Where's Rolf?

[Guest]

Yeah there was a bit of waffle around that wasn't there? With the charity saying he wasn't involved as he'd claimed?

[eFestivals]

like the 3 hour documentary that would obviously loved it for him to be found guilty? I would bet I've read just as much as you have, probably more.

You'd said:

there wasn't anything that sounded at all suspect about his 'defence'. Of course he may have been lying, but everything pointed to him not.

You are aware that Townsend claims to have contacted some anti-child-abuse organisation in advance of there being any reasons for suspicion of him, but that organisation disputes that - aren't you?

There's certainly reasons to think he might have been telling porkies. Whether or not he did I don't know.

You also said:-

Of course he may have been lying, but everything pointed to him not. The cops involved said as much (which can also be taken with a pinch of salt).

It's lucky that you included that disclaimer.

The only source of that claim is Townsend himself.

It's the norm for every crim to claim they're not guilty, and to also invent evidence which they believe proves that they're not.

(Or course, the not-guilty also claim to not be guilty, so that's far-from-damning evidence ... I'm merely pointing out that there can be a massive gap between what a suspect says of their own case and the truth of things).

Edited September 2, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

if there was nothing on his computer, then that would have probably been tantamount to an admission.

That's like saying that because no child abuse images can be found in your house, you must be a paedo.

C'mon ... try a little bit of rational thought.

[Guest]

You are aware that Townsend claims to have contacted some anti-child-abuse organisation in advance of there being any reasons for suspicion of him, but that organisation disputes that - aren't you?

[Guest]

That's like saying that because no child abuse images can be found in your house, you must be a paedo.

C'mon ... try a little bit of rational thought.

Edited September 2, 2013 by tonyblair

[Guest]

It's lucky that you included that disclaimer.

[eFestivals]

which they later admitted they'd got wrong due to a mix up of dates

Not 100% accurate, that.

Townsend would have known he was under suspicion when news of the website subscribers leak became public. He didn't contact them until after that point.

The time of that leak was quite a long time after he'd subscribed to the site.

[Guest]

Not 100% accurate, that.

Townsend would have known he was under suspicion when news of the website subscribers leak became public. He didn't contact them until after that point.

The time of that leak was quite a long time after he'd subscribed to the site.

[eFestivals]

not 'no child abuse images', but nothing at all

if you were being accused of something, and you're hard drive was totally blank, with nothing at all on it, then that would be suspicious, no?

I'd bloody hope not, given how at some points in time I might wipe 5+ hard disks within a month of each other.

which wasn't the case with Townshend.

you're back to making it up.

Nothing was revealed about the contents of his hard disk(s), other than that they didn't have images of abused on them.

I don't know how things can be totally wiped from a hard drive, but some software, as you say, can do this. Can it select which bits are totally removed. I imagine wiping it completely clean would be easier than selecting some files.

yes, software like that can select which bits are totally removed.

I've never used any software like this, so I can only presume for how exactly it works on the user-interface side of things, but...

Wiping it completely clean would probably be marginally easier, just on the basis that there'd probably be fewer options within the software set-up to select. It's quite possibly the case that selecting just the wanted files might be no harder than using the standard Windows file-chooser or directory chooser (that you might use to open [say] an Excel spreadsheet).

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

if there was nothing on his computer, then that would have probably been tantamount to an admission. I don't believe that was the case though.

[The Nal]

I don't think that's true either. I can't find anything with the details any more though

[eFestivals]

Apologies, I was just backing up what Neil said about being able to thoroughly delete the history on a computer by using a real case example ie mine. However, I now have to say that I can't accept the tantamount admission you mention above because I had my computer cleaned and I've not accessed or, thankfully, ever stumbled across kiddie porn in my life. Mind you I did innocently click on a link once which showed a man with stumps for legs, one of which he was shoving up the arse of another bloke. Not a pretty sight. In fact when I think of it a bit further, I think the link may have been on this site on an individuals post. Might be wrong though. Maybe Neil can recall?

that's not anything I recall, but I don't read every post and don't check every link, and you sickos post all sorts of weird shite.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

and you sickos post all sorts of weird shite.

