Talk:Pete Townshend

Child Porn investigation

Comment regarding the child porn investigation -- the software that they used to scan all his computers verified that he never had child porn on his computer systems. This software is able to find files even after they've been deleted. Also, the organization that led this whole investigation verified that Pete Townshend contacted them through email after he saw this website to report it. Obviously, he thought he was doing a good thing to report it. This same organization later stated that Townshend should have never been placed on the sex offenders list. If this encyclopedia is going to list all the negative press, then they should list all of his charitable contributions that have benefitted children over the years:

Evidence for your claims relating to the child porn incident, please. Andy Mabbett 21:21, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Still awaited. Andy Mabbett 10:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The software failed to find any evidence of the existence of child porn on Townshend's computers, which is not the same thing as verifying that there never was any such material on his computers. Townshend himself made public the fact that "on one occasion" he had seen child porn. Why, then, did the forensic examination fail to reveal this "one" child porn image IF the "software is able to find files even after they've been deleted"? 15:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

still

Hey user:pigsonthewing: The concern you raise above is largely addressed by removing the word "still" -- What's documented is that PT provided his CC info and gained access to the website, and presumably (based on his own statement)m viewed content there. That's not the same as "being in possession of" -- saying "still" implies that he once was, which is not known to be the case (as you yourself seem to be arguing above). I'm not sure why you would argue that he never had it on his PC and then re-insert the word "still", which implies he did. Jgm 22:31, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is exaclty the same as being in possession of, as many people in UK jails can tell you. What "concern" of mine do you think is answered by denying that fact? I have never argued "that he never had it on his PC". Andy Mabbett 10:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, your signature at the bottom of the unsigned block of text and list above made me assume you wrote it all. Looking more closely at the history, I see you just made a response. I won't try to argue UK law with you, but in a common language sense "viewing on a website" and "being in posession of" are two different things and given the nature of this paragraph we would do well to use language carefully. Jgm 12:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - To view an image on a website, it must be downloaded to your computer. It is then present at least in RAM, possibly on the hard disk. My impression is that this is generally regarded as possession, but I am not a lawyer. Gwimpey 01:08, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Pure tosh

The following was removed on the grounds of toshness:

Incidentally, the law in England at the time of Townshend's transaction in 1999 explicitly outlawed the downloading of pornographic images, something that the police found no evidence of Townsend ever doing. But there had been no legal ruling in 1999 on the topic of what Townshend did do - which was to pay money to access a website that contained child pornography. The first legal ruling in England on this specific issue occurred in a case in 2001 - nearly two years after the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website. At that time - a judge ruled that a law passed in the 1970's in respect of the purchase of printed child pornography should be applied to purchases made on the internet. Irrespective of whether it was for prurient purposes or legitimate research. That ruling meant that anyone who had made any transaction at any time since the 1970's would have infringed the law - even though the person would have been unaware (till the 2001 ruling ) that the old law applied to internet purchases. Townshend might thus have been found guilty in 2003 of a technical infringement that occurred in 1999 of a law that neither he (nor anyone else in England) could have been aware was relevant to his activity prior to 2001.

No law explicity outlaws the downloading of pornographic images (downloading is considered an act of "making" an "indecent photograph of a child" (see R v Bowden (1999)).
Townshend admitted "one one occasion" downloading a pornographic image of a child
There has been no legal ruling relating to paying "money to access a website that contained child pornography" - the relevant offence appears to be "inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child"
Arose in a case in 2001 - which case? R v Toshy Tosh Tosh (2001)????
There was no law passed in the 1970s relating to the purchase of printed child pornography. The actual law covering "child pornography" is the Protection of Children Act 1978, which made no mention of "child pornography", let alone "puchasing" it. It was perfectly legal to purchase "child pornography" in England until the coming into force of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (well, possibly: purchasing MIGHT count as "inciting distribution" given English judges' profound respect for the meaning of English), and even then pucrhasing child pornography was legal, with the exception that it was illegal to possess it. 23 December 2005

No no no! The above is pure uninformed opinion.

1) Townshend NEVER admitted any downloading at all ever. He openly acknowledged that he had on one single occasion ACCESSED a site using his credit card. For which he might have been found guilty of a technical infringement of a law that had NOT been applied to internet purchases in 1999. The police conceded that he clearly had not downloaded. If he had downloaded even a single image and it had been found by the forensic team (which spent 4 months examining his computers) he would definitely have been charged. The case was so high-profile that to have given such a famous person a "pass" was unthinkable. The police didn't charge him because he had NOT downloaded.

