Enero 13, 2003
Paederasses I have known

It grieves me to notify you of this awful occurrence. Pete Townshend is a good friend of mine, and when I say good friend what I mean is that I once stood outside his house in Richmond in the pouring rain on the off chance he'd come outside to pick up some ciggies or grab a pint at the local. Alas, it would appear he was busy doing "other" things. Please reassure me that this is all a plot by the Bee Gees to distract the reading public that the true British musical paederass exposed by American authorities is the recently deceased, hat-wairing Gibb brother.

Posted by Sting at Enero 13, 2003 05:42 PM

Bummer about your pal Townshend, Sting. That article is very strange I thought. Pete is quoted at length throughout, and it makes it seem like he's floundering. But who wouldn't be?

I like this defence: "I was stupid to try to deal with my anger about child porn on the internet alone."

It just sounds weird. It's understandable, I suppose, that dealing with your anger about something means checking it out thoroughly.
But what does he mean, on the internet alone? What else would he do?

The whole investigation must hinge on a technicality anyhow. He didn't realise that it was illegal in the U.K. to give his credit card number to this site. Meanwhile, I suppose it is legal to run a website like this which attracts an international clientele. How do they even monitor this shit? How did they find him? Who saw his credit card receipt?

I think it's strange that looking at these sites qualifies as an illegal act. I suppose giving them money would, but if that's the case, can't they run them out of business? Are they highly secretive?

I can understand the compulsion to want to see what's going on. The only reason I don't look is that I'm afraid it would be rather horrifying, and that I would have a hard time forgetting it -- which is what I would want to do. Like the time I went into that video booth in Spain and it was 18 channels of broads getting double teamed by animals. But I know lots of people that have no problem watching that. That doesn't necessarily make them degenerates. Maybe they can just remove themselves from what they see more successfully than I can.

I just don't think it's true that by not seeing something you therefore don't support it, and hence, it disappears. Sometimes you have to look at ugly, fucked up shit. Maybe there are people that need to see a bunch of kids being forced to have sex to make it their personal mission to burn down every hidden hub of every secret server hosting all private pedophilia, everywhere.

Go get 'em Pete. You sick fuck.

Posted by: king on Enero 14, 2003 12:56 AM .

Interesting comments Monsieur King. The more I think about this issue the more it angers me. If Pete was abused as a child then why the hell does he need to see other kids sexually abused for, as he claims, "research" purposes? Surely downloading and paying to view such insidious filth is in fact virtual child abuse or, at the very least, furthering its future distribution. Either way, I don't think Pete's acts can be justified even if it spurs him to dismantle every child porn site in existence. He has been incredibly naive or utterly degenerate. Either way I feel ill.

Posted by: on Enero 14, 2003 11:53 AM .

Sting, just a reminder, you need to enter your name in the comments section so that we know it's you.

And once again, thanks again for taking the time out of your busy schedule to write on this blog.

Posted by: king on Enero 14, 2003 05:02 PM .

Sorry Monsieur King. It will never happen again, I can assure you of that. My feeling of betrayal in regards to Pete grows hourly.

Posted by: Sting on Enero 15, 2003 03:33 PM .

I think both of you are being awfully forgiving given the severity of the accusations. Peter Townshend may have created wonderful music and thrilled us all with his amazing stage show and rock-star persona but that does not absolve him of any legal and moral responsibility expected to be upheld by any 'normal' person. The man has been caught PAYING for child pornography. A great many people have had very horrible childhoods, that does not, however, provide them with some form of license to experiment with their own personal demon/issues at the expense of others. The fact of the matter is that the very nature of PAYING for child pornography perpetuates the existence and further exploitation of this problem. If he just briefly looked at a picture and that somehow provided a transcendental moment for him that would be one thing. But, alas, that is not the case. DJs on rock-radio station are all 'hoping for the best for ol' Pete' - it's fucking disgusting. I don't give a shit about Tommy and Who's Next in context of pedophilic sickness. As far as I'm concerned I'll always love his music and continue to listen to it. But I will also be forever tainted by the sick and perverse behaviour of a fucked up and disgusting man. No more excuses Pete. You done wrong, now fuck off.

Posted by: Gene on Enero 16, 2003 05:30 PM .

whoa, gene, let's not nail him to the cross before we know what the fallout is.

that said, i think his "i was researching" excuse wears a little thin. he claims he was completely disgusted when he accidentally stumbled across the first image, and yet he still found his wallet, pulled out his credit card, and payed money to see more of what had disgusted him so much?? sorry, don't quite buy that.

frankly, if you want to look at pornography of any kind online, you can see a whole crapload of stuff without paying a dime. and if it's just for "research", then surely the free stuff would begin to give you an idea...

Posted by: marijke on Enero 16, 2003 06:16 PM .

correction: i don't know how much child pornography you can see for free online (given that it's illegal and all...). i've never actually visited any child porn sites; my "research" doesn't include children...

anyone know for sure?

Posted by: marijke on Enero 16, 2003 06:21 PM .

I happen to know a thing or two about free porn sites, and I can't imagine that it would be hard to see free kiddie porn if that was your desire. Here, I'm gonna type "kiddie porn" into google right now....