[neilloggie]

Wouldn't you argue against being put on the sex offenders register for 5 years if you were totally innocent?

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Wouldn't you argue against being put on the sex offenders register for 5 years if you were totally innocent?

[neilloggie]

Certainly fucking would mate. You'd be apoplectic with the injustice. And if you had his money you'd be suing anything that moved.

[eFestivals]

Wouldn't you argue against being put on the sex offenders register for 5 years if you were totally innocent?

As russy pointed out above, there's no disputing that Townsend broke the law. So that's why he's on the sex offenders register and not protesting/appealing against that.

Any dispute is about his motivations for why he broke that law. And while it's possible that his explanation is truthful, just about all crims claim their innocence in some similar manner.

What is, tho, beyond all doubt, is that Townsend has a habit of making rather unbelievable comments about his own actions, that even his bandmates have publicly ridiculed at times (for example, go find Daltrey's comments about Townsend's claims to have been a smack addict).

He might be innocent, but his own actions over decades give very good reason to treat his claims with scepticism.

[Guest]

Wouldn't you argue against being put on the sex offenders register for 5 years if you were totally innocent?

[Guest]

Certainly fucking would mate. You'd be apoplectic with the injustice. And if you had his money you'd be suing anything that moved.

[Guest]

As russy pointed out above, there's no disputing that Townsend broke the law. So that's why he's on the sex offenders register and not protesting/appealing against that.

Any dispute is about his motivations for why he broke that law. And while it's possible that his explanation is truthful, just about all crims claim their innocence in some similar manner.

[russycarps]

I cannot fathom why you find it impossible to condemn his actions - that is, the funding of a database of paedophile images. Or at the very least, keep a dignified silence.

And all just because you like his records. Incredible scenes.

Or do you show this level of support for everyone on the sex offenders register?

Edited September 3, 2013 by russycarps

[Guest]

I cannot fathom why you find it impossible to condemn his actions - that is, the funding of a database of paedophile images. Or at the very least, keep a dignified silence.

And all just because you like his records. Incredible scenes.

Or do you show this level of support for everyone on the sex offenders register?

Edited September 3, 2013 by tonyblair

[Guest]

What is, tho, beyond all doubt, is that Townsend has a habit of making rather unbelievable comments about his own actions, that even his bandmates have publicly ridiculed at times (for example, go find Daltrey's comments about Townsend's claims to have been a smack addict).

Edited September 3, 2013 by tonyblair

[eFestivals]

that's a wonderfully skewed sense of logic. Because guilty people profess their innocence, then anyone else who claims innocence is probably guilty..

Plug your brain in Tony.

I made it indisputably clear in an earlier post where I mentioned the guilty proclaiming their innocence that that was NOT what I was getting at.

From what you've posted, it's clear that you believe him innocent on the basis of him saying that he's innocent. Care to tell me what part of protestations of innocence gets to prove innocence?

I am merely pointing out that those words of his mean absolutely nothing towards the truth of his guilt or innocence.

[eFestivals]

I imagine asking for references about these comments would be a futile exercise.

It would. It's something I've read on many occasions over very many years from long before Pete's arrest for child porn. I haven't kept references to those pages (just as I'm sure you haven't to the pages which you claim to prove his innocence).

Asking for links is what those too stupid to think for themselves do.

Google. It's what the smart people do.

But what this does get to show is that your knowledge of stuff to do with Pete is well short of everything it might be, and that your dependence on mostly-just Pete's own words is leading you into a world of fantasy.

When Pete dies, compared to the monumental work he has produced, and the work he has done for charities, if this is what he is remembered for (the supposed guilt for things there was never any proof of), it would be almost unbearably sad.

The Daily Mail would be ever so proud of you all.

Hitler did some nice things for people too.

Try a little perspective, eh?

Edited September 3, 2013 by eFestivals