He openly acknowledged that he had on one single occasion ACCESSED a site using his credit card: [Townshend's statement] says "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." What does it mean to "enter" a website? It means to view the homepage at the very least. Since Townshend used his credit card, he would have had unrestricted access to whatever content the website provided. How did he obtain this access? He must have seen the site's public (i.e.) free homepage, and then progress through the subscription process. If it was part of his research into paedophilic imagery on the Internet, why would he subscribe if he did not know the site contained such imagery?
Townshend NEVER admitted any downloading at all ever: From A different bomb - "Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man." To see an image is to download it. This image was not found by the forensic examination, therefore such examination cannot find all evidence that ever existed. Conclusion: there was insufficient evidence to say that Towenshend downloaded, not that the examination provded he did not download. His own admission proved that he did download - English law considers "downloading an image to a computer screen" to be an act of making (R v Jayson [2002] EWCA Crim 683).
technical infringement of a law that had NOT been applied to internet purchases in 1999: please state which law had never been applied to internet purchases. Please state why it started to be applied to internet purchases after 1999 - what happened to make this happen? There was no significant change in the law or its interpretation in 1999, certainly with regard to "internet purchases".

2) Townshend was placed on the offenders list because of an abberation in the law that makes it mandatory to do so if a caution is accepted. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CHARGE, NO GUILT, NO CONVICTION. A caution is NOT an admission of guilt. The caution was not imposed on Townshend. It was a negotiated settlement with the police. The police needed to save some face having made such a high-profile arrest alleging downloading (that transpired NOT to have taken place.) Townshend wished to avoid the pain of enduring a trial in which he might havbe been found guilty of a technical infringement.

Townshend was placed on the offenders list because of an abberation in the law: Townshend became subject to the notification requirements as a result of accepting a caution and thereby admitting guilt; this is NOT an the result aberation in the law. A caution can only be offered where the police/CPS would be able to press charges (i.e. where there is sufficient evidence or other good reason to believe that a conviction will be secured) and where the person concerned admits guilt for a specific criminal offence. Cautions are offered BY the police where (for whatever reason) it is not considered to be in the public interest to prosescute. For example, see the UK government's [TOGETHER campaign's website] on Police Cautions, which says:

A Police Caution is a formal warning given by or on the instructions of a senior Police officer.

A Caution can be only given to an adult who has admitted guilt for an offence. The Police Caution is administered where that person could have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for minor or less serious offences.

The Police Caution is recorded on the Police National Computer and can be taken into consideration by the Court if that person is convicted and sentenced for a further offence.

EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CHARGE, NO GUILT, NO CONVICTION: A caution can only be offered where charges can be pressed and there is a good liklihood of achiving a conviction but, for whatever reason, it is not considered to be in the public interest to procede with a prosecution - possibly becuase the consequences flowing from a caution give the authority's sufficient justification to believe the offending behaviour can be addressed.
A caution is NOT an admission of guilt: a police caution IS an admission of guilt
The caution was not imposed on Townshend: the caution was offered to Townshend as an alternative to prosecution; had Townshend chosen to refuse the caution, the liklihood is that the police would have pressed charges and a trial would have ensued
It was a negotiated settlement with the police: what terms did Townshend negotiate? What bargaining position did he occupy?
Townshend wished to avoid the pain of enduring a trial in which he might havbe been found guilty of a technical infringement: Townshend admittmed guilt by accepting the caution.

3) No US court would ever sustain the placing of a person on such a list who had not had a trial and conviction.

Townshend is NOT an American citizen. However, he did accept a police caution when it was offerered. Such acceptance IS an admission of guilt. Please inform yourself of what a police caution is, and what the consequences of accepting one are.

Davidpatrick 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER DISCUSSION

The sole reason that Townshend appears on the list is because of an aberration in English law. He was not charged or convicted of ANY CRIME yet the law mandated that (if he accepted a police caution) he HAD to be placed on a list of convicted offenders even though he was not even suspected of having been an offender (as defined by the law.) Only suspected of downloading images - an act that the police eventually conceded he had NOT done. His sole action - that he openly acknowledged - was ACCESSING a site on one occasion with a credit card - and that does not make him a Sex Offender as that is defined legally, morally or logically.

Accepting a police caution in England is NOT in any way an acceptance of guilt. Not so. Not in any official document. That notion is merely an erroneous, uninformed POV. Cite official document if you disagree.

The FAQ on [an Official Police site approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers] says:

Question: What is a police caution and how long does it last?

Answer

A caution is a formal warning that is given to an adult who has admitted the offence (which must be a minor offence). If the person refuses the caution then they will be prosecuted through the normal channels for the offence.

Although it is not technically classed as a conviction it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence. A caution will be included on a police check until it becomes spent, a police caution will become spent after five years.

Even after five years the caution can still be disclosed if you apply for certain types of jobs, i.e. police, teacher, or jobs working with children and vulnerable adults. It will be disclosed if it is relevant to the job you are applying for.

