General News Discussion

[The Nal]

Ps - and those stories are completely different stories to other stories he's told.

For example, the story Pete told which had Daltry saying Pete was full of shit about drugs and being a junkie has Pete saying something along the lines of "I took smack once and that was it, I was an addict".

Edited October 11, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

That was at the Tory Party Conference in 1984 and was to raise awareness about the danger of the drug so I can understand the exaggeration.

the instance I'm talking about very definitely wasn't that. It's far more recent.

True. But enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Im usually sceptical about these hings but not here.

over the paedo porn thing?

It's Townsend's own claims which don't match the provable facts which brings his whole version of events into doubt.

Who would be the most likely to lie? Townsend when he's under suspicion for looking at paedo porn, or an anti-abuse organisation which puts out a statement saying that a part of Townsend's versions of events isn't true and from which they have nothing to gain?

As I say, there's valid possible reasons why Townsend's version is false, but the fact that he's put out a proven-false part of the story certainly calls into question his whole version.

[The Nal]

over the paedo porn thing?

[eFestivals]

Whos the anti abuse group?

I can't remember.

I guess it wouldn't be too hard to track down. Much of the earlier-in-time reporting of him being investigated over this included references to whatever organisation he claimed to have been in touch with - which is a part of what muddied things around him, to give a strong suggestion of innocence.

Because, as far as I can remember, it was only after the whole issue was done and dusted (after he'd been cautioned) that that organisation let it be known that he'd been in touch with them, but had got in touch with them after the point in time when he knew he was being investigated.

[The Nal]

I can't remember.

I guess it wouldn't be too hard to track down. Much of the earlier-in-time reporting of him being investigated over this included references to whatever organisation he claimed to have been in touch with - which is a part of what muddied things around him, to give a strong suggestion of innocence.

Because, as far as I can remember, it was only after the whole issue was done and dusted (after he'd been cautioned) that that organisation let it be known that he'd been in touch with them, but had got in touch with them after the point in time when he knew he was being investigated.

[kaosmark2]

4 month jail sentence for an offensive t-shirt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19911943

Getting pretty ridiculous....

[pink_triangle]

The Tories held that seat for nearly 70 years. Usually with a majority of more than 10,000.

He would win that constituency should he stand, and claim a scalp in the process.

[eFestivals]

Found it. He claimed he lodged 3 complaints about such sites (that he heard about) to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), who later claimed that he didn't actually email them.

Then after a few weeks of digging, they came back and confirmed he did email them and had the emails which they gave to the police.

ahh, yeah, I remember now that the IWF was one of his claims - tho I wasn't aware they'd come back and said he had contacted them. I've just googled for it, and can't find a single news report that says the IWF later admitted he'd been in touch, tho there is a 'hearsay' mention of it on iMDB so I guess it might be true that they did.

What I also discovered when googling is just how big an effort has been made to present to the world on the internet that he's innocent, with dedicated domain names and everything .... and quite a shortage of news reports of something which was very big news for a while, which suggests to me that there's been efforts too to have google purged. ... and people only go to that extent when they "protest too much", normally. However, I do realise that in this case it might just be over-eager fans.

Anyway, back to the org .... I'm not entirely sure if it was actually the IWF thing I referring to, or perhaps something else, a specialised child sex abuse charity. I'd have to read back thru all the reports from the beginning to know for sure if I was getting muddled over various things which were reported to work out if I was referring to the IWF or not. And I can't be bothered to do that, soz.

[The Nal]

maybe it's a response to the fact that whenever his name is mentioned, despite the verdict, loads of people still paint him with the paedo brush

it happens every time without fail

Edited October 11, 2012 by The Nal

[LondonTom]

4 month jail sentence for an offensive t-shirt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...hester-19911943

Getting pretty ridiculous....

[eFestivals]

Neil - I get you. Its not 100% at all, either way. But I've read and studied so much about the man, I just really believe him on this one.

here's the real test:-

Would you let him look after your children?

Bet that's got ya!

[eFestivals]

maybe it's a response to the fact that whenever his name is mentioned, despite the verdict, loads of people still paint him with the paedo brush

it happens every time without fail

yeah, perhaps - but that whole thing of dedicated "he's innocent" domain names and what looks like a huge purge of news articles about the case from Google's index I find more than a little creepy.

It of course doesn't mean anything towards his guilt or not - so I'm not putting any weight on it. But I do find it creepy.

[The Nal]

here's the real test:-

Would you let him look after your children?

Bet that's got ya!

[zahidf]

here's the real test:-

Would you let him look after your children?

Bet that's got ya!

[Rufus Gwertigan]

For gods sake, It's like they've just given up even trying to pretend we're free to express an opinion as we wish.

Plus if it didn't go to court, hardly anyone would have seen it!

[eFestivals]

Depends if he passess the relevant test ( CBR i think?) that people working with kids have to pass...

Pete Townsend wouldn't. He's got a police caution for visiting child porn websites.

That aside, a CRB only tells you what a person has been caught for in the past. it doesn't tell you what they've really been doing in the past nor does it give a guarantee for the future. It's far from a perfect test.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

He probably would win the seat but why take the risk. To be PM he has to become an MP. He isnt stupid and will look for a safe seat. He doesnt need a big scalp for the exposure as he already is about as big box office as you can get in british politics.

Edited October 11, 2012 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[Ed209]

Noble peace prize goes to the EU ? LMFAO

Well done everyone *rolls eyes*

[The Nal]

Noble peace prize goes to the EU ? LMFAO

Well done everyone *rolls eyes*

[Rufus Gwertigan]

"...for its role in uniting the continent over the last six decades."

Fucks sake.

They added, "a special mention to Adolf "The Little guy" Hitler, for making the mistake of sending his army into Russia during the winter. A mistake which guaranteed the unity of the continent".

[Ed209]

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to celebrate my achievement with a heavy night of boozing and then maybe a drunken brawl

[The Nal]

I'm heading to the pub straight after work, going to get pissed up on some cheap euro piss, vomit, grope a few girls arses, stumble blindly into a chippy and nut the nearest person I see.

Well done everyone! Proud to be European today.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I might sneer at some Americans.

[lost]

I honestly didn't think they could better al gore or Obama, someone there has a cracking sense of humour

[The Nal]

They should've given it to Peter Sutcliffe. He hasn't killed anyone in 30 years. Well done him!