Headliners 2015

[Icewulf]

If you read back,I was just just answering someone who wasnt aware who someone else was talking about when they said one of the headliners was a child abuser.

I wasn't 'bringing it up', someone else did.

I could remember something about Townsend and child porn but, as I said in my post, I couldn't remember all of the details.

So sorry, no 'witch hunt' from me

That wasn't directed at you specifically, I just replied to the last post in the thread at the time!

Nothing personal at all. But it applies to all the other witch hunters out there!

[Icewulf]

He knew the police were coming and had plenty of time to remove anything incriminating

You're absolutely right. But making assumptions like that could ruin a lot of innocent people's lives.

We have "innocent until proven guilty" in this country for a reason.

[campinghater]

You're absolutely right. But making assumptions like that could ruin a lot of innocent people's lives.

We have "innocent until proven guilty" in this country for a reason.

Yes and that's why he shouldn't be in prison for it but it can form the calculus of whether we see him at a festival

[Neon_Ballroom]

Roger Daltrey stated himself that most likely wouldn't be their last gig ever. Just their last full-scale tour ever. He was still open to the idea of one offs.

Exactly. Glastonbury can probably be considered a one-off event anyway, even if it does fall in the middle of an existing tour.

[Winslow Leach]

But we do love a witch hunt in this country don't we!

No, we don't. We love turning a blind eye for as long as the potential witch continues to amuse and entertain us.

It is not a witch hunt to be suspicious of people who have accessed websites containing child pornography.

You're absolutely right. But making assumptions like that could ruin a lot of innocent people's lives.

We have "innocent until proven guilty" in this country for a reason.

Which is why he isn't in prison. It does not, however, mean that nobody can ever mention the allegations ever again.

[rivalschools.price]

At the risk of my head getting bitten off again,I'm intrigued at a few points people have mentioned in the last couple of posts.As I said earlier, I really can't remember much about the case.

1) how on earth did he know the police were coming? Surely police don't tell people they are about to come round and check their computer

2) if he was found not guilty, why did he accept going on the sex offenders register?

3) why was he trying to prove that credit card companies allow people to enter card details on These websites? Seems a strange thing to do.

[rivalschools.price]

I could remember something, but I can't remember it...

Priceless :-D

Yup, could remember something about it but couldn't remember all of the details.Pretty clear to me.

[campinghater]

At the risk of my head getting bitten off again,I'm intrigued at a few points people have mentioned in the last couple of posts.As I said earlier, I really can't remember much about the case.

1) how on earth did he know the police were coming? Surely police don't tell people they are about to come round and check their computer

2) if he was found not guilty, why did he accept going on the sex offenders register?

3) why was he trying to prove that credit card companies allow people to enter card details on These websites? Seems a strange thing to do.

The newspapers got hold of it and leaked it

He plead guilty not not guilty

It does seem strange but that's what he says now.

[Neon_Ballroom]

He knew the police were coming and had plenty of time to remove anything incriminating

By doing what, deleting some files from his computer and clearing the cache in his web browser? If the Metropolitan police are incapable of recovering deleted files from a hard drive then some questions need to be raised about their level of competence. And if he attempted to remove anything incriminating by doing a load of formats on his hard drive or simply just ditching the PC and buying a new one then the Met police should be able to spot that this was done from the configuration / installation dates and get suspicious from that...

[MEGABOWL]

'Child sex offender' really?

I'm more confused by how Kanye is racist...

How the fuck can you call a whole band AIDS deniers if only one member believes that wacky conspiracy?

All accusations used on here, pretty much in this thread. Point being (and it seems, quite well illustrated), if you want to find something to get upset about in any band/performers behaviour, you can do. If these things put you off going to see somebody, you won't have many left without the odd skeleton in their closet.

[campinghater]

By doing what, deleting some files from his computer and clearing the cache in his web browser? If the Metropolitan police are incapable of recovering deleted files from a hard drive then some questions need to be raised about their level of competence. And if he attempted to remove anything incriminating by doing a load of formats on his hard drive or simply just ditching the PC and buying a new one then the Met police should be able to spot that this was done from the configuration / installation dates and get suspicious from that...

Getting rid of the computer used to access the stuff perhaps. He had a few days if I recall rightly. He had loads of computers in the house. It's not even clear if he access the stuff from that house just that his credit card was used.

Edited May 4, 2015 by campinghater

[Icewulf]

Yes and that's why he shouldn't be in prison for it but it can form the calculus of whether we see him at a festival

A pretty odd reason not to see an act though isn't it? I mean, that's the definition of a witch hunt for me. Someone who has been declared innocent and cleared of all charges, but let's boycott him anyway because "no smoke without fire"?