In the US Townshend could never be placed on such a list based on those circumstances. Lack of due process apart from anything else. It is probable that The European Court would also rule Townshend's inclusion on the list to be unlawful if he ever challenged it. Townshend made clear in interviews that he considered it more prudent to accept the unfair inclusion than to undergo the pain and public/media hoopla of a prolonged legal battle to clear his name.

Remember - Townshend wasn't even charged with any such act or crime - let alone convicted. He found himself on an English list (not a US list) by "virtue" of an aberration in the law that meant that he HAD to be placed on a list with convicted sex offenders even though he wasn't one and hadn't been charged or convicted.

That is why the wiki article must reflect these incontovertible facts otherwise it is being grossly unfair. Davidpatrick 14:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MORE DISCUSSION

Thank you for a thorough presentation of your perspective. I accept that you are sincere in presenting your beliefs. These are indeed weighty matters. BTW - some of them (but not all) have been argued extensively on this and other pages before - but you undoubtedly raise some interesting points.

Without turning this into a knock-down fight - this is ultimately about ensuring that the wiki article is fair and factual. Some might argue that the amount of text is already wildly disproportionate to the amount of relevance this incident has to Townshend's 60-year life/41-year career. And how detailed the text should be on the topic.

The sole reason that this matters is because the topic of sex affecting children is rightly an important one. It is also an incendiary topic - and therefore it is important to take especial care to be fair and not falsely (or unintentionally) impugn people.

The average wiki reader is unlikely to understand the minutiae of English law. (Many English lawyers have that problem!) Those based in countries other than England may be especially baffled. To give a simple example - to be "arrested" means one thing in the UK - and has an entirely different connotation in the USA.

Some key points.

To quote from the above note about Police Cautions The Police Caution is administered where that person could have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for minor or less serious offences.

And again with added emphasis:

The Police Caution is administered where that person COULD have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for MINOR OR LESS SERIOUS offences.

In the same note about Police Cautions: A Caution can be only given to an adult who has admitted guilt for an offence. 81.178.223.226 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is undoubtedly a legal difference between downloading and viewing. We disagree about your statement that viewing is identical to downloading. Townshend openly acknowledged that he had looked once to see what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases" offered on homepages. (And he really did write about these differences in his well-chronicled campaigning about the issue.)

You continually state your opinion that there is a difference between downloading and viewing. No such distinction is made in English law - "both" are covered by the same offence, namely "making indecent photographs of children". 81.178.223.226 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THAT was the sole thing that he would have pleaded (technical) guilt to. And that met the definition of it being a MINOR OR LESS SERIOUS OFFENCE.

If it had been a major or more serious offence - he would have been prosecuted. And rightly so.

This is a good point - None of the offences Townshend was suspected of is a minor offence. The Home Office says that a police caution is "a formal warning given to adults who admit they are guilty of first-time minor offences, such as vandalism or petty theft". A caution should not have been offered and he should have been prosecuted. 81.178.223.226 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a high-profile arrest and public and media scrutiny involving a celebrity it is in the interest of the police to be seen to be fair and forthright. To be neither over-zealous in making a prosecution - nor to be inordinately forgiving of a minor offence.

After confiscating 14 computers and making the search and arrest with multiple police officers - accompanied by a TV crew making a documentary showing how the police are cracking down on paedophiles - it was not in the interest of the police to back-pedal and treat Townshend with kid gloves. If there was any way that they could have had a MAJOR offence with which to charge Townshend - they certainly would have. The decision to only give a caution confirms beyond reasonable doubt that there was no MAJOR offence with which he could be charged.

Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possessing, making and inciting the distribution of indecent photographs of children. It does not appear to be public information which offence Townshend accepted a caution for. However, Townshend appears to have a technically deficient understanding (shared with User:Davidpatrick) of the operational details of web browsers, which would preclude his guilt to a charge of possession, so for him to admit guilt when offered a caution (and he did accept a caution, thereby admitting guilt) would be irrelevant to the proper issuing of a caution (he did not understand the caching mechanism at the time of the offence, therefore he was not guilty of possession; to issue a caution would be unjustifiable). But this lack of guilt to a charge of possession simply means that the caution can only have been for an offence of "making an indecent photograph of a child", or "inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child". Both of which Townshend admits having done. Both Making and Distributing indecent photographs of children were at the relevant time defined as serious arrestable offences - they therefore were not "minor offences" - in fact they were "major offences". 81.178.223.226 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a sensitive issue - and deeply complex - especially to the layperson - more so given that laws are different in each country. The wiki article on Townshend must be fair and deal fairly with these complex issues. I submit that the current edit (before your deletions) is a basis for this. Perhaps tweaked to take account of your perspective. To do less would be profoundly unfair to Townshend. Thank you. Davidpatrick 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YET MORE DISCUSSION

Admittedly, the article on Townshend must be fair and deal fairly with these complex issues; but more importantly, it must be factually accurate. The content that Davidpatrick keeps reinstating is NOT a sound basis for an accurate and fair article. It is skewed heavily in Townshend's favour. 81.178.223.226 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is PLAIN WRONG. It is totally inaccurate concerning police cautions, and thereby implies that Townshend is innocent of any wrongdoing and what he did amounted merely to a technical infringement of a law (BTW, ALL crimes are technical infringements of some law or other).

