Pete Townshend: I paid for child porn to prove British banks were channelling sex-ring cash (sept 2012)

28 Sep 2012

jj.png

Pete Townshend, The Who’s guitarist, claims he paid for child pornography to prove British banks were complicit in channelling profits from paedophile rings

Pete Townshend, The Who’s guitarist, has claimed he paid for child pornography to prove that British banks were complicit in channelling the profits from paedophile rings.

Talking about his arrest for child pornography, Townshend described his decision to pay $7 to download images of abused youngsters was ‘insane’ but said he had been trying to investigate the industry.

It is the first time Townshend has spoken publicly since he was cautioned by police and put on the sex offender’s register in 2003.

The star insisted he was looking at the website only while conducting ”research” for a campaign against internet porn involving children.

In an interview with The Times, which is serialising his memoir ‘Who I Am’, Townshend said: “It’s White Knight Syndrome. You want to be the one that’s seen to be helping.

“I had experienced something creepy as a child, so you imagine, what if I was a girl of nine or 10 and my uncle had raped me every week? I felt I had an understanding, and I could help.”

Townshend claimed he intended to show that child abuse has a financial chain that runs from Russian orphanages to British banks by paying a £7 charge for a child pornography site, which he cancelled immediately.

The Who in their heyday, Roger Daltrey, Pete Townshend, John Entwistle, and Keith Moon

When police subsequently confiscated his computers and files they found nothing incriminating, but the damage to his image had been done.

”What I did was insane,” said Townshend.

Asked why he did not speak out sooner, he said: ”Because there was no sense of ‘the truth will out’. I’ve had the misfortune to read online comments where I’m judged as a paedophile because I’ve got a big nose.”

The guitarist claimed the caution and subsequent vilification in the media left him feeling suicidal.

“If I had a gun I would have shot myself,” he writes in his memoir. “It really did feel like a lynching.”

Describing why he didn’t choose to fight the allegations in court, he told The Times: “You know, I think I was exhausted. The police at Kingston station gave me half an hour to make a decision about whether to go to court or not.

“My lawyers were as surprised as I was because everyone thought I would be let off. And I thought that if I went to court they would f***ing rip me apart.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/9572773/Pete-Townshend-I-paid-for-child-porn-to-prove-British-banks-were-channelling-sex-ring-cash.html  https://archive.is/P8xvY


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209821/The-Whos-Pete-Townshend-breaks-year-silence-child-pornography-scandal.html    https://archive.is/6ILAn

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/08/speed-read-11-most-shocking-moments-from-pete-townshend-s-who-i-am.html  https://archive.is/wqk5t

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/townshend-avoids-kiddie-porn-charge/  https://archive.is/wRxXs

 

3 thoughts on “Pete Townshend: I paid for child porn to prove British banks were channelling sex-ring cash (sept 2012)

  1. Well, if one were to try to expose the laundering, they would get in serious trouble, especially back then.If there was noting on his computer, then it would make perfect sense. But just putting down the 7 and then quitting does not prove much. But the government would use the fact that money was spent even if no pictures were ever downloaded. There is plausibility to what he says. If one were to arrange and make down payment on say, a prostitute’s services but then did not follow it up and lost their deposit. the government would still use it against you. If the government wants you, they will not be reasonable. And if you were out to prove something, they would use extreme prejudice.

    The way I would see it, if a man’s curiosity had brought him to the brink, like pay the 7, but did not follow it up, that would be a good thing and not worth prosecuting. Or put this way, if a man had planned on a rape and then decided not to, while waiting in hiding, then he did not rape. No crime was committed. Who knows. The government probably let him go with promises of far worse if he ever dared again, if the story is true. But let my put it this way. Who do I trust less? Pete or the UK? without hesitation, I trust the UK and all governments far less than Pete.

    Consider that a guy like Pete, a celebrity, could have had anything he wanted. I am sure Jimmy S would have helped him out. So why didn’t Pete take that route? Quite possibly because he was not like that. Because if he was, he would have been covered and protected like all the rest of the celebrities. So I am going to give Pete a pass. There is too much not making sense, otherwise. I can always amend the decision if new evidence were to come along.

    Liked by 2 people

What ya thinkin?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s