Pete Townshend

I am definitely an “innocent until proven guilty” kinda guy, but lots of people are defending Pete Townshend by saying that “he has contributed so much to children’s charities”, yet nobody was defending Michael Jackson when he was accused of screwing little boys…

I certainly hope that Pete’s name is cleared, but I still think he did a terribly stupid thing and deserves to get some heat for it..

4 thoughts on “Pete Townshend

  1. While I agree with him that one cannot really condemn something so fervently without having been exposed to the subject at all, I think you are right that he has done quite a brainless thing by actually remaining in posession of child pornography.

    I also think a distinction needs to be made between being in posession of kiddie pr0n and child molestation. Jacko is one sick guy. Maybe Townshend is too, but I think he has more of an “excuse”, if you will… And yes, I do hope his name is cleared.

    I just hope David Bowie never does anything like this. The day I lose my respect for Bowie is the day my world will shatter.

    1. The distinction is tenuous at best… while someone who possesses child porn didn’t molest the child, they still proxied the act through someone else with a camera…

      And, in addition to not getting in trouble, Bowie can’t die…

  2. I really don’t understand the modern construct of “innocent until proven guilty” in American society. In reality it only has any relevance in a court room. I as a free thinking person, who isn’t on the jury, have no moral obligation to treat OJ Simpson as a fine upstanding citizen just because 12 illiterate monkeys, in California, were too distracted by Johnny’s smile to convict him. Same for Pete Townshend who has admitted to breaking the law where he lives in the name of research… yea right… for your book… so you can check on availability… come on he is using the same excuse people use in South Central when they’re picked up with some crack on COPS.

    Even if he is acquitted in the “criminal justice system” short of evidence that proves to ME this was some big misunderstanding he won’t have his name cleared with ME. Juries put on this burden of “innocent until proven guilty” for the benefit of the criminal justice system and not to abdicate the public’s responsibility to evaluate how they feel about someone.

    Personally If I ran into OJ on a golf course in Florida I would treat him like if I happen to run into Charles Manson; I would tee off before he cleared the fairway and not say 4. I also believe this construct comes mostly from years of modern news media calling people alleged or suspected perpetrators of acts before a trial even in the most obvious of cases. I am not talking about calling people convicted murders without conviction, just binding them to events of homicide or other acts which they are obviously bound. I.e. the “Alleged Shoe Bomber” yes the Federal Prosecutors in Boston can allege while I will skip to calling him an ass wipe and proceed to call his name, “not cleared”.

    1. A) You are picking nits. I didn’t say “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”, I said “innocent until proven guilty”. I am not convinced he is guilty, and being he hasn’t even been charged with a crime, apparently the authorities are still deciding themselves.

      B) I would treat Chuck Manson much differently with OJ… They are both evil fucking murderers, but at least Manson pulls it off with some panache.

Leave a Reply