There are literally thousands of people in England who have criminal convictions for doing exactly the same thing that Townshend did.

There is still a major difference in law between accepting a caution and being convicted of a crime. And that is not just a difference on the end of the person accepting the caution but on the end of the police. The police's job is not to give cautions where a prosecution can take place. A caution is given at the discretion of the police where they feel that a prosecution may not be clear-cut or that it might be disproportionate to the alleged infringement or even where there is a possibility that a conviction might be overturned because of mitigating circumstances by a higher court (such as the House of Lords) or the European Court. No police authority PREFERS to give a caution over pressing criminal charges. And it is not right legally or ethically to confer guilt on someone because he accepted a caution. Especially when that guilt lumps a person in with people who HAVE committed heinous crimes the likes of which are rightly abhorrent to society - and of which the person was never ever even suspected (ie interacting sexually with children.) That is why there is an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of Townshend having been placed on that list. In the USA for example there is no way that Townshend could have been placed on such a list without there having been a criminal conviction. Different legal system granted - but many would say a fairer one on that specific point. It has been argued elsewhere and with more eloquence and authority than I can muster that the mandatory consequence of accepting the caution - in such circumstances - is inappropriate - and would probably not survive a chellenge at the European Court. In any event - there is no way that accepting a caution could or should be portrayed to wiki readers as the equivalent of a criminal conviction - when it most patently isn't. Davidpatrick 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The police's job is not to give cautions where a prosecution can take place: the police MUST NOT offer a caution unless a prosecution could take place with a fair expectation of securing a conviction. 81.178.223.226 18:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it is not right legally or ethically to confer guilt on someone because he accepted a caution: for the police to be able to offer a caution, the suspect must have ACCEPTED guilt for a specific, identifiable criminal offence. Thus a caution is an admission of guilt. 81.178.223.226 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when that guilt lumps a person in with people who HAVE committed heinous crimes the likes of which are rightly abhorrent to society: there are many people who have criminal convictions for doing exactly the same things (and in some cases, for doing less than) Townshend did; such people are said to be guilty of crimes "which are rightly abhorrent to society". Wikipedia should not be about protecting one person's reputation at the expense of truth. 81.178.223.226 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is why there is an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of Townshend having been placed on that list: there is no such debate; Towsnhend admitted guilt for a criminal offence where such admission made him subject to the notification requirements. Such an admission would be exactly equivalent to him entering a guilty plea at the beginning of a trial. Why should he NOT be placed on such a 'register'? 81.178.223.226 18:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the USA for example there is no way that Townshend could have been placed on such a list without there having been a criminal conviction: in the UK, such a list is a proecdural matter only. It is NOT made public and nor is any information released to the public. It is only used within the police service, probabtion service, social services, etc. It is not a punishment in any sense. 81.178.223.226 19:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more pure tosh

The following is pure tosh and does not deserve to be in the article in any form:

Incidentally, the law in England at the time of Townshend's transaction in 1999 explicitly outlawed the downloading of pornographic images, something that the police found no evidence of Townsend ever doing. But there had been no legal ruling in 1999 on the topic of what Townshend did do - which was to pay money to access a website that contained child pornography. The first legal ruling in England on this specific issue occurred in a case in 2001 - nearly two years after the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website. At that time - a judge ruled that a law passed in the 1970's in respect of the purchase of printed child pornography should be applied to purchases made on the internet. Irrespective of whether it was for prurient purposes or legitimate research. That ruling meant that anyone who had made any transaction at any time since the 1970's would have infringed the law - even though the person would have been unaware (till the 2001 ruling ) that the old law applied to internet purchases. Townshend might thus have been found guilty in 2003 of a technical infringement that occurred in 1999 of a law that neither he (nor anyone else in England) could have been aware was relevant to his activity prior to 2001.

According to a statement made by the metropolitan police, Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, making indecent images of children and incitement to distribute indecent images of children. Making and distributing are what the Police and Criminal Evidence Act defines as "Serious Arrestable Offences". Nowhere was any mention made of "paying money".

Incidentally, the law in England at the time of Townshend's transaction in 1999 explicitly outlawed the downloading of pornographic images,

Which Act explicitly criminalises downloading pornographi images?

something that the police found no evidence of Townsend ever doing.

