<BR>What can I do?<BR>I'm so pale and weedy<BR>Rough fits<BR>In my Hush Puppy shoes<BR>But I'm still pleading<P>Tough boys<BR>Running the streets<BR>Come a little closer<BR>Rough toys<BR>Under the sheets<BR>Nobody knows her<BR>Rough boys<BR>Don't walk away<BR>I very nearly missed you<BR>Tough boys<BR>Come over here<BR>I wanna bite and kiss you<P>I wanna see what I can find!<BR>
Sure…<P>He didnt molest any children, but he did admit to looking at kiddie porn. There is no excuse for that. I mean if you suck cock then you are gay, if you kill someone you are a murdurer. You cant really use an excuse of just wanting to see what its like. Duh!
im sure if we all dig a little deeper we can link phil collins to this kiddie porn.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Veranda">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markie:<BR><B>Sure…<P>He didnt molest any children, but he did admit to looking at kiddie porn. There is no excuse for that. I mean if you suck cock then you are gay, if you kill someone you are a murdurer. You cant really use an excuse of just wanting to see what its like. Duh!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I suck cock and I'm not gay.<P>
markie meant if you suck his cock you are gay because he pays young men to suck his meat stick.
I don't think his wife is gay and I bet she sucks his cock.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Veranda">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oyh86:<BR><B>To write anybody's name in the world = child molester is a awful thing unless you're sure the man is guilty </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Let's see??? he admitted to paying so that he could view naked children on the Internet, all in the name of research for his upcuming book of course. By paying to view the pictures, he was providing a market for others to violate children's rights. That in my book makes him an accessory to the crime of child molestation.<P>ACCESSORY = One who incites, aids, or abets a lawbreaker in the commission of a crime but is not present at the time of the crime
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Veranda">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Celeste:<BR><B> I suck cock and I'm not gay.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Rhett does, but does that make him gay. No. The fact that he listens to country makes him gay!!!!
I agree with your line of reasoning, to a degree, about creating demand for child porn…would it have been less incriminating if he got the images for free? <p>[This message has been edited by Celeste (edited 01-14-2003).]
This could open an interesting debate about images vs. reality. Would it be wrong to create or posess paintings depicting "child pornography", in which no children were actually involved?<P><p>[This message has been edited by Celeste (edited 01-14-2003).]
Psychoanalyzing total strangers based on their songs is about as valid as doing it on the basis of what they type on a goofy message board. Peter Gabriel wrote the intensely creepy "Intruder," but I doubt he gets a chubby from contemplating home invasion, and Mick Jagger isn't the Midnight Rambler. As for Townshend, I adhere strictly to "innocent until proven guilty" for nobodies and somebodies alike, regardless of what they're accused of. <P>Have you noticed that some TV/radio reports are (unintentionally) making it sound almost as if he's suspected of being involved in a child porn or pedophilia ring or distribution network rather than Net viewing? At least they do initially; then eventually they get to the website information, but it creates a misleading impression for drive-by listeners. <P>While it's fine to bust the alleged consumers of the product, I'm not sure it's the best use of limited law enforcement resources–just as jailing illegal drug users doesn't have much effect on the supply side. It probably just encourages serious pedophiles to get even more crafty. The vast majority of these folks ain't using their own credit cards openly on public sites, that's for sure. Using Web activity as a starting point for tracking the big gun distributors and active pedophiles makes sense, but arresting (even in the more flexible Brit manner) someone on the basis of one credit card hit seems a bit like spitting on a forest fire. <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Veranda">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rhett Miller:<BR><B>seems a bit like spitting on a forest fire. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree, but it does send a clear message to anyone else wanting to do research of their own….. If you do that kind of research you will lose your job and go to jail. Which is a positive thing as it hits at the bad peoples revenue stream.<P>
It seems to me if he were doing legitimate research, that should not be a crime, and that person should not go to jail.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Veranda">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markie:<BR><B> I agree, but it does send a clear message to anyone else wanting to do research of their own….. If you do that kind of research you will lose your job and go to jail. Which is a positive thing as it hits at the bad peoples revenue stream.<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Veranda">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rhett Miller:<BR><B> It seems to me if he were doing legitimate research, that should not be a crime, and that person should not go to jail.<P> </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>so if I kill my wife doing research on what its like to be a murderer that ok?<P>HUM…….<P>I am off home