Boycotting Rolf Harris. Different matter!

But then you are of course entirely entitled to not see the guy play! Just seems a bit odd to me.

[campinghater]

A pretty odd reason not to see an act though isn't it? I mean, that's the definition of a witch hunt for me. Someone who has been declared innocent and cleared of all charges, but let's boycott him anyway because "no smoke without fire"?

Boycotting Rolf Harris. Different matter!

But then you are of course entirely entitled to not see the guy play! Just seems a bit odd to me.

He wasn't cleared of all charges. He admitted it!!

[Spindles]

Getting rid of the computer used to access the stuff perhaps. He had a few days if I recall rightly. He had loads of computers in the house. It's not even clear if he access the stuff from that house just that his credit card was used.

As much as I hate to speak out on behalf of someone suspected of such offences, that's a little over simplified.

If police investigate an internet offence they will be obtaining data from your ISP or the provider for the site/service in question. It's from this data that people are identified and it isn't something you can delete. I think in Townsends case it was a matter of IP data showed he visited the site and financial data showed he paid them money. He wasn't found in possession of any damaging material but admitted fully to what the evidence showed.

[campinghater]

admitted what?

I forget the exact charge but something like inciting the distribution of child porn basically paying for access to child porn.

[Icewulf]

At the risk of my head getting bitten off again,I'm intrigued at a few points people have mentioned in the last couple of posts.As I said earlier, I really can't remember much about the case.

1) how on earth did he know the police were coming? Surely police don't tell people they are about to come round and check their computer

2) if he was found not guilty, why did he accept going on the sex offenders register?

3) why was he trying to prove that credit card companies allow people to enter card details on These websites? Seems a strange thing to do.

2. He was placed on the sex offenders register for 5 years in 2003, because he used a Credit Card to pay for a Child Porn subscription, which he maintains he did to prove that British Banks were supporting Child Pornography websites. Putting anyone who pays for such services on the Sex Offenders Register is standard practice, as it essentially allows the police to keep a better eye on them. But he was cleared of all charges after it was found he had neither accessed the website itself or downloaded any illegal imagery.

Interestingly, forgetting all the other factors here, the Sex Offenders Register entry will now have expired, meaning that is also largely irrelevant.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

admitted what?

Accessing the website. Feared a long drawn out court battle would lead to the press focusing on other parts of his life would negatively affect public opinion of him.

[campinghater]

As much as I hate to speak out on behalf of someone suspected of such offences, that's a little over simplified.

If police investigate an internet offence they will be obtaining data from your ISP or the provider for the site/service in question. It's from this data that people are identified and it isn't something you can delete. I think in Townsends case it was a matter of IP data showed he visited the site and financial data showed he paid them money. He wasn't found in possession of any damaging material but admitted fully to what the evidence showed.

He was found because US police found his credit card details were used to access the site, I don't think his IP was involved.

[Icewulf]

I forget the exact charge but something like inciting the distribution of child porn basically paying for access to child porn.

Interesting:

http://www.nme.com/news/the-who/14218

[Spindles]

Well, maybe I'm just adding 2 and 2, but how would one sign up and pay for access to a website (which he did) without ever having visited the website to do so? I'm neither condemning nor denying, to be clear, just stating that access records from providers is the data that is used to identify the users and that a home user can't remove that evidence where it exists.

*edit*

Edited to add, as the story in the post above shows, he DID visit the website, but didn't download anything. It *could* be as little as visiting, signing up, nodding to himself and writing about it as he says.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Spindles

[campinghater]

Interesting:

http://www.nme.com/news/the-who/14218

Did you read the article not just the headline.

[campinghater]

Well, maybe I'm just adding 2 and 2, but how would one sign up and pay for access to a website (which he did) without ever having visited the website to do so? I'm neither condemning nor denying, to be clear, just stating that access records from providers is the data that is used to identify the users and that a home user can't remove that evidence where it exists.

He admitted viewing it as well.

[Icewulf]

Did you read the article not just the headline.

Of course.

Where does it say "inciting the distribution of child porn".

He gave his reasons for accessing the website, and the police dropped charges.

You can't keep leading arguments with "I think it was something like" when it takes 10 seconds to do the research.

[Justiceforcedave]

I don't care if its The Eagles, Jeff Lynn, Elton or David Gilmour....I demand at least one geriatric headliner who's songs have been burnt into my brain over the last 30 years.

Win!

[newportcounty1]

He accepted a caution. Therefore accepting guilt. Anyone choosing to watch Pete Townsend but have no morals.