But Townshend himself admitted to doing this when he said that he had accessed the website. Townshend's deficient understanding of the technicalities involved in displaying an image on a computer screen do not exonerate him from the consequences of so doing. An image on a webpage is contained in a file, which the viewing computer downloads to local storage (which might be RAM or disc). IF the person operating the computer knows of this mechanism (the "cache"), he is guilty of possession, since the file is stored ( Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] EWHC Admin 302).Furthermore, in "downloading the image to the computer's screen", the computer operator is causing a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child" to exist, and is thus guilty of "making an indecent photograph of a child" (R v Jayson [2002] EWCA Crim 683)

But there had been no legal ruling in 1999 on the topic of what Townshend did do - which was to pay money to access a website that contained child pornography.
The first legal ruling in England on this specific issue occurred in a case in 2001 - nearly two years after the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website.

What is the reference to this "legal ruling"? Who made it? What authority is it based on?

At that time - a judge ruled that a law passed in the 1970's in respect of the purchase of printed child pornography should be applied to purchases made on the internet.

Which law is that? No law deals with the purchase of printed child pornography...

Irrespective of whether it was for prurient purposes or legitimate research.

You seem to be confused here. At the relevant time, the only criminal offences involving "child pornography" to which there was no defence are creation of it (i.e. taking or making indecent photographs and indecent pseudo-photographs) and advertising that such material will be distributed or shown. Distribution, showing and possession are all possible with the existence of a "legitimate reason" (e.g. showing images to a jury)

That ruling meant that anyone who had made any transaction at any time since the 1970's would have infringed the law - even though the person would have been unaware (till the 2001 ruling ) that the old law applied to internet purchases.

Which ruling? And, quite critically, which offence are you talking about?

Townshend might thus have been found guilty in 2003 of a technical infringement that occurred in 1999 of a law that neither he (nor anyone else in England) could have been aware was relevant to his activity prior to 2001.

There has been no major change in the interpretation of the law regarding indecent photographs of children since the laws were passed, the Protection of Children Act in 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act in 1988.

81.178.223.226 19:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anonymous

Your note is extremely misleading

1) in turned out that Townshend didn't possess and had never "possessed" He didn't download. And he would have had to download to "possess"

In A Different Bomb, Townshend said "Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man." He viewed the image. For the image to be displayed on his screen, it must have been downloaded to his computer's local storage. 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) "making indecent images" and incitement to distribute" are the terms used - and they are frighteningly misleading to laypeople who would be justified in misconstruing that Townshend was suspected of "making" images - ie actually setting up and photographing images. But this term actually refers to to the making of images as in making a copy on his computer by downloading. (Which of course he didn't do - or the police would have rightly charged him accordingly)

I agree that the term "making indecent photographs of children" gives an erroneous picture of the offence, and so did the Metropolitan police when they arrested Townshend - they released a statement warning that the word 'making' should not be taken too literally. They fail to do this in other cases involving people who are not famous.
Townshend DID make; he admitted as much when he said he had viewed the material - please see R v Jayson [2002] The Times 23 April 2002

"inciting to distribute" SOUNDS LIKE actually encouraging the distribution of such images - but again is simply ambiguous wording. The very act of downloading images (which of course Townshend didn't do) is held to be an incitement (presumably to the sellers of the indecent material) to have them distribute more.

The charge of "inciting distribution" would actually apply to Townshend's payment to the website using his credit card. 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So the terminology in the act lead people to erroneously assume that Townshend was under suspicion of taking photos of little kids and of encouraging others to see them

See the danger of poor language right there....

However, the use of this language is factually accurate. If you feel this is unjust, please take this matter up with the House of Lords and then the European Court of Human Rights. Do not mount a campaign using Wikipedia (...Wikipedia is not a soapbox...). 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it turned out - the police suspicions were 100% wrong. If they were correct - they would havs (and should have) charged Townshend.

police suspicions were 100% wrong: why, then, did Townshend accept a caution, thereby admitting guilt?
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE inform yourself as to what a Police Caution is and when one can be administered. A police caution can ONLY be offered to a person who has admitted guilt. Furthermore, a caution can only be issed where there exists a good expectation of securing a conviction should charges be made. 81.178.223.226 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They were wrong. So the ONLY thing they had - was the one thing that Townshend had openly and publicly VOLUNTEERED - namely that he had paid to access a website with indecent material. A technical but minor infringement. Which was why Townshend elected to accept the police caution.

It is common ground that Townshend admitted to paying for access a website containing indecent photographs of children. In Regina (O) v Coventry Magistrates Court [2004] EWHC 905 (Admin), the Divisional Court held that such an act (and therefore Townshend's admission) would establish a prima facie case that the defendant had incited someone, namely those lying behind the onus of the company, to commit the offence of distributing.
Distribution of indecent photographs of children was at the time defined as a Serious Arrestable Offence and a sexual offence against children. IF paying someone to distribute such images is indeed enough to amount to incitement, then it is hardly a minor infringement. English courts currently consider that it does amount to incitement. Please take up your campaign to have Townshend considered totall innocent elsewhere. 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which was why Townshend elected to accept the police caution: if he had not accepted the caution, he would have been charged with whichever offence for which the police thought they had enough evidence to prove Townshend's guilt... 81.178.223.226 21:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End of story

So I see... 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any other interpretation is grossly unfair to Townshend - and infringes the Wiki tradition of decency and fairness. Davidpatrick 19:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no decency or fairness without factual accuracy. 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The facts

Statement

In early January 2003, Townshend publicly acknowledged having used his credit card on a single occasion to obtain access to a commercial child pornography website.

