Where's Rolf?

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

Hitler did some nice things for people too.

Try a little perspective, eh?

[eFestivals]

I know, so why say such things?

because you're too knumbskull stupid to actually use that "I know" within your own thinking of Pete.

And there's nothing to say otherwise too.

Isn't there?

Don't you think the fact that he subscribed to a website of child abuse images casts any suspicion upon him?

Those words just there of yours are the exact driver of all I've posted about this. You are deciding - on the basis of absolutely nothing (you have not a jot of evidence to demonstrate him innocent) - that he is indisputably innocent.

It fits, that's all. I've met him a couple of times, followed his career. His defence makes perfect sense to me.

It might make sense to you.

But for you to declare that there's nothing to cast suspicion on him (as you just did, above) is as ridiculous as it's possible to get.

[eFestivals]

Hitler? perspective? lol

You're off your rocker, clearly.

"Pete did some nice things, therefore people should only think of him in a nice way"

"Hitler did some nice things, but he can only be thought of as evil"

Off. Your. Rocker.

Edited September 3, 2013 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

You're such an arse sometimes, and in instances like this, you absolutley excel and reach new levels.

I don't condem his actions because I believe his story.

If you choose to not believe his story, then fine. It's not simply because I like his records you oaf.

[swede]

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.

[russycarps]

Towsends autobiography is full of unbelievable comments which deserve to be ridiculed. The Who are my favourite band ever but there were times when I was reading it when i thought he needed to get a grip.

[eFestivals]

Towsends autobiography is full of unbelievable comments which deserve to be ridiculed.

my favourite Townsend quote - ridiculed by Daltrey - is that he took smack once and was immediately addicted.

Hey, given that Pete's word is to be taken as gospel, might it be the case that he looked at images of child abuse for his (still not published, I wonder why) book just once, and then was addicted?

[Guest]

because you're too knumbskull stupid to actually use that "I know" within your own thinking of Pete. .

[Guest]

my favourite Townsend quote - ridiculed by Daltrey - is that he took smack once and was immediately addicted.

[eFestivals]

what I meant was that nothing turned up in the investigation, after he was found to have paid, once, for access to the site, to which he admiited the fact immediately.

care to tell what sort of crims don't destroy the evidence when they know they're under investigation?

Pete knew he was under investigation long before the old bill turned up on his doorstep.

And there's certainly evidence which suggests that he took action after he knew he was under investigation (but a long, long time after he'd subscribed to the website) which enabled him to have a cover story to hand.

Edited September 3, 2013 by eFestivals

[Guest]

Exactly. The Who's music remains ace and it's fine to listen to it, but at the same time recognise pete townshend is an awful c**t

[eFestivals]

you've never heard anyone say that before?

yep, tho only from the govt anti-drugs propaganda machine.

[russycarps]

so I'm brain dead stupid for thinking of Pete in a certain light, but you can judge him as much as you like?

[Guest]

care to tell what sort of crims don't destroy the evidence when they know they're under investigation?

Pete knew he was under investigation long before the old bill turned up on his doorstep.

And there's certainly evidence which suggests that he took action after he knew he was under investigation (but long after he'd subscribed to the website) which enabled him to have a cover story to hand.

[Guest]

yep, tho only from the govt anti-drugs propaganda machine.

[eFestivals]

I haven't read anything that suggests that.

Then, as I said yesterday, you need to do some more reading up on the case.

As you haven't since yesterday, it appears that you don't wish to increase your knowledge of the case.

[eFestivals]

I've heard it from heroin users

then you must have met some atypical junkies.

[Guest]

Then, as I said yesterday, you need to do some more reading up on the case.

As you haven't since yesterday, it appears that you don't wish to increase your knowledge of the case.

[Guest]

then you must have met some atypical junkies.

[Guest]

I dont think you are brain dead stupid, which makes your stance on this all the more peculiar

[russycarps]

I believe him, you don't. What's the difference?

[Guest]

the difference is I can have no sympathy or any positive thoughts at all towards anyone who pays £7 to access a paedophile website

[swede]

good grief...

have you ever bought illegal drugs? have you never done anything 'wrong'?

[neilloggie]

good grief...

have you ever bought illegal drugs? have you never done anything 'wrong'?