Hmmm, that didn't yield much in the way of kiddie porn. Except for this.
Anyhow, I still think you could find free child pornography if you were looking hard. So why did he pay for it? Who would trust an obscure child porn site with their credit card number. Any site of this nature must be operating beneath the legal radar as it is. Very curious.

He must have seen a child on that site that induced enough of a craving in his sick loins that he HAD to pay to see them performing sexual acts. It was an uncontrollable desire.

I'm simply postulating a hypothesis of course.

How did they find him though? How the fuck did they figure it out? Too many questions about hard rocking alleged procurer of child pornography. Must deduce answers through careful analysis of rock music. Back soon.



Posted by: king on Enero 17, 2003 01:26 AM .

Gene, I agree with you that paying for child pornography perpetuates its continued distribution and it is consequently a reprehensible thing to do. That said, I don't think we should get hysterical and condemn him before he has been tried or in fact charged with anything. Child pornography is an emotional topic and the natural reaction is to damn everyone in sight. This point was made by Pete Townhend himself a year ago here. Obviously none of us know Pete personally however the evidence would tend to point to him being a colossal moron rather than a paederass. Of course this may be wishful thinking on my part, but wishful thinking borne out of a hope that an idol of mine is not a Gary Glitter-esque kiddie-fiddler. Surely that's only natural. But rest assured, I will cease to have anything good to say about him if he is convicted. That is all.

Posted by: Sting on Enero 17, 2003 11:25 AM .

Pete Townshend's article is here; technical difficultes beyond my control prevented the link working in the previous entry. Apologies.

Posted by: Sting on Enero 17, 2003 11:30 AM .

You all sound like a bunch of pansy assed U.N. delegates. Take your cheap brand of Marxist advocacy and stick it where the sun don't shine - although you'd probably find ol' Pete hiding out there doing 'research'. We're not running a Godammned court of justice here. This is a forum for public opinion and you're all terrified of pre-judging a rock-star of potential pedophilia. Fuck him. Our opinion isn't going to put an innocent man in jail. Worst case scenario: I'm wrong and Pete Townshend was only caught PAYING for child pornography. It turns out that he isn't really a committed pederast but was just doing a little peeping for 'research'. As far as I'm concerned he's still a sick fucker. Like I said, I'll still listen to his music - I'm just not afraid to call him a fucking wanker for fucking around with kid-porn. Why bother giving him the benefit of the doubt? What's the difference?

Posted by: Gene on Enero 17, 2003 12:45 PM .

Don't ever compare me with the UN again Gene. And where the hell was economic determinism mentioned in any of these comments? Marxist advocacy indeed. All I'm saying sunshine is that you should refrain from acting like a self-righteous mid-west Oklahomian and allow reason rather than emotion to determine your opinions. I'm not afraid to call him a "fucking wanker" either, nor is King. We're just not engaging in a witch-hunt just yet.

Posted by: Sting on Enero 17, 2003 03:27 PM .

I'm not afraid to call him a fucking wanker either.

fucking wanker. (see?)

Posted by: marijke on Enero 17, 2003 04:17 PM .

Fine. Just to prove my point I am going to go buy a plane ticket to London, purchase an illegal firearm while in the UK, track him down and attempt to put a bullet in Pete's brain. Let's see if you're willing to do that, eh...

Posted by: Gene on Enero 17, 2003 04:28 PM .

First of all Sting, you said you were buddies with Townshend and now you say you don't know him personally, which lends suspicion to your whole argument -- and to whether Sting is really still writing on this blog or whether he's paid some underling to express his opinions for him. I'm on Gene's side now. We should cap Pete right up his big fat fucking nostrils with a double barrel. That'd show him.

Then we can all relax and get back to our own, classier, non-sick electronic fantasies of the barely legal kind.

You with me Gene?

Posted by: king on Enero 18, 2003 07:37 AM .

If you mean on the whole 'barely legal electronic pornography' thing...then yes, yes I am.

Posted by: Gene on Enero 18, 2003 01:07 PM .

Let me assure you Monsieur King that I am indeed still writing and have hired no underling to expound thoughts on my behalf. I find your aspersions on my character hurtful and unfounded. At no point did I say that I was friends with Pete Townshend. In fact, if you read my opening remark more closely, I think you'll find that I admit not knowing him at all except in the sense that a stalker knows his prey. Unfortunately, Pete doesn't like me very much due to an unfortunate incident that occurred in Newcastle upon Tyne sometime in 1974. It was before The Police broke onto the scene and I was very much an anti-Who man back then, which I made plain to Pete during his gig when I projectile vomited from the front row into his amp. The man has an elephantine memory for faces and when I became the frontman for the greatest band of the early eighties, he remembered me and has refused all attempts at conversation and reconciliation put forth by yours truly. I was just a young, drunk fool dammit! Regardless, whether I know Pete or not has no bearing on my arguements. Enjoy your killing rampage you bitter, bitter man.

Posted by: Sting on Enero 20, 2003 11:08 AM .

Thank you for clearing this up.

Posted by: king on Enero 20, 2003 06:47 PM .


Posted by: on Octubre 8, 2003 11:25 PM .
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?