Arrest

On 13 January 2003 the Metropolitan Police arrested him under the Protection of Children Act 1978 on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, suspicion of making indecent images of children and suspicion of incitement to distribute indecent images of children

Caution

In May 2003 (apparently on 7 May) he was cautioned - from the BBC News report "Mr Townshend, who admitted using his credit card to look at the site for research into child abuse but denied being a paedophile, appeared at Kingston police station in London on Wednesday."

The following conditions must be met before a police caution can be administered:

there must be evidence of guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction;
the offender must admit the offence;
the offender must understand the significance of a caution and give informed consent to being cautioned.

In Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara (2001) TLR 16 July, the Divisional Court held that when police were prepared to caution a suspect, the suspect was entitled to disclosure of material necessary to enable his legal advisers to assess the prosecution case and give informed legal advice as to consent.

Presumably Townshend can afford decent solicitors; they must have been convinced of the correctness of the case against him and expressed a view on its strength.

Furthermore, Townshend must have admitted the offence (possibly upon having the case against him explained to him by his solicitor).

The decision to caution or prosecute

Whenever the CPS are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, the public interest in bringing a conviction must be considered. The Code for Crown Prosecutors explains the principles to be applied in balancing factors for and against prosecution. The public interest does not automatically require a prosecution.

The Code states that where necessary, Crown Prosecutors should consider alternatives to prosecution and apply the principles set out in Home Office Circular 18/1994 (the cautioning Guidelines) when deciding where the public interest lies. Diverting offenders from the criminal justice system can bring positive benefits for the individual and for society as a whole if used wisely.

Serious Offences

The Cautioning Guidelines reinforce Home Office guidance that a caution is not appropriate if the offence is serious; particularly if it is triable on indictment only.

Nonetheless, there will be offences that are triable on indictment only in which a caution is appropriate because of the particular circumstances of the offence or the offender, but such cases are likely to be unusual.

The fact that a caution has been offered does not, therefore, indicate that the offender's actions giving rise to the administration of the caution were minor or trivial - all offences can, in theory, justifiably be dealt with by the administration of a caution (including those as serious as attemtped murder, for example).

Offence?

Townshend openly acknowledged that he had looked once to see what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases" offered on homepages - what offence does this admission reveal?

Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possession of indecent photographs of children, suspicion of making indecent photographs of children and suspicion of inciting another to distribute indecent photographs of children:

Possession of indecent photographs of children

Contrary to section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

In Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions ([2000] EWHC Admin 302) it was held that knowledge was an essential element in the offence of possession under s.160(1) of the 1988 Act, so that a defendant could not be convicted where he was unaware of the existence of a cache of photographs.

In A different bomb, Townshend described how he found a child porn image: "Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man."

He went on to say "I knew I must NOT download anything I saw. That would be illegal. I spoke off-the-record to a lawyer. He advised me that I most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence'."

Townshend obviously did not (at that time and presumably at the time he made the subscription to the website that led to his arrest) understand the operation of a web broswer (and any other conceivable application).

Images are stored on the server and have to be transferred to the "viewer's" computer in order to be displayed. This procedure is known as "downloading".

In R v City of London Magistrates' Court and Another, Ex parte Green (1997) The Times, 13 March, The Queen's Bench Divisional Court held that to "download" a computer meant to "transfer (data) from one storage device or system to another" in accordance with the definition contained in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Ninth edition 1995).

The principal matter to come out of the judgment is that 'downloading', like much of computer terminology, is not consistent in its use and the High Court was prepared to accept that different technical specialists could reasonably take different views as to the definition of what is really a very commonplace computer operation.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth Edition 1999; Eleventh Edition 2004) define the term differently:

Download Computing – v. copy (data) from one computer system to another or to a disk – n. the act or process of downloading

A web browser "downloads" an image from the webserver and (probably) stores this copy of the the image in its cache. If the "viewer" understands the operation of this caching system, he is guilty of possession (Atkins v DPP). But even if the image is not stored in the cache, it is stored in the computer's RAM - while there, it is "possessed".

Townshend did not understand this caching system; furthermore, it seems to be the case that he thought he was only "viewing" the image, which means he did not understand that the image had to be stored on the computer he was using; therefore he was not guilty of possession.

