Pete's Outbox

|

As Brian noted a few weeks ago, Pete Townshend's "research" claims could be either exculpatory evidence or a sign that he was trying to set up an alibi in advance of an investigation. But the latest twist in the story shows one thing pretty clearly: The people who run "watchdog" groups of all forms are a bunch of rat bastards.

The Internet Watch Foundation—a U.K. organization that "works to minimize the availability of illegal content on the Internet"—received emails from Townshend several times last year, which would presumably (and with the above caveat) indicate the aging rocker's "research" story is legit. Townshend told the police about these emails at the time of his arrest, but the
IWF denied his claim.

The IWF claims it is legally barred from revealing the identities of correspondents unless given specific permission from the sender—though not revealing a person's identity or personal details would not seem to extend to denying that person ever wrote to them. Isn't that supposed to be covered by a No Comment?

"My lawyers have written to the Founder of the IWF, Mark Stephens, who was adamant that they had never heard from me, asking for an explanation," Townshend writes.

Another interesting detail: Although many of us assumed the U.K. has a blanket law against seeing kiddie porn under any circumstances, British press reports say it is "legal to view child pornography for 'legitimate' reasons in the U.K."

NEXT: Cloning Hoax Continued?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Mmm…you’re wrong. What about cops, judges and juries?

  2. His story might be true, but did he really need to SEE kiddie porn to figure out its evil? What a great imagination there, Pete! Nobody needs to see it for any reason.

  3. R.C., a suggestion: perhaps he wanted to see if it were actual child pornography. I read his original article about his activities, and I recall his mentioning the frequency of the word “lolita”. I can personally testify (from dodging a ton of spam in email & usenet groups) that many porn sites that use legal models like to portray them as younger. So maybe he wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff?

  4. I think that it was a pretty daft for Pete Townshend to have done. I don’t believe that he is a Paeodophile for the simple reason that if he were then it would have come to light years ago.
    Especially when you consider the place he holds in Rock Music.
    We all know what the Press are like and how clever they are at digging up the dirt on the famous.
    Consider this. Gary Glitter was a flash in the pan that lasted a few years then fizzled out.
    Pete Townshend on the other hand occupies a unique place in Music. His Music has never fizzled out.
    I firmly believe that though the act was foolish, the intention was honorable.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.