Making indecent photographs of children

Contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978

In R v Bowden (1999), the Court of Appeal held that downloading data representing an indecent photograph of a child from the Internet was sufficient to amount to an offence of "making an indecent photograph of a child" - see R v Bowden (1999) for further details.

In R v Jayson ([2002] EWCA Crim 683), the Court of Appeal held that "the act of voluntarily downloading an indecent image from a web page onto a computer screen is an act of making a photograph or pseudo-photograph".

Townshend admitted "using his credit card to look at the site for research into child abuse" - that he had looked once to see what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases" offered on homepages.

It can be inferred from this that he had-

selected the site as one that was worth studying as part of his research (i.e. he had probably seen the "Preview" images - the so-called "teases" - and these had been sufficient to convince him that "researching" the website was worthwhile);
gone through the subscription process;
viewed some of the material available on the website (i.e. what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases")

1) and 3) involve displaying the website's material on his screen; such would be the result of deliberate action by Townshend; since his interest was in researching "child porn on the Internet" he has admitted enough to reveal an offence of "making".

Inciting another to distribute indecent photographs of children

Contrary to the common law (via section 1(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978)

Townshend admitted to paying for access a website containing indecent photographs of children. In Regina (O) v Coventry Magistrates Court ([2004] EWHC 905 (Admin)), the Divisional Court held that such an act (and therefore Townshend's admission) would establish a prima facie case that the defendant had incited someone, namely those lying behind the onus of the company, to commit the offence of distributing.

Admission of guilt

Before a caution can be offered, the National Standards for Cautioning require that:

there is a realistic prospect of conviction;
the offender admits the offence.

Townshend accepted a police caution, possibly (incorrectly) for possession, but presumably for either making an indecent photograph of a child or inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child.

Townshend MUST have admitted one of the above offences OUTSIDE the adminstration of the police caution: If the offender has not made a clear and reliable admission during the course of the police investigation, a caution cannot be administered (R v The Metropolitan Police, ex parte Andre Anthony Thompson (1996 TLR 18 December). An admission obtained only during the administration of the cautioning procedure will not, in itself, be sufficient.

So, at some point in the police investigation, Townshend willingly admitted a criminal offence. He may subsequently publicly deny guilt, but this is entirely without legal consenquence - the fact that it might be convenient, possibly for reasons of salvaging a reputation, to say that the caution was accpeted solely to bring the procedings to a quick conclusion has no bearing on the lawfully defensible conclusion that he admitted guilt. If Townshend is implicated in any future child porn operation, the caution administered in May 2003 will preclude administration of a caution at that future time, and it can be mentioned in evidence in court, thereby establishing "form".

GLB?

Why is he in the category of "Gay, lesbian, or bisexual people"? I don't see this mentioned in the article. If it's known, fine, but it should probably be mentioned in the text (or at least a link given), as he's not someone who is generally know to be gay or bi (unlike Elton John, for instance) Gwimpey 01:08, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I found a link and added it to the article. However, the category states that it is for people who have declared their sexual orientation or whose orientation is not in dispute by historian. After reading Wikipedia:Categorization of people and noting that in the RS interview, he does not accept the label, I don't know if he should be in the category or not. However, I'm not bold enough to remove him (yet). Gwimpey 01:23, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

As he does not accept the label, and neither is he generally considered lgbt, I believe we should not class him as bisexual (nor gay).

I will therefore remove him from the category 'Gay, lesbian or bisexual people' and the category 'LGBT musicians'. I will also re-add your link (which was removed on Nov 20, 2004), which I feel is valuable. --David Edgar 11:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual Musicians

I find it irresponsible to have Pete Townshend in the bisexual musicians category; he does not identify as bisexual, and it is inappropriate to identify him other than he public identifies. I have deleted this category. Elefuntboy 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Metzger

The current version says:

Although the first incident of guitar-smashing was thought to be an accident, the onstage destruction of instruments became a regular part of The Who's performances. Townshend, always a voluble interview subject, would later relate these antics to Austrian painter Gustav Metzke's theories on auto-destruction, to which he had been exposed at art school.

Apart from the typo in Gustav Metzger's name (which I just corrected), I wonder about the always a voluble interview subject bit. The writer of this sentence obviously seems a bit skeptical about Townshend's claims - for which reasons? The fact that Metzger lectured at Townshend's art college is confirmed by others:

Metzger proved particularly influential. [Townshend's friend Richard] Barnes remembers that Metzger “…showed slides of paintings done in acid on sheets of metal showing the stages of ‘beauty’ as the acid slowly destroyed the metal and was later publicly acknowledged by Pete for his inspiration on autodestruction.” Pete recalled that Metzger “turned up at some of our shows when we were smashing stuff up. He really got into it.” “It was 1962, the time of the Cuban missile crisis,” Pete told The Guardian in 2000. “Metzger had a profound effect on me. I was doing my first gig with The Who and took it as an excuse to smash my new Rickenbacker that I had just hocked myself to the eyebrows to buy. I really believed it was my responsibility to start a rock band that would last only three months, an auto-destructive group. [1]

Of course the influence bit could have been made up by Townshend later for extra intellectual credit ([2] remarks that he told an interviewer in 1982 that “…artists like Jackson Pollock…” gave lectures while he was at Ealing Art School, although Pollock had died five years earlier). But isn't it as least as sensible to assume that art school rock musicians were afraid of admitting too much art school influence in those days, which would have lead The Who to prefer the "accident" version? regards, High on a tree 2 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)

POV? Allegation about downloading child pornography

The "Allegation about downloading child pornography" section seems a little POV to me. The general impression of the section is that it's presenting a pro-Townshend view of the incident. — Matt Crypto 01:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a valid point if the matter had not been settled unequivocally. Everything in the section is factual. The police absolutely acknowledged that there were no images on the computers. and they spent 4 months looking. Given the notoriety of the arrest and the way it was leaked to the tabloid media - it was not in the interests of the police to fail to find images if there were any. The points of law (incidentally there is no "UK law" - it is "English law" or "Scottish law") are 100% verifiable. That was what made the whole issue so confusing. There was no settled law on what Townshend had done - no judgment had ever been issued applying a 1970's law about printed pornography to internet transactions. When that happened in 2001 - it meant that any transgressions before that time were illegal - even though the person would have had no way of knowing that it was illegal! FYI in a US court of law - that fact would have caused the entire matter to be thrown out. But not in English law. Had Townshend gone to trial - he would have been found guilty of the offence of "paying to view" - irrespective of mitigating circumstances. He could have tried to appeal to the European Court and possibly had the conviction over-ruled because of the jeopardy created by the 2001 ruling. But one assumes that Townshend thought it would be easier to accept a caution than to spend 3-4 years of his life fighting it. Davidpatrick 01:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website" - Have server logs been recovered to support this?

==

yes. that was how the entire matter arose. Operation Ore was a US-based sting operation to identify and convict those who downloaded. The US authorities offered the list of transactions by foreign-based credit card owners to each country where such people resided. The Uk authorities announced that they would investigate all UK-based credit card holders on the list. The presence on the list of a major star was leaked to a tabloid. Once Townshend became aware of the news report - he volunteered that he was the rock star hinted at in the tabloid report.

At that point the police had to conduct an investigation in the public spotlight. There was suspicion (not proven) that the leak to the tabloids had come from within the police. Not proven - so not in this Wiki article. Certainly having made a very public spectacle of arresting Townshend with a large police presence (accompanied by TV cameras doing a documentary on the police handling of the issue of child porn) it was quite naturally in the police's interest to conduct a vigorous investigation of Townshend. To do otherwise would look like velvet glove treatment for a celebrity. And having made such a show arrest - obviously it would have looked better for the police if Townshend HAD committed a crime. The show of force would be deemed to have been justified. So if there was the remotest chance that there had been more than one credit card transaction - that would absolutely have been uncovered from the records and brought into the charges.

Ultimately Townshend insisted all along that he had made just a solitary visit. And the police never challenged that at any time. And he insisted - to a lot of incredulity at the time - that he had looked but definitely not downloaded. (Reaction was similar to Clinton's "I smoked but didn't inhale" comment). After 4 months of intensive forensic examination of 14 computers - the police acknowledged that there was absolutely not a solitary image on any of his computers. if there had been even one image - Townshend would have been charged, convicted and almost certainly served some jail time. The police not charging him was a vindication of Townshend's main claim. His acceptance of the caution was his acknowledgment of a technical infringement. Davidpatrick 05:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Townshend accepted a police caution; this was an admission of guilt. A caution can only be offered by the police where there is a good prospect of achieving a conviction if a prosecution is commenced. A caution is offered where it is thought not to be in the public interest to prosecute.

Signature Guitars

www.gibsoncustom.com he now has 2 signature les paul deluxes, a goldtop and a red

Keith Moon

I can't find any mention in the first article of how he met Keith Moon, and how he can to join the band. Shouldn't that be in there?--Crestville 00:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child sex offenders

There seems to be some discussion of whether this article should be in this category. I would suggest that as defined, the article matches the category as the category explicitly states that it applies to anyone placed on a have been "placed on a Sex Offenders Register" and as far as I understand from article PT was. I don't believe he deserves to be put in a list with the others on that list, but as the list is defined, he does belong on it. Perhaps someone should take the discussion to the talk page for the category to get the definition adjusted to have it not apply to PT. John 05:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Category of "Child sex offenders" is defined as a list of people who have been 1) convicted of being child sex offenders, 2) have publically admitted offenses, or 3) have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register. Since both 2) and 3) apply to Townshend, inclusion in the category should stand. 81.178.223